<%BANNER%>

Rapid Response Measurements of Hurricane Waves and Storm Surge

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042274/00001

Material Information

Title: Rapid Response Measurements of Hurricane Waves and Storm Surge
Physical Description: 1 online resource (80 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gravois, Uriah
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: coastal, hurricane, hurricanes, ocean, storm, tropical, waves
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), and Ike (2008) are recent examples of extensive damage that resulted from direct hurricane landfall. Some of the worst damages from these hurricanes are caused by wind driven waves and storm surge flooding. The potential for more hurricane disasters like these continues to increase as a result of population growth and real estate development in low elevation coastal regions. Observational measurements of hurricane waves and storm surge play an important role in future mitigation efforts, yet permanent wave buoy moorings and tide stations are more sparse than desired. This research has developed a rapid response method using helicopters to install temporary wave and surge gauges ahead of hurricane landfall. These temporary installations, with target depths from 10-15 m and 1-7 km offshore depending on the local shelf slope, increase the density of measurement points where the worst conditions are expected. The method has progressed to an operational state and has successfully responded to storms Ernesto (2006), Noel (2007), Fay (2008), Gustav (2008), Hanna (2008) and Ike (2008). The temporary gauges are pressure data loggers that measure at 1 Hz continuously for 12 days and are post-processed to extract surge and wave information. For the six storms studied, 45 out of 49 sensors were recovered by boat led scuba diver search teams, with 43 providing useful data for an 88 percent success rate. As part of the 20 sensor Hurricane Gustav response, sensors were also deployed in lakes and bays in Louisiana, east of the Mississippi river delta. Gustav was the largest deployment to date. Generally efforts were scaled back for storms that were not anticipated to be highly destructive. For example, the cumulative total of sensors deployed for Ernesto, Noel, Fay and Hanna was only 20. Measurement locations for Gustav spanned over 800 km of exposed coastline from Louisiana to Florida with sensors in close proximity to landfall near Cocodrie, Louisiana. Surge measurements between landfall and the Mississippi delta show 1.5 - 2 m of surge and values exceeding 2 m further from landfall north of the Mississippi delta. These observations demonstrate the importance of coastal geography on storm surge vulnerability. Waves measurements from Gustav show large waves of 5 m at all exposed locations from landfall to western Florida. Some smaller values were also recorded, likely to be due to depth limited breaking or sheltering from the Mississippi delta. Two weeks after Hurricane Gustav, major Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico threatening Texas. Unfortunately the sensors already deployed for Gustav reached the 12 day memory limit and did not catch the most extreme conditions of Ike. However, 9 additional sensors were deployed for Ike spanning 360 km of the Texas coast. These measurements show surge east of the Galveston, Texas landfall exceeding 4.5 m and wave heights greater than 5 m. Hurricane Ike was by far the most destructive of the 6 storms measured and has spawned separate work relating the extent of building damage to these measurements.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Uriah Gravois.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sheremet, Alexandru.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042274:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042274/00001

Material Information

Title: Rapid Response Measurements of Hurricane Waves and Storm Surge
Physical Description: 1 online resource (80 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gravois, Uriah
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: coastal, hurricane, hurricanes, ocean, storm, tropical, waves
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), and Ike (2008) are recent examples of extensive damage that resulted from direct hurricane landfall. Some of the worst damages from these hurricanes are caused by wind driven waves and storm surge flooding. The potential for more hurricane disasters like these continues to increase as a result of population growth and real estate development in low elevation coastal regions. Observational measurements of hurricane waves and storm surge play an important role in future mitigation efforts, yet permanent wave buoy moorings and tide stations are more sparse than desired. This research has developed a rapid response method using helicopters to install temporary wave and surge gauges ahead of hurricane landfall. These temporary installations, with target depths from 10-15 m and 1-7 km offshore depending on the local shelf slope, increase the density of measurement points where the worst conditions are expected. The method has progressed to an operational state and has successfully responded to storms Ernesto (2006), Noel (2007), Fay (2008), Gustav (2008), Hanna (2008) and Ike (2008). The temporary gauges are pressure data loggers that measure at 1 Hz continuously for 12 days and are post-processed to extract surge and wave information. For the six storms studied, 45 out of 49 sensors were recovered by boat led scuba diver search teams, with 43 providing useful data for an 88 percent success rate. As part of the 20 sensor Hurricane Gustav response, sensors were also deployed in lakes and bays in Louisiana, east of the Mississippi river delta. Gustav was the largest deployment to date. Generally efforts were scaled back for storms that were not anticipated to be highly destructive. For example, the cumulative total of sensors deployed for Ernesto, Noel, Fay and Hanna was only 20. Measurement locations for Gustav spanned over 800 km of exposed coastline from Louisiana to Florida with sensors in close proximity to landfall near Cocodrie, Louisiana. Surge measurements between landfall and the Mississippi delta show 1.5 - 2 m of surge and values exceeding 2 m further from landfall north of the Mississippi delta. These observations demonstrate the importance of coastal geography on storm surge vulnerability. Waves measurements from Gustav show large waves of 5 m at all exposed locations from landfall to western Florida. Some smaller values were also recorded, likely to be due to depth limited breaking or sheltering from the Mississippi delta. Two weeks after Hurricane Gustav, major Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico threatening Texas. Unfortunately the sensors already deployed for Gustav reached the 12 day memory limit and did not catch the most extreme conditions of Ike. However, 9 additional sensors were deployed for Ike spanning 360 km of the Texas coast. These measurements show surge east of the Galveston, Texas landfall exceeding 4.5 m and wave heights greater than 5 m. Hurricane Ike was by far the most destructive of the 6 storms measured and has spawned separate work relating the extent of building damage to these measurements.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Uriah Gravois.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sheremet, Alexandru.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042274:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





RAPID RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS OF HURRICANE WAVES
AND STORM SURGE


















By
URIAH MICHAEL GRAVOIS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2010































2010 Uriah Michael Gravois
































I dedicate this to my family









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Andrew Kennedy, Alexandru

Sheremet and Robert Dean, for the priceless knowledge they have passed on to

me during my time at the University of Florida. I also express sincere appreciation to

everyone who has contributed to the success of this study. The following sentences

attempt to recognize many of these contributions. Most of the preparation and fieldwork

was completed by the University of Florida Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering

Laboratory (COEL) staff including Vicktor Adams, Sidney Schofield, Jimmy Joiner,

Danny Brown and Richard Booze. Extensive training and oversight of the studies'

fieldwork was provided by Cheryl Thacker, the Dive Saftey Officer for the The University

of Florida Diving Science and Saftey Program (DSSP). Special recognition go to

the dive team including, Vicktor Adams, Andrew Kennedy, and Justin Marin. The

United States Geological Survey (USGS) St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science

Center completed gauge retrievals for Tropical Storm Fay. The University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences completed gauge deployment

and retrieval for Hurricane Hanna. The Louisiana University Marina Consortium

(LUMCON) and The Texas University Marine Consortium provided captains and boats

for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike gauge retrievals respectively. The following

helicopter companies were hired for pioloting gauge deployments; Helicopter Adventures

(Tropical Storm Ernesto), Ocean Helicopters (Hurricane Noel, Tropical Storm Fay, and

Hurricane Gustav), Roni Avisar (Hurricane Hanna) and Austin Helijet (Hurricane Ike).

I would also like to recognize my office mates during this study, Sergio Jaramillio, Ilgar

Safik, with special thanks going out to Bryan Zachary as a visiting scholar. Further

acknowlegements go out to other hurricane response teams for their help planning

deployments including; The Florida Costal Monitoring Program wind tower team, The

Texas Tech "stick net" wind team and the USGS surge team. Also thanks go out to

the past and future users of this study's gauges including; Spencer Rodgers with









North Carolina Sea Grant, USGS surge teams, Jim Chen's group at Louisiana State
University, Brett Webb at The University of South Alabama and Rick Leutich's group at

The Univeristy of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Finally, enormous thanks goes out to the

study's funding agency Florida Sea Grant under R/C-S-46.









TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... ....... ........................ 4

LIST O FTABLES ..................... ................. 8

LIST OF FIGURES .................... ................. 9

ABSTRACT .................... ..................... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ................ ..... 13

1.1 Rapid Response Motivation .......................... 13
1.2 Custom Wave and Surge Gauges ....................... 13
1.2.1 Application Specific Requirements ............... ... 13
1.2.2 Basic Concepts .... ... ...... ........... 14
1.2.3 Design Details ................... ......... 15
1.2.4 Calibration and Resolution ................ ....... 17
1.2.5 Gauge Housing and Anchoring Base ............... ... 18
1.3 Field C am paign . . 20
1.3.1 Helicopter Company Relations and Safety .... 20
1.3.2 Deployment ..... ..... 21
1.3.3 Retrieval ..... .. .. 22

2 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL THEORY .................... 25

2.1 Overview of Hurricanes ............................ 25
2.1.1 Climatology and Risk . 25
2.1.2 Wind and Pressure Characteristics . 26
2.2 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... 28
2.3 W aves . . 29
2.3.1 G generation . .. 29
2.3.2 Linear Equations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30
2.3.3 National Data Buoy Center .. .. 31
2.4 T ides . . 32
2.4.1 Harmonic Analysis of Tides .. .. 32
2.4.2 Astronomical vs Storm Tide ... 33
2.4.3 National Ocean Service ........................ 33
2.4.4 United States Geological Survey ... 34

3 DATAANALYSIS TECHNIQUES .......................... 35

3.1 Surge Processing ................... ......... 35
3.2 W ave Data Processing ................... .......... 35
3.3 Liability Statement and Data Access . 37









APPENDIX

A ER N ESTO . . .... 38

B N O EL . . .. .... 44

C FAY .......................................... 50

D GUSTAV. ...................... ................. 56

E H A N N A . . ... .. 66

F IK E . . ... .... 72

REFERENCES ..................... .................. 79

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................... ........... 80











LIST OF TABLES


Table

1-1 Calibration Coefficients .................

2-1 SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE WIND SCALE .

A-1 Tropical Storm Ernesto deployment locations .

B-1 Hurricane Noel deployment locations .

C-1 Tropical Storm Fay deployment locations .

D-1 Hurricane Gustav deployment locations .

E-1 Hurricane Hanna deployment locations .

F-1 Hurricane Ike deployment locations .


page

. 2 4

. 2 7

. 3 8

. 4 4

. 5 0

. 5 6

. 6 6

. 7 2









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Model 85 pressure sensor and TFX-11v2 data logger .... 16

1-2 Custom PCB amplifier schematic design .... 17

1-3 Example plot of study gauge cross-calibration with Paros Scientific pressure
se n so r . . 19

1-4 Steel Anchor Base . .. 20

1-5 Helicopter deployment with detachable sled. .. 21

1-6 Helicopter deployment with folding leg base. .. 22

1-7 Scuba diver retrieval of pressure sensor .... 23

2-1 HURISK category 3 hurricane 100 year return period map ... 26

2-2 Satellite image of Hurricane Rita . 28

2-3 Wave forecasting chart developed by Bretschnieder ... 30

2-4 Wave dispersion relation plot ................. ......... 31

2-5 Map of National Data Buoy Center stations ... 32

A-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Tropical Storm Ernesto 39

A-2 Tropical Storm Ernesto track and Intensity ... .. 40

A-3 Tropical Storm Ernesto deployment locations map .. 41

A-4 Wave height measurements for Tropical Storm Ernesto .. 42

A-5 Wave frequency measurements for Tropical Storm Ernesto ... 43

B-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Noel ... 45

B-2 Hurricane Noel track and Intensity ..... ...... 46

B-3 Hurricane Noel deployment locations map ..... 47

B-4 Wave height measurements for Hurricane Noel ... 48

B-5 Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Noel ..... 49

C-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Tropical Storm Fay ... 51

C-2 Tropical Storm Fay track and Intensity ... 52

C-3 Tropical Storm Fay deployment locations map . ... 53









C-4 Wave height measurements for Tropical Storm Fay ... 54

C-5 Wave frequency measurements for Tropical Storm Fay ... 55

D-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Gustav ... 57

D-2 Hurricane Gustav track and Intensity ..... ...... 58

D-3 Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 1 ..... 59

D-4 Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 2 ..... 60

D-5 Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 3 ..... 61

D-6 Wave height measurements for Hurricane Gustav 1 ..... 62

D-7 Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Gustav 1 .... 63

D-8 Wave height measurements for Hurricane Gustav 2 ..... 64

D-9 Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Gustav 2 .... 65

E-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Hanna ... 67

E-2 Hurricane Hanna track and Intensity ..... .... 68

E-3 Hurricane Hanna deployment locations map ...... ....... 69

E-4 Wave height measurements for Hurricane Hanna ..... 70

E-5 Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Hanna ..... 71

F-1 National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Ike ... 73

F-2 Hurricane Ike track and intensity ..... ..... .74

F-3 Hurricane Ike deployment locations map 1 ..... 75

F-4 Hurricane Ike deployment locations map 2 ... 76

F-5 Wave height measurements for Hurricane Ike ..... 77

F-6 Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Ike . 78









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

RAPID RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS OF HURRICANE WAVES
AND STORM SURGE

By
Uriah Michael Gravois

August 2010

Chair: Alexandru Sheremet
Major: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering

Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), and Ike (2008) are recent examples of extensive

damage that resulted from direct hurricane landfall. Some of the worst damages from

these hurricanes are caused by wind driven waves and storm surge flooding. The

potential for more hurricane disasters like these continues to increase as a result

of population growth and real estate development in low elevation coastal regions.

