NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 28

THREE-DIMENSIONAL HYDRODYNAMIC MODELDEVELOPMENTS FOR A DELAWARE RIVER AND BAYNOWCAST/FORECAST SYSTEM

Silver Spring, Maryland
January 2011noaa

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocean Service
Coast Survey Development Laboratory

Office of Coast Survey
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Office of Coast Survey (OCS) is the Nation’s only official chartmaker. As the oldest
United States scientific organization, dating from 1807, this office has a long history.
Today it promotes safe navigation by managing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) nautical chart and oceanographic data collection andinformation programs.
There are four components of OCS:
The Coast Survey Development Laboratory develops new and efficient techniques
to accomplish Coast Survey missions and to produce new and improved products
and services for the maritime community and other coastal users.
The Marine Chart Division acquires marine navigational data to construct andmaintain nautical charts, Coast Pilots, and related marine products for the UnitedStates.
The Hydrographic Surveys Division directs programs for ship and shore-basedhydrographic survey units and conducts general hydrographic survey operations.
The Navigational Services Division is the focal point for Coast Survey customer
service activities, concentrating predominately on charting issues, fast-response
hydrographic surveys, and Coast Pilot updates.

NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 28

THREE-DIMENSIONAL HYDRODYNAMIC MODELDEVELOPMENTS FOR A DELAWARE RIVER AND BAYNOWCAST/FORECAST SYSTEM
Richard A. Schmalz, Jr.
Office of Coast Survey, Coast Survey Development Laboratory,
Silver Spring, MD

January 2011noaa

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U. S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Gary Locke,
Secretary
Office of Coast Survey
Captain John Lowell, NOAA

National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary

National Ocean Service
David Kennedy
Acting Assistant
Administrator

Coast Survey Development Laboratory
Mary Erickson

NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an
endorsement by NOAA. Use for publicity or advertising purposes of
information from this publication concerning proprietary products or thetests of such products is not authorized.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................xv
Base Map 1: Upper Delaware River Principal City Locations ................................................... xvi
Base Map 2: Lower Delaware River and Bay Principal City Locations ................................... xvii
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
2. MODEL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT ...................................................5
2.1. Data Restoration and Analysis Efforts ...........................................................................5
2.2. Grid Development ..........................................................................................................82.3. Model Input Requirements ...........................................................................................132.4. Model Evaluation Results ............................................................................................13
3. POM MEDIUM RESOLUTION GRID HINDCASTS ............................................................193.1. Hindcast Setup Procedures ...........................................................................................19
3.2. Baseline Simulation ......................................................................................................19
3.3. Revised Geometry High Flow Simulation ...................................................................26
3.4. Revised Geometry Low Flow Simulation ....................................................................30
3.5. Summary and Additional Considerations.....................................................................33
4. ROMS MEDIUM RESOLUTION GRID HINDCASTS .........................................................35
4.1. Model Revisions ...........................................................................................................35
4.2. High Flow Simulation ..................................................................................................36
4.3. Low Flow Simulation ...................................................................................................40
4.4. Summary and Additional Considerations.....................................................................43
5. ROMS HIGH RESOLUTION GRID HINDCASTS ................................................................45
5.1. Medium and High Resolution Grids ............................................................................45
5.2. Simulation Setup, Initial, Boundary, and Forcing Conditions .....................................47
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
5.3. High Flow Simulation ................................................................................................. 49
5.4. Low Flow Simulation .................................................................................................. 52
5.5. Extended Hindcast March – September 1984 ............................................................. 57
5.6. Tidal Analysis and Simulations ................................................................................... 58
5.7. Summary and Additional Considerations.................................................................... 58
6. ROMS HIGH RESOLUTION GRID EXTENDED HINDCASTS ......................................... 63
6.1. 29-day Harmonic Analysis Considerations ................................................................. 63
6.2. April 1984 Tidal Simulation Validation...................................................................... 66
6.3. March 1984 – March 1985 Tidal Simulation Validation ............................................ 83
6.4. March 1984 – March 1985 Hindcast Simulation Validation ...................................... 85
6.5. Summary and Additional Considerations...................................................................166
7. SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST/FORECAST SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION ...............167
7.1. River Template ...........................................................................................................167
7.2. Open Boundary Condition Template .........................................................................169
7.3. Vertical Datum Considerations ..................................................................................170
7.4. Operational Summary.................................................................................................172
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................173
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................174
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................175iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Delaware River and Bay PORTS ................................................................................2
Figure 1.2. Text-based Delaware River and Bay PORTS screen capture,
March 3, 2010 9:34 EST .............................................................................................3
Figure 2.1. Upper Delaware River NOS Water Level Station Locations ......................................6
Figure 2.2. Lower Delaware River and Bay NOS Water Level Station Locations .......................7
Figure 2.3. Upper Delaware River NOS Current, CT, and CTD Station Locations ....................10
Figure 2.4. Lower Delaware River and Bay NOS Current, CT, and CTD Station Locations .....11
Figure 2.5. Grid Section 5 with the 90 degree channel bend and the Grid Section 6
lower portion .............................................................................................................12
Figure 2.6. Upper Delaware River ROMS grid ...........................................................................14
Figure 2.7. Lower River and Bay ROMS grid .............................................................................15
Figure 3.1. Upper River POM and ROMS grid ...........................................................................20
Figure 3.2. Lower River and Bay POM and ROMS grid ............................................................21
Figure 3.3. Baseline High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 5 April, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ....................................................................24
Figure 3.4. Baseline High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 5 April, 1984)
Salinity at Station 33 .................................................................................................25
Figure 3.5. Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ....................................................................28
Figure 3.6. Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April, 1984)
Salinity at Station 33 .................................................................................................29
Figure 3.7. Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ....................................................................31
Figure 4.1. High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ....................................................................37
Figure 4.2. Simulated versus Observed (10 minute) Salinity
at Station 33 Level 4 at 11m above the bottom .........................................................39
Figure 4.3. Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ....................................................................41
Figure 5.1. Map depicting Delaware River and Bay DELFT-3D
High Resolution Grid in the C&D Canal Region ......................................................46v

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure 5.2. Map depicting bathymetry with respect to Model Datumin the C&D Canal Region ........................................................................................46
Figure 5.3. High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April 1984)
Water Surface Elevation (m-MLLW) at Trenton, NJ .............................................50
Figure 5.4. Simulated versus Observed (10 minute) Salinity
at Station 33 at 11 m above the bottom ..................................................................53
Figure 5.5. Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ ..................................................................54
Figure 5.6. Tidal Water Level (m-demeaned) at Trenton, NJ
for Julian Days 90-100, 1984 ...................................................................................61
Figure 6.1. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Lewes, DE ..............................73
Figure 6.2. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Philadelphia, PA ....................74
Figure 6.3. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Trenton, NJ ............................75
Figure 6.4. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 17 ......................76
Figure 6.5. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 2 ........................77
Figure 6.6. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 19 ......................78
Figure 6.7. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 23 ......................79
Figure 6.8. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 33 ......................80
Figure 6.9. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 154 ....................81
Figure 6.10. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 51 ......................82
Figure 6.11. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................105
Figure 6.12. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................106
Figure 6.13. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................107
Figure 6.14. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................108
Figure 6.15. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................109vi

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure 6.16. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................110
Figure 6.17. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................111
Figure 6.18. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................112
Figure 6.19. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................113
Figure 6.20. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................114
Figure 6.21. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................115
Figure 6.22. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................116
Figure 6.23. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................117
Figure 6.24. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................118
Figure 6.25. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................119
Figure 6.26. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................120
Figure 6.27. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................121
Figure 6.28. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................122
Figure 6.29. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................123
Figure 6.30. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................124
Figure 6.31. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................125vii

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure 6.32. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985
at Lewes, DE ...........................................................................................................126
Figure 6.33. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................127
Figure 6.34. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................128
Figure 6.35. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................129
Figure 6.36. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................130
Figure 6.37. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................131
Figure 6.38. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985
at Lewes, DE ..........................................................................................................132
Figure 6.39. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985
at Philadelphia, PA ................................................................................................133
Figure 6.40. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985
at Trenton, NJ ........................................................................................................134
Figure 6.41. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23 ...................................135
Figure 6.42. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33 ...................................136
Figure 6.43. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 51 ...................................137
Figure 6.44. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................138
Figure 6.45. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................139
Figure 6.46. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 51 ...............................140
Figure 6.47. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................141
Figure 6.48. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................142
Figure 6.49. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 51 ...............................143
Figure 6.50. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................144
Figure 6.51. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................145
viii

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure 6.52. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 51 ...............................146
Figure 6.53. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23 ...................................147
Figure 6.54. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 51 ...................................148
Figure 6.55. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23 ...................................149
Figure 6.56. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33 ...................................150
Figure 6.57. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................151
Figure 6.58. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................152
Figure 6.59. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................153
Figure 6.60. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................154
Figure 6.61. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 23 ...............................155
Figure 6.62. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33 ...............................156
Figure 6.63. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23 ...................................157
Figure 6.64. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23 ...........................158
Figure 6.65. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33 ...........................159
Figure 6.66. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23 .......................160
Figure 6.67. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33 .......................161
Figure 6.68. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 23 .......................162
Figure 6.69. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 33 .......................163
Figure 6.70. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33 .......................164
Figure 6.71. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23 ...........................165
Figure 7.1. DBOFS MLLW to MSL Datum Conversion .........................................................171ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Tidal Elevation Station Harmonic Analysis Inventory ...............................................5
Table 2.2. Tidal Current 29-day Harmonic Analysis Inventory ...................................................9
Table 2.3. MEE Water Level Skill Assessment Results ............................................................16
Table 2.4. MEE Current Skill Assessment Results ....................................................................17
Table 2.5. MEE Salinity Skill Assessment Results ....................................................................17
Table 2.6. MEE Water Temperature Skill Assessment Results .................................................17
Table 3.1. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984 ..........................................................................................22
Table 3.2. Current Speed (cm/s) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984 ..........................................................................................23
Table 3.3. Current Direction (oT) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984 ..........................................................................................23
Table 3.4. Salinity (PSU) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984 ..........................................................................................23
Table 3.5. Temperature (oC) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984 ..........................................................................................23
Table 3.6. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984 ........................................................................................26
Table 3.7. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984 ........................................................................................26
Table 3.8. Current Direction (oT) Revised High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984 ........................................................................................27
Table 3.9. Salinity (PSU) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984 ........................................................................................27
Table 3.10. Temperature (oC ) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984 ........................................................................................27x

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table 3.11. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984 ..............................................................................................30
Table 3.12. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984 ..............................................................................................32
Table 3.13. Current Direction (oT) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984 ..............................................................................................32
Table 3.14. Salinity (PSU) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984 ..............................................................................................33
Table 3.15. Temperature (oC) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984 ..............................................................................................33
Table 4.1. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results .....................................36
Table 4.2. Current Speed (cm/s) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results .....................................36
Table 4.3. Current Direction (oT) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results .....................................38
Table 4.4. Salinity (PSU) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results .....................................38
Table 4.5. Temperature (oC) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results .....................................38
Table 4.6. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results ............................................40
Table 4.7. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results ............................................42
Table 4.8. Current Direction (oT) Revised Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results ............................................42
Table 4.9. Salinity (PSU) Revised Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results ............................................43xi

