Results Analyses Plan for the Inundation Testbed
v2.0
Tropical Domain (LSU, UF, UND, USF, VIMS, NHC)
Tides: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
Datum adjustment = 0.125 m
Forcing: 8 constituents (M2, N2, S2, K2, O1, K1, P1, Q1) provided by UND
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. 2D spatially varying Mannings n provided by UND
2. 3D run, 11 vertical layers, bottom friction using z0 from UND Mannings n to z0 conversion
3. 3D run, 11 vertical layers, bottom friction using z0=0.01m
4. other runs of PI choice
Analysis: amplitude, phase for 10 constituents (forcing + M4, M6)
Skill: table & summary graphs (e.g., USF progress report 2/08/11) of model vs observed using 6 metrics
provided by UND for 59 stations and for the reduced set of 49 stations with good connectivity to the
coastal waters. Post to SURA archive server.
Model – Model Comparisons
1. table and summary graphs from skill assessment
Tides: (SLOSH)
None
Hurricane Ike: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0.276 m
Forcing: gridded Ike wind / pressure fields & 8 constituent tidal BCs provided by UND – UND is in the
process of updating the tidal BC (for 8 constituents) and wind forcing. Should be done ~2/9/2011
Runs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
(COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
2D no waves, spatially varying Mannings n provided by UND
3D no waves, 11 vertical layers, bottom friction using z0 from UND Mannings n to z0 conversion
2D / 3D with waves, friction consistent with 1. or 2. to isolate the effects of waves
other runs of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at 218 stations provided by UND, currently hydrographs from 169
stations are on the SURA server in IMEDS format, still performing QA / QC on this data.
2. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, direction at 14 NDBC buoys provided by
UND, data is not yet in generic IMEDS format
3. maximum water level and inundation contour maps, identify reasonable spatial windows for
display
1
4. water level animations 1 hr time increments ?, identify reasonable spatial windows for display
5. Detiding - may want to do this, best way to handle is to make a duplicate a run without wind
forcing (using only tide forcing) and write same output as with wind forcing. Can then subtract
time series.
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation, wave properties for each run, eventual comparison
with high water marks
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at hydrograph locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
Hurricane Ike: (SLOSH)
Base NHC SLOSH – Coordinate with NHC to verify results
Forcing: Ike using best track data
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. Galveston SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
2. Sabine Pass basin (multiple runs)
3. Other runs /basins as desired
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at 218 stations provided by UND (see above),
2. maximum water level and inundation contour maps, identify reasonable spatial windows
3. water level animations 1 hr time increment ?, identify reasonable spatial windows
4. wind comparisons with OWI gridded winds @ identified stations
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation for each run, eventual comparison with high water
marks
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at hydrograph locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
Modified SLOSH
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0.276 m ??
Forcing: gridded Ike wind / pressure fields provided by UND
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. Galveston SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
2. Sabine Pass SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
3. Include waves
4. Other runs /basins of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at included stations provided by UND,
2. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, direction at included buoy stations
provided by UND,
3. maximum water level and inundation contour maps,
4. water level animations 1 hr time increment?
2
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation, wave properties for each run
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at station locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
Hurricane Rita: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
Datum + sterric adjustment = ??
Forcing: gridded Ike wind / pressure fields & 8 constituent tidal BCs provided by UND – UND is in the
process of updating the tidal BC (for 8 constituents) and wind forcing. Should be done ~2/9/2011
Runs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
(COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
2D no waves, spatially varying Mannings n provided by UND
3D no waves, 11 vertical layers, bottom friction using z0 from UND Mannings n to z0 conversion
2D / 3D with waves, friction consistent with 1. or 2. to isolate the effects of waves
other runs of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at ?? stations provided by UND, still organizing this data.
2. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, direction at ?? NDBC buoys provided by
UND, still organizing this data
3. maximum water level and inundation contour maps, identify reasonable spatial windows for
display
4. water level animations 1 hr time increments ?, identify reasonable spatial windows for display
5. Detiding - may want to do this, best way to handle is to make a duplicate a run without wind
forcing (using only tide forcing) and write same output as with wind forcing. Can then subtract
time series.
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation, wave properties for each run, eventual comparison
with high water marks
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at hydrograph locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
Hurricane Rita: (SLOSH)
Base NHC SLOSH – coordinate with NHC to verify results
Forcing: Rita using best track data
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. Galveston SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
2. Sabine Pass basin (multiple runs)
3. Other runs /basins as desired
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at 218 stations provided by UND (see above),
2. maximum water level and inundation contour maps, identify reasonable spatial windows for
display
3
3. water level animations 1 hr time increment ?, identify reasonable spatial windows for display
4. wind comparisons with OWI gridded winds @ identified stations
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation for each run, eventual comparison with high water
marks
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at hydrograph locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots, differences ?