Observational measurements of hurricane waves and storm surge play an important

role in future mitigation efforts, yet permanent wave buoy moorings and tide stations are

more sparse than desired. This research has developed a rapid response method using

helicopters to install temporary wave and surge gauges ahead of hurricane landfall.

These temporary installations, with target depths from 10-15 m and 1-7 km offshore

depending on the local shelf slope, increase the density of measurement points where

the worst conditions are expected. The method has progressed to an operational state

and has successfully responded to storms Ernesto (2006), Noel (2007), Fay (2008),

Gustav (2008), Hanna (2008) and Ike (2008).

The temporary gauges are pressure data loggers that measure at 1 Hz continuously

for 12 days and are post-processed to extract surge and wave information. For the six

storms studied, 45 out of 49 sensors were recovered by boat led scuba diver search

teams, with 43 providing useful data for an 88 percent success rate. As part of the 20

sensor Hurricane Gustav response, sensors were also deployed in lakes and bays in









Louisiana, east of the Mississippi river delta. Gustav was the largest deployment to date.

Generally efforts were scaled back for storms that were not anticipated to be highly

destructive. For example, the cumulative total of sensors deployed for Ernesto, Noel,

Fay and Hanna was only 20. Measurement locations for Gustav spanned over 800 km

of exposed coastline from Louisiana to Florida with sensors in close proximity to landfall

near Cocodrie, Louisiana. Surge measurements between landfall and the Mississippi

delta show 1.5 2 m of surge and values exceeding 2 m further from landfall north of the

Mississippi delta. These observations demonstrate the importance of coastal geography

on storm surge vulnerability. Waves measurements from Gustav show large waves

of 5 m at all exposed locations from landfall to western Florida. Some smaller values

were also recorded, likely to be due to depth limited breaking or sheltering from the

Mississippi delta.

Two weeks after Hurricane Gustav, major Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico

threatening Texas. Unfortunately the sensors already deployed for Gustav reached the

12 day memory limit and did not catch the most extreme conditions of Ike. However, 9

additional sensors were deployed for Ike spanning 360 km of the Texas coast. These

measurements show surge east of the Galveston, Texas landfall exceeding 4.5 m and

wave heights greater than 5 m. Hurricane Ike was by far the most destructive of the

6 storms measured and has spawned separate work relating the extent of building

damage to these measurements.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 Rapid Response Motivation

In the absence of a hurricane or other violent storm, the waves and tides along the

coast exhibit gradual spatial variation relative to the existing observational network of

wave buoys and tide stations. These typical oceanic conditions are fairly well understood

and can be predicted with reasonable accuracy through empirical relationships that

are largely based on past and present observational wave and tide data. On the

contrary, hurricane generated waves and tides vary substantially over small distances

and over short timescales. These complexities are not fully resolved by the existing

spacial density of permanent observation stations rendering them much more difficult

to predict. The need for more systematic data collections during these extreme events

has been recognized for many years (Harris, 1963), however, the infrequent nature of

hurricane occurrences for a specific location has deterred most efforts. A solution was

developed to create mobile monitoring networks at desired locations immediately before

a critical event. Operational programs of this kind are in place to measure wind (Masters

et al., 2010; Skwira et al., 2005) and surge (East et al., 2008), but none exist for wave

measurements or offshore surge. This study was developed to fill this void through rapid

response helicopter deployment of temporary observation stations, thus increasing the

density of wave and tide measurements required to characterized a hurricane event.

1.2 Custom Wave and Surge Gauges

1.2.1 Application Specific Requirements

The decision was made in the proposal stages of this study to use sub-surface

pressure sensors as the rapidly deployed gauge. Applying pressure sensors to measure

waves and water levels is known to be a robust technique, which is a major requirement

for this study. Other researchers have investigated the accuracy of sub-surface pressure

sensors to measure surface waves (Bergan et al., 1968; Bishop & Donelan, 1987) with









co-located comparisons to surface buoys. The results agree that sub-surface pressure

measurements of waves have an inherent error underestimating wave heights of less

than 10 % and no errors for tide level measurements. These small errors are acceptable

for this study given other advantages of applying sub-surface pressure sensors instead

of surface buoys for hurricane response. The study's finished pressure gauges and

anchoring base together weigh only 50 pounds, however, proved to be immobile. In

hurricane conditions, the tethering weight required to anchor surface buoys is an order

of magnitude greater than sub-surface pressure sensors, yet they are still vulnerable to

mobilization. As an example, National Data Buoy Center station 42035 was relocated

25 nautical miles by Hurricane Ike and on numerous other occasions surface buoys

have gone adrift due to strong winds and large waves (Wang & Oey, 2008; Fan et al.,

2009; White & Buckingham, 1999). Other instances have been observed where

measurements from surface buoys shut off or became unreliable in peak storm

conditions. In comparison, this study's response gauges deployed for Hurricane Ike

and other storms, were immobile and collected continuous data throughout the storm.

An optimum weight of the study's sub-surface pressure sensor wave and tide gauges

is heavy enough to be immobile but light enough for multiple units to be transported

by helicopter and rapidly set up prior to a storm. In a fully operational state, this study

requires 50-100 gauges to be available for response to several consecutive storms over

a short time span. The study's limited budget and the large number of gauges desired

led to the design and fabrication of gauges in house. This resulted in an inexpensive

cost per gauge, including parts and labor, of approximately 500 dollars.

1.2.2 Basic Concepts

For motionless water conditions there is a direct linear dependence between

pressure and depth known as the hydrostatic principal. By this relationship the depth of









water r above the pressure sensors can be found from the equation


(Pabs Patm)
pg

where Pabs is the pressure timeseries measured by the gauges, Patm is the atmospheric

or absolute sea level pressure, p is the depth averaged density of the water column

above the measurement location and g is the acceleration of gravity. Note that the units

of pressure need to in Pascals (Pa = ). For the purposes of this study, density can be

considered constant as it varies at most 3% in the most extreme ranges of temperature

and salinity likely to be encountered. Therefore, water density can be estimated yielding

very small uncertainty in the pressure-depth relationship. As a rule of thumb, 1 millibar

(100 Pa) of air pressure is equivalent to 1 centimeter of water depth

100 Pa
.01m 100 (1-2)
1020 M9.81

For non-hydrostatic conditions where the water is in motion and accelerating the

mean pressure is equivalent to what would be the still water depth. This is commonly

referred to as the mean water level. For wave calculations the water accelerations must

be accounted, these procedures are described in section 3.2.

1.2.3 Design Details

Custom pressure gauge instruments were developed to fit the needs of this study. A

major component of the gauges was the Model 85 pressure sensors from Measurement

Specialties (Figure 1-la). These strain gauge type pressure sensors feature a small

port to a stainless steel diaphragm for interfacing with seawater that is coupled to

internal strain gauges through a thin silicon oil transfer medium. Attached to the strain

gauges are two supply and two output wires. When force is applied to the diaphragm

interface, as would result by increased water depth, this acts to stretch the Model 85's

internal strain gauges changing their electrical resistance. When a small electrical

current is passed through the supply wires, the voltage across the output wires changes









linearly with the resistance of the internal strain gauges, and hence, the pressure on

the diaphragm. This relationship between Voltage (V), Current (I) and Resistance (R) is

given by Ohm's Law

V = IR (1-3)

Another main component to the custom gauges designed in this study is the

Tattletale TFX-11v2 remote data logger/ control engine made by Onset Computer

Corporation shown in (Figure 1-1b). This data logger is a small programmable computer

designed to autonomously run and record a device such as a pressure sensor. Custom

printed circuit boards (PCB) were made to interface between the TFX-11v2, the Model

85 pressure sensor, battery power and standard parallel and RS-232 desktop computer

connections. This circuitry was modeled with a computer aided design program and

sent to a PCB manufacturer. Surface mount electronic components are soldered onto

the PCB's resulting in a clean and reliable circuit. The important features of the custom

PCBs are a low power supply current to the Model 85 and amplification of the pressure

sensor output voltage (Figure 1-2). The ratio of the PCB output to a regulated 5-volt

reference is recorded by a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter on the TFX11-v2. This result

is shifted 4 bits to the left and recorded as a 2-byte or 16-bit number into the TFX11 -v2

internal flash storage. For example, an amplified pressure sensor output of 2.5 V is

half the 5 V reference and is digitized as 212/2 *16 or 32768. The pressure gauges are







A Model 85 B TFX-11v2

Figure 1-1. Model 85 pressure sensor and TFX-11v2 data logger (A) Model 85 pressure
sensor from Measurement Specialties (B) TFX-11v2 data logger by Onset
Computer Corperation









powered with four 3.6 volt lithium ion batteries configured in two parallel pairs for a 7.2

volt supply.


Figure 1-2. Custom PCB amplifier schematic design. The labeled values indicate
individual resistor and capacitor component values. The red circle indicates
the location of the Model 85 pressure sensor and the label "out" indicates the
input to the TFX-11v2 analog to digital recorder


The data logger was programed to sample at 1 Hz or 1 sample per second. With

each pressure sample requiring 2 bytes, the data logger's 2 mega bytes of internal flash

storage allowed 1,000,000 samples or 11.5 days of pressure samples to be recorded.

This was enough memory to fully characterize a hurricane event which usually last 1-2

days, however, data storage expansion of the pressure gauges may be undertaken in

future studies.

1.2.4 Calibration and Resolution

Each pressure gauge instrument was cross calibrated against a high precision

Paros Scientific transducer to obtain calibration coefficients. The coefficients are

used to convert the recorded digital voltages to pressures. The basic procedure for









calibration connects the pressure sensor into a sealed loop that is shared with a high

precision Paros Scientific transducer and two valves. The first valve is the feed and

connects the loop to a regulated high pressure air tank, and the second valve is a bleed

to release pressure from the loop. Starting with the bleed valve open, simultaneous

samples are taken from the Paros and the custom pressure gauge. The bleed valve is

then closed and the feed is opened inserting pressure into the loop and then closed.

Another set of simultaneous samples are taken and recorded at this increased pressure.

This process is continued up to 5000 millibars and then back down to ambient air

pressure with the bleed valve open. Each calibration usually consisted of 10 to 15

points. The result after a least squares fit to the obtained points is a linear equation used

to convert voltage to pascals. These least squares data fits were very good with the

typical maximum absolute error between the fit and the data less than 5 millibars. The

calibration coefficients for all deployments are listed in Table 1-1. The pressure wave

and tide gauges resolution is found by dividing the 7500 millibar range of the transducer

by the 12-bits A/D converter (4096 discrete values) for a result less than 2 millibars

equivalent to 2 cm of water pressure. The true accuracy of the instrument is less than

the resolution due to inherent noise in the circuitry. This noise has been measured to

have a standard deviation of less than 4 millibars. There are other possible sources of

error that will be discussed in the data processing section.

1.2.5 Gauge Housing and Anchoring Base

The data logger was isolated from moisture by sealing inside a water tight

enclosure. This enclosure was made from 1.5 inch schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) pipe. Machined threaded end caps allow the Model 85 pressure sensor (Figure

1-1) to screw in place and the diaphragm to interface with the external water pressure.

These threaded end caps also feature a rubber o-ring seat to further increase resistance

to leakage. The opposite end of the enclosure remains open until the gauge is activated.

Inserting batteries activates the pressure gauges and this start time is documented









9000

8000

7000 .

9 6000 .. ..

S5000 .



a 3000
85 0 0 0 . : ..i. . i. i .








2000 .
.- .: :. : .:. .:. : .







1 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
3 0 0 0 ". ". ": : : : : : ." : : : ". : : ." :





0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A/D 2 byte conversion [0 65536] x104

Figure 1-3. Example plot of study gauge cross-calibration with Paros Scientific pressure
sensor. Red circles denote individual calibrations points and bold line is the
least squares fit to data. The first order equation for this line gives the
calibration coefficients


to later synthesize a corresponding timeseries to the pressure data. After activation,

a standard PVC end cap is fastened in place with blue waterproof PVC glue. The

completed wave gauge is small at less than 8 inches in length. With more than 100

deployments and tests to date, zero gauges have leaked.

The pressure sensors PVC enclosure housings are place inside weighted anchors

bases. These 3 inch X 15 inch X 15 inch anchor bases are constructed with 3 inch

channel steel and weigh approximately 50 pounds. The bases feature an armored

compartment to hold the pressure sensor and an acoustic locator beacon. With only

3 inches height, this base design has proved to be low enough profile to withstand

hurricane conditions. Another feature of the anchor bases is a 3 inch steel deployment

ring and a tag line with small floats to aid in post storm recovery.