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table 4.10. Temperature (oC) Revised Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results ............................................43
Table 5.1. Simulation Description, Boundary and Forcing Conditions .....................................47
Table 5.2. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results ...............49
Table 5.3. Current Speed (cm/s) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results ...............51
Table 5.4. Current Direction (oT) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results ...............51
Table 5.5. Salinity (PSU) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results ...............51
Table 5.6. Temperature (oC) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results ...............52
Table 5.7. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results ......................55
Table 5.8. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results ......................55
Table 5.9. Current Direction (oT) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results ......................56
Table 5.10. Salinity (PSU) Revised Low Flow Hindcast September 10-24, 1984:
ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results .............................................................56
Table 5.11. Temperature (oC) Revised Low Flow Hindcast September 10-24, 1984:
ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results .............................................................57
Table 5.12. Seven Month ROMS HRG Hindcast March-September 1984
Water Level RMSE (cm) Summary ..........................................................................57
Table 5.13. Water Surface Elevation-MSL (m) Tidal Extraction from Hindcast
and Tidal Simulations 1-3: April 1984 ......................................................................59

xii

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table 5.14. Current Speed (cm/s) Tidal Extraction from Hindcast
and Tidal Simulations 1-3: April 1984 ......................................................................60
Table 6.1. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Ocean City Pier, MD ...................64
Table 6.2. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Chesapeake City, MD ..................64
Table 6.3. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Cape May, NJ ..............................65
Table 6.4. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Lewes, DE ....................................65
Table 6.5. Open Boundary Condition Error Summary ...............................................................66
Table 6.6. Tidal Validation Simulation Summary ......................................................................67
Table 6.7. Water Level Open Boundary Major Harmonic Constituent Sets ..............................67
Table 6.8. Bottom Friction Coefficient Sets ...............................................................................68
Table 6.9. Bathymetric Sets ........................................................................................................69
Table 6.10. M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors .....................................69
Table 6.11. DBOFS Version 1.0 April 1984 Tide Simulation Water Level and
PCD Current Results .................................................................................................71
Table 6.12. DBOFS Version 1.1 April 1984 Tide Simulation
Water Level and PCD Current Results ......................................................................72
Table 6.13. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation
Water Level Results ..................................................................................................83
Table 6.14. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation
PCD Current Results .................................................................................................84
Table 6.15. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Atmospheric Pressure: RMSE (mb)/RE(%) ...............................................................87
Table 6.16. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Wind Speed: RMSE (m/s)/RE(%) ..............................................................................87
Table 6.17. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Wind Direction: RMSE (oT)/RE(%) ..........................................................................87xiii

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table 6.18. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Water Surface Elevations: RMSE (cm)/RE(%) .........................................................88
Table 6.19. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Mean Water Surface Elevations: Model/Observed ...................................................88
Table 6.20. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Current Speed: RMSE (cm/s)/RE(%).........................................................................89
Table 6.21. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Mean Current Speed (cm/s): Model/Observed ..........................................................91
Table 6.22. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Current Direction: RMSE (oT)/RE(%) ......................................................................92
Table 6.23. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Mean Current Direction (oT): Model/Observed .......................................................94
Table 6.24. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Salinity: RMSE (PSU)/RE(%) ...................................................................................97
Table 6.25. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Mean Salinity (PSU): Model/Observed ....................................................................98
Table 6.26. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Temperature: RMSE (oC)/RE(%) ............................................................................101
Table 6.27. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast
Mean Temperature (oC): Model/Observed .............................................................103
Table 7.1. Template of River Control File for DBOFS ............................................................167
Table 7.2. Template of Open Boundary Condition Control File for DBOFS ..........................168
Table 7.3. Seven Month March-September 1984 Water Level RMSE (cm) Summary ...........172

xiv

ABSTRACTThe National Ocean Service (NOS) installed a Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS)
during 2003 to provide water surface elevation, currents at prediction depth (4.7m below MLLW) as
well as near-surface and near-bottom temperature and salinity, and meteorological information. To
complement the PORTS, a new next generation nowcast/forecast system has been developed. This
next generation nowcast/forecast system domain extends from the head of tide at Trenton, NJ out tothe continental shelf break and is run on the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
supercomputers based on a recently developed High Performance Computing Coastal Ocean
Modeling Framework (HPC-COMF; Zhang et al., 2010) to allow four times daily six-hour nowcasts
and 48 hour forecasts. In conjunction with this effort, a Model Evaluation Environment (MEE) as
described by Patchen (2008) was constructed for the Delaware River and Bay based on the NOS
1984-1985 Circulation Data Survey (Klavans et al., 1986). As a first step the MEE results are used
to guide the development of the Delaware River and Bay Nowcast/Forecast System. First, we
describe and present the results from the MEE. Based on the MEE results, the Princeton Ocean
Model (POM) and the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) were selected for further
application in the Delaware River and Bay and both used the same medium resolution grid. Next,
POM and ROMS common medium resolution grid revised simulation results are presented,
respectively, in an effort to improve upon the MEE results. To further improve results in the river
sections, a new higher resolution grid using the DELFT3D-RFGRID software was constructed. To
take advantage of the parallel computing opportunities at National Centers for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP), ROMS was selected as the hydrodynamic model in Delaware Bay Operational
Forecast System (DBOFS). ROMS high resolution grid results are presented for the two 15-day
simulations as well as for an extended seven month hindcast and contrasted with the medium
resolution results. The ROMS high resolution grid was used to investigate the sensitivity of the tidal
response to bottom roughness coefficients and offshore tidal constituents in eighteen tidal
simulations during April 1984. Upon further improvement of the model tidal dynamics as a result of
the sensitivity analysis, a 13-month tidal simulation as well as a 13-month hindcast were performed
and are discussed. Next, the construction of the semi-operational nowcast/forecast system at NCEP
is presented. Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations for formal skill assessment andtransition to operations are advanced.

xv

Base Map 1. Upper Delaware River Principal City Locations.

xviBase Map 2. Lower Delaware River and Bay Principal City Locations.

xvii

xviii1. INTRODUCTION
The National Ocean Service (NOS), Center for Operational Products and Services (CO-OPS),
installed a Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS) during 2003 to provide water
surface elevation, currents at PORTS prediction depth (4.7m below MLLW) as well as near-surface
and near-bottom temperature and salinity, and meteorological information at the locations shown in
Figure 1.1 and the PORTS screen capture in Figure 1.2. To complement the PORTS, a new next
generation nowcast/forecast system has been developed. This next generation nowcast/forecast
system domain extends from the head of tide at Trenton, NJ out to the continental shelf break and is
run on the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) supercomputers based on a
recently developed High Performance Computing Coastal Ocean Modeling Framework (HPCCOMF; Zhang et al., 2010) to allow four times daily six-hour nowcasts and 48 hour forecasts. The
approach used in the previous generation forecast systems, based on the original Coastal Ocean
Modeling Framework (COMF; Gross et al., 2006) as discussed by Aikman et al. (2008), was tocontain as little of the shelf as possible to still allow an appropriate response at the estuarine entrance
to afford computation of hourly nowcasts and 30 hour forecasts (four times per day) on CO-OPS
workstations.
While the majority of the previous generation forecast systems used the Princeton Ocean Model(POM), in conjunction with this effort, a Model Evaluation Environment (MEE) as described by
Patchen (2008) was constructed for the Delaware River and Bay based on the NOS 1984-1985
Circulation Data Survey (Klavans et al., 1986) to compare both structured and unstructured gridmodels. The purpose of the MEE was to provide for a consistent comparison of hydrodynamic
models using the same geometrical, forcing, and validation data, which would assist the model
selection for the next generation Delaware River and Bay Operational Forecast System (DBOFS).
The MEE also provides additional validation data particularly for currents and density that is notavailable within the PORTS. Therefore as a first step, the MEE results were used to further guide the
DBOFS development.
In Chapter 2, we describe and present the results from the MEE. Based on the MEE results, thePrinceton Ocean Model (POM) and the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) were selected
for further application in Delaware River and Bay and both used the same medium resolution grid.
In Chapters 3 and 4, POM and ROMS medium resolution grid simulation results are presented,
respectively, in an effort to improve upon the MEE results. To further improve results in the river
sections, a new higher resolution grid using the DELFT3D-RFGRID software was constructed. To
take advantage of the parallel computing opportunities at NCEP, ROMS was finally selected as thehydrodynamic model in DBOFS. In Chapter 5, ROMS high resolution grid results are presented forthe two 15-day simulations as well as for an extended seven month hindcast and contrasted with themedium resolution results in Chapter 4. In Chapter 6, the ROMS high resolution grid was used toinvestigate the sensitivity of the tidal response to bottom roughness coefficients and offshore tidal
constituents in eighteen tidal simulations during April 1984. Upon further improvement of the modeltidal dynamics as a result of the sensitivity analysis, a 13-month tidal simulation as well as a 13month hindcast were performed and are discussed. In Chapter 7, the construction of the semioperational nowcast/forecast system at NCEP is presented. In Chapter 8, conclusions are drawn andrecommendations for formal skill assessment and transition to operations are advanced.
1

Figure 1.1. Delaware River and Bay PORTS. Note cu=current meter, wl=water level,
wind=wind, at=air temperature, wt=water temperature, baro=barometricpressure, and ag=air gap.

2

Figure 1.2. Text-based Delaware River and Bay PORTS screen capture,
March 3, 2010 9:34 EST.

3

4

2. MODEL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENTThe purpose of the Model Evaluation Environment (MEE) is to provide for a consistent comparisonof hydrodynamic models using the same geometrical, forcing, and validation data (Patchen, 2008).
In the context of the DBOFS, the MEE provides additional validation data particularly for currents
and density that is not available within the PORTS and therefore further supports its development.
Here, we first describe and present the results from the MEE. For additional information refer toFeyen and Yang (2008), Myers (2008), Zhang and Wei (2008), and Lanerolle (2008).
2.1. Data Restoration and Analysis Efforts
The initial effort was to organize, recover, and process the historical water level, CT and current, andCTD data that were collected during the NOS circulation survey of 1984-1985 (Klavens et al.,1986). For further details on this effort refer to Loeper (2006) and Richardson and Schmalz (2006).
Harmonic analysis results for water levels at the stations shown in Table 2.1 were obtained from
CO-OPS. Station locations are shown in Figure 2.1 for the upper Delaware River and in Figure 2.2
for the lower Delaware River and Bay, respectively.
Table 2.1. Tidal Elevation Harmonic Analysis Inventory
Station No.
85399938540433
8534883
85361108537121853888685347208539094854524085489898545530
8551762855191085558898557380
85586908570283
85702808573927

Lat

Lon

Description

40.18839.81239.29538.96839.30540.01239.35540.08039.93340.13739.95339.58239.55838.98738.78238.61038.32838.32739.527-74.755-75.041-74.748-74.960-75.375-75.043-74.418-74.873-75.142-74.752-75.138-75.588-75.573-75.113-75.120-75.070-75.092-75.083-75.810

Trenton, NJ
Marcus Hook, PA
Tuckahoe River, NJ
Cape May Canal, NJ
Ship John Shoal, NJ
Tacony Bridge, NJ
Atlantic City, NJ
Burlington, NJ
Phila USCG, PA
Newbold, PA
Phila Pier 11, PA
Delaware City, DE
Reedy Pt, DE
Brandywine Shoal, DE
Lewes, DE
Indian River, DE
Ocean City Inlet, MD
Ocean City Pier, MD
Chesapeake City, MD

5

Figure 2.1. Upper Delaware River NOS Water Level Stations Locations.

