|one publication added to basket |
|Slibbalans Zeeschelde: sub report 8. Hydrodynamic model 1954|
Dujardin, A.; Meire, D.; Chu, K.; Vanlede, J.; Plancke, Y.; Mostaert, F. (2017). Slibbalans Zeeschelde: sub report 8. Hydrodynamic model 1954. Versie 4.0. FHR reports, 00_029_8. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp . XI, 73 + 86 p. appendices pp.
Hydraulics and sediment > Hydrodynamics > Current velocities and patterns
Hydraulics and sediment > Hydrodynamics > Tides
Physics > Mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Hydrodynamics
ANE, Schelde-estuarium [Marine Regions]
Marien/Kust; Brak water; Zoet water
: Vlaamse overheid; Beleidsdomein Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken; Vlaams Ministerie van Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken; Departement Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken; Afdeling Maritieme Toegang, meer
|Auteurs|| || Top |
- Dujardin, A., meer
- Meire, D., meer
- Chu, K.
Project "00_029_Slibbalans Zeeschelde" aims to study the mud balance in the Scheldt Estuary in a historical perspective. One of the tasks identified in the projectplan is to hindcast a historical situation, first in a hydrodynamical model, then as mud transport model.
The present document describes the model setups of NEVLA 2009, SCALDIS 2013 and their 1954 counterparts. The predictive ability of both models is evaluated against measurements. Due to less detailed topographic, hydrological and hydrodynamic information of 1954, a sensitivity analysis is performed on the 1954 models to evaluate the reaction of the model to changes in bathymetry, bottom roughness and viscosity.
The results of the NEVLA 1954 appear to be sensitive to the bathymetry in the Upper Sea Scheldt and the applied roughness field throughout the whole model. Satisfying results could be obtained by deepening the Upper Sea Scheldt and lowering the Manning coefficient for specific areas throughout the model domain. However, by doing this, one could over-calibrate the model for this specific period. Different validation periods would be advisable.
Since different studies (both data analysis and/or numerical models with different modelling suites) obtain unexpected results in the Upper Sea Scheldt, all pointing to a too shallow bathymetry in this area, doubts arise over the reliability of this bathymetrical data. However, no systematic error in the original source data could be found.