19





















A B


Figure 1-4. (A) Pressure sensor and acoustic beacon inside anchor base with tag line
and deployment ring (B) Underside of anchor base showing channels to
mate with helicopter deployment sled

The first year of this study featured a different base design with four folding legs and

a center post to carry the instrument. Four of these bases were deployed for tropical

Storm Ernesto in 2006 but they are believed to have moved small distances during the

wave event. Because the bases may have moved even though Tropical Storm Ernesto

was not a very powerful storm, new improved low profile bases were designed and

constructed for the following hurricane season.

1.3 Field Campaign

1.3.1 Helicopter Company Relations and Safety

There is only a small window of time available to deploy gauges ahead of an

imminent hurricane landfall. This study relies on helicopters for expedient gauge

deployment. Strict safety precautions are followed and the study is always placed

behind maintaining the well being of the researchers. Each model helicopter has

different characteristics such as top speed and cargo weight capacity, but all of the

models generally observe the same upper limit for safe maximum wind conditions. If

the conditions are not safe or at any time become unsafe, the deployment is canceled.

For cost issues several this study set up relations with several helicopter companies.









Ocean Helicopters Inc based out of Palm Beach is used for any storms near Florida.

A tcomplication was finding Louisiana and Texas companies that are not presently

obligated to shuttle oil rig workers back to land when for an approaching hurricane.

Austin Helijet did not have these obligation and is used for storms in Texas and western

Louisiana. The project has also set up a relations with the Duke University out of North

Caroline for hurricane strikes targeting further north along the east coast. Each separate

company has to be met with for acquaintance with all aspects of the project. Setting up

relations with helicopter companies ahead of time is crucial because departure notices

were very short. Unexpected rapid hurricane intensification near coast may prove to be

the most damaging as well as the hardest of the storms to intercept. With only a limited

deployment budget, chasing weak storms or missing large ones are definite unwanted

costs. Not executing a deployment for a large storm that comes in range is to be avoided

at any price outside of safety. Preparation to be in position to execute well-informed

decisions is all that can be asked for deployment.

1.3.2 Deployment














Figure 1-5. Helicopter deployment with detachable sled


The deployment of the pressure gauges requires the removal of one of the

helicopters rear doors and installation of a custom seat. This seat features clips to

attach a deployment sled when forward motion of the helicopter has eased (Figure 1-5).









This sled helps ensure the instrument clears the landing skids of the helicopter. The

deployment process requires planned communication between the passenger and the

helicopter pilot. Once the helicopter has reached the desired deployment location it

lowers in to a hover at 20 feet elevation. The rear passenger records this location as

a way point with hand held GPS. The instrument is placed onto the sled and held by a

looped rope that has one end fasted to the helicopter (Figurel-5). When the instrument

has been lowered to a level just above the water surface, the loose end of the rope is

released and the instrument sinks to the sea bed. If there is any complications with

tangling of the rope, sharp sheers are kept near by to cut the rope. Once the rope and

sled are retrieved, the passenger informs the pilot to proceed to the next location".

The 2006 design featured bases with folding legs and did not used the deployment

sled. These deployments required a self retrieving trigger string to activate the legs after

the instrument had been lowered past the helicopter skids (Figure 1-6). Although these

bases performed well they were deemed too bulky and improvement were made the

following year.














Figure 1-6. Helicopter deployment of folding leg base


1.3.3 Retrieval

Returning to retrieve the gauges after a hurricane amongst the destruction debris

can be an extensive process. The first step is to return by boat to the approximate









latitude and longitude recorded from Global Positioning System (GPS) during the

deployment. There is usually no evidence of the pressure gauges from the sea surface.

The instruments are found by scuba divers carrying sonar receivers (Figure 1-7) that

pick up the signal from the acoustic pinger locators attached to the pressure gauges.

This recovery is added by a small line of marker floats attached to the pressure gauge.

This has proven to be an effective method for instrument retrieval. Once located some

minor digging is usually required to free the instruments, in a few cases a jet pump is

was need to dig out the pressure sensors.


Figure 1-7. Scuba diver retrieval of pressure sensor









Table 1-1. Calibration Coefficients
STORM SERIAL NUMBER SLOPE OFFSET
ERNESTO 0942800 0.061347 924.15
ERNESTO 0942802 0.121501 195.26
ERNESTO 0942804 0.121644 221.92
ERNESTO 0942805 0.122397 197.25
NOEL 1109034 0.122169 251.95
NOEL 1109033 0.122960 219.39
NOEL 1005185 0.122214 200.86
NOEL 1031446 0.122354 179.73
NOEL 1109032 0.121657 202.73
NOEL 1109030 0.121743 228.20
FAY 1109038 0.121625 204.47
FAY 1031447 0.121640 072.63
FAY 1109032 0.121809 264.85
FAY 1181297 0.122348 -009.44
FAY 1005185 0.122708 170.81
GUSTAV 0942799 0.121325 207.88
GUSTAV 0942800 0.122741 201.25
GUSTAV 0942798 0.122170 222.32
GUSTAV 1031446 0.123388 011.58
GUSTAV 0942797 0.120890 213.26
GUSTAV 0942796 0.122582 181.41
GUSTAV 0942805 0.122195 262.25
GUSTAV 1181288 0.122058 -028.12
GUSTAV 1005190 0.121759 210.03
GUSTAV 1005189 0.121335 297.54
GUSTAV 1005183 0.122531 239.83
GUSTAV 0942802 0.122181 255.54
GUSTAV 1109030 0.121742 228.20
GUSTAV 1005191 0.121542 242.57
GUSTAV 1181283 0.121542 020.66
GUSTAV 1109036 0.120575 204.14
HANNA 1181287 0.122805 -006.06
HANNA 1181292 0.121585 113.58
HANNA 1031448 0.122137 219.14
HANNA 1181296 0.122311 089.73
IKE 1181300 0.122426 -009.70
IKE 1181298 0.122899 066.70
IKE 1181294 0.122022 203.46
IKE 1181304 0.122213 118.13
IKE 1109037 0.120712 403.35
IKE 1181301 0.120907 156.94
IKE 1109033 0.123082 216.94
IKE 1181295 0.121620 264.56
IKE 1181305 0.122179 592.29









CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL THEORY

2.1 Overview of Hurricanes

2.1.1 Climatology and Risk

The annual Atlantic hurricane season officially runs from June 1 through November

30 of each year and encompasses the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and the

Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin averages 4.2 named tropical

storms and 5.2 hurricanes per year. Typically hurricanes form between the latitudes

of 10and 300and require waters of at least 260C. The hurricane season coincides

with high oceanic heat content in the Atlantic hurricane region, which peaks along with

climatological hurricane activity a few weeks in advance of the sun's autumnal equinox

in late September. The hurricane's dependence on ocean heat as an energy source has

been analyzed as an atmospheric heat engine (Emanuel, 1988). It has been suggested

that increases in hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin over the past decade was caused

by anthropogenic climate change (Emanuel, 2005). Others argue that this man made

effect is very small and cannot be discerned from natural variability (Pielke et al., 2005).

Aside from the total number of hurricanes, the greater concern of real consequence,

is how many will hit land and affect inhabited coastal regions. In a given year, the

chance of a major hurricane landfall at a specific coastal location is very small. The

best estimate of this risk is based historical data are used for statistical calculation for

hurricane return periods. As defined by the National Hurricane Center Risk Analysis

Program (HURISK), the return period describes the average time expected between

hurricanes occurrences within 75 nautical miles of a specific location. For example

Galveston Texas has a return period of 25 years for a category 3 or greater storm, this

means that on average 4 storms of at least this strength will pass within 75 nautical

miles of that location in a 100 year period. Return periods are shown in figure 2-1

for locations from Texas to North Carolina. These values were estimated based on









historical tracks from 1886 to 1999 by HURISK. The 75 nautical mile radius used for

the calculating the return period at a given location is based on a hurricane's typical

peripheral distance of influence.


Return Period In Years 48.
For Category 3 Hurricanes








24 32 26
33-44
246- 74
g 79 370



Figure 2-1. HURISK category 3 hurricane 100 year return period map


2.1.2 Wind and Pressure Characteristics

The average pressure exerted by the earth's atmosphere at sea level elevation is

1013 millibars 1 but can drop below 920 millibars in a very strong hurricane. Pressure

gradients of this magnitude between the ambient sea level pressure and the hurricane

central pressure can support surface wind speeds ( at 10 m elevation) exceeding 135 kt.

An empirical relationship between the central pressure of a hurricane and the maximum

wind speed (Stull, 1995) is given as

Vmax = 20m(kPa)1/2 (APmax 2 (2-1)
S



1 The standard unit of pressure used by meteorologists, defined as 100 Pascals
where Pa = N/m2









where APmax is the difference between the ambient atmosphere and the central eye

pressure. Hurricane winds rotate in a closed counter-clockwise cyclonic surface

circulation about the storm eye or center that is visibly evident in satellite imagery.

The radial distance from the center of the hurricane to the strongest winds is called the

radius to maximum winds Ro. This parameter is a simple measure of the hurricane size.

The wind speed decay beyond Ro can be approximated by (Stull, 1995)

V Ro 1
() 2 (2-2)
Vmax R

According to this relation, wind speeds should be half that of the maximum at four times

the radius to maximum winds. This maximum wind speed is relative to the center of

the hurricane and must be superimposed with the forward translational speed of the

entire storm. This usually leads to the most intense winds in the front right quadrant of a

hurricane.
Table 2-1. SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE WIND SCALE
Wind Speed (kt) Classification
20-34 Tropical Depression
35-63 Tropical Storm
64-82 Category One Hurricane
83-95 Category Two Hurricane
96-113 Category Three Hurricane
114-135 Category Four Hurricane
> 135 Category Five Hurricane


The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (Table 2-1) classifies a storms destructive

potential based on wind speed. This scale is not being used anymore for predicting

storm surge since many other factors such as hurricane size, track, forward motion and

coastal relief have proven to be of equal importance. After a storm has reached the

threshold wind speed of a tropical storm, a name is assigned from a predetermined

alphabetical list developed by the World Meteorological Organization. This naming

system has the advantage of simplified communication and increased public awareness

about storms that warrant caution. The names are reused every 6 years except for









any storm that causes catastrophe which is then replaced and retired. Three of the six

storms studied for this research, Noel (2007), Gustav (2008) and Ike (2008) were retired

from the list.


Figure 2-2. Satellite image of Hurricane Rita. This image depicts a well defined
hurricane eye feature


2.2 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Atmospheric and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) serves as a

public source of information on the ocean and atmosphere. NOAA is located directly

under The United States Department of Commerce and houses 6 major line offices:

* Oceanic & Atmospheric Research (OAR)

* National Ocean Service (NOS)

* National Environmental Satellite, Date & Information Service (NESDIS)

* National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

* National Weather Service (NWS)

* Program Planning and Integration (PPI)









Within the NWS is the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) which

houses the National Hurricane Center (NHC) / Tropical Prediction Center (TPC). The

NHC/TPC makes public forecasts concerning hurricanes and is responsible for issuing

watches and warnings for the public. This organizational structure prevents confusion

about hurricanes by assigning one source for official guidance information. During this

study, these updates were relied on to make decisions concerning response to a given

storm. The NHC/TPC issues forecast track and intensity guidance every 6 hours for an

active hurricane. The accuracy of these forecast is closely analyzed and current errors

average 75 nautical miles for the 48 hour track forecasts. These errors have steadily

improved from the 200 nautical mile averages only 2 decades ago. During this study,

gauges were successfully positioned near landfall based on these forecasts. Typical

deployments have had coastline coverage spanning well beyond the expected forecast

errors ensuring the interception of the hurricane landfall. Although the track forecasting

capabilities have improved considerably, the average intensity forecasts errors 48 hrs out

has only slightly improved. Skill at forecasting rapid hurricane intensification 2 remains

low. This can be a major concern near the coast as little time may remain for issuing

watches, warnings or evacuation orders, and as this study is concerned, activating storm

response.

2.3 Waves

2.3.1 Generation

Due to a strong relationship with wind, waves are considered to be part of the

weather. Three basic principals are involved in the development of waves by wind:

* Intensity: The strength of the wind.

* Duration: The amount of time the wind blows.



2 A 30 knot increase in hurricane intensity within 24 hour period










* Fetch: The surface area affected by the wind.

F- r :M L.tH 1 iAKI IuT Ml


-6




12







Figure 2-3. Wave forecasting chart developed by Bretschnieder


2.3.2 Linear Equations

The major principal in linear wave theory is the dispersion relationship. This is

basically a mathematical expression that relates the the wave length, the wave period

and the water depth as follows.



O2 = gktanh(kh) (2-3)


This relationship can also be displayed in graphical form, shown by figure 2-4.































