This presentation deals with modeling of the Belgian continental Shelf area's tidal dynamics in Telemac2D model.

1. Applying Unstructured Grid Model for Tides in the Belgian Continental Shelf
02.09.2015 / Brussels
Promotor : Professor Dr. ir. M. Chen
Advisor : Dr. Olivier Gourgue
By : Biniyam Sishah
02.09.2015 / Brussels

2. Content
Introduction
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
2

3. Content
Introduction
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and RecommendationConclusion and Recommendation
Results and Discussion
 General
 Modeling of Tides
 Preliminary Work
 Study Area
 Objectives
Introduction
Method and Material
3

4. General
 Tides are the vertical rise and fall of
the water surface in oceans due to
phases of the moon and sun.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
4

5. General
 Tides are the vertical rise and fall of
the water surface in oceans due to
phases of the moon and sun.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
5
 Various interactions causes tidal
variations at a location.

6. General
 Tides are the vertical rise and fall of
the water surface in oceans due to
phases of the moon and sun.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
6
 Various interactions causes tidal
variations at a location.
 Corresponding tidal variations(level
and Currents) are expressed by a
collection sum of simple sinusoid
curves called Tidal constituents
(𝑨, 𝝋,W).
𝑨 = Amplitude
𝝋 = Phase
w= angular velocity

7. Modeling of tides
 SWE derived from the 3D Navier-stokes equations are often used in models.
 These equations has no analytical solutions.
 FEM(finite elements method) with unstructured grids were used for this work.
7

8.  Generation of the Unstructured Grid
 Setting up of Telemac2D model
 Mesh refinement has been performed
in some locations.
Preliminary work
8
Source :Flanders Hydraulic research Center

9.  Generation of the Unstructured Grid
 Setting up of Telemac2D model
 Mesh refinement has been performed
in some locations.
Preliminary work
9
Source :Flanders Hydraulic research Center

10. Study area : what do we know?
The Belgium Continental Shelf (BCS)
 Surface area: 191 Km2
 Offshore length:76.2 Km
 Gullies and sand bank formations
 High turbidity near Coastlines
 Presence of Scheldt Estuary
The bathymetry of the Belgium shelf [source:(Anon, n.d.) ]
10

11. Objective
The main objective was to reproduce the tidal movement in the Belgium continental
shelf area. In the context of this work the following specific objectives were
accomplished:
 Selection of Calm and Stormy wind periods
 Calibration of the Telemac2D model for Tide levels
11

12. Content
Introduction
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
Introduction
Conclusion and Recommendation
 Methodology
 Materials and Data
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
12

13. Methodology
Matlab
13
1. Selection of wind periods:
2 . Calibration of Model
Criteria CFG-1 CFG-2
Coordinate of Unstructured grid mesh Cartesian coordinates
Telemac2D projection system Mercator UTM 31N
Tide generating force YES Not Available
Spherical coordinates YES Not Available
Coriolis coefficients Actual value at a Node Constant value
Telemac2D
(future work)

14. Materials and Data
Materials Data
 Telemac2D
 Matlab
 Others…
European shelf tidal dataset
(OTIS regional tidal solutions) Observations stations
14

15. Content
Introduction
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
Method and Material
Introduction
Conclusion and Recommendation
Results and Discussion  Wind period selection
 Boundary condition
 Bottom Friction
 Models’ Performance In the BCS
 Model performance (Local scale )
 Temporal scale of errors
15

16. Wind period selection
 Calm period: July => used for tidal calibration
16
Satellite Measurements Observation station

17. Wind period selection
 Calm period: July => used for tidal calibration
17
Satellite Measurements Observation station

18. 18
Boundary condition
U-velocity

19. 19
Boundary condition
U-velocityV-velocity

20. 20
Boundary condition
U-velocityV-velocity
H-Sea surface level

21. Bottom friction
 Sensitivity analysis for Manning’s and chezy’s formulations
 CFG-2 had a better performance at Manning’s Coff.=0.024 and Chezy’s Coff. =56
Legend
Chezy's formulation
21
Manning's formulation

22. Bottom friction
 Sensitivity analysis for Manning’s and chezy’s formulations
 CFG-2 had a better performance at Manning’s Coff.=0.024 and Chezy’s Coff. =56
Legend
Chezy's formulation
22
Manning's formulation

23. Bottom friction
 Sensitivity analysis for Manning’s and chezy’s formulations
 CFG-2 had a better performance at Manning’s Coff.=0.024 and Chezy’s Coff. =56
Legend
Chezy's formulation
23
Manning's formulation

24. Bottom friction
 Sensitivity analysis for Manning’s and chezy’s formulations
 CFG-2 had a better performance at Manning’s Coff.=0.024 and Chezy’s Coff. =56
Legend
Chezy's formulation
24
Manning's formulation

25. Bottom friction
 Spatial plots of Relative Harmonic errors over BCS( Sea-surface level of CFG-2)
 Except a difference in their weightage areas, convey similar information.
 Highest error value were achieved near the Scheldt Estuary ?
Manning's Coefficient Chezy’s Coefficient
25

26. Models’ Performance In the BCS
U-velocity H-Sea Surface Level
26
V-velocity

27. Model performance (Local scale)
 How is Model’s performance In different locations?
 Model performs is better in deep waters than Coastal locations.
 Model Performance is better in the BCS than other similar Coastal locations.
27

28. Model performance (Local scale)
 How is Model’s performance In different locations?
 Model performs is better in deep waters than Coastal locations.
 Model Performance is better in the BCS than other similar Coastal locations.
28

29. Temporal scale of errors (Goodness of fit tests)
29
Amplitudes=>(Observ. ≈CFG-2)
Phases=> (Observ. ≈ OTIS)

30. Temporal scale of errors (Goodness of fit tests)
30
Amplitudes=>(Observ. ≈CFG-2)
Phases=> (Observ. ≈ OTIS)

31. Temporal scale of errors (Goodness of fit tests)
31
Amplitudes=>(Observ. ≈CFG-2)
Phases=> (Observ. ≈ OTIS)

32. Temporal scale of errors (Goodness of fit tests)
32
Amplitudes=>(Observ. ≈CFG-2)
Phases=> (Observ. ≈ OTIS)

33. Temporal scale of errors (Goodness of fit tests)
33
Amplitudes=>(Observ. ≈CFG-2)
Phases=> (Observ. ≈ OTIS)

34. Content
Introduction
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
Method and Material
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
Introduction
34

35. Conclusion
 Boundary conditions for Sea Surface level were properly set.
 Optimum model setup: UTM 31N (CFG-2) projection with either Manning’s
(0.024) and Chezy’s (56) coefficient.
 CFG-2 has a good performance with tide levels but not tidal currents.
 Mesh refinement in the BCS have increased model performance
 There is high probability that the calibrated Teleamac2D model here, might
perform better than OTIS in the BCS. ( with further work)
35

36. Recommendation
Present
 Boundary nodes of U and V velocity should be modified.
 Simulations considering different parameter values for BCS and Scheldt Estuary
should be made in model.
 Telemac2D model setup of CFG-1 should be investigated for bugs.
Future
 Including downstream River influences near the Scheldt Estuary.
 Using lower model domain area.
 Simulation with Telemac3D
36

37. binibobibni@gmail.com
biniyambirhan.sishah@student.kuleuven.be
Biniyam.Sishah@vub.ac.be
Contact information