MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Multiscale Numerical Study of Hurricane Andrew (1992). Part IV: Unbalanced Flows

2001· article· en· W2180590041 on OpenAlexaff
Da‐Lin Zhang, Yubao Liu, M. K. Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEyeOutflowInflowGeologyPressure-gradient forcePressure gradientMomentum (technical analysis)Boundary layerAngular momentumMechanicsPhysicsMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyTropical cycloneClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite considerable progress in understanding the hurricane vortex using balanced models, the validity of gradient wind balance in the eyewall remains controversial in observational studies. In this paper, the structure and development of unbalanced forces and flows in hurricanes are examined, through the analyses of the radial momentum and absolute angular momentum (AAM) budgets, using a high-resolution (i.e., Δx = 6 km), fully explicit simulation of Hurricane Andrew (1992). It is found from the radial momentum budgets that supergradient flows and accelerations, even after temporal and azimuthal averaging, are well organized from the bottom of the eye center to the upper outflow layer in the eyewall. The agradient accelerations are on average twice greater than the local Coriolis force, and caused mainly by the excess of the centrifugal force over the pressure gradient force. It is shown by the AAM budgets that supergradient flows could occur not only in the inflow region as a result of the inward AAM transport, but also in the outflow region through the upward transport of AAM. The eyewall is dominated by radial outflow in which the upward transport of AAM overcompensates the spindown effect of the outflow during the deepening stage. The intense upper outflow layer is generated as a consequence of the continuous outward acceleration of airflows in the eyewall updrafts. In spite of the pronounced agradient tendencies, results presented here suggest that the azimuthally averaged tangential winds above the boundary layer satisfy the gradient wind balance within an error of 10%. The analyses of instantaneous fields show pronounced asymmetries and well-organized wavenumber-2 structures of the agradient flows and forces in the form of azimuthally propagating vortex–Rossby waves in the eyewall. These waves propagate cyclonically downstream with a speed half the tangential winds near the top of the boundary layer and vertically upward. Agradient flows/forces and AAM transport in the eye are also discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207