02 04 T- 06-7 ~ 8 1 10 1 112--1-~114 1-16 18 -- 2
Wave Period (s)
Figure 2-4. Wave dispersion relation plot. Wavelength (m) as a function of wave period
(s) and water depth (m)

2.3.3 National Data Buoy Center

Real-time observational marine and meteorological data are great importance to

NOAA. The National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) is located within the NWS and maintains

and operates over 100 operational real-time monitoring buoys and meteorological

stations (Figure 2-5). This data is heavily used by the maritime community and NDBC

has a close working relationship with the United States Coast Guard. The common

parameters measured at NDBC stations are:

* WIND

* PRESSURE

* AIR AND WATER TEMPERATURE

* SOLAR RADIATION









* PRESSURE

* HUMIDITY

* WAVES










. 3 0 N .. .. .. .. :... .. .
1 -"



20350oN ... ....... ... ... ......











950 W- 90W 85 W 800 W 750 W






Information gathered by these buoys is used by weather models and incorporated
*







2 .4.1 Harmonc A s of



95 W 900 W 850 W 800 W 75 W



Figure 2-5. Map of National Data Buoy Center stations


Information gathered by these buoys is used by weather models and incorporated

into the operational forecasts.

2.4 Tides

2.4.1 Harmonic Analysis of Tides

Tide observations from hardened land stations are combined and weighted to

synthesize tides at the each study gauge site. From this point water levels are aligned

before and post storm when there was little water level anomaly and conditions were









calm. With some certainty datum can be established and also predicted tides at stations

gathered from the NOS synthetic. For Ike X the half meter settling is believed to have

happened during the storm, this is corrected as linear settlement over several hours for

the peak waves. Once this has been done the predicted tides can be subtracted from

the study's gauge stations to obtain the water level anomaly. Peak values above NAVD

for absolute and also anomalous level can be gathered.

2.4.2 Astronomical vs Storm Tide

Following NOAA's definitions, "Storm surge is the onshore rush of sea or lake water

caused by the high wind and the low pressure centers associated with a landfalling

hurricane or other intense storm. The amplitude of the storm surge at any given location

is dependent upon the orientation of the coast line with the storm track, the intensity,

size and speed of the storm, and the local bathymetry. In practice, storm surge is usually

estimated by subtracting the normal or astronomical tide from the observed storm

tide at tide stations." Storm surge is often confused with storm tide. This is defined by

NOAA as, "The maximum water level elevation measured by a water level station during

storm events. Depending on location, the storm tide is the potential combination of

storm surge, local astronomical tide, regional sea level variations and river runoff during

storm events. Since wind generated waves ride on top of the storm surge (and are not

included in the definition), the total instantaneous elevation may greatly exceed the

predicted storm surge plus astronomical tide. It is potentially catastrophic, especially on

low lying coasts with gently sloping offshore topography. NOAA measures storm tide

elevations from a common reference datum of Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) which is

the U.S Nautical Chart Datum."

2.4.3 National Ocean Service

Another NOAA agency that maintains real-time measurement stations is the

National Ocean Service (NOS). The NOS network essentially serves the same purpose

as the NDBC, with each station collecting the same parameters with one major









distinction. NOS stations are located on shore in bays and estuaries or at the coast

on structures and are surveyed to a vertical elevation datum. This reference datum is

important for each station's primary role of collecting tide measurements. Typically the

NOS tide stations do not measure wind waves.

2.4.4 United States Geological Survey

Located under the Department of the Interior, The United States Geological Survey

(USGS) maintains an expansive network of real-time river level gauges. These act as

an important tool monitoring floods and river discharge. When a hurricane impacts land

heavy rainfall can occur over short periods of time and increase river levels substantially.

River flooding from inland rainfall and storm surge can combine at the coast and inside

bays and estuary. The potential danger from these two processes acting together is an

area of high interest.

In addition to the permanent network of river stage monitoring stations the USGS

has developed a rapid response storm surge program (McGee et al., 2005; East

et al., 2008). The USGS program is focused on surge values overland and not at the

open coast. These sensors are installed on hardened structures prior to hurricane

landfalls. After the storm, the gauge sites are surveyed into an vertical elevation datum.

These measurements are much like those available from the NOS stations and are

not designed to measure waves. Collaboration between the this study and the USGS

response team has already been establish. Wave surge pressure sensors will be

installed at locations along with surge sensors at locations that may be impacted by

waves. The USGS response teams have made deployments for Hurricanes Rita (2005),

Wilma (2005), Ike (2008) and Gustav (2008). An excellent picture of sequence of events

is available by combing the information obtained from this study's nearshore stations

and USGS stations at the coast.









CHAPTER 3
DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

3.1 Surge Processing

Atmospheric pressures oscillate slightly throughout the day, but are more heavily

influenced by weather systems. Strong hurricanes have central pressures in the

950 millibar range, some 70 millibars below the surrounding atmospheric pressure.

Therefore, in order to compute accurate water levels is crucial to use time dependent

atmospheric pressures Patm when calculating depth from the pressure timeseries Pabs

records. Ideally, as is done at National Ocean Service (NOS) stations, two gauges are

co-located with one recording Pabs and the other Patm to facilitate depth measurements.

In the specific case of the project sites were offshore several km so having collocated

Patm gauges was not possible.
Atmospheric pressure records from NOS stations are gathered at locations closest

to the study gauge positions. These will not be exactly collocated with this study's sites

so some interpolations was required. The study's gauge pressures that were measured

immediately prior to helicopter takeoff, maybe a half hour of readings, are compared

with the atmospheric pressure measured at nearest NOS stations. A correction is

applied so they match, this should be in the range of 1012 millibar standard atmospheric

pressure. Next the interpolated NOS pressure files are subtracted from the study's

gauges pressures to get a differential pressure measurement between the atmosphere

and the seabed. This pressure should start out at zero immediately prior to takeoff and

then the rest of the record can be used for calculating water depths. This set of data is

referenced to as water level data.

3.2 Wave Data Processing

Linear wave theory is the standard for most wave analysis applications. The

principal behind linear wave theory is the ability to decompose waves into simple

frequency components. The standard procedures behind this decomposition is spectral









analysis. The method typically used is know as the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). The

mathematical theory involved in the FFT is described by (Earle, 1996).

L-1
X(j, mAf) = At x(j, nAt)e-' 2" (3-1)
n=O
where
L
m = 0, 1, 2.... Leven (3-2)

L-1
m 0,1, 2.... L 1 Lodd. (3-3)
2

The real and imaginary parts of X are given by

L-1
Re[(j, mAf)] = -At x(j, nAt)cos( m (3-4)
n=0
L-1
Im[(j, mAf)]= At x(j, nAt)sin( ) (3-5)
n=0
Spectral estimates are obtained at Fourier frequencies, mAf, where the interval

between frequencies is given by
1
Af = (3-6)
LAt

PSD estimates for the jth segment are given by

X*(j, mAf)X(j, mAf) IX(j, mAf)2 (3-7)
Sxx[(j, mAf)] LAt (3-7)
L~lt L~lt

Final spectral estimates are obtained by averaging the results for all segments to obtain





After wave spectra are calculated some verification is possible by comparing

the integral of the spectra to the variance of the processed timeseries. Essentially,

spectral analysis done with the FFT decomposes the timeseries into the variances of the

individual components frequencies. The significant wave height, the common parameter

used to describe ocean wave size, is equal to four times the square root of the integral of









the spectra. The significant wave height is defined as the average height of the largest

1/3 of all the decomposed waves. Another common parameter is the peak wave period.

This defined as the most energetic portion of the decomposed wave spectra. These

typical parameters are shown for each of the 6 storms measured for this study in the

appendix section.

3.3 Liability Statement and Data Access

The data presented in this study is for educational purposes only. Further

verification is required before applying data. It is suggested for those interested in

specific aspects of the data to complete their own analysis. This data is open to the

public and access can be gained through the web at http://kraken.coastal.uf edu.









APPENDIX A
ERNESTO


Table A-1. Tropical Storm Ernesto deployment locations
SERIAL NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE
942800 26045.239/ 80001.822'
942802 26041.731/ 80001.224/
942804 26025.624/ 80003.253/
942805 26002.420/ 80005.983/

































A National Hurricane Center Ernesto Advisory 16 issued 11am EDT 8/28/2006


B National Hurricane Center Ernesto Advisory 19 issued 5am EDT 8/29/2006


Figure A-1. National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Tropical Storm Ernesto. Shown
here are the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation
and (B) deployment. a













3 50 N .................


. . .. .


#*


300






250


N. : >**** ** :
SO 8/31








: : d "2.. ,



8/2
S95 W, 900 W 850W 800W 7 W. .

A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Eastern Daylight Time


08/28-- 08/29


08/30 08/31 --09/01 --09/02


Date ( Central Daylight Time )
B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)

Figure A-2. Tropical Storm Ernesto track and Intensity




40


. . ..


o


200












009


28.40 N




28.00 N


08/30.
18:00:
27.60 N ....


27.20 N ..




26.80 N ..
08/30
12:00


26.40 N ..




26.00 N ...
08/30
06:00

........... 8 0


Figure A-3.


41


o.


. .


:\ -*w :
40-0
S . .. .. .. . .



I: I


z -40--


.60 W ...


Tropical Storm Ernesto deployment locations map. Southeast Florida gauge
locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC
buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 40, 80, 400 and
800 meter depths















































08/30 08/31
00:00 00:00
Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure A-4. Wave height measurements for Tropical Storm Ernesto



















------ ---- ---- -------I .15
----------,., iii i ., -.. ",--,' IJ iI .20!
.10

.05

.00

S.20


.10

.05

.00

A .20

.15
.10

.05



.20

.15
.10

.05


08/30
00:00


08/31
00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)


Figure A-5. Wave frequency measurements for Tropical Storm Ernesto


iFiKFi_
IIII I r l


-


A It


IT
V..01









APPENDIX B
NOEL

Table B-1. Hurricane Noel deployment locations


SERIAL NUMBER
1109030
1109032
1031446
1005185
1109033
1109034


LATITUDE LONGITUDE
27033.144' 80018.010'
27011.225' 80008.425/
26045.227/ 80001.771'
26036.719/ 80001.728'
26025.528/ 80003.408/
26 003.603/ 80005.486/












250 37Sttue Bl 500
S250 375 500
,0H


A National Hurricane Center Noel Advisory 8 issued 11am EDT 10/29/2007


Tropical Storm Noel
October 30, 2007
S__ 5AM EDT Tuesday
SINWS TPCINational Hurricane Center
Advisory 11
Current Center Location 21.3 N 76.0 W
Max Sustained Wind 60 mph
Current Movement W at 12 mph
Current Center Location
S60 Forecast Center Positions
H Sustained wind 73 mph
S Sustained wind 39-73 mph
Potential Day 1-3 Track Area
Hurricane Watch
STropical Storm Warning


B National Hurricane Center Noel Advisory 11 issued 5am EDT 10/30/2007


National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Noel. Shown here
are the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation and
(B) deployment. A


Figure B-1












350N ...N.....





300 N ........





250N ......


I

. .. .


20o N


/ 31

.. .. ". 3 1 /

950 W ,-4 90 W 850 W 80 W 75 W
A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Eastern Daylight Time


10/29- 10/30- 10/31 11/01 11/02- 11/03- 11/04
Date ( Central Daylight Time )
B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)


Figure B-2. Hurricane Noel track and Intensity


f












28.40 N




28.00 N ......


27.60 N ..




27.20 N


26.80 N ... .......


Lake Worth Pier


26.40 N ...............


S: \ I :
.4 NDBC 41009
.... -" / :


2 6 .00 N ..... : ........
Haulover Pie


S........... 8ow80.60 W


80.20 W


0:
0



a Key NOS 1
79.80 W 79.


40.
i d ...............



AO WAI 70 WO IAI


-r vv


I VV


Figure B-3.


Hurricane Noel deployment locations map. Southeast Florida gauge
locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC
buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 40, 80, 400 and
800 meter depths


^IC


0
0o
r

















































00:00 00:00 00:00
Date (Eastern Daylight Time)


Figure B-4. Wave height measurements for Hurricane Noel


00:00


00:00

















































1 1Al 1 1 1 1 l l l l [l 1 1 1 1 1 l[l l l. 1 00
10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 11/04
00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00
Date (Eastern Daylight Time)




Figure B-5. Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Noel









APPENDIX C
FAY

Table C-1. Tropical Storm Fay deployment locations


SERIAL NUMBER
1005185
1181297
1109032
1031447
1109038


LATITUDE
25052.8240/
26023.0100/
26054.2100/
27025.0380/
27043.7340/


LONGITUDE
81014.0160'
82055.8960/
82038.4480/
82018.6300'
82012.5820'
































A National Hurricane Center Fay Advisory 4 issued 11am EDT 08/16/2008


B National Hurricane Center Fay Advisory 7 issued 5am EDT 08/17/2008


Figure C-1. National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Tropical Storm Fay. Shown
here are the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation
and (B) deployment.











..


8/24
,- /"
y" /;)


900 W


350N








30 N








250 N








200 N


A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Eastern Daylight Time

-CAT1 -




0 -_/




A _- A_


-- 08/17- 08/18


08/19-08/20-08/21


08/22 -08/23 ,- 25


Date ( Central Davliaht Time )
B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)

Figure C-2. Tropical Storm Fay track and Intensity


: ^


::
..............








