TR-02-24

Summary - TR-02-240006
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

Western Governors University

Privacy Statement
Press Release
Contact

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business