2017
DOI: 10.1155/2017/5251902
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidance on Setup, Calibration, and Validation of Hydrodynamic, Wave, and Sediment Models for Shelf Seas and Estuaries

Abstract: e paper is motivated by a present lack of clear model performance guidelines for shelf sea and estuarine modellers seeking to demonstrate to clients and end users that a model is t for purpose. It addresses the common problems associated with data availability, errors, and uncertainty and examines the model build process, including calibration and validation. It also looks at common assumptions, data input requirements, and statistical analyses that can be applied to assess the performance of models of estuari… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
37
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
(118 reference statements)
4
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The coefficient of correlation was relatively high and varied between 0.63 and 0.73 and between 0.62 and 0.71 for the first and second water column layer, respectively. For both layers, the RMSE and BIAS obtained for velocity modulus, and for the current components of the velocity (u and v) was always lower than 0.2 which indicates a statistically significant fit [55]. Regarding the current direction, the RMSE and BIAS determined indicate the occurrence of slight differences between observed and simulated data.…”
Section: Currents-adcp Analysismentioning
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The coefficient of correlation was relatively high and varied between 0.63 and 0.73 and between 0.62 and 0.71 for the first and second water column layer, respectively. For both layers, the RMSE and BIAS obtained for velocity modulus, and for the current components of the velocity (u and v) was always lower than 0.2 which indicates a statistically significant fit [55]. Regarding the current direction, the RMSE and BIAS determined indicate the occurrence of slight differences between observed and simulated data.…”
Section: Currents-adcp Analysismentioning
confidence: 82%
“…In the present study, observed and modelled results were compared using the correlation coefficient (r), root mean square error (RMSE), and BIAS index (mean error). The formulas that express these statistics followed the ones presented in Williams and Esteves [55] where n represents the number of model/observation data pairs, whilst M and O stand for model and observation, respectively:…”
Section: Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Additionally, the mean absolute error (ε) between observations and predictions was calculated as, for all N validation observations at each site. An error of less than 0.1 m is recommended for estuarine waters (Williams and Esteves 2017), and a combination of both visual and statistical validation is recommended for gauging model accuracy (Biondi et al 2012). Because the models presented here are not intended to be used for engineering or design input, but rather for ecological studies, a satisfaction criterion of R 2 > 0.5 and ε < 0.1 m was implemented.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model calibration or tuning is a subject with extensive literature [25,9]. The conservative approach is to estimate the parameters in an expert way [11,17].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%