.... .......................








. ..


950 W -
; I -


. . .


', '


8/21

S8/20









/ 1 8





S 850 W 800 W 750. 8116


. .


..............











Clearwater NOS

27.80 N.. ... .:
'70


27.40 N ..
cripps
42099
84.2450 W


27.00 N .........




26.60 N




2 6 .20 N ..... ..........




25.80 N .




25.40 N
o 83



..... ...... 83.6 W E


Figure C-3.


BGCF1


OS .08/1!
06:01
19


S3.20 W


82.80 W


82.40 W


82.00 W


Tropical Storm Fay deployment locations map. Southwest Florida gauge
locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC
buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20, 40 and
80 meter depths


NOS


\.
c





I


...........
















































M I I I I l I I L l l I I I I I L 0 .0
08/18 08/20 08/22 08/24 08/26 08/2b
00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)




Figure C-4. Wave height measurements for Tropical Storm Fay













- -- r r IIrT)1I'r in i.h


t t- ir-f I I I 1 t I I I I-


IL


--In- m iIn-' I


SI I 4 1 +-+ El In "--N


A i -t. ON La


i k -I lll ii '&
7R.1

.0





I__I -f_ i MI L m-
.2












IIIIII I JL- -
.1-
.0


.2

W.1

.0
.0(



I I I Is .2=

.0
.0(






0.


08/18
00:00


08/20
00:00


08/22
00:00


08/24
00:00


08/26
00:00


08/28
00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)




Figure C-5. Wave frequency measurements for Tropical Storm Fay


!F Lk In Ik -l I .


VI" WI fl -
I is. .


""


-.1


OIL- 111AbA "l


r r


0
5











U-
0
3



5



0
3



N
5E


C
5









U
3
5
3
3
5


5
3
0
5
0
5
0









APPENDIX D
GUSTAV

Table D-1. Hurricane Gustav deployment locations


SERIAL NUMBER
0942799
0942800
0942798
1031446
0942797
0942796
0942805
1181288
1005190
1005189
1005183
0942802
1109030
1005191
1181283
1109036


LATITUDE
29000.060/
29011.744'
29044.642/
29034.366/
29029.962/
29013.439'
29000.415/
29004.958/
29018.371/
29035.434/
29034.819/
29047.922/
30 013.743/
30021.959/
30007.627/
30 020.480/


LONGITUDE
90051.906'
91015.119/
93015.493'
92043.439/
92003.191/
91034.807'
90031.578'
90012.910'
89045.589/
88050.691/
89036.338/
89048.142/
89001.747'
86055.272/
87042.909/
86055.195/


NAME
01
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20












































A National Hurricane Center Gustav Advisory 19 issued 11am EDT 08/29/2008


2 Hurricane Gustav
125 250 35 S August 30, 2008
5 AM EDT Saturday
NWS TPCINational Hurricane Center
Advisory22
Current Center Location 20.2 N 81.3 W
Max Sustained Wind 110 mph
LA { Current Movement NW at 12 mph
2 M Current Center Location
0 Forecast Center Positions
H Sustained wind > 73 mph
SPotential Day 1-3 Track Area
m Hurricane Warning
Tropical Storm Warning
AMTropical Storm Watch



















B National Hurricane Center Gustav Advisory 22 issued 5am EDT 08/30/2008


Figure D-1. National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Gustav. Shown here
are the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation and
(B) deployment. E-7










350 N ... .
f 9/03


9/02



: 9
3 0 0 N : ......... ..... ... .






2 5 0 N .






2 0 0 N ...... ................ .
950W,.-. 90C


i


9 9/01












W 85 W


I












YB,
>





.: ? ,


A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Central Daylight Time


08/28 08/29 08/30 -- 08/31 09/01
Date ( Central Daylight Time )


B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)

Figure D-2. Hurricane Gustav track and Intensity


58


f


, .












3 0 .8 N ....... ..............



30.80 N
30 40


2 9 .2 0 N ... .. ... ... ..




28.80 N .




2 8 .4 0 N .. ......... ......... ......... .




..... 88.70 W 88.30 W 87.90 W 87.50 W 87.10 W


Figure D-3.


Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 1. East of the Mississippi river
gauge locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares,
NDBC buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20,
40, 80, 400 and 800 meter depths


. .


. .
















S. .WYCM1 NOS .-


PSTL1 NOSiS(L



?o9/01o---.^"/
b06:00
. .. .. ... .


91.1 W 90.7 W 90.30 .... 89.90 W
.......91.10 W ....90.70 W ....90.30 W .... 89.90 W


...... 89.50 W ......


Figure D-4.


Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 2. Eastern Louisiana gauge
locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC
buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20, 40, 80,
400 and 800 meter depths


3 0 .8 N ....... ...............................

30.480 N
30.4
.


sC~--~/










r


3 0 .8 0 N .... ..................................


3 0 .4 0 N . . . .. .. .












:AMRL1 NOS:
16 km
2 9 .2 0 N .. .. .. ...

22




40 l40
-4l






:2 8 .4 0 N............. .............................. ...


: ---8080 8-
80--~
S.... 93.50 W... 93.10 W ... 92.70 W 92.30 W 91.90 W ......


Figure D-5. Hurricane Gustav deployment locations map 3. Western Louisiana gauge
locations shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC
buoys with blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20, 40, and
80 meter depths



61















































09/01
00:00


09/02 09/03 09/04
00:00 00:00 00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure D-6. Wave height measurements for Hurricane Gustav 1


















A--"--1
.10

.05



AW20

'.15

.10

.05

00

20





.05

.00

.20

.15

.10

.05
_nn


08/31
12:00


09/01
12:00


09/02
12:00


09/03
12:00


09/04
12:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure D-7. Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Gustav 1


k I .


A -.&-














































00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00
Date (Eastern Daylight Time)






Figure D-8. Wave height measurements for Hurricane Gustav 2





64

















&I YPM


-- -- -.20
Jt.^ -: M it^^^^^^ ^^A


NM r 4 ---- I 4 4 4 4


A.- I*0'


w


-t- t 4 *


.00


.1



.0

S_ .0
*r-u~~~~A&i (2-- ------- -


_ .1


-.05


E .15

.10

.05
I _fnn


08/31
12:00


09/01
12:00


09/02
12:00


09/03
12:00


09/04
12:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)


Figure D-9. Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Gustav 2


N
5

0 c
0 -
L.-


C.


^Wt ,


0


nVi IS A


1 i I


UlI. II


I I I I/ I


VUjw,*,wn- %IF rI


h4


,J v









APPENDIX E
HANNA

Table E-1. Hurricane Hanna deployment locations


SERIAL NUMBER
1181292
1031448
1181300
1181287


LATITUDE
35004.884/
34057.078/
34043.656/
34039.120'


LONGITUDE
75057.834/
76009.744/
76025.320/
76036.468/


NAME
G
H
J
E

































A National Hurricane Center Hanna Advisory 26 issued 5am EDT 09/03/2008


B National Hurricane Center Hanna Advisory 27 issued 11am EDT 09/03/2008


Figure E-1.


National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Hanna. Shown here
are the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation and
(B) deployment.











3 5 N .. .. .. .. . .... .. .. .
35 N:


S9/06




3 0 N .. ... .. .... .


9 /05










200N0
2 0 N ... ... . W .





S 950W,-4 900W A 85W 80W 75


A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Eastern Daylight Time


09/07


Date ( Central Daylight Time )
B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)

Figure E-2. Hurricane Hanna track and Intensity


68


9/04-

2

/03
. .- .











3 3 .20 N .... ... ............ -



33.60 N .


NDBC 41025

. .


O NDBC 4
34.40 N .......



34.80 N ....



38.20 N /...


3 8 .6 0 N ....... ........ .....................



....... 77.00 W 76.60 W 76.20 W 75.80 W 75.40 W


Figure E-3.


Hurricane Hanna deployment locations map. North Carolina gauge locations
shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC buoys with
blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 20, 40, 80, 400 and 800
meter depths


.



































2.0


-- 0 (D

-..0

.- .
.* ..--


---0.0



-3.0


,n,--------------- .0




09/06 09/07 09/08 09/09
00:00 Date (Eastern Daylight Time) 00:00





Figure E-4. Wave height measurements for Hurricane Hanna

















+_ + ____ ________ _____


11 ~ 1I I I t 1 t 1 t


--- -_______


.15


.0

.0

.2

.1
--w b------ ------ A 6A- ---- -- ----- 2


.05

.00 c

.20
LL


.15



.05
I~zzz_ ______


IIA1


-.20
r-


-W45-I-- -- ---- -- ____ _____ ____ ____ _


LwlI


I ,


II .


I Ail. I


Pi- ---+ i---I i-I-- N-E--


IUIUwA-A I Iw IIM


in'IrhfArlaI AiMh


I II I


wI II I


-\


. I


A Agr1WIrrILI~J1 ___ _1


09/05
00:00


09/06
00:00


09/07
00:00


09/08
00:00


09/09
00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure E-5. Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Hanna


9
0


5

0
'?3


--tA

n


I









APPENDIX F
IKE


Table F-1. Hurricane Ike deployment locations


SERIAL NUMBER
1181305
1181295
1109033
1181301
1109037
1181304
1181294
1181298


PROXIMITY TO INLET ACCESS
29035.0820/
29029.784/
29016.878/
29004.284/
28052.224/
28037.506/
28012.462'
27037.734/


LATITUDE
94007.518/
94023.304/
94042.540/
95002.376/
95018.906/
96045.144/
96033.024/
96007.056'


LONGITUDE


NAME
Z
Y
X
W
V
U
S
R









































A National Hurricane Center Ike Advisory 30 issued 11am EDT 09/08/2008


-lurricane Ike
September 10, 2008
10 AM CDT Wednesday
NWS TPCINational Hurricane Center
Advisory 3B
Current Center Location 23.9 N 85.3 W
Max Sustained Wind 90 mph
Current Movement WNW at 8 mph
Current Center Location
Forecast Center Positions
H Sustained wind >73 mph
SPotential Day 1-3 Track Area
Tropical Storm Warning

'R V m r


B National Hurricane Center Ike Advisory 38 issued 10am CDT 09/10/2008


Figure F-1. National Hurricane Center forecast tracks for Hurricane Ike. Shown here are
the last available forecast advisory prior to (A) field team activation and (B)
deployment.










9/14
3 50 N ... ....... ... .....
-/ f


I-


1 #
'. (

r


300 N







250 N







20 N


4-
cg.,0


. .


85 W


800


9/08 1 9/07



W 750 W: 7
8 /0


A Track. Open circles show position midday, closed midnight Central Daylight Time


09/08 09/09 09/10 09/11 09/12
Date ( Central Daylight Time )


09/13- 09/14


B Intensity. Maximum sustained winds (knots)

Figure F-2. Hurricane Ike track and intensity


S9/12











95W 90 W A


1 :.*, -


. .. .


*


a*
0 v











3 3 .2 0 N ....... 0 6 :0 0 ................................... ." ....


Sabine Pass NOS
3 3 .6 0 N..................... ..............



Galveston Pier NOS :
34.00 N NDBC 42035


09/13 :22
S002
:3 4 .4 0 .. .. . ... ... .



4
...... ................ ...... ...... 4 0: ...................




18:00 80"--
... ...
SO-4NDBC 42019
40
3 8 .6 0 N . .. ... .



.......... 77.00 W 76.60 W 76.20 W 75.80 W 75.40 W ......


Figure F-3. Hurricane Ike deployment locations map 1. Northern Texas gauge locations
shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC buoys with
blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20, 40, 80 and 400
meter depths












33.20 N




33.60 N ....




34.00 N




34.40 N ....




34.80 N




38.20 N Corpt




38.60 N ....




77 n
:.. .. .. .. ... 7 7 'n


Figure F-4.


Hurricane Ike deployment locations map 2. Southern Texas gauge locations
shown with black circles, NOS stations with blue squares, NDBC buoys with
blue diamonds. Also shown are contours for the 10, 20, 40, 80 and 400
meter depths


I 1


. .














5.0
4.0
3.0
-2.0
1.0
1.- 0.0

5.0
4.0

..9. y--- % 1%6- 3.0







0.0
5.0
4.0
..Al C ,-,_ I i ,_3.0







---4.0
,- --.-.. -,,,,.~--






4-0.0


09/13
00:00


09/14
00:00


09/15
00:00


09/16
00:00


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure F-5. Wave height measurements for Hurricane Ike


09/11
00:00


09/12
00:00















a U.- -aA.


.20

.15

.10

.05



.20

_.15

10

S..05

.00



*K *A.15

.10

S .05

~-.00

20


uN -.


uurnwU


WI,


4 4 I -m1l-n -4Ufl -4-A Sd-Ia. IWI- fL.'-1..54-I* W 1;-


- I- I -6


.A, A i .. .


