1. A Multiscale Numerical Study of Hurricane Andrew (1992)
A Multiscale Numerical Study of Hurricane Andrew (1992). Part I: Explicit Simulation and Verificantion
Liu, Y., D.-L. Zhang, and M. K. Yau, 1997, Mon. Wea. Rev., 125,
　黃小玲　2004/03/08

2. Introduction
The hurricane is a violent atmospheric vortex characterized by strong multiscale interactions.
Previous studies have shown that the tropical synoptic conditions and the sea surface temperature (SST) tend to control the general development of a hurricane(Gray 1979…….) .
Its track and intensity can be affected by its internal dynamics and thermodynamics, the formation and distribution of clouds and precipitation, and the interaction between the hurricane and its larger-scale environment (Holland and Merrill 1984……….)
Observations reveal many interesting phenomena and structures of mature hurricanes.

3. Overview of Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Andrew cost a total of $ 25 billion in damages.
The storm originated from a tropical disturbance near the west coast of Africa on 1992/08/14, and deep convection began to organize into a narrow, spiral cloud band an 08/17.

9. Model integration is initialized at 08/21/1200 UTC (began to intensify) ~ 08/24/1200 UTC(about move out Florida)
Its rapid deepening stage, the mature stage, the maximum intensity stage near Bahamas, and its landfall stage over Florida.

10. Model description and initial conditions
An improved version of the PSU-NCAR nonhydrostatic, movable, triply nested grid, 3D mesoscale model (MM5).
23 σ layers, a two-way interaction, movable, triply nested grid.
The Betts-Miller parameterization for shallow convection is applied over mesh C to treat reasonably shallow convective clouds at the outer edge of the hurricane.
The SST is held constant, and use the NCEP data(2o).
The NCEP analysis is always too dry, particularly in the lower troposphere, as compared with the Omega dropwindsondes (ODWs) observation that were taken during Andrew’s development stage.

12. Model verification
C5 (>68)
parameterized deep convection over the mesh B domain
C4 (>57)
C3 (>48)
The storm translates at a speed of 6-8 ms-1, the deviation in track less than 100 km at the time of landfall.
C2 (>41)
C1 (>33)
922 hPa
919 hPa

13. CTL compared with 49 ODWs (released at 400 hPa level).
08/23/0000 UTC
CTL compared with 49 ODWs (released at 400 hPa level).

14. Miami WSR-57 radar at 08/24/0830 UTC
CTL at 08/24/0800 UTC

15. Andrew moves over land: (1) the eye begins to fill, (2) the eyewall expands in size, and (3) the radar reflectivities or the rainfall rates weaken rapidly.

16. From Powell and Houston(1996)
The strong-wind zone near the coastline to the north results from the intensified deep convection, which is in turn attributable to the rapid increase in surface friction and the enhanced low-level convergence of mass and moisture.

18. Vertical structures
08/23/2000 UTC
08/23/2000 UTC
08/24/0800 UTC

19. 08/23/2000 UTC
cloud water( g kg-1)/ice ( g kg-1)
rain water (4-6 g kg-1) /snow ( g kg-1)
graupel (2-4 g kg-1)

20. 08/23/2000 UTC

21. 08/23/2000 UTC

22. 08/23/2000 UTC at the center (eye)
08/23/2000 UTC at the eyewall

23. 08/23/2000 UTC

24. Summary and conclusions
The model captures successfully the track, propagation, and rapid deepening of the storm during the 3-day period, as verified against the best track analysis.
The model simulates well the larger-scale environment in which Andrew is embedded.
The model reproduces the visible cloud structures in terms of their size, shape, and intensity, as compared to the satellite and radar imagery.
It is found that Hurricane Andrew is characterized by a shallow layer of intense cyclonic inflows in the PBL and intense outflows above 300 hPa, with much weaker and less organized radial flows in between.
The streamlines in the central core tend to rotate cyclonically outward and converge in the eyewall with the cyclonic inflows from the far distance.