6Figure 2.2. Lower Delaware River and Bay NOS Water Level Station Locations.

7In addition to the CTD work, the following two programs and script were developed and tested: 1)
del_ctd.filt.f (filtering program to remove S and T spikes and limit current directions), 2) harm29.f(program to develop control and data files for the NOS 29 day harmonic analysis program), and 3)
harm29.sh (29 day harmonic analysis script, which performs the 29 harmonic analysis of all current
stations with at least 29 days of data). All 29 day harmonic analyses of the current data at thelocations shown in Table 2.2 and shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 were performed using the techniques
described in Richardson and Schmalz (2006).
2.2 Grid Development
Here we focus on the development of the structured grids for POM and ROMS. To plan the griddevelopment process, the following nautical charts were reviewed:
12274 Head of Chesapeake Bay
12277 Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
12304 Delaware Bay
12311 Delaware River: Smyrna River to Wilmington
12312 Delaware River: Wilmington to Philadelphia
12313 Delaware River: Philadelphia and Camden Water Fronts
12314 Delaware River: Philadelphia to Trenton
Of interest was to note the location of significant freshwater inflows and the configuration of theriver above Philadelphia. Attention was also paid to the Schuylkill River inflow and the Chesapeakeand Delaware (C&D) canal. After a review of the charts, 10 separate grid sections were identified aslisted in Table 2.3. MATLAB was used with the SEAGRID grid generation (USGS Woods Hole
Science Center, 2007) package to develop grids separately for each of the 10 sections. Two sections
proved to be particularly difficult to generate grids for, due to 90 degree channel bends. A separate
program was developed to link the grids by just using the downstream most grid coordinates at thejunction of each of the two grids. The resulting grid was not orthogonal and proved not to besatisfactory due to the severity of the non-orthogonality.
Next the grid generation software employed in the generation of the Houston Ship Channel grid wasreviewed (Schmalz, 2000a). Under this approach the downstream most grid is developed and thenthe coordinates at the top of the grid are specified as the bottom coordinates of the next upstream
grid. This method proved to be successful in linking all 10 grids, but several grid spacings were verysmall, particularly along the lateral boundaries for the grid sections containing the 90 degree channel
bend. As a result, the first 5 downstream grids were linked using the above approach and then a 6th
grid was constructed to replace the next 5 upstream grid sections. The resulting grid is shown in thevicinity of the Philadelphia waterfront in Figure 2.5. Lanerolle (2008) has developed a grid fillprocedure to create dummy grid cells within a complete rectangular shape to allow the present
versions of POM and ROMS to run over these grid sections. This procedure was used to fill in thehigh resolution ROMS grid discussed in Chapter 5.

8

Table 2.2. Tidal Current 29-day Harmonic Analysis Inventory
Station
1
2
3
4
5
11
12
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
23X
24
25
30
32
33
33X
41
42
43
47
49
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
134
151
152
154
155

Above Bottom (ft)5, 63
5, 22, 47
5, 15
6
5, 15
10
50, 9010, 25, 35
10, 50, 75
6
5, 26
5
5, 20
8, 26
5, 26
7
5
27
5
5, 36
15
14
17
19
28
18
5, 8, 2814
10
16, 21
35
30
13
10
25
25
5, 25
7

Number of Sets
1
2, 4, 2
2, 3
2
2, 3
1
1, 1
2, 2, 32, 3, 1
1
1, 1
1
2, 3
2, 2
1, 1
3
1
1
1
1, 3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1, 2, 3
1
1
1, 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1, 3
1

9

MLLW Depth(ft)
75
60
33
21
30
60
116
59
100
20
43
20
34
38
35
20
18
43
20
48
30
28
33
34
43
30
45
34
59
36
50
45
28
25
40
40
40
22

Figure 2.3. Upper Delaware River NOS Current, CT, and CTD Stations Locations.

10Figure 2.4. Lower Delaware River and Bay NOS Current, CT, and CTD Station Locations.

11Figure 2.5. Grid Section 5 with the 90 degree channel bend and the Grid Section
6 lower portion.

12

As an alternative, a one piece grid was constructed for POM and ROMS using the SEAGRID
package (USGS Woods Hole Science Center, 2007). Since the highest grid resolutions are on theorder of 50 m, a fine resolution bathymetry and shoreline were obtained from the Cartographic andGeospatial Technical Program within the Coast Survey Development Laboratory. The computational
grid for POM and ROMS is shown for the upper Delaware River in Figure 2.10 and for the
Delaware Bay in Figure 2.11. The POM application employed 15 sigma coordinate levels in thevertical with uniform spacings below the surface level while ROMS used 10 generalized scoordinate levels.
2.3 Model Input Requirements
In addition to the computational grid, the models require accurate initial conditions of salinity andtemperature; specification of conditions at the open-ocean lateral boundaries; river discharges;
conditions at the Chesapeake side of the C&D Canal; and surface forcing, i.e., winds and heat fluxes.
Initial salinity and temperature conditions were developed from the NOS circulation survey.
Salinity and temperature at the lateral boundaries were determined from NOAA’s World Ocean
Atlas 2001 (NODC, www.nodc.noaa.gov), which provides monthly varying climatological values.
Synoptic meteorological conditions were derived by blending NOAA’s reanalysis wind product(NCEP, www.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rrean/index.html) on a 32 km grid with meteorologicalobservations at NOAA buoys, C-Man stations and airports. River discharge data, including watertemperature were obtained from the USGS. To determine water levels and currents at the openocean lateral boundaries the ADCIRC model for the Western Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast 1995
grid (Mukai et al., 2001) was used imposing the blended NCEP reanalysis wind product withavailable meteorological observations, and specifying the verified tidal constituents as developed byMyers (2007; personal communication) along the open-ocean boundary at 60o W.
2.4. Model Evaluation Results
The following models were evaluated based on the four experiments as described in Patchen (2008):
1. Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) as described in Shchepetkin and McWilliams(2005) and Haidvogel et al. (2008). On the Internet at: http://www.myroms.org
2. Princeton Ocean Model (POM) as described in Blumberg and Mellor (1987) and Blumberg
and Herring (1987).
On the Internet at: http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/htdocs.pom
3. Finite Volume Coastal Ocean Model (FVCOM) as described in Chen et al. (2003, 2006). On
the Internet at: http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/FVCOM/index.html
4. Semi-Implicit Eulerian-Lagrangian Finite Element Model (SELFE) as described in Zhang
and Baptista (2008). On the Internet at: http://www.ccalmr.ogi.edu/corie/modeling13

Figure 2.6. Upper Delaware River ROMS grid.

14

Figure 2.7. Lower Delaware River and Bay ROMS grid.

15

The reader is referred to Patchen (2008) for discussion of the Experiment 1 Tidal Simulation,
Experiment 2 Density Front Locations, and Experiment 3 High River Runoff. Here we focus on the
final experiment, which is a synoptic hindcast during the 1984-1985 NOS circulation survey fromMarch 21 – September 7, 1984 During this period, three strong spring freshets occur, which arefollowed by decreased river discharges into the Fall; a late Spring meteorological event occurs on
March 31, 1984. Using the NOS standardized skill assessment software (Zhang et al., 2006), thetwo structured grid models ROMS and POM are contrasted with the two unstructured grid models
FVCOM and SELFE. Water level skill assessment results are given in Table 2.3 and indicate thatnone of the models performed well in the river section above Philadelphia, PA. It should be noted
for each model, model datum was considered equal to MSL. All the models used a spatially uniform
bottom roughness. In terms of a reference level of 15 cm the Central Frequency criteria of 90 percent(refer to NOS, 1999 and Hess et al., 2003) is not met at any of the water level stations by any of themodels, with the results above Philadelphia, PA being particularly problematical. Skill assessment
results for currents are given in Table 2.4 and are nearly the same for ROMS and POM with
FVCOM showing better results than SELFE. FVCOM results overall appear to be the best for
currents. Salinity skill assessment results are shown in Table 2.5. POM results appear to be better
than ROMS in the frontal zone, however as with currents FVCOM appears to represent the salinity
structure the best in this area. In the river sections, FVCOM salinity is near 2 PSU due to a boundary
condition specification issue. Temperature skill assessment results are given in Table 2.6. Although
POM and ROMS used different heat flux specifications, they were similar in skill. Results for
FVCOM and SELFE were similar but were in general not as good as those obtained by POM and
ROMS.
Table 2.3. MEE Water Level Skill Assessment Results.
Station
RMSE (cm)ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
Atlantic City, NJ
11.5
11.5
10.8
10.8
Ocean City Pier,
13.1
13.6
13.4
13.4
MD
Lewes, DE
11.9
13.3
10.7
12.3
Reedy Pt, DE
29.1
24.4
13.5
20.8
Philadelphia, PA
36.9
36.3
21.3
36.9
Cape May, NJ
12.1
13.0
11.3
13.5
Brandywine Shl, DB
11.7
12.7
10.3
13.8
Chesapeake City,
18.2
13.5
13.2
19.2
MD
Trenton, NJ
58.9
50.2
47.4
57.6

16

CF(15 cm)
ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
80.7
80.9
83.5
83.6
72.9
71.7
72.2
72.2
80.7
35.6
39.7
82.5
85.4
60.2

75.8
48.5
39.1
79.6
81.8
75.1

85.0
77.7
50.5
81.7
85.4
75.7

84.5
67.7
43.2
73.4
73.4
51.8

21.3

28.7

17.9

24.5

Table 2.4. MEE Current Skill Assessment Results.
StationDepth (m)RMSE (cm/s)
No.
Total
Obs
ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
1
22.9
3.7
25.4
24.5
19.4
24.4
17
30.5
7.6
11.9
8.8
12.2
9.8
23
11.6
3.7
15.1
15.7
23.7
21.4
33
14.6
3.7
29.0
26.1
15.4
31.8
39
12.8
4.3
23.0
40.8
17.7
34.4
42
10.1
4.9
36.8
28.6
18.9
27.3
47
13.1
4.6
37.7
36.9
19.2
29.8
50
15.2
7.3
33.5
29.7
28.2
32.5
51
13.7
5.2
33.6
33.7
21.9
34.1
52
10.4
6.1
22.5
21.6
19.8
23.2
54
11.0
4.6
11.3
9.4
8.3
9.1

CF(26cm/s)
ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
66.6
67.9
81.9
71.0
97.5
99.2
96.1
99.4
91.3
89.9
73.7
78.9
57.7
64.3
90.8
46.9
72.8
36.4
82.4
49.8
51.4
61.5
84.0
61.7
36.9
32.6
82.1
49.6
47.7
50.2
63.4
47.6
44.2
40.1
76.6
45.2
74.5
77.4
80.5
74.9
98.0
99.4
100.0
99.6

Table 2.5. MEE Salinity Skill Assessment Results
StationDepth (m)RMSE (PSU)
No.
Total
Obs
ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
1
22.9
3.7
4.1
4.0
1.5
11.4
17
30.5
7.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
23
11.6
3.7
6.3
5.5
3.2
10.8
33
14.6
3.7
11.5
9.2
4.8
11.3
39
12.8
4.3
6.1
3.2
1.8
3.5
42
10.1
4.9
4.2
0.3
2.5
0.4
47
13.1
4.6
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
50
15.2
7.3
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
51
13.7
5.2
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
52
10.4
6.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
54
11.0
4.6
0.0
0.1
1.2
0.1