AI'r*.


1.. ItI


AIIldtI jIIJHIwwjA L 'Trh -*:


-'a.-


.15


1J-u IIII Il- i u E r 'IIIJYI I I .
"N W 411 M1 A il" *JIIIIIIIllH I


I InlL-1T4IIIpYV"T"r


* T--


I + +


S C i -n f -L-p -


09/11
00:00


Sr-pr-F C_ ~w w


09/12
00:00


09/13
00:00


09/14
00:00


09/15
00:00


09/16
00:00


-.05


Date (Eastern Daylight Time)



Figure F-6. Wave frequency measurements for Hurricane Ike


I









REFERENCES

Bergan, P. O., Torum, A., & Traetteburg, A. (1968). Wave measurements by a pressure
type wave gauge. 10th Conference on Coastal Engineering.

Bishop, C. T., & Donelan, M. A. (1987). Measuring waves with pressure transducers.
Coastal Engineering, 11, 309-328.

Earle, M. D. (1996). Nondirectional and directional wave data analysis procedures.
NDBC Technical Document 96-01.

East, J. W., Turco, M. J., & Mason, R. R. (2008). Monitoring inland storm surge and
flooding from hurricane ike. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report.

Emanuel, K. A. (1988). The maximun intensity of hurricanes. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, 45(7).

Emanuel, K. A. (2005). Emanual replies. NATURE, 438, E13.

Fan, Y, Ginis, I., Hara, T, Wright, C. W., & Walsh, E. J. (2009). Numerical simulations
and observations of surface wave fields under an extreme tropical cyclone. Journal of
Physical Oceanography, 39, 2097-2116.

Harris, D. L. (1963). Characteristics of hurricane storm surge. Tech. rep., U.S. Weather
Bureau.

Masters, F J., Tieleman, H. W., & Balderrama, J. A. (2010). Surface wind measurements
in three gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, In press.

McGee, B. D., Goree, B. B., Tollett, R. W., Woodward, B. K., & Kress, W. H. (2005).
Hurricane rite surge data, southwestern louisiana and northeastern texas. U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 220.

Pielke, R. A., Lannsea, C., Mayfield, M., Laver, J., & Pasch, R. (2005). Hurricanes and
global warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86(11), 1571-1575.

Skwira, G. D., Schroeder, J. L., & Peterson, R. L. (2005). Surface observations of
landfalling hurricanes. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 454-466.

Stull, R. B. (1995). Meterology Today for Scientists and Engineers. West Publishing
Company.

Wang, D., & Oey, L. (2008). Hindcast of waves and currents in hurricane katrina. Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, (pp. 487-495).

White, G., & Buckingham, B. (1999). Weather buoys are vital but vulnerable. Spaceport
News, 38(26).









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Uriah Gravois was born in Citra, Florida on the south shore of Orange Lake. Many

of his childhood days were spent fishing and taking part in other outdoor activities.

Uriah attended high school at P.K. Yonge in Gainesville, Florida. He was proud to be

a "Blue Wave" and played on the soccer and golf teams. Golf continued to be a big

part of his life and he worked at the golf course at the University of Florida for over 4

years, however, this hobby was replaced by a bigger love for surfing. After attending

Santa Fe Community College for two years, Uriah earned an Associate of Science in

biomedical engineering technology and a general Associate of Arts degree to transfer

into the University of Florida's College of Engineering. The electronics experience

helped him gain a position as a University Scholar working with the Department of

Civil and Coastal Engineering. Now that Uriah has completed his bachelor's degree

and Master of Science, he plans to continue towards PhD Degree at the University of

Florida's College of Engineering in the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering.





PAGE 2

2

PAGE 3

3

PAGE 4

Iexpressmysinceregratitudetomyadvisors,AndrewKennedy,AlexandruSheremetandRobertDean,forthepricelessknowledgetheyhavepassedontomeduringmytimeattheUniversityofFlorida.Ialsoexpresssincereappriciationtoeveryonewhohascontributedtothesuccessofthisstudy.Thefollowingsentencesattempttorecognizemanyofthesecontributions.MostofthepreparationandeldworkwascompletedbytheUniversityofFloridaCoastalandOceanographicEngineeringLaboratory(COEL)staffincludingVicktorAdams,SidneySchoeld,JimmyJoiner,DannyBrownandRichardBooze.Extensivetrainingandoversightofthestudies'eldworkwasprovidedbyCherylThacker,theDiveSafteyOfcerfortheTheUniversityofFloridaDivingScienceandSafteyProgram(DSSP).Specialrecognitionsgotothediveteamincluding,VicktorAdams,AndrewKennedy,andJustinMarin.TheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS)St.PetersburgCoastalandMarineScienceCentercompletedgaugeretrievalsforTropicalStormFay.TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHillInstituteofMarineSciencescompletedgaugedeploymentandretrievalforHurricaneHanna.TheLouisianaUniversityMarinaConsortium(LUMCON)andTheTexasUniversityMarineConsortiumprovidedcaptainsandboatsforHurricaneGustavandHurricaneIkegaugeretrievalsrespectively.Thefollowinghelicoptercompanieswerehiredforpiolotinggaugedeployments;HelicopterAdventures(TropicalStormErnesto),OceanHelicopters(HurricaneNoel,TropicalStormFay,andHurricaneGustav),RoniAvisar(HurricaneHanna)andAustinHelijet(HurricaneIke).Iwouldalsoliketorecognizemyofcematesduringthisstudy,SergioJaramillio,IlgarSak,withspecialthanksgoingouttoBryanZacharyasavisitingscholar.Furtheracknowlegementsgoouttootherhurricaneresponseteamsfortheirhelpplanningdeploymentsincluding;TheFloridaCostalMonitoringProgramwindtowerteam,TheTexasTechsticknetwindteamandtheUSGSsurgeteam.Alsothanksgoouttothepastandfutureusersofthisstudy'sgaugesincluding;SpencerRodgerswith 4

PAGE 5

5

PAGE 6

page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................. 4 LISTOFTABLES ...................................... 8 LISTOFFIGURES ..................................... 9 ABSTRACT ......................................... 11 CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONANDMETHODOLOGY ..................... 13 1.1RapidResponseMotivation .......................... 13 1.2CustomWaveandSurgeGauges ...................... 13 1.2.1ApplicationSpecicRequirements .................. 13 1.2.2BasicConcepts ............................. 14 1.2.3DesignDetails ............................. 15 1.2.4CalibrationandResolution ....................... 17 1.2.5GaugeHousingandAnchoringBase ................. 18 1.3FieldCampaign ................................. 20 1.3.1HelicopterCompanyRelationsandSafety .............. 20 1.3.2Deployment ............................... 21 1.3.3Retrieval ................................. 22 2BACKGROUNDANDGENERALTHEORY .................... 25 2.1OverviewofHurricanes ............................ 25 2.1.1ClimatologyandRisk .......................... 25 2.1.2WindandPressureCharacteristics .................. 26 2.2TheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration ........... 28 2.3Waves ...................................... 29 2.3.1Generation ............................... 29 2.3.2LinearEquations ............................ 30 2.3.3NationalDataBuoyCenter ...................... 31 2.4Tides ...................................... 32 2.4.1HarmonicAnalysisofTides ...................... 32 2.4.2AstronomicalvsStormTide ...................... 33 2.4.3NationalOceanService ........................ 33 2.4.4UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey ................... 34 3DATAANALYSISTECHNIQUES .......................... 35 3.1SurgeProcessing ............................... 35 3.2WaveDataProcessing ............................. 35 3.3LiabilityStatementandDataAccess ..................... 37 6

PAGE 7

AERNESTO ...................................... 38 BNOEL ......................................... 44 CFAY .......................................... 50 DGUSTAV ........................................ 56 EHANNA ........................................ 66 FIKE .......................................... 72 REFERENCES ....................................... 79 BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH ................................ 80 7

PAGE 8

Table page 1-1CalibrationCoefcients ............................... 24 2-1SAFFIR-SIMPSONHURRICANEWINDSCALE ................. 27 A-1TropicalStormErnestodeploymentlocations ................... 38 B-1HurricaneNoeldeploymentlocations ........................ 44 C-1TropicalStormFaydeploymentlocations ...................... 50 D-1HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocations ...................... 56 E-1HurricaneHannadeploymentlocations ...................... 66 F-1HurricaneIkedeploymentlocations ......................... 72 8

PAGE 9

Figure page 1-1Model85pressuresensorandTFX-11v2datalogger .............. 16 1-2CustomPCBamplierschematicdesign ...................... 17 1-3Exampleplotofstudygaugecross-calibrationwithParosScienticpressuresensor ......................................... 19 1-4SteelAnchorBase .................................. 20 1-5Helicopterdeploymentwithdetachablesled .................... 21 1-6Helicopterdeploymentwithfoldinglegbase .................... 22 1-7Scubadiverretrievalofpressuresensor ...................... 23 2-1HURISKcategory3hurricane100yearreturnperiodmap ............ 26 2-2SatelliteimageofHurricaneRita .......................... 28 2-3WaveforecastingchartdevelopedbyBretschnieder ............... 30 2-4Wavedispersionrelationplot ............................ 31 2-5MapofNationalDataBuoyCenterstations .................... 32 A-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforTropicalStormErnesto ...... 39 A-2TropicalStormErnestotrackandIntensity ..................... 40 A-3TropicalStormErnestodeploymentlocationsmap ................ 41 A-4WaveheightmeasurementsforTropicalStormErnesto ............. 42 A-5WavefrequencymeasurementsforTropicalStormErnesto ........... 43 B-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneNoel .......... 45 B-2HurricaneNoeltrackandIntensity ......................... 46 B-3HurricaneNoeldeploymentlocationsmap ..................... 47 B-4WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneNoel .................. 48 B-5WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneNoel ................ 49 C-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforTropicalStormFay ........ 51 C-2TropicalStormFaytrackandIntensity ....................... 52 C-3TropicalStormFaydeploymentlocationsmap ................... 53 9

PAGE 10

................ 54 C-5WavefrequencymeasurementsforTropicalStormFay .............. 55 D-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneGustav ......... 57 D-2HurricaneGustavtrackandIntensity ........................ 58 D-3HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap1 .................. 59 D-4HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap2 .................. 60 D-5HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap3 .................. 61 D-6WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneGustav1 ............... 62 D-7WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneGustav1 ............. 63 D-8WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneGustav2 ............... 64 D-9WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneGustav2 ............. 65 E-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneHanna ......... 67 E-2HurricaneHannatrackandIntensity ........................ 68 E-3HurricaneHannadeploymentlocationsmap .................... 69 E-4WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneHanna ................. 70 E-5WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneHanna ............... 71 F-1NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneIke ........... 73 F-2HurricaneIketrackandintensity .......................... 74 F-3HurricaneIkedeploymentlocationsmap1 ..................... 75 F-4HurricaneIkedeploymentlocationsmap2 ..................... 76 F-5WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneIke ................... 77 F-6WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneIke ................. 78 10

PAGE 11

11

PAGE 12

12

PAGE 13

Harris 1963 ),however,theinfrequentnatureofhurricaneoccurrencesforaspeciclocationhasdeterredmostefforts.Asolutionwasdevelopedtocreatemobilemonitoringnetworksatdesiredlocationsimmediatelybeforeacriticalevent.Operationalprogramsofthiskindareinplacetomeasurewind( Mastersetal. 2010 ; Skwiraetal. 2005 )andsurge( Eastetal. 2008 ),butnoneexistforwavemeasurementsoroffshoresurge.Thisstudywasdevelopedtollthisvoidthroughrapidresponsehelicopterdeploymentoftemporaryobservationstations,thusincreasingthedensityofwaveandtidemeasurementsrequiredtocharacterizedahurricaneevent. 1.2.1ApplicationSpecicRequirementsThedecisionwasmadeintheproposalstagesofthisstudytousesub-surfacepressuresensorsastherapidlydeployedgauge.Applyingpressuresensorstomeasurewavesandwaterlevelsisknowntobearobusttechnique,whichisamajorrequirementforthisstudy.Otherresearchershaveinvestigatedtheaccuracyofsub-surfacepressuresensorstomeasuresurfacewaves( Berganetal. 1968 ; Bishop&Donelan 1987 )with 13

PAGE 14

Wang&Oey 2008 ; Fanetal. 2009 ; White&Buckingham 1999 ).Otherinstanceshavebeenobservedwheremeasurementsfromsurfacebuoysshutofforbecameunreliableinpeakstormconditions.Incomparison,thisstudy'sresponsegaugesdeployedforHurricaneIkeandotherstorms,wereimmobileandcollectedcontinuousdatathroughoutthestorm.Anoptimumweightofthestudy'ssub-surfacepressuresensorwaveandtidegaugesisheavyenoughtobeimmobilebutlightenoughformultipleunitstobetransportedbyhelicopterandrapidlysetuppriortoastorm.Inafullyoperationalstate,thisstudyrequires50-100gaugestobeavailableforresponsetoseveralconsecutivestormsoverashorttimespan.Thestudy'slimitedbudgetandthelargenumberofgaugesdesiredledtothedesignandfabricationofgaugesinhouse.Thisresultedinaninexpensivecostpergauge,includingpartsandlabor,ofapproximately500dollars. 14