Modified SLOSH
Datum + sterric adjustment = ??
Forcing: gridded Rita wind / pressure fields provided by UND
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. Galveston SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
2. Sabine Pass SLOSH basin (multiple runs)
3. Include waves
4. Other runs /basins of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at included stations provided by UND,
2. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, direction at included buoy stations
provided by UND,
3. maximum water level and inundation contour maps,
4. water level animations 1 hr time increment?
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation, wave properties for each run
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at station locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
4
Extratropical Domain (BIO, UF, UMassD, UND, VIMS, MDL)
Tides: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
Datum adjustment = 0 m (NAVD88 approx = MSL using reference in Boston and Plymouth, baroclinic /
sterric effects in open BC forcing)
Forcing: July – August 2010 elevation time series provided by UMassD (predicted by the Gulf of Maine
FVCOM tidal model with inclusion of five major tidal constituents-M2, N2, S2, K1 and O1).
Runs:
1. 2D Mannings n = 0.025
2. 3D run, 11 vertical layers, quadratic bottom friction using:
Cd  max(
2
z
ln( ab ) 2
zo
,0.0025)
Where zab = height of the lowest grid cell above the bottom and zo is a function of depth:



3.0E  3

zo  3.0E - 3exp(-(H - 40)/8.8204)
1.0E - 4exp(-(H - 70.0))/13.028)

1.0E - 5
H  40m
40 m < H  70 m
70 m < H  100 m
H > 100 m
Note, inside Scituate, H < 40 m, and therefore zo should =0.003 m.
3. other runs of PI choice

Analysis: model elevation time series at Scituate NOAA gauge – location/data provided by UMassD
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation
Model – Model Comparisons
1. from skill assessment
Tides: (SLOSH)
None
2005 Storm– PRIORITY 1: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0 m (NAVD88 approx = MSL using reference in Boston and Plymouth,
baroclinic / sterric effects in open BC forcing)
Forcing: gridded wind / pressure fields, elevation and wave BCs provided by UMassD, will be uploading
new Scituate grid (v3) with adjustments from UND and additional resolution near bridge and associated
BCs this week.
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. 2D no waves, Mannings n = 0.025
2. 3D no waves, 11 vertical layers, quadratic bottom friction (as above)
5
3. 2D / 3D with waves, friction consistent with 1. or 2. to identify effects of waves
4. other runs of PI choice
Analyses: - SEE APENDIX ON EXTRATROPICAL MODEL ANALYSES
1. model elevation / velocity time series at comparison stations provided by UMassD,
2. model waves – significant wave height, peak period time series at 20 buoys provided by UMassD
including high water mark location
3. maximum water level and inundation contour maps, identify reasonable spatial windows for
display
4. water level animations 1 hr time increment, identify reasonable spatial windows for display
5. Detiding? - may want to do this, best way to handle is to make a duplicate a run without wind
forcing (using only tide forcing) and write same output as with wind forcing. Can then subtract
time series. Note this would require BC with only tidal forcing from GOM3 model. Other
approach is to filter / perform harmonic analysis on model results.
Skill: IMEDS – N/A in Scituate Harbor
Model – Model Comparisons – see appended Plan for Scituate Model-Model and Model-Data
Comparisons
2005 Storm – PRIORITY 1: (WWIII, SWAN, unSWAN)
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0
Forcing: gridded wind / pressure fields, elevation and wave BCs provided by UMassD
Runs:
1.
2.
3.
(COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
WWIII – 2 areal coverages: NW Atlantic, GOM3 area
SWAN - Scituate area using BCs from 1.
ADCIRC + unSWAN – GOM3 + Scituate domain, need tidal BCs for GOM3 open BCs for 2005 time
period
4. other runs of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, direction, spectra at 20 buoy stations
provided by UMassD, and at stations inside Scituate Harbor
2. others?
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for wave properties for each run
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at buoy / station locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots?
2005 Storm– PRIORITY 1: (SLOSH)
Base MDL SLOSH
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0
Forcing: Operational NAM
Runs:
1. Extract elevation time series from forecast data archive. Closest archived station is Boston.
6
2. Looking into re-running using better meteorological forcing
Analyses:
1. Model elevation time series at stored locations
2. Additional analyses if it is possible to re-run the storm
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation – is there obs data at archive locations?
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Could do time series comparisons at archive stations with UMassD GOM3 results. – IMEDS
statistics?
Modified SLOSH
Datum + sterric adjustment = 0
Forcing: gridded wind / pressure fields, elevation and wave BCs provided by UMassD
Runs: (COMPLETE METADATA TEMPLATE ON ALL RUNS!)