CF(3.5 PSU)ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
48.0
54.3
97.3
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
94.2
4.3
40.7
73.8
0.9
1.7
22.5
48.4
2.5
43.2
67.5
96.6
61.6
60.3
100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 2.6. MEE Water Temperature Skill Assessment Results
StationDepth (m)RMSE (PSU)
CF(3.5 PSU)
No.
Total
Obs
ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE ROMS POM FVCOM SELFE
1
22.9
3.7
2.5
2.3
1.7
3.5
78.0
83.9
94.5
53.4
17
30.5
7.6
2.0
2.6
1.6
4.4
89.8
76.4
92.3
47.2
23
11.6
3.7
3.3
3.4
2.2
6.0
67.7
54.1
84.2
16.7
33
14.6
3.7
1.5
2.2
1.6
5.3
97.8
84.6
92.0
20.8
39
12.8
4.3
0.4
0.9
6.8
6.6
100.0 100.0
0.0
0.0
42
10.1
4.9
0.7
2.2
5.7
4.7
100.0
91.3
6.8
21.3
50
15.2
7.3
1.1
0.8
2.0
1.5
100.0 100.0
84.6
100.0
51
13.7
5.2
3.0
4.7
3.0
2.8
64.3
61.5
63.6
58.9
52
10.4
6.1
1.1
0.9
2.0
1.5
100.0 100.0
84.9
100.0
54
11.0
4.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
100.0
99.2
97.8
98.3

17

2.5 Summary and Additional Considerations
To further study these results, values of bottom friction used in previous studies were reviewed. In
the Long Island Sound Study, which employed 7 vertical levels to represent maximum depths order
70m, z0=2 cm with CDmin=0.0025 was used (Schmalz, 1994. In Galveston Bay, the maximum
water depths were only 20m and with 5 vertical levels, and z0=1.5 mm with CDmin=0.0025 wasused (Schmalz, 2000a; 2000b). Whitney and Garvine (2006) in simulating the interaction of theDelaware Estuary plume with the Delaware Coastal Current used POM with z0=3 mm andCBCMIN=0.0050 (double the usual value). The high CBCMIN value would serve to increase thefriction in the offshore regions to insure stability, while the lower z0 value order 3 mm would
improve the tidal response up river.
In reviewing the nautical charts, the depths within the present grid represent the channel up to
Burlington, PA. From Burlington, PA to Newbold, PA the depths should be modified to insure thecorrect channel depth. However from Newbold, PA to Trenton, NJ, the navigation channel depths
are only order 24 ft and they appear to be somewhat erratically represented in the present depth field.
In addition, above Burlington, PA the grid cell widths may need some modification to insure thatthey represent the channel widths. It appears that some fine tuning in grid cell width and depths mayneed to be made above Burlington, PA to improve the tidal response at Trenton, NJ.
Based on the assessment of the MEE results, additional improvement in the water level and current
response in the river section above Philadelphia, PA is needed by all of the models to meet the NOS
skill requirements (NOS, 1999; Hess et al., 2003). The three-dimensional unstructured model resultsfrom FVCOM and SELFE were not clearly superior to the structured three-dimensional models
POM and ROMS predictions, despite the extremely complex sinuous nature of the river shoreline,
and therefore additional work with POM and ROMS was conducted. The approach was to work with
the POM and seek improvements, due to the fact that it had been used in the original
nowcast/forecast systems in New York Harbor, Galveston Bay, and in the Great Lakes.

18

3. POM MEDIUM GRID RESOLUTION HINDCASTS
Two fifteen day periods were selected for further consideration. The first period, 27 March – 10
April, 2004 contained a coastal surge event as well as a high flow event of 121,000 cfs. The second
period, 10-24 September, 1984 was dominated by extremely low flow of order 3000 cfs at Trenton,
NJ and represented a period of potential salinity intrusion. There also was very little storm activity
along the coast and hence the period was dominated by astronomic tides and allowed for anassessment of the tidal response.
3.1 Hindcast Setup Procedures
To move toward a more standard nowcast/forecast system setup, the NOS operational Galveston Bay
Nowcast/Forecast System was emulated but slightly modified using the approach developed during
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS). In LISS, a second section of the grid generation program wasused to provide the initial density structure, the SST field at 15 to 30 day intervals, and the salinity
and temperature boundary conditions for rivers and the ocean boundary (Schmalz, 1994). In thepresent NOS Galveston Bay operational nowcast/forecast, a ten-step set-up program is used toprovide the forcing for each 24 hour nowcast, and for the 30 hour forecast (Schmalz and Richardson,2002). Within this program, the density structure is updated at the beginning of each nowcast basedon the observed PORTS readings with the sea-surface temperature, salinity and temperatureboundary conditions persisted over the nowcast/forecast period. Rather than employ this approach,the LISS approach for handling the initial and boundary conditions was used and then steps 6, 7, and
8 in the ten-step nowcast/forecast procedure were eliminated. The remaining steps are used to
specify the simulation period (Step 1), generate harmonically reconstructed water surface elevation(Step 2) and currents (Step 3), place the observed data in the appropriate format for the graphics
programs (Step 4), produce the subtidal water level signals at Chesapeake City, MD and Cape May,
NJ (Step 5), generate the average daily inflows for the 12 rivers (Step 9), and use Barnes (1973)
interpolation from meteorological data at 10 stations (including 2 offshore NBDC buoys) to provide
the wind and sea-level atmospheric pressure fields. The subtidal water level signal at Cape May, NJ
was applied to the entire ocean open boundary. Within the present operational NOS nowcast/forecast
systems, the approach of applying a coastal water level measured or forecast subtidal water level tothe entire open boundary has been used. In the present case with the open boundary extending to theshelf break this may not be valid. An alternative approach would be to reduce the extent of the gridon the shelf to perhaps the 20 to 50 m contour as used by Celebioglu and Piasecki (2006).
3.2 Baseline Simulation
Using the above methods, POM was used to simulate the period 27 March – 5 April, 1984 as an
initial 10-day reference period. The medium resolution grid (also used in the ROMS medium grid
simulations in Chapter 4) is shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 along with the locations of the NOS
CTD/Current stations used in the model-data comparisons and the major surface meteorologicalstations used to develop the interpolated meteorological fields. Wind speed and direction andatmospheric pressure were produced using Barnes (1973) interpolation at three hour intervals with

19

TTN
54

PHL
52

Figure 3.1. Upper River POM and ROMS grid. Note CTD/Current stations arenumbered with Met Stations in text.

20

49PHL 50
47
WIL
51
42
Ches. Cty154
39

33
24 25
2223
21
19
18
Lewes 2

ATL

Cape May
16
17

Figure 3.2. Lower River and Bay POM and ROMS grid. Note Current/CTD stations arenumbered, while major cities and Met Stations are in text. Note NBDC buoy
44009 is located near the bottom left corner of the map, while NDBC buoy
44012 is further to the northeast.

21

wind speed and direction RMS errors order 2 m/s and 25 oT, respectively, and sea level atmospherepressure RMS errors order 1.5 mb. In the MEE the subtidal water level at the head of the C&D canal
was considered zero. Here, the subtidal water level signal at the Chesapeake Bay end of the C&D
canal was based on Chesapeake City, MD as determined via a linear regression (bias=0.003,
gain=0.784) from the Baltimore, MD subtidal water level over the four month period July-October,1984. Monthly RMSEs were order 5 cm and storm periods were well produced.
Within the NOS operational nowcast/forecast systems water levels are specified with respect to the
MLLW datum at each PORTS station. Within the Galveston Bay Nowcast/Forecast System themodel datum is taken as MTL and at each station the tidal epoch adjustment from MTL to MLLW isadded to the model prediction. Within the Delaware River and Bay system, two datums are used.
Along the coast and within the Bay proper MSL is taken as the model datum, while above
Philadelphia, PA mean river level (MRL) is assumed equal to NAVD-1988 and is taken as the model
datum. Simulated water levels are compared with observations in Table 3.1 with RMSEs increasingfrom 14 cm at the Capes to 23 cm at Philadelphia, PA with a maximum near the head of tide atTrenton, NJ of 47 cm as shown in Figure 3.3. It should be noted that if one uses MSL as the datum
throughout, the RMSE at Trenton, NJ increases to 53 cm. In this and all subsequent tables, therelative error corresponds to the Wilmott et al. (1985) dimensionless (0-1) relative error, with zero
representing perfect agreement. Note for the time series plots (Figures 3.3-3.7) the indicator ofagreement (IND AGMT) equal to one minus the relative error is given.
Table 3.1. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984.
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error (cm)

Relative Error (-)

Model Mean (cm)

14
14
23
23
47

0.02
0.01
0.07
0.04
0.09

91
98
68
135
180

Observed Mean
(cm)
86
93
63
133
191

Current speed and direction are compared against observations in Tables 3.2 and 3.3,
respectively. The current strength is under-predicted at Station 33 and within the river sections.
Current directions are reasonably represented within the Bay and river sections, where thecurrents are rectilinear. At continental shelf stations16 and 17 the currents are rotary in nature and the model
directions exhibit larger discrepancies from the observations. The simulated salinity at the corresponding model
sigma level (K=1, 15 with 1 representing the near surface) are compared with observations in Table 3.4. One notes
as shown in Figure 3.4 at Station 33 in the region of large horizontal gradients, the RMSE of order 6.5 PSU with alarge discrepancy in model and observed means. The model temperature response is contrasted with observations inTable 3.5. With the SST specification, the RMSEs are within order 2 oC.

22

Table 3.2. Current Speed (cm/s) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 1150 at 852 at 4RMS Error(cm/s)
13.65
13.45
14.57
25.74
29.87
21.54

Relative Error
(-)
0.46
0.55
0.11
0.22
0.36
0.34

Model Mean
(cm/s)
9.98
13.56
42.71
43.58
39.73
30.97

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
15.33
13.34
40.54
58.17
61.78
47.17

Table 3.3. Current Direction (oT) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 1150 at 852 at 4RMS Error
(oT)
89.75
136.62
26.40
35.83
30.15
26.56

Relative Error
(-)
0.85
0.83
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02

Model Mean(oT)
186.29174.72243.53226.99167.41148.05Observed Mean(oT)
228.85215.01254.61226.66176.83148.01

Table 3.4. Salinity (PSU) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 11RMS Error
(PSU)
0.95
0.67
0.83
1.12
1.23
6.48

Relative Error
(-)
0.73
0.71
0.70
0.92
0.57
0.67

Model Mean
(PSU)
31.66
31.66
31.63
32.71
25.81
20.01

Observed Mean
(PSU)
32.58
32.19
32.28
33.78
25.58
13.14

Table 3.5. Temperature (oC) Baseline High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 5, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 11RMS Error
(oC)
2.07
2.05
1.99
1.98
0.65
0.73

Relative Error
(-)
0.84
0.82
0.79
0.87
0.55
0.57

23

Model Mean
(oC)
6.78
6.80
6.83
7.40
6.43
5.69

Observed Mean
(oC)
5.01
5.06
5.17
5.51
6.43
6.71

Figure 3.3. Baseline High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 5 April, 1984) Water Surface
Elevation at Trenton, NJ. Note observations are at one hour intervals over theentire 15 day period, 27 March – 10 April, 1984.

24

Figure 3.4. Baseline High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 5 April, 1984) Salinity at Station
33. Note observations are at 10 minute intervals over the entire 15 day period
27 March – 10 April, 1984.