PAGE 15

m2).Forthepurposesofthisstudy,densitycanbeconsideredconstantasitvariesatmost3%inthemostextremerangesoftemperatureandsalinitylikelytobeencountered.Therefore,waterdensitycanbeestimatedyieldingverysmalluncertaintyinthepressure-depthrelationship.Asaruleofthumb,1millibar(100Pa)ofairpressureisequivalentto1centimeterofwaterdepth m39.81m s2.(1)Fornon-hydrostaticconditionswherethewaterisinmotionandacceleratingthemeanpressureisequivalenttowhatwouldbethestillwaterdepth.Thisiscommonlyreferredtoasthemeanwaterlevel.Forwavecalculationsthewateraccelerationsmustbeaccounted,theseproceduresaredescribedinsection3.2. 1-1 a).Thesestraingaugetypepressuresensorsfeatureasmallporttoastainlesssteeldiaphragmforinterfacingwithseawaterthatiscoupledtointernalstraingaugesthroughathinsiliconoiltransfermedium.Attachedtothestraingaugesaretwosupplyandtwooutputwires.Whenforceisappliedtothediaphragminterface,aswouldresultbyincreasedwaterdepth,thisactstostretchtheModel85'sinternalstraingaugeschangingtheirelectricalresistance.Whenasmallelectricalcurrentispassedthroughthesupplywires,thevoltageacrosstheoutputwireschanges 15

PAGE 16

1-1 b).Thisdataloggerisasmallprogrammablecomputerdesignedtoautonomouslyrunandrecordadevicesuchasapressuresensor.Customprintedcircuitboards(PCB)weremadetointerfacebetweentheTFX-11v2,theModel85pressuresensor,batterypowerandstandardparallelandRS-232desktopcomputerconnections.ThiscircuitrywasmodeledwithacomputeraideddesignprogramandsenttoaPCBmanufacturer.SurfacemountelectroniccomponentsaresolderedontothePCB'sresultinginacleanandreliablecircuit.TheimportantfeaturesofthecustomPCBsarealowpowersupplycurrenttotheModel85andamplicationofthepressuresensoroutputvoltage(Figure 1-2 ).TheratioofthePCBoutputtoaregulated5-voltreferenceisrecordedbya12-bitanalog-to-digitalconverterontheTFX11-v2.Thisresultisshifted4bitstotheleftandrecordedasa2-byteor16-bitnumberintotheTFX11-v2internalashstorage.Forexample,anampliedpressuresensoroutputof2.5Vishalfthe5Vreferenceandisdigitizedas212/2*16or32768.Thepressuregaugesare BTFX-11v2Figure1-1. Model85pressuresensorandTFX-11v2datalogger(A)Model85pressuresensorfromMeasurementSpecialties(B)TFX-11v2dataloggerbyOnsetComputerCorperation 16

PAGE 17

Figure1-2. CustomPCBamplierschematicdesign.Thelabeledvaluesindicateindividualresistorandcapacitorcomponentvalues.TheredcircleindicatesthelocationoftheModel85pressuresensorandthelabeloutindicatestheinputtotheTFX-11v2analogtodigitalrecorder Thedataloggerwasprogramedtosampleat1Hzor1samplepersecond.Witheachpressuresamplerequiring2bytes,thedatalogger's2megabytesofinternalashstorageallowed1,000,000samplesor11.5daysofpressuresamplestoberecorded.Thiswasenoughmemorytofullycharacterizeahurricaneeventwhichusuallylast1-2days,however,datastorageexpansionofthepressuregaugesmaybeundertakeninfuturestudies. 17

PAGE 18

1-1 .Thepressurewaveandtidegaugesresolutionisfoundbydividingthe7500millibarrangeofthetransducerbythe12-bitsA/Dconverter(4096discretevalues)foraresultlessthan2millibarsequivalentto2cmofwaterpressure.Thetrueaccuracyoftheinstrumentislessthantheresolutionduetoinherentnoiseinthecircuitry.Thisnoisehasbeenmeasuredtohaveastandarddeviationoflessthan4millibars.Thereareotherpossiblesourcesoferrorthatwillbediscussedinthedataprocessingsection. 1-1 )toscrewinplaceandthediaphragmtointerfacewiththeexternalwaterpressure.Thesethreadedendcapsalsofeaturearubbero-ringseattofurtherincreaseresistancetoleakage.Theoppositeendoftheenclosureremainsopenuntilthegaugeisactivated.Insertingbatteriesactivatesthepressuregaugesandthisstarttimeisdocumented 18

PAGE 19

Exampleplotofstudygaugecross-calibrationwithParosScienticpressuresensor.Redcirclesdenoteindividualcalibrationspointsandboldlineistheleastsquaresttodata.Therstorderequationforthislinegivesthecalibrationcoefcients tolatersynthesizeacorrespondingtimeseriestothepressuredata.Afteractivation,astandardPVCendcapisfastenedinplacewithbluewaterproofPVCglue.Thecompletedwavegaugeissmallatlessthan8inchesinlength.Withmorethan100deploymentsandteststodate,zerogaugeshaveleaked.ThepressuresensorsPVCenclosurehousingsareplaceinsideweightedanchorsbases.These3inchX15inchX15inchanchorbasesareconstructedwith3inchchannelsteelandweighapproximately50pounds.Thebasesfeatureanarmoredcompartmenttoholdthepressuresensorandanacousticlocatorbeacon.Withonly3inchesheight,thisbasedesignhasprovedtobelowenoughproletowithstandhurricaneconditions.Anotherfeatureoftheanchorbasesisa3inchsteeldeploymentringandataglinewithsmalloatstoaidinpoststormrecovery. 19

PAGE 20

BFigure1-4. (A)Pressuresensorandacousticbeaconinsideanchorbasewithtaglineanddeploymentring(B)Undersideofanchorbaseshowingchannelstomatewithhelicopterdeploymentsled Therstyearofthisstudyfeaturedadifferentbasedesignwithfourfoldinglegsandacenterposttocarrytheinstrument.FourofthesebasesweredeployedfortropicalStormErnestoin2006buttheyarebelievedtohavemovedsmalldistancesduringthewaveevent.BecausethebasesmayhavemovedeventhoughTropicalStormErnestowasnotaverypowerfulstorm,newimprovedlowprolebasesweredesignedandconstructedforthefollowinghurricaneseason. 1.3.1HelicopterCompanyRelationsandSafetyThereisonlyasmallwindowoftimeavailiabletodeploygaugesaheadofanimminenthurricanelandfall.Thisstudyreliesonhelicoptersforexpedientgaugedeployment.Strictsafetyprecautionsarefollowedandthestudyisalwaysplacedbehindmaintainingthewellbeingoftheresearchers.Eachmodelhelicopterhasdifferentcharacteristicssuchastopspeedandcargoweightcapacity,butallofthemodelsgenerallyobservethesameupperlimitforsafemaximumwindconditions.Iftheconditionsarenotsafeoratanytimebecomeunsafe,thedeploymentiscanceled.Forcostissuesseveralthisstudysetuprelationswithseveralhelicoptercompanies. 20

PAGE 21

Helicopterdeploymentwithdetachablesled Thedeploymentofthepressuregaugesrequirestheremovalofoneofthehelicoptersreardoorsandinstallationofacustomseat.Thisseatfeaturesclipstoattachadeploymentsledwhenforwardmotionofthehelicopterhaseased(Figure 1-5 ). 21

PAGE 22

1-5 ).Whentheinstrumenthasbeenloweredtoaleveljustabovethewatersurface,thelooseendoftheropeisreleasedandtheinstrumentsinkstotheseabed.Ifthereisanycomplicationswithtanglingoftherope,sharpsheersarekeptnearbytocuttherope.Oncetheropeandsledareretrieved,thepassengerinformsthepilottoproceedtothenextlocation.The2006designfeaturedbaseswithfoldinglegsanddidnotusedthedeploymentsled.Thesedeploymentsrequiredaselfretrievingtriggerstringtoactivatethelegsaftertheinstrumenthadbeenloweredpastthehelicopterskids(Figure 1-6 ).Althoughthesebasesperformedwelltheyweredeemedtoobulkyandimprovementweremadethefollowingyear. Figure1-6. Helicopterdeploymentoffoldinglegbase 22

PAGE 23

1-7 )thatpickupthesignalfromtheacousticpingerlocatorsattachedtothepressuregauges.Thisrecoveryisaddedbyasmalllineofmarkeroatsattachedtothepressuregauge.Thishasproventobeaneffectivemethodforinstrumentretrieval.Oncelocatedsomeminordiggingisusuallyrequiredtofreetheinstruments,inafewcasesajetpumpiswasneedtodigoutthepressuresensors. Figure1-7. Scubadiverretrievalofpressuresensor 23

PAGE 24

CalibrationCoefcients STORMSERIALNUMBERSLOPEOFFSET ERNESTO09428000.061347924.15ERNESTO09428020.121501195.26ERNESTO09428040.121644221.92ERNESTO09428050.122397197.25NOEL11090340.122169251.95NOEL11090330.122960219.39NOEL10051850.122214200.86NOEL10314460.122354179.73NOEL11090320.121657202.73NOEL11090300.121743228.20FAY11090380.121625204.47FAY10314470.121640072.63FAY11090320.121809264.85FAY11812970.122348-009.44FAY10051850.122708170.81GUSTAV09427990.121325207.88GUSTAV09428000.122741201.25GUSTAV09427980.122170222.32GUSTAV10314460.123388011.58GUSTAV09427970.120890213.26GUSTAV09427960.122582181.41GUSTAV09428050.122195262.25GUSTAV11812880.122058-028.12GUSTAV10051900.121759210.03GUSTAV10051890.121335297.54GUSTAV10051830.122531239.83GUSTAV09428020.122181255.54GUSTAV11090300.121742228.20GUSTAV10051910.121542242.57GUSTAV11812830.121542020.66GUSTAV11090360.120575204.14HANNA11812870.122805-006.06HANNA11812920.121585113.58HANNA10314480.122137219.14HANNA11812960.122311089.73IKE11813000.122426-009.70IKE11812980.122899066.70IKE11812940.122022203.46IKE11813040.122213118.13IKE11090370.120712403.35IKE11813010.120907156.94IKE11090330.123082216.94IKE11812950.121620264.56IKE11813050.122179592.29 24

PAGE 25

2.1.1ClimatologyandRiskTheannualAtlantichurricaneseasonofciallyrunsfromJune1throughNovember30ofeachyearandencompassestheNorthAtlanticOcean,CaribbeanSeaandtheGulfofMexico.HurricaneactivityintheAtlanticbasinaverages4.2namedtropicalstormsand5.2hurricanesperyear.Typicallyhurricanesformbetweenthelatitudesof10and30andrequirewatersofatleast26C.ThehurricaneseasoncoincideswithhighoceanicheatcontentintheAtlantichurricaneregion,whichpeaksalongwithclimatologicalhurricaneactivityafewweeksinadvanceofthesun'sautumnalequinoxinlateSeptember.Thehurricane'sdependenceonoceanheatasanenergysourcehasbeenanalyzedasanatmosphericheatengine( Emanuel 1988 ).IthasbeensuggestedthatincreasesinhurricaneactivityintheAtlanticbasinoverthepastdecadewascausedbyanthropogenicclimatechange( Emanuel 2005 ).Othersarguethatthismanmadeeffectisverysmallandcannotbediscernedfromnaturalvariability( Pielkeetal. 2005 ).Asidefromthetotalnumberofhurricanes,thegreaterconcernofrealconsequence,ishowmanywillhitlandandaffectinhabitedcoastalregions.Inagivenyear,thechanceofamajorhurricanelandfallataspeciccoastallocationisverysmall.Thebestestimateofthisriskisbasedhistoricaldataareusedforstatisticalcalculationforhurricanereturnperiods.AsdenedbytheNationalHurricaneCenterRiskAnalysisProgram(HURISK),thereturnperioddescribestheaveragetimeexpectedbetweenhurricanesoccurrenceswithin75nauticalmilesofaspeciclocation.ForexampleGalvestonTexashasareturnperiodof25yearsforacategory3orgreaterstorm,thismeansthatonaverage4stormsofatleastthisstrengthwillpasswithin75nauticalmilesofthatlocationina100yearperiod.Returnperiodsareshowningure 2-1 forlocationsfromTexastoNorthCarolina.Thesevalueswereestimatedbasedon 25

PAGE 26

Figure2-1. HURISKcategory3hurricane100yearreturnperiodmap Stull 1995 )isgivenas s(kPa)1=2(Pmax)1=2,(2)