1. Boston Harbor basin (PV2?) (multiple runs)
2. Include waves
3. Other runs of PI choice
Analyses:
1. model elevation time series at stations provided by UMassD,
2. maximum water level and inundation contour maps,
3. water level animations 1 hr time increment
4. model waves – significant wave height, peak period, at stations provided by UMassD,
5. others?
Skill: IMEDS – time series comparisons for elevation, wave properties for each run – IMEDS statistics
Model – Model Comparisons
1. Time series plots at selected locations – IMEDS statistics?
2. Geo-spatial contour plots
2007 Storm– PRIORITY 2: (ADCIRC, FVCOM, SELFE)
see above
2007 Storm – PRIORITY 2: (WWIII, unSWAN, SWAVE)
see above
2007 Storm– PRIORITY 2: (SLOSH)
Base MDL SLOSH – see above
Modified SLOSH – see above
7
Plan for Scituate Model-Model and Model-Data Comparisons
2/15/11
I. Model-Model Comparisons
Scalar Point Time Series
Inside Harbor – variables (TWL, Hwave )
Objectives: compare elevation (TWL) and significant wave height (Hwave) time series at
representative locations around coast in harbor during storm period (pre-, during, post-storm).
The TWL comparisons should be made first using model simulation output, then if possible with
the model data detided.
Initial sites are listed in Table 1, and shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1 Inside Harbor sites for scalar variable data comparisons. Node number, longitude,
latitude, and reference name given for each site.
STATIONS
NODE #
LONGITUDE LATITUDE
LOCATION
A
3314
-70.7237778
42.2058067 Jericho Road and Foam Road
B
5193
-70.7236404
42.2020590 Town Boat Ramp
C
5356
-70.7249832
42.1979561 Harbor Master/Town Pier
D
4216
-70.7214050
42.1923218 Bridge on E. Foster causeway
E
2543
-70.7172089
42.1955299 Low spot on E. Foster Road
F
5140
-70.7198868
42.1993752 Tide Gauge on NOAA pier
G
3484
-70.7163010
42.2028236 Channel center on entrance
section
H
2792
-70.7182312
42.2070961 Center of Cedar Point
depression
I
1898
-70.7178879
42.2078705 44 Rebecca Road
Outside Harbor – variables (TWL, depth-averaged current components (U,V), Hwave ,. )
Objectives: compare elevation (TWL), depth-averaged current components (U,V), and
significant wave (Hwave ) time series at representative locations along the outer coast to
investigate the along-shelf variability. The U,V components could be compared as vector time
series or as speed and direction time series.
None identified at this initial stage.
8
1D Section Time Series
Inside Harbor – variables (TWL, volume flux (F), wave energy flux (Fwave)
Objectives: to compare time series of the average along-section TWL, total through-section
volume flux and total through-section wave energy flux. Expectation: wave energy flux will vary
significantly, with large flux through harbor entrance, weak flux toward Cedar Point, and weaker
flux at the E. Foster Road bridge. Note that comparisons of the fluxes though the sections will
provide a good test of conversation of mass for each model code, since F should equal the spatial
integral of TWL about model mean sea level (which is 0) for the relevant area associated with
the section.
The locations of the initial sections are described next and in Fig. 2 with start and end
information listed in Table 2.
A. Cedar Point section – designed to capture the TWL and volume and wave energy fluxes from
the inner harbor onto the southern side on Cedar Point (along the seawall south of Lighthouse
Road).
B. Harbor entrance section – between southern to northern side, with ends placed at points that
stay dry throughout the storm period
C. E. Foster Road causeway – with ends at always dry points. This would capture if flooding
occurred over the top of the causeway. This volume flow added to the flux that occurs under the
bridge is the total flux into the tidal land south of the causeway. (Probably no need to compute
Fwave, since wave height Hwave at the entrance to the bridge will be obtained as part of the inner
harbor comparison points.
Table 2 Start and end position information for sections.
SECTION FROM
NODE # LONGITUDE LATITUDE
A
2835
-70.7205048
42.2074432
B
3646
-70.7163162
42.2017404
C
3401
-70.7259140
42.1923523
Outside Harbor –
None identified yet.
9
TO
NODE #
3728
2149
3576
LONGITUDE
-70.7176056
-70.7152786
-70.7204742
LATITUDE
42.2053452
42.2042465
42.1923676
2-D Spatial Time Series
Inside and Outside Harbor Time Series
1. Contour (x,y,t) maps of TWL
2. Animation of contour maps of TWL
3. Map of maximum TWL (high water mark) and minimum TWL (low water mark) with time
of occurrence denoted.
Model-Data Comparison
The only comparison that can be made is with the high water mark recorded at 44 Rebecca Road
on Cedar Point.
Fig. 1 Approximate locations of scalar data sites and sections.
10
Fig. 2 Locations of scalar data sites.
11