25

3.3 Revised Geometry High Flow Simulation
To seek further improvement a revised geometry was employed. The C&D canal width was adjusted
to its actual channel width of 121.9 m. It was straightened and made one grid cell wide. USACOE
project channel depths were specified for the navigation channels from the Bay to Philadelphia, PA
from Philadelphia, PA to Newbold, PA and from Newbold, PA to Trenton, NJ. In addition, several
upriver marsh areas were specified at depths of order 1 m. A spatially varying bottom roughness wasincorporated, such that over the continental shelf z0 = 1 cm, from the Capes to the river mouth z0
linearly decreases to 0.3 cm, from the river mouth to below the Tacony Bridge, NJ it remains at 0.3
cm, and from there to the head of tide it linearly increases to 1.3 cm.
Simulated water levels over the 27 March – 10 April, 1984 are contrasted with observations in Table
3.6. RMSEs are slightly reduced by 1 cm at Cape May, NJ and at Philadelphia, PA and aresubstantially reduced by 10 cm at Trenton, NJ as shown in Figure 3.5. In Tables 3.7 and 3.8, thecurrent speed and direction comparisons are given. One notes the improved current speed responseat Station 33 with current directions remaining nearly the same. In Table 3.9, the salinity response at
Station 33 in the region of large horizontal salinity gradients is substantially improved with the
RMSE reduced by order 4 PSU and with a much closer agreement to the observed mean (see Figure3.6). In Table 3.10, the temperature response is very similar to that of the baseline hindcast.
Table 3.6. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984.
StationRMS Error (cm)

Relative Error (-)

Model Mean (cm)Lewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Ocean City Pier,
MD
Phila Pier 11, PA
Trenton, NJ

13
13
22
13

0.02
0.01
0.08
0.04

86
93
62
73

Observed Mean
(cm)
86
93
63
70

22
37

0.03
0.04

145
204

133
191

Table 3.7. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 1150 at 852 at 4RMS Error(cm/s)
12.76
12.73
15.28
19.46
27.83
17.99

Relative Error
(-)
0.48
0.59
0.14
0.12
0.38
0.26

26

Model Mean
(cm/s)
9.82
14.06
42.40
52.19
46.72
38.65

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
15.33
13.34
40.54
58.17
61.78
47.17

Table 3.8. Current Direction (oT) Revised High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 1150 at 852 at 4RMS Error
(oT)
86.25
137.58
31.54
29.10
36.06
30.48

Relative Error
(-)
0.78
0.83
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03

Model Mean(oT)
194.21178.02239.16219.72
170.13153.85Observed Mean(oT)
228.85215.01254.61226.66176.83148.01

Table 3.9. Salinity (PSU) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 11RMS Error
(PSU)
1.05
0.69
0.78
1.01
1.49
2.72

Relative Error
(-)
0.65
0.60
0.59
0.89
0.45
0.17

Model Mean
(PSU)
31.62
31.60
31.58
32.79
25.33
12.61

Observed Mean
(PSU)
32.58
32.19
32.28
33.78
25.58
13.14

Table 3.10. Temperature (oC ) Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast:March 27 - April 10, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)16 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 11RMS Error
(oC)
1.86
1.82
1.74
2.02
0.73
1.40

Relative Error
(-)
0.69
0.67
0.65
0.85
0.99
0.51

27

Model Mean
(oC)
6.81
6.82
6.83
7.51
6.43
5.71

Observed Mean
(oC)
5.01
5.06
5.17
5.51
6.43
6.71

Figure 3.5. Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April, 1984)
Water Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ. Note observations are at one hourintervals.

28

Figure 3.6. Revised Geometry High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April, 1984)
Salinity at Station 33. Note observations are at 10 minute intervals.

29

3.4 Revised Geometry Low Flow Simulation
To examine the effect of the revised geometry under low flow conditions, the 10-24 September,1984 period was simulated. Wind speed and direction and atmospheric pressure as produced by the
Barnes (1973) interpolation at three hour intervals are compared with hourly observations and are of
the same order RMSE as for the high flow period. Note mean wind speeds are lower than during thehigh flow period and are quite gentle. Simulated water levels are contrasted with observations inTable 3.11. RMSEs are generally of the same order as obtained under high flow conditions
particularly at Trenton, NJ as shown in Figure 3.7. However, one notes at the Capes and at
Philadelphia, PA an increase of order 6 cm in RMSE. These results may be improved by reducing
the grid extent onto the shelf, thereby specifying the subtidal water level signal nearer themeasurement location. However, in so doing one loses the ability to predict the Delaware coastal
current.
In Tables 3.12 and 3.13, the current speed and direction comparisons are given. One notes at Station
33 the current speed responses are very similar to those obtained for the high flow hindcast. Note thecurrent speeds are slightly under-predicted at the upriver stations (33, 51 and 154). Current direction
errors are comparable under both high and low flow conditions. In Table 3.14, the salinity response
is compared with observations. One notes a very favorable comparison, particularly at Station 33 in
the region of large horizontal salinity gradients and the model successfully represents the salinity
intrusion under low flow conditions. As shown in Table 3.15, the temperature response also
compares very well to the observations.
Table 3.11. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984.
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Ocean City Pier,
MD
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Chesapeake City,
MD
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error (cm)

Relative Error (-)

Model Mean (cm)

17
21
17
17

0.04
0.04
0.07
0.06

62
73
39
51

Observed Mean
(cm)
70
79
47
61

27
12

0.05
0.03

104
111

107
111

37

0.05

122

133

30

Figure 3.7. Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984) Water
Surface Elevation at Trenton, NJ. Note observations are at one hour intervals.

31

Table 3.12. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)2 at 716 at 1117 at 1518 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 224 at 225 at 233 at 215 at 9154 at 2

RMS Error(cm/s)
22.64
7.55
12.59
11.47
15.92
22.65
16.52
20.50
14.23
10.90
16.06
27.15
27.18

Relative Error
(-)
0.29
0.53
0.54
0.24
0.31
0.27
0.20
0.47
0.31
0.22
0.33
0.36
0.57

Model Mean
(cm/s)
42.16
7.44
9.66
25.97
31.55
44.74
32.52
32.84
30.66
23.04
22.06
43.12
10.26

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
39.01
9.89
17.71
25.18
28.27
45.45
41.69
17.34
27.69
29.22
29.28
61.46
31.47

Table 3.13. Current Direction (oT) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)2 at 716 at 1117 at 1518 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 224 at 225 at 233 at 215 at 9154 at 2

RMS Error
(oT)
46.54
59.06
69.50
17.12
29.24
39.79
17.88
6.56
39.07
120.56
48.11
39.65
99.01

Relative Error
(-)
0.08
0.30
0.31
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.86
0.07
0.04
0.33

32

Model Mean(oT)
231.70159.53196.75220.75232.75234.96231.26240.77234.91117.22225.88186.91209.43Observed Mean(oT)
212.66217.85230.55238.79257.01
247.18231.98269.80245.13184.53226.26194.25187.41

Table 3.14. Salinity (PSU) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)2 at 716 at 316 at 1119 at 222 at 623 at 224 at 233 at 2154 at 2

RMS Error
(PSU)
0.40
1.38
0.29
0.41
1.33
0.64
1.11
2.06
0.83

Relative Error
(-)
0.58
0.93
0.78
0.14
0.28
0.45
0.39
0.51
0.71

Model Mean
(PSU)
29.99
31.08
31.01
28.58
26.28
27.22
26.05
18.01
6.83

Observed Mean
(PSU)
30.08
29.68
31.15
28.67
27.34
27.44
26.21
18.81
6.59

Table 3.15. Temperature (oC) Revised Geometry Low Flow Hindcast:
September 10-24, 1984. DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
at DAB (m)2 at 716 at 316 at 1119 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 224 at 233 at 2RMS Error
(oC)
0.60
1.19
0.75
0.29
0.34
0.52
0.56
0.61
0.48

Relative Error
(-)
0.81
0.57
0.49
0.60
0.62
0.67
0.80
0.57
0.70

Model Mean
(oC)
20.60
19.36
20.48
20.93
20.93
21.22
21.12
21.10
22.85

Observed Mean
(oC)
21.04
20.87
20.93
20.67
20.62
20.75
21.20
20.63
22.40

3.5 Summary and Additional Considerations
The revised geometry of the C&D canal, channel depth modifications, and the incorporation of a
spatially varying bottom roughness, led to improved water level, current, salinity, and temperature
response for both the high flow and low flow fifteen day periods. Further modification of the bottomroughness zones both in value and extent is warranted. The investigation of the bottom friction zones
used by Walters (1992a; 1992b) and later employed by DiLorenzo et al. (1994) and Kim andJohnson (1998) would be worth consideration. In fact, Walters notes that it was only through the useof spatially varying bottom friction zones, that the correct astronomical tidal response could beachieved. Note in considering the Delaware Coastal Current, Whitney and Garvine (2006) employeda constant bottom roughness, z0 = 0.3 cm. Ramsey et al. (1996) used six different bottom roughness
Manning’s n coefficients for the main channel and side embayments.
As noted by Johnson et al. (1988) and Galperin and Mellor (1990a; 1990b) a major issue is therepresentation of the river sections above Philadelphia, PA. Parker (1984; 1991) has studied thefrictional effects in the river sections with a one-dimensional model. Within the present grid33

structure, order 4 grid cells are employed within the upper river sections with only 2 grid cells
representing the river at Trenton, NJ. To specify the river inflow of the Delaware River at Trenton,
NJ, the USGS station above the tide is used to specify the average daily discharge, which is split
equally over two grid cells in POM and ROMS medium resolution grid. For the ROMS highresolution grid in Chapter 5 the flows are distributed as 0.3, 0.4, and 0.3 over the three grid cells.
The USGS gage and forecast point is located on the left hand side bank looking downstream
immediately above the Calhoun Bridge. The rapids seen on the navigation chart are called the"Trenton Falls" and the tide begins below them. Most of the diurnal fluctuations are from directed
releases from the New York City reservoirs in the headwater areas in the Catskill Mountains of New
York. In the USGS gage remarks section, it is noted that water is diverted just above the gage forMorrisville, PA and Trenton, NJ for water supply. They note that diurnal fluctuations at medium andlow flow are caused by power plants on tributary streams. There are several large hydro-power
stations on the Lackawaxen and Mongaup Rivers that release as needed. 99.99+% of the time thegage is not influenced by the tides. At two high tides during the April 2005 floods there may havebeen some influence (Nickelsburg, 2006). As a result, during high flow conditions, the average daily
flow specification may need to be revised to hourly flow values.
A transition from POM to ROMS, as discussed in subsequent chapters, was made to see ifcomparable improvement in results with respect to the MEE could be achieved. It is desirable toimplement ROMS to enable more efficient parallel computation using MPI within the National
Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) environment, since POM was not implemented within
the MPI framework.