PAGE 27

Stull 1995 ) Vmax=(R0 2.(2)Accordingtothisrelation,windspeedsshouldbehalfthatofthemaximumatfourtimestheradiustomaximumwinds.Thismaximumwindspeedisrelativetothecenterofthehurricaneandmustbesuperimposedwiththeforwardtranslationalspeedoftheentirestorm.Thisusuallyleadstothemostintensewindsinthefrontrightquadrantofahurricane. Table2-1. SAFFIR-SIMPSONHURRICANEWINDSCALE WindSpeed(kt)Classication 20-34TropicalDepression35-63TropicalStorm64-82CategoryOneHurricane83-95CategoryTwoHurricane96-113CategoryThreeHurricane114-135CategoryFourHurricane>135CategoryFiveHurricane TheSafr-SimpsonHurricaneWindScale(Table 2-1 )classiesastormsdestructivepotentialbasedonwindspeed.Thisscaleisnotbeingusedanymoreforpredictingstormsurgesincemanyotherfactorssuchashurricanesize,track,forwardmotionandcoastalreliefhaveproventobeofequalimportance.Afterastormhasreachedthethresholdwindspeedofatropicalstorm,anameisassignedfromapredeterminedalphabeticallistdevelopedbytheWorldMeteorologicalOrganization.Thisnamingsystemhastheadvantageofsimpliedcommunicationandincreasedpublicawarenessaboutstormsthatwarrantcaution.Thenamesarereusedevery6yearsexceptfor 27

PAGE 28

Figure2-2. SatelliteimageofHurricaneRita.Thisimagedepictsawelldenedhurricaneeyefeature 28

PAGE 29

2.3.1GenerationDuetoastrongrelationshipwithwind,wavesareconsideredtobepartoftheweather.Threebasicprincipalsareinvolvedinthedevelopmentofwavesbywind: 29

PAGE 30

Figure2-3. WaveforecastingchartdevelopedbyBretschnieder 2-4 30

PAGE 31

Wavedispersionrelationplot.Wavelength(m)asafunctionofwaveperiod(s)andwaterdepth(m) 2-5 ).ThisdataisheavilyusedbythemaritimecommunityandNDBChasacloseworkingrelationshipwiththeUnitedStatesCoastGuard.ThecommonparametersmeasuredatNDBCstationsare: 31

PAGE 32

Figure2-5. MapofNationalDataBuoyCenterstations Informationgatheredbythesebuoysisusedbyweathermodelsandincorporatedintotheoperationalforecasts. 2.4.1HarmonicAnalysisofTidesTideobservationsfromhardenedlandstationsarecombinedandweightedtosynthesizetidesattheeachstudygaugesite.Fromthispointwaterlevelsarealignedbeforeandpoststormwhentherewaslittlewaterlevelanomalyandconditionswere 32

PAGE 33

33

PAGE 34

McGeeetal. 2005 ; Eastetal. 2008 ).TheUSGSprogramisfocusedonsurgevaluesoverlandandnotattheopencoast.Thesesensorsareinstalledonhardenedstructurespriortohurricanelandfalls.Afterthestorm,thegaugesitesaresurveyedintoanverticalelevationdatum.ThesemeasurementsaremuchlikethoseavailablefromtheNOSstationsandarenotdesignedtomeasurewaves.CollaborationbetweenthethisstudyandtheUSGSresponseteamhasalreadybeenestablish.Wavesurgepressuresensorswillbeinstalledatlocationsalongwithsurgesensorsatlocationsthatmaybeimpactedbywaves.TheUSGSresponseteamshavemadedeploymentsforHurricanesRita(2005),Wilma(2005),Ike(2008)andGustav(2008).Anexcellentpictureofsequenceofeventsisavailablebycombingtheinformationobtainedfromthisstudy'snearshorestationsandUSGSstationsatthecoast. 34

PAGE 35

35

PAGE 36

Earle 1996 ). L(3)where 2Lodd.(3)TherealandimaginarypartsofXaregivenby L)(3) L)(3)SpectralestimatesareobtainedatFourierfrequencies,mf,wheretheintervalbetweenfrequenciesisgivenby 36

PAGE 37

37

PAGE 38

TableA-1. TropicalStormErnestodeploymentlocations SERIALNUMBERLATITUDELONGITUDE 9428002645.23908001.82209428022641.73108001.22409428042625.62408003.25309428052602.42008005.9830

PAGE 39

BNationalHurricaneCenterErnestoAdvisory19issued5amEDT8/29/2006FigureA-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforTropicalStormErnesto.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 39

PAGE 40

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureA-2. TropicalStormErnestotrackandIntensity 40

PAGE 41

TropicalStormErnestodeploymentlocationsmap.SoutheastFloridagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe40,80,400and800meterdepths 41

PAGE 42

WaveheightmeasurementsforTropicalStormErnesto 42

PAGE 43

WavefrequencymeasurementsforTropicalStormErnesto 43

PAGE 44

TableB-1. HurricaneNoeldeploymentlocations SERIALNUMBERLATITUDELONGITUDE 11090302733.14408018.010011090322711.22508008.425010314462645.22708001.771010051852636.71908001.728011090332625.52808003.408011090342603.60308005.4860

PAGE 45

B-NationalHurricaneCenterNoelAdvisory11issued5amEDT10/30/2007FigureB-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneNoel.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 45

PAGE 46

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureB-2. HurricaneNoeltrackandIntensity 46

PAGE 47

HurricaneNoeldeploymentlocationsmap.SoutheastFloridagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe40,80,400and800meterdepths 47

PAGE 48

WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneNoel 48

PAGE 49

WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneNoel 49

PAGE 50

TableC-1. TropicalStormFaydeploymentlocations SERIALNUMBERLATITUDELONGITUDE 10051852552.824008114.0160011812972623.010008255.8960011090322654.210008238.4480010314472725.038008218.6300011090382743.734008212.58200

PAGE 51

B-NationalHurricaneCenterFayAdvisory7issued5amEDT08/17/2008FigureC-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforTropicalStormFay.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 51

PAGE 52

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureC-2. TropicalStormFaytrackandIntensity 52

PAGE 53

TropicalStormFaydeploymentlocationsmap.SouthwestFloridagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40and80meterdepths 53

PAGE 54

WaveheightmeasurementsforTropicalStormFay 54

PAGE 55

WavefrequencymeasurementsforTropicalStormFay 55

PAGE 56

TableD-1. HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocations NAMESERIALNUMBERLATITUDELONGITUDE 0109427992900.06009051.90600209428002911.74409115.11900409427982944.64209315.49300510314462934.36609243.43900609427972929.96209203.19100709427962913.43909134.80700809428052900.41509031.57800911812882904.95809012.91001110051902918.37108945.58901210051892935.43408850.69101310051832934.81908936.33801409428022947.92208948.14201711090303013.74308901.74701810051913021.95908655.27201911812833007.62708742.90902011090363020.48008655.1950

PAGE 57

B-NationalHurricaneCenterGustavAdvisory22issued5amEDT08/30/2008FigureD-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneGustav.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 57

PAGE 58

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureD-2. HurricaneGustavtrackandIntensity 58

PAGE 59

HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap1.EastoftheMississippirivergaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40,80,400and800meterdepths 59

PAGE 60

HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap2.EasternLouisianagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40,80,400and800meterdepths 60

PAGE 61

HurricaneGustavdeploymentlocationsmap3.WesternLouisianagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40,and80meterdepths 61

PAGE 62

WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneGustav1 62

PAGE 63

WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneGustav1 63

PAGE 64

WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneGustav2 64

PAGE 65

WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneGustav2 65

PAGE 66

TableE-1. HurricaneHannadeploymentlocations NAMESERIALNUMBERLATITUDELONGITUDE G11812923504.88407557.8340H10314483457.07807609.7440J11813003443.65607625.3200E11812873439.12007636.4680

PAGE 67

B-NationalHurricaneCenterHannaAdvisory27issued11amEDT09/03/2008FigureE-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneHanna.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 67

PAGE 68

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureE-2. HurricaneHannatrackandIntensity 68

PAGE 69

HurricaneHannadeploymentlocationsmap.NorthCarolinagaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe20,40,80,400and800meterdepths 69

PAGE 70

WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneHanna 70

PAGE 71

WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneHanna 71

PAGE 72

TableF-1. HurricaneIkedeploymentlocations NAMESERIALNUMBERPROXIMITYTOINLETACCESSLATITUDELONGITUDE Z11813052935.082009407.5180Y11812952929.78409423.3040X11090332916.87809442.5400W11813012904.28409502.3760V11090372852.22409518.9060U11813042837.50609645.1440S11812942812.46209633.0240R11812982737.73409607.0560

PAGE 73

B-NationalHurricaneCenterIkeAdvisory38issued10amCDT09/10/2008FigureF-1. NationalHurricaneCenterforecasttracksforHurricaneIke.Shownherearethelastavailableforecastadvisorypriorto(A)eldteamactivationand(B)deployment. 73

PAGE 74

BIntensity.Maximumsustainedwinds(knots)FigureF-2. HurricaneIketrackandintensity 74

PAGE 75

HurricaneIkedeploymentlocationsmap1.NorthernTexasgaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40,80and400meterdepths 75

PAGE 76

HurricaneIkedeploymentlocationsmap2.SouthernTexasgaugelocationsshownwithblackcircles,NOSstationswithbluesquares,NDBCbuoyswithbluediamonds.Alsoshownarecontoursforthe10,20,40,80and400meterdepths 76

PAGE 77

WaveheightmeasurementsforHurricaneIke 77

PAGE 78

WavefrequencymeasurementsforHurricaneIke 78

PAGE 79

Bergan,P.O.,Torum,A.,&Traetteburg,A.(1968).Wavemeasurementsbyapressuretypewavegauge.10thConferenceonCoastalEngineering. Bishop,C.T.,&Donelan,M.A.(1987).Measuringwaveswithpressuretransducers.CoastalEngineering,11,309. Earle,M.D.(1996).Nondirectionalanddirectionalwavedataanalysisprocedures.NDBCTechnicalDocument96-01. East,J.W.,Turco,M.J.,&Mason,R.R.(2008).Monitoringinlandstormsurgeandoodingfromhurricaneike.U.S.GeologicalSurveyOpen-leReport. Emanuel,K.A.(1988).Themaximunintensityofhurricanes.JournaloftheAtmosphericSciences,45(7). Emanuel,K.A.(2005).Emanualreplies.NATURE,438,E13. Fan,Y.,Ginis,I.,Hara,T.,Wright,C.W.,&Walsh,E.J.(2009).Numericalsimulationsandobservationsofsurfacewaveeldsunderanextremetropicalcyclone.JournalofPhysicalOceanography,39,2097. Harris,D.L.(1963).Characteristicsofhurricanestormsurge.Tech.rep.,U.S.WeatherBureau. Masters,F.J.,Tieleman,H.W.,&Balderrama,J.A.(2010).Surfacewindmeasurementsinthreegulfcoasthurricanesof2005.JournalofWindEngineeringandIndustrialAerodynamics,Inpress. McGee,B.D.,Goree,B.B.,Tollett,R.W.,Woodward,B.K.,&Kress,W.H.(2005).Hurricaneritesurgedata,southwesternlouisianaandnortheasterntexas.U.S.GeologicalSurveyDataSeries220. Pielke,R.A.,Lannsea,C.,Mayeld,M.,Laver,J.,&Pasch,R.(2005).Hurricanesandglobalwarming.BulletinoftheAmericanMeteorologicalSociety,86(11),1571. Skwira,G.D.,Schroeder,J.L.,&Peterson,R.L.(2005).Surfaceobservationsoflandfallinghurricanes.MonthlyWeatherReview,133,454. Stull,R.B.(1995).MeterologyTodayforScientistsandEngineers.WestPublishingCompany. Wang,D.,&Oey,L.(2008).Hindcastofwavesandcurrentsinhurricanekatrina.BulletinoftheAmericanMeteorologicalSociety,(pp.487). White,G.,&Buckingham,B.(1999).Weatherbuoysarevitalbutvulnerable.SpaceportNews,38(26). 79

PAGE 80

UriahGravoiswasborninCitra,FloridaonthesouthshoreofOrangeLake.Manyofhischildhooddayswerespentshingandtakingpartinotheroutdooractivities.UriahattendedhighschoolatP.K.YongeinGainesville,Florida.HewasproudtobeaBlueWaveandplayedonthesoccerandgolfteams.GolfcontinuedtobeabigpartofhislifeandheworkedatthegolfcourseattheUniversityofFloridaforover4years,however,thishobbywasreplacedbyabiggerloveforsurng.AfterattendingSantaFeCommunityCollegefortwoyears,UriahearnedanAssociateofScienceinbiomedicalengineeringtechnologyandageneralAssociateofArtsdegreetotransferintotheUniversityofFlorida'sCollegeofEngineering.TheelectronicsexperiencehelpedhimgainapositionasaUniversityScholarworkingwiththeDepartmentofCivilandCoastalEngineering.NowthatUriahhascompletedhisbachelor'sdegreeandMasterofScience,heplanstocontinuetowardsPhDDegreeattheUniversityofFlorida'sCollegeofEngineeringintheDepartmentofCivilandCoastalEngineering. 80