Introduction and Objectives

Introduction and Objectives cont'd - TR-02-240008

Introduction and Objectives cont'd - TR-02-240009

Governing Equations and 2-D Modeling

Hydrodynamic Model Description

Model Input Parameters

Boundary and Interior Forcing

Boundary and Interior Forcing cont'd

Eastcoast 2001 Grid Development

Grid Development - TR-02-240016

Grid Development cont'd

Bathymetry - TR-02-240018

Bathymetry cont'd

Description and Error Analysis of Field Data

Description and Error Analysis of Field Data cont'd - TR-02-240021

Description and Error Analysis of Field Data cont'd - TR-02-240022

Model Results - TR-02-240023

Model Results cont'd - TR-02-240024

Model Results cont'd - TR-02-240025

Model Results cont'd - TR-02-240026

Discussion and Conclusions - TR-02-240027

Discussion and Conclusions cont'd

References - TR-02-240029

References - TR-02-240030

Reference cont'd

Figure 1. Eastcoast 2001 domain boundary

Figure 2. Eastcoast 1991 finite element grid

Figure 3. Eastcoast 1991 grid size (in degrees). Approximate grid size in kilometers is obtained by multiplying legend values by 100

Figure 4. Eastcoast 1995 finite element grid

Figure 5. Eastcoast 1995 grid size (in degrees). Approximate grid size in kilometers is obtained by multiplying values by 100

Figure 6. Eastcoast 1995 bathymetry in meters relative to geoid

Figure 7. Eastcoast 2001 finite element grid

Figure 8. Eastcoast 2001 grid size in degrees. Approximate grid size in kilometers is obtained by multiplying legend values by 100

Figure 9. Eastcoast 2001 wavelength to grid size ratio

Figure 10. Eastcoast 2001 topographic length scale (parameter value α)

Figure 11. ETOPO5 bathymetric database (depths in meters relative to geoid)

Figure 12. NOS bathymetric database (depths in meters relative to geoid)

Figure 13. DNC bathymetric database (depths in meters relative to geoid)

Figure 14. Fractional differences between DNC and ETOPO5 bathymetric databases (multiply legend values by 100 obtain percentages)

Figure 15. Fractional differences between NOS and DNC bathymetric databases (multiply legend values by 100 to obtain percentages)

Figure 16. Eastcoast 2001 composite bathymetry (depths in meters relative to geoid)

Figure 17. 101 elevation measurement stations

Figure 18. K1 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 19. K1 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 20. O1 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 21. O1 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 22. Q1 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 23. Q1 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 24. M2 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 25. M2 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 26. S2 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 27. S2 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 28. N2 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 29. N2 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 30. K2 coamplitude chart (in meters)

Figure 31. K2 phase cotidal chart (in degrees relative to GMT)

Figure 32. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 1

Figure 33. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 2

Figure 34. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 3

Figure 35. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 4

Figure 36. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 5

Figure 37. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 6

Figure 38. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 7

Figure 39. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 8

Figure 40. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 9

Figure 41. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 10

Figure 42. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 11

Figure 43. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 12

Figure 44. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 13

Figure 45. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 14

Figure 46. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 15

Figure 47. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 16

Figure 48. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 17

Figure 49. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 18

Figure 50. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 19

Figure 51. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 20

Figure 52. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 21

Figure 53. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 22

Figure 54. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 23

Figure 55. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 24

Figure 56. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 25

Figure 57. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 26

Figure 58. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 27

Figure 59. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 28

Figure 60. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 29

Figure 61. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 30

Figure 62. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 31

Figure 63. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 32

Figure 64. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 33

Figure 65. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 34

Figure 66. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 35

Figure 67. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 36

Figure 68. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 37

Figure 69. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 38

Figure 70. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 39

Figure 71. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 40

Figure 72. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 41

Figure 73. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 42

Figure 74. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 43

Figure 75. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 44

Figure 76. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 45

Figure 77. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 46

Figure 78. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 47

Figure 79. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 48

Figure 80. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 49

Figure 81. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 50

Figure 82. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 51

Figure 83. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 52

Figure 84. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 53

Figure 85. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 54

Figure 86. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 55

Figure 87. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 56

Figure 88. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 57

Figure 89. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 58

Figure 90. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 59

Figure 91. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 60

Figure 92. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 61

Figure 93. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 62

Figure 94. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 63

Figure 95. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 64

Figure 96. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 65

Figure 97. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 66

Figure 98. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 67

Figure 99. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 68

Figure 100. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 69

Figure 101. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 70

Figure 102. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 71

Figure 103. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 72

Figure 104. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 73

Figure 105. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 74

Figure 106. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 75

Figure 107. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 76

Figure 108. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 77

Figure 109. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 78

Figure 110. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 79

Figure 111. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 80

Figure 112. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 81

Figure 113. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 82

Figure 114. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 83

Figure 115. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 84

Figure 116. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 85

Figure 117. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 86

Figure 118. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 87

Figure 119. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 88

Figure 120. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 89

Figure 121. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 90

Figure 122. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 91

Figure 123. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 92

Figure 124. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 93

Figure 125. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 94

Figure 126. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 95

Figure 127. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 96

Figure 128. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 97

Figure 129. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 98

Figure 130. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 99

Figure 131. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 100

Figure 132. Computed vs. measured harmonic constituents at sta 101

Figure 133. Distribution of K1 amplitude error at stations

Figure 134. Distribution of K1 phase errors at station

Figure 135. Distribution of O1 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 136. Distribution of O1 phase errors at stations

Figure 137. Distribution of Q1 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 138. Distribution of Q1 phase errors at stations

Figure 139. Distribution of M2 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 140. Distribution of M2 phase errors at stations

Figure 141. Distribution of S2 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 142. Distribution of S2 phase errors at stations

Figure 143. Distribution of N2 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 144. Distribution of N2 phase errors at stations

Figure 145. Distribution of K2 amplitude errors at stations

Figure 146. Distribution of K2 phase errors at stations

Figure 147. Harmonic constituent error comparison between databases over entire domain

Figure 148. Harmonic constituent error comparison between databases for Atlantic Coast stations

Figure 149. Harmonic constituent error comparison between databases for Gulf of Mexico stations

Figure 150. Harmonic constituent error comparison between databases for Caribbean Sea stations

Figure 151. Harmonic constituent error comparison between databases for remote stations

Tidal Potential Constants for Principal Tidal Constituents and Associated Effective Earth Elasticity Factor.

Station Location and Data Source Information1

Table 2 (Continued) - TR-02-240185

Table 2 (Continued) - TR-02-240186

Table 2 (Concluded)

Station Measurement Data Amplitude and Phase Errors

Eastcoast 2001 Domain and Regional Model to Measured Data Errors

Harmonic Constituent Error Comparison Between Databases Over Entire Domain

Harmonic Constituent Error Comparison Between Databases for Atlantic Coast Stations

Harmonic Constituent Error Comparison Between Databases for Gulf of Mexico Stations

Harmonic Constituent Error Comparison Between Databases for Caribbean Sea Stations

Harmonic Constituent Error Comparison Between Databases for Remote Stations

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE - TR-02-240195

(Concluded) - TR-02-240196

TR-02-24

Integrated Publishing, Inc. |