34

4. ROMS MEDIUM GRID RESOLUTION HINDCASTSROMS was employed to simulate the same high and low flow simulations of POM in Chapter 3. The
same treatment of the subtidal water level boundary conditions and model datum were invoked.
Within the Delaware River and Bay system, two datums are used. Along the coast and within the
Bay proper MSL is taken as the model datum, while above Philadelphia, PA mean river level (MRL)
is assumed equal to NAVD-1988 and is taken as the model datum. The medium resolution gridsections used in both POM and ROMS simulations are shown as previously in Figures 3.1 andFigure 3.2.
4.1. Model Revisions
To set the stage for the ROMS revised simulations, we first recap the POM revisions in Chapter 3.
Within POM the following conditions were employed:
1) The C&D canal width was adjusted to its actual channel width of 121.9 m. It was straightened andmade one grid cell wide.
2) The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) project channel depths were specified
for the navigation channels from the Bay to Philadelphia, PA from Philadelphia, PA to Newbold, PA
and from Newbold, PA to Trenton, NJ.
3) Several upriver marsh areas were specified at depths of order 1 m.
4) SST was specified by using the nearest surface value of the CT moorings and CTD profiles.
5) A spatially varying bottom roughness was incorporated in the hydrodynamic model, such thatover the continental shelf z0 = 1 cm, from the Bay entrance to the river mouth z0 linearly decreases to
0.3 cm, from the river mouth to below the Tacony Bridge, NJ it remains at 0.3 cm, and from there to
the head of tide it linearly increases to 1.3 cm.
For the ROMS simulations, the following conditions were employed:
1) The C&D canal width was adjusted to its actual channel width of 121.9 m. It was straightened andmade two grid cells wide to accommodate the higher order numerical scheme.
2) The USACOE project channel depths were specified using NOS bathymetric surveys.
3) Upriver marsh areas were not explicitly considered.
4) A full bulk flux formulation was used to provide the surface heat fluxes using the MEE forcing
files (Patchen, 2008).
5) A spatially varying quadratic friction coefficient set was incorporated in the hydrodynamic model,such that over the continental shelf rdr = 0.007, from the Bay entrance to the river mouth rdr
linearly decreases to 0.005, from the river mouth to the head of tide it linearly increases to 0.009.
The revision was incorporated as the CPPDEF option RDR_VAR.
6) To output the wind and sea level atmospheric time series at stations in the stations file and to
output these fields, the CPPDEF option MET_OUT was added.

35

4.2. High Flow Simulation
Wind speed and direction and atmospheric pressure were produced using Barnes (1973)
interpolation at three hour intervals with wind speed and direction RMS errors order 2 m/s and 25oT, respectively, and sea level atmosphere pressure RMS errors order 1.5 mb. Simulated water levels
are compared with observations in Table 4.1 with RMSEs increasing from order 15 cm at the Bay
entrance to 25 cm at Philadelphia, PA with a maximum near the head of tide at Trenton, NJ of 37 cm
as shown in Figure 4.1 for both models. In this and all subsequent tables, the relative error
corresponds to the Willmott et al. (1985) dimensionless (0-1) relative error, with zero representing
perfect agreement. Note for the time series plots, the indicator of agreement (IND AGMT) equal to
one minus the relative error is given.
Table 4.1. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error
(cm)
15/13
19/13
20/22
27/22
37/37

Relative Error(-)
0.02/0.02
0.03/0.01
0.07/0.08
0.05/0.03
0.04/0.04

Model Mean
(cm)
81/86
88/93
58/62
143/145200/204

Observed Mean
(cm)
86
93
63
133
191

Current speed and direction model predictions are compared against observations in Tables 4.2 and
4.3, respectively. The current strengths at Station 33 and within the river sections are in reasonableagreement with observations. Current directions are reasonably represented within the Bay and river
sections, where the currents are rectilinear. At continental shelf stations 16 and 17 the currents arerotary in nature and both model directions exhibit larger discrepancies from the observations.
Table 4.2. Current Speed (cm/s) High Flow Hindcast:
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
RMS Error
Relative Error
at DAB (m)(cm/s)(-)
16 at 1113.28/12.76
0.49/0.48
17 at 3
12.27/12.73
0.60/0.59
23 at 816.76/15.28
0.16/0.14
33 at 1125.20/19.46
0.22/0.12
50 at 822.65/27.83
0.22/0.38
52 at 416.76/17.99
0.20/0.2636Model Mean
(cm/s)
7.96/9.82
7.32/14.06
43.12/42.40
58.17/52.19
59.52/46.72
41.37/38.65

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
15.33
13.34
40.54
58.17
61.78
47.17

Figure 4.1. High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April 1984) Water Surface Elevation
at Trenton, NJ. Top panel: ROMS Hindcast Bottom panel: POM Hindcast
Note observations are at one hour intervals.

37

Table 4.3. Current Direction (oT) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Relative Error
Station No
RMS Error(-)
at DAB (m)(oT)
16 at 1157.77/86.25
0.64/0.78
17 at 3113.22/137.58
0.84/0.83
23 at 840.63/31.54
0.05/0.03
33 at 1141.86/29.10
0.05/0.02
50 at 848.80/36.06
0.08/0.04
52 at 441.50/30.48
0.06/0.03

Model Mean(oT)
179.40/194.21
188.76/178.02
234.56/239.16
210.39/219.72
173.56/170.13
154.80/153.85

Observed Mean(oT)
228.85215.01254.61226.66176.83148.01The simulated salinities at the corresponding POM model sigma levels (k=1, 15 with 1 representing
the near surface) are compared with observations in Table 4.4. One notes as shown in Figure 4.2 at
Station 33 in the region of large horizontal gradients, that a reasonable RMSE of order 3.0 PSU is
achieved. The simulated temperature response is contrasted with observations in Table 4.5 for bothmodels. With either the SST specification in POM or the bulk heat flux formulation in ROMS, theRMSEs are within order 2 oC.
Table 4.4. Salinity (PSU) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
RMS Error
Relative Error
at DAB (m)
(PSU)
(-)
16 at 30.80/1.05
0.58/0.65
16 at 80.51/0.69
0.56/0.60
16 at 110.64/0.78
0.60/0.59
17 at 30.93/1.01
0.93/0.89
23 at 8
1.54/1.49
0.45/0.4533 at 112.97/2.72
0.20/0.17

Model Mean
(PSU)
31.87/31.62
31.80/31.60
31.76/31.58
32.97/32.79
25.71/25.33
12.63/12.61

Observed Mean
(PSU)
32.58
32.19
32.28
33.78
25.58
13.14

Table 4.5. Temperature (oC) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS Results / POM Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Relative Error
Station No
RMS Erroro(-)
at DAB (m)( C)
16 at 3
2.16/1.86
0.68/0.69
16 at 82.24/1.82
0.66/0.67
16 at 112.22/1.74
0.65/0.65
17 at 3
2.19/2.02
0.85/0.85
23 at 80.81/0.73
0.24/0.99
33 at 110.38/1.40
0.04/0.51

38

Model Mean(oC)
7.16/6.81
7.29/6.82
7.38/6.83
7.66/7.51
7.19/6.43
6.74/5.71

Observed Mean
(oC)
5.01
5.06
5.17
5.51
6.43
6.71

Figure 4.2. Simulated versus Observed (10 minute) Salinity at Station 33 Level 4 at 11m
above the bottom. Top panel: ROMS Hindcast Bottom panel: POM Hindcast
Note observations are at 10-minute intervals.

39

4.3 Low Flow Simulation
To examine the effect of the above revisions under low flow conditions, the 10-24 September, 1984
period was simulated. Wind speed and direction and atmospheric pressure as produced by the Barnes(1973) interpolation at three hour intervals are compared with hourly observations and are of thesame order RMSE as for the high flow period. Note that mean wind speeds are lower than during thehigh flow period and are quite gentle. Simulated water levels are contrasted with observations inTable 4.6. RMSEs are generally of the same order as obtained under high flow conditions as shownat Trenton, NJ in Figure 4.3. However, one notes in comparing Tables 4.1 and 4.6, at the Bay
entrance and at Philadelphia, PA a decrease in mean water levels of order 15 cm. These results
indicate the impact of the long period Sa and Ssa constituents.
Table 4.6. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Ocean City Pier,
MD
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error
(cm)
18/17
21/21
17/17
14/17

Relative Error(-)
0.04/0.04
0.04/0.04
0.07/0.07
0.04/0.06

Model Mean
(cm)
71/62
80/73
48/39
58/51

Observed Mean
(cm)
70
79
47
61

27/27
35/37

0.05/0.05
0.04/0.05

113/104
132/122

107
131

In Tables 4.7 and 4.8, the current speed and direction comparisons are given. One notes at Station 33
the current speed responses are very similar to those obtained for the high flow hindcast. Note thatthe current speeds are slightly under-predicted at upriver station 51. Current direction errors arecomparable under both high and low flow conditions. In Table 4.9, the salinity response is comparedwith observations. One notes a very favorable comparison, particularly at Station 33 in the region oflarge horizontal salinity gradients. As shown in Table 4.10, the temperature responses in bothmodels also compare very well to the observations.

40

Figure 4.3. Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984) Water Surface Elevation
at Trenton, NJ. Top panel: ROMS Hindcast Bottom panel: POM Hindcast
Note observations are at one hour intervals.

41

Table 4.7. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results
StationModel Level
2 Level 8
16 Level 12
16 Level 6
17 Level 6
18 Level 919 Level 13
19 Level 5
22 Level 7
23 Level 11
24 Level 825 Level 1133 Level 1551 Level 5
154 Level 15

RMS Error(cm/s)
35.00/22.64
10.35/9.18
7.91/7.55
14.59/12.59
8.25/11.47
14.66/15.92
14.02/22.65
11.15/16.52
18.31/20.50
7.99/14.23
7.04/10.90
19.22/16.06
23.62/27.15
33.53/27.18

Relative Error(-)
0.57/0.29
0.72/0.65
0.59/0.53
0.58/0.54
0.10/0.24
0.21/0.31
0.09/0.27
0.08/0.20
0.40/0.47
0.10/0.31
0.07/0.22
0.40/0.33
0.28/0.36
0.63/0.57

Model Mean
(cm/s)
40.48/42.16
6.96/6.59
7.39/7.44
7.03/9.66
26.95/25.97
34.81/31.55
46.99/44.74
37.37/32.52
31.24/32.84
28.62/30.66
27.94/23.04
33.72/22.06
48.96/43.12
29.16/10.26

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
39.01
14.38
9.89
17.71
25.18
28.27
45.45
41.69
17.34
27.69
29.22
29.28
61.46
31.47

Table 4.8. Current Direction (oT) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results
StationModel Level
2 Level 8
16 Level 6

RMS Error(oT)
71.90/46.54
113.91/59.06

Relative Error(-)
0.14/0.08
0.43/0.30

Model Mean(oT)
223.04/231.70
142.42/159.53

Observed Mean(oT)
212.66217.8517 Level 6
18 Level 989.17/69.50
7.12/17.12

0.36/0.31
0.00/0.01

192.56/196.75
223.29/220.75

230.55238.7919 Level 1318.40/29.24

0.01/0.02

220.71/232.75

257.01

19 Level 522.42/39.79

0.01/0.05

229.33/234.96

247.1822 Level 7
23 Level 11
24 Level 825 Level 1133 Level 1551 Level 5
154 Level 15

9.92/17.88
6.07/6.56
45.35/39.07
119.80/120.56
99.29/48.11
30.09/39.65
91.09/99.01

0.00/0.01
0.00/0.00
0.06/0.05
0.87/0.86
0.30/0.07
0.03/0.04
0.31/0.33

227.50/231.26
238.76/240.77
242.35/234.91
107.83/117.22
231.22/225.88
189.95/186.91
165.19/209.43

231.98269.80245.13184.53226.26194.25187.4142

Table 4.9. Salinity (PSU) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results
StationModel Level
2 Level 8
16 Level 12
16 Level 6
19 Level 13
22 Level 7
23 Level 11
24 Level 833 Level 15
154 Level 15

RMS Error(PSU)
0.48/0.40
1.38/1.38
0.27/0.29
0.89/0.41
0.66/1.33
0.76/0.64
0.46/1.11
3.07/2.06
0.65/0.83

Relative Error(-)
0.68/0.58
0.93/0.93
0.71/0.78
0.37/0.14
0.12/0.28
0.41/0.45
0.12/0.39
0.56/0.51
0.50/0.71

Model Mean
(PSU)
30.04/29.99
31.12/31.08
31.01/31.01
29.20/28.58
26.74/26.28
27.68/27.22
26.41/26.05
19.46/18.01
7.27/6.83

Observed Mean
(PSU)
30.08
29.68
31.15
28.67
27.34
27.44
26.21
18.81
6.59

Table 4.10. Temperature (oC) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS Results/ POM Results
StationModel Level
2 Level 8
16 Level 12
16 Level 6
19 Level 13
19 Level 5
22 Level 7
23 Level 11
24 Level 833 Level 15

RMS Error(oC)
0.63/0.60
1.32/1.19
0.99/0.75
1.56/0.29
1.60/0.34
1.92/0.52
1.24/0.56
2.03/0.61
0.42/0.48

Relative Error(-)
0.83/0.81
0.59/0.57
0.78/0.49
0.87/0.60
0.87/0.62
0.87/0.67
0.66/0.80
0.76/0.57
0.72/0.70

Model Mean(oC)
21.40/20.60
19.15/19.36
21.31/20.48
21.77/20.93
21.79/20.93
22.38/21.22
22.08/21.12
22.46/21.10
23.27/22.85

Observed Mean
(oC)
21.04
20.87
20.93
20.67
20.62
20.75
21.20
20.63
22.40

4.4 Summary and Additional Considerations
For both 15-day periods, the ROMS simulation results for water levels, currents, salinity, andtemperature were very similar to those obtained with POM. Note ,while the same horizontal grid
was used, in the vertical POM uses15 sigma levels while ROMS has 10 generalized s coordinate
levels. The third order upstream horizontal advection schemes in ROMS as opposed to the second
order central differencing schemes in POM necessitated an extra day of model spin-up from rest.
Both models used the Mellor-Yamada 2.5 level turbulence scheme and employed similar offshore
boundary conditions. Both models were run with a 1 second barotropic time step with POM using a
10 second and ROMS a 20 second baroclinic time step. As previously noted, a major issue is therepresentation of the C&D Canal and the river sections above Philadelphia, PA. Within the present
grid structure, the C&D Canal is one grid cell wide in POM and two grid cells wide in ROMS. Alsoorder 4 grid cells are employed within the upper river sections with only 2 grid cells representing theriver at Trenton, NJ. As a result, a higher resolution grid based on the Delft Hydraulics Laboratory
grid generation software (Delft Hydraulics, 2004) was developed and additional ROMS simulations
performed as presented in the following chapter.

43

44

5. ROMS HIGH RESOLUTION GRID HINDCASTS
Previous hydrodynamic simulations in Chapters 2 - 4 indicated the need for a higher resolution gridwithin the river sections to improve water level and current response from Philadelphia, PA to
Trenton, NJ. First, we discuss the construction of a new high resolution river grid and contrast thegrid features with those of the previous medium resolution grid. Next, simulation setup, boundary,
and forcing conditions are discussed. To compare the model performance on the new high resolution
grid (HRG) versus the previous medium resolution grid (MRG) 15 day simulations are performed
under both high and low Delaware River flow conditions. To further assess model performance on
the new grid, an extended seven month hindcast was performed and the water level response was
evaluated over 15 day periods, as in the high and low flow simulation set. Next, a tidal analysis isperformed by using a 30 hour low pass filter to extract the tidal signal from the hindcast results
during April 1984. The resulting tide signal is compared to predicted water levels based on NOS
accepted harmonic constants to determine the tidal error. Three astronomical tide simulations overthe HRG are performed for April 1984 using different open boundary conditions to study the
influence of the open boundary specification on the water level response. Finally, results are
summarized and further considerations are then discussed.
5.1 Medium and High Resolution Grids
The initial medium resolution grid (MRG) shown in Figure 3.1 for the upper Delaware River and in
Figure 3.2 for the lower Delaware River and Bay was developed using the SEAGRID software
package (USGS Woods Hole Science Center, 2007). The horizontal grid is 150 x 550 and the gridcell length ranges are [110 m, 1665 m] in the x-direction and [140 m, 2645 m] in the y-direction. At
head of tide at Trenton, NJ the Delaware River is represented by 2 grid cells across. Bathymetry
adjusted to MLLW was placed on the grid via interpolation of NOS sounding data as detailed by
Lanerolle (2007).
A 120 x 733 horizontal high resolution grid (HRG) was developed using the DELFT3D RGFGRID
software package (Delft Hydraulics, 2004) with resolution order 3 km at the shelf break and order
100 m at the head of tide at Trenton, NJ. Resolution in the C&D Canal is 200 m with grid cell length
ranges of [49 m, 6092 m] in the x-direction and [51 m, 3053 m] in the y-direction. At head of tide atTrenton, NJ the Delaware River is represented by 3 grid cells across. In the grid construction
process, three separate splines and grid segments were developed for the upper River, the C&D
canal, and for the lower Bay-Shelf region, respectively. To generate the final grid, the grid segments
were combined using the active-passive option and then the grid was orthogonalized. Grid point
locations were reviewed and edited as necessary to improve orthogonality. The SMS software
package (Brigham Young University Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory, 2006) was used
to place and edit the bathymetry on the grid. In Figure 5.1, the new HRG in the C&D canal region isshown. Note the ability of the grid to exactly follow the canal and to represent the main navigation
channel bathymetric features as shown in Figure 5.2.

45

Figure 5.1. Map depicting Delaware River and Bay DELFT-3D High Resolution Grid in the C&D
Canal Region. Splines are constructed through the appropriate points along eachcoordinate direction. Within each rectangle formed by the intersection of the splines, thenumber of grid cells in each coordinate direction is specified.

Figure 5.2. Map depicting bathymetry with respect to Model Datum in the C&D Canal Region.
Each dot corresponds to a grid cell center with the darker shadings indicating thenavigation channel.

46

MLLW to model datum corrections at NOS water level gauges were used in a 1/r2 interpolation
procedure to adjust the MLLW bathymetry to model datum over both grids. For the HRG the
maximum depth was set to 300m as it extended over a large area at or beyond the shelf break. Bothhorizontal grids are of high quality with orthogonality errors less than 7 degrees. Ten generalized scoordinate levels are with surface, bottom, and control parameters of 4.5, 0.95 and 6 m, respectively.
5.2 Simulation Setup, Initial, Boundary and Forcing Conditions
All ROMS (Shchepetkin and McWilliams, 2005; Haidvogel et al., 2008) simulations are threedimensional including baroclinics with: a nonlinear equation of state, the Mellor-Yamada 2.5
turbulence closure, non-normal radiation of the velocity at the boundary, quadratic bottom friction
via a spatially varying bottom friction coefficient, spline vertical advection of tracer and momentum,
and third order upstream-biased horizontal advection of tracer and momentum. Table 5.1 outlines thesimulation setup and additional characteristics of the boundary and forcing conditions particular to
Table 5.1. Simulation Description, Boundary and Forcing Conditions.
Simulation
PeriodCPP Bottom OBC OBC UBAR HeatVBAR Flux
In 1984 DEF Friction HA
TS
Set
Set
Set
Set
Set
Set

Met
Flux
Set

River
InflowSet

MRG 15-day 3/27CPD1 BF1HA1 ST1 UV1HF1 MF1 RI1high and low 4/10;
flow
9/109/25
HRG 15-day 3/27CPD1 BF2HA2 ST2 UV1HF2 MF1 RI1high and low 4/10;
flow
9/109/25
HRG 7-mo
Mar-Sep CPD1 BF2HA2 ST1 UV1HF2 MF1 RI1simulation
HRG
Tide Apr
CPD1 BF3
HA1 ST2 UV1HF2 MF2 RI2Simulation 1
HRG
Tide Apr
CPD2 BF3
HA1 ST2 UV1HF2 MF2 RI2Simulation 2
HRG
Tide Apr
CPD3 BF3
HA1 ST2 UV2HF2 MF2 RI2Simulation 3
Notes:CPP DEF Set denotes the boundary ROMS CPPDEF options.
Bottom Friction Set denotes the spatially varying bottom friction coefficient set.
OBC HA Set denotes the open boundary harmonic constituent set.
OBC TS Set denotes the open boundary condition salinity and temperature boundary condition set.
UBAR VBAR Set denotes the u and v vertically integrated velocity set.
Heat flux Set denotes the shortwave and downward longwave radiation set.
Met Flux Set denotes the surface wind and sea-level atmospheric pressure set.
River Inflow Set denotes the river inflow discharge set.
47

Supplemental Note Set:
CPD1=FSOBC_REDUCED, FSCLAMPED and M2REDUCED at C&D canal and westernboundary; FSCHAPMAN and M2FLATHER on southern and eastern boundaries
CPD2=FSCLAMPED and M2REDUCED on all boundaries
CPD3=FSCLAMPED and M2REDUCED at C&D canal, FSCHAPMAN with SSH_TIDES andM2FLATHER with UV_TIDES on southern and eastern boundaries
Refer to Flather (1976) and Chapman (1985) for computational details.
BF1= { .007 J=[1,90] , .007 J=[91,124], .005 J=[125,132], .006 J=[133-158],.007 J=[159,232], .008 J=[233,299], .009 J=[300,550] } where J corresponds to the MRG
y-direction grid index
BF2= { .007 J=[1,68] , .007 J=[69,117], .005 J=[118,125], .006 J=[126-209],.007 J=[210,425], .008 J=[426-544], .009 J=[545,732] } where J corresponds to the HRG
y-direction grid index
BF3= { .005 J=[1,68] , .007 J=[69,117], .005 J=[118,125], .007 J=[126-209],.008 J=[210,425], .009 J=[426-544], .010 J=[545,732] } where J corresponds to the HRG
y-direction grid index
HA1= Ssa and Sa included in the tide signal and not in the residual.
HA2= Ssa and Sa not included in the tide signal but included in the residual.
ST1=Open boundary salinity and temperature from NOAA’s World Ocean Atlas 2001 (NODC,
www.nodc.noaa.gov)
ST2=Adjustments to ST1 based on NOS 1984 Circulation Survey Data (Klavens et al., 1986)
UV1=Vertically integrated u and v velocities set to zero
UV2=Vertically integrated u and v velocities from tidal inversion using the ADCIRC model for theWestern North Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast 1995 grid as developed by Myers (2007; personalcommunication)
HF1==Radiation fluxes derived from a grid to grid interpolation of NOAA’s reanalysis product(NCEP, www.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rrean/index.html) on a 32 km grid to the ROMS grid
HF2==Radiation fluxes derived from a Barnes (1973) interpolation of NOAA’s reanalysis product at
10 meteorological station locations to the ROMS grid
MF1==Wind and atmospheric pressure derived from a Barnes (1973) interpolation at 10
meteorological stations.
MF2==Winds set to zero and atmospheric pressure set to 1013 mb
RI1==River inflows set to USGS daily mean discharge
RI2==River inflows set to USGS mean annual discharge_________________________________
each simulation subsequently described. Initial salinity and temperature conditions and lateral river
inflow boundary conditions were developed from the NOS circulation survey (Klavens et al.,
1984; Richardson and Schmalz, 2006). Salinity and temperature at the open boundaries were
determined from NOAA’s World Ocean Atlas 2001 (NODC, www.nodc.noaa.gov). Wind speed anddirection and atmospheric pressure were produced at three hour intervals using Barnes (1973)
interpolation at 10 stations consisting of 2 NOAA buoys and 8 C-Man stations and airports. Using
this procedure, wind speed and direction RMS errors are order 2 m/s and 25 oT, respectively, and sea
level atmosphere pressure RMS errors are order 1.5 mb.
The water level subtidal signal at the Chesapeake Bay end of the C&D canal was based on48

Chesapeake City, MD as determined via a linear regression (bias=0.003, gain=0.784) from theBaltimore, MD subtidal water level as discussed previously. The subtidal water level signal at Cape
May, NJ is empirically reduced by 30% to prescribe the subtidal water level along the outerboundary of both grids at the shelf break. An alternative approach would be to reduce the extent of
the grid on the shelf to perhaps the 20 to 50 m contour as used by Celebioglu and Piasecki (2006)
and apply the subtidal water level signal at Cape May, NJ without empirical reduction.
Within the Delaware River and Bay system, two datums are used. Along the coast and within the
Bay proper MSL is taken as the model datum, while above Philadelphia, PA mean river level (MRL)
is assumed equal to NAVD-1988 and is taken as the model datum.
5.3 High Flow Simulation
Simulated water levels are compared with observations in Table 5.2 with RMSEs increasing fromorder 15 cm at the Bay entrance to 25 cm at Philadelphia, PA with a maximum near the head of tideat Trenton, NJ of 37 cm (see Figure 5.3) on both grids. The difference in mean water levels is order
3 cm at the entrance to the Bay indicating the influence of Sa and Ssa is small during this period (seeTable 1). In this and all subsequent tables, the relative error corresponds to the Willmott et al. (1985)
dimensionless (0-1) relative error, with zero representing perfect agreement. For the time seriesplots, the indicator of agreement (IND AGMT) equal to one minus the relative error is given.
Table 5.2. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River, DE
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error
(cm)
15/17
19/20
20/19
27/31
37/37

Relative Error(-)
0.02/0.03
0.03/0.04
0.07/0.04
0.05/0.05
0.04/0.04

49

Model Mean
(cm)
81/85
88/91
58/60
143/136200/186

Observed Mean
(cm)
86
93
63
133
191

Figure 5.3. High Flow Hindcast (27 March – 10 April 1984) Water Surface Elevation (m-MLLW)
at Trenton, NJ. Top panel: ROMS MRG Hindcast. Bottom panel: ROMS HRG
Hindcast. Observations are at one hour intervals.

50Current speed and direction model predictions are compared against observations in Tables 5.3 and
5.4, respectively. The current strengths at Station 33 and within the river sections are in reasonableagreement with observations, while predicted current strengths on the shelf do not include the mean
alongshore flow and are thus weaker than the observations. Current directions are reasonably
represented within the Bay and river sections, where the currents are rectilinear. At continental shelf
Stations16 and 17 the currents are rotary in nature and current directions on both grids exhibit larger
discrepancies from the observations.
Table 5.3. Current Speed (cm/s) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HGR Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Station No
RMS Error
Relative Error
at DAB (m)(cm/s)(-)
16 at 1113.28/13.45
0.49/0.50
17 at 3
12.27/11.58
0.60/0.51
23 at 816.76/16.82
0.16/0.18
33 at 1125.20/28.96
0.22/0.21
50 at 822.65/25.74
0.22/0.27
52 at 416.76/16.49
0.20/0.18

Model Mean
(cm/s)
7.96/8.81
7.32/7.15
43.12/39.88
58.17/58.24
59.52/55.11
41.37/49.18

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
15.33
13.34
40.54
58.17
61.78
47.17

Table 5.4. Current Direction (oT) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HRG Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom. Current direction comparisons are
only made for currents greater than 0.26 cm/s.
Stationat DAB (m)16 at 1117 at 323 at 833 at 1150 at 852 at 4RMS Error(oT)
57.77/77.25
113.22/86.04
40.63/39.32
41.86/49.09
48.80/47.88
41.50/45.33

Relative Error(-)
0.64/0.68
0.84/0.82
0.05/0.05
0.05/0.08
0.08/0.07
0.06/0.07

Model Mean(oT)
179.40/173.62
188.76/210.14
234.56/233.53
210.39/209.19
173.56/176.63
154.80/153.11

Observed Mean(oT)
228.85215.01254.61226.66176.83148.01The simulated salinities on both grids are compared with observations in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5. Salinity (PSU) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HRG Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
StationRMS Error
Relative Error
at DAB (m)
(PSU)
(-)
16 at 30.80/0.56
0.58/0.76
16 at 80.51/0.64
0.56/0.59
16 at 110.64/0.50
0.60/0.51
17 at 30.93/0.98
0.93/0.86
23 at 8
1.54/2.56
0.45/0.55
33 at 112.97/3.61
0.20/0.32

51

Model Mean
(PSU)
31.87/32.80
31.80/32.72
31.76/32.61
32.97/32.90
25.71/27.37
12.63/15.39

Observed Mean
(PSU)
32.58
32.19
32.28
33.78
25.58
13.14

In Figure 5.4 at Station 33 in the region of large horizontal gradients, while a reasonable RMSE oforder 3.0 PSU is achieved, both the ROMS MRG and HRG simulations do not follow the sag in theobserved salinity signal. While the simulated temperature response RMSEs in Table 5.6 are withinorder 2 oC, the MRG and HRG mean temperatures on the shelf are 2-3 degrees larger than theobservations.
Table 5.6. Temperature (oC) High Flow Hindcast
27 March – April 10, 1984: ROMS MRG Results / ROMS HRG Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Relative Error
StationRMS Erroro(-)
at DAB (m)( C)
16 at 3
2.16/3.16
0.68/0.77
16 at 82.24/3.12
0.66/0.75
16 at 112.22/2.98
0.65/0.72
17 at 3
2.19/2.99
0.85/0.89
23 at 80.81/0.81
0.24/0.16
33 at 110.38/1.16
0.04/0.16

Model Mean(oC)
7.16/8.16
7.29/8.17
7.38/8.13
7.66/8.48
7.19/6.59
6.74/6.91

Observed Mean
(oC)
5.01
5.06
5.17
5.51
6.43
6.71

5.4 Low Flow Simulation
To examine model performance under low flow conditions, the 10-24 September, 1984 period wassimulated. Wind speed and direction and atmospheric pressure as produced by the Barnes (1973)
interpolation at three hour intervals are compared with hourly observations and are of the same order
RMSE as for the high flow period. The mean wind speeds , river flows, and boundary subtidal waterlevels are lower than during the high flow period and the offshore tidal boundary conditions become
more dominant even for the upriver stations. Simulated water levels are contrasted with observationsin Table 5.7. While the ROMS MRG RMSEs are reduced from those for the HRG due to an
improvement in phase, at the times of peak amplitudes the HRG results correspond more closely tothe observations at Trenton, NJ as shown in Figure 5.5. The difference in the mean water levels at
the entrance to the Bay is order 10 cm and may be due to the effects of Sa and Ssa (see Table 5.1)
with the MRG RMSEs lower than on the HRG.

52

Figure 5.4. Simulated versus Observed (10 minute) Salinity at Station 33 at 11 m above thebottom. Top panel: ROMS MRG Hindcast. Bottom panel: ROMS HRG Hindcast
Note observations are at 10-minute intervals.

53

Figure 5.5. Low Flow Hindcast (10 – 24 September, 1984) Water Surface Elevation at Trenton,
NJ. Top panel: ROMS MRG Hindcast. Bottom panel: ROMS HRG Hindcast.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

54

Table 5.7. Water Surface Elevation-MLLW (m) Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results
StationLewes, DE
Cape May, NJ
Indian River,DE
Ocean City Pier,
MD
Phila. Pier 11,
PA
Trenton, NJ

RMS Error
(cm)
11/17
14/19
14/16

Relative Error(-)
0.01/0.04
0.02/0.04
0.04/0.06

Model Mean
(cm)
73/63
82/71
50/39

Observed Mean
(cm)
70
79
47

6/19

0.01/0.07

58/52

61

18/25

0.02/0.04

117/105

107

22/37

0.02/0.05

136/124

131

In Tables 5.8 and 5.9, the current speed and direction comparisons are given. At Station 33 thecurrent speed responses are reduced from those obtained for the high flow hindcast. The current
speeds are slightly under-predicted at upriver Station 51. Current direction errors are comparable
under both high and low flow conditions. In Table 5.10, the salinity response is compared withobservations. A very favorable comparison for the ROMS HRG, particularly at Station 33 in theregion of large horizontal salinity gradients is obtained with the ROMS HRG RMSEs lower at theriver Stations 33 and 154 than those on the MRG. As shown in Table 5.11, the temperature
responses for both grids are comparable, but with the mean temperatures over the shelf order 1-3 oC
larger than the observations.
Table 5.8. Current Speed (cm/s) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results
Note DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
StationRMS Error
Relative Error
Model Mean
at DAB (m)(cm/s)(-)(cm/s)
2 at 713.30/11.95
0.12/0.11
43.89/39.00
16 at 118.09/9.10
0.59/0.63
9.90/10.52
17 at 15
14.30/12.78
0.61/0.59
17.72/12.43
18 at 2
7.84/11.38
0.10/0.20
28.97/29.35
19 at 214.34/18.13
0.20/0.18
37.28/35.64
19 at 814.08/22.65
0.09/0.27
50.58/47.44
22 at 611.06/13.13
0.08/0.10
40.49/42.97
23 at 218.64/18.48
0.41/0.44
33.82/32.53
24 at 2
8.05/10.95
0.10/0.19
30.65/31.49
25 at 2
6.95/7.75
0.07/0.09
29.98/29.87
33 at 2
11.02/13.10
0.13/0.20
35.53/33.20
51 at 917.48/14.96
0.18/0.13
52.60/57.32
154 at 2
22.48/12.73
0.48/0.23
26.07/29.71

55

Observed Mean
(cm/s)
39.01
9.89
17.71
25.18
28.27
45.45
41.69
17.34
27.69
29.22
29.28
61.46
31.47

Table 5.9. Current Direction (oT) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results
Note DAB denotes distance above the bottom. Current direction comparisons
are only made for currents greater than 0.26 cm/s.
Stationat DAB (m)2 at 716 at 11RMS Error(oT)
8.36/8.31
104.56/121.72

Relative Error(-)
0.00/0.00
0.39/0.51

Model Mean(oT)
223.77/232.74
142.69/139.75

Observed Mean(oT)
212.66217.8517 at 1518 at 2108.20/90.96
7.98/12.40

0.44/0.53
0.00/0.01

165.46/190.02
225.93/226.27

230.55238.7919 at 218.88/16.10

0.01/0.01

229.55/234.91

257.0119 at 822.63/23.59

0.02/0.02

231.13/238.18

247.1822 at 623 at 224 at 225 at 233 at 251 at 9154 at 2

10.01/27.70
5.87/19.88
45.53/45.84
119.44/117.30
6.37/17.12
18.16/30.13
53.68/14.87

0.00/0.03
0.00/0.01
0.06/0.06
0.87/0.87
0.00/0.01
0.01/0.03
0.12/0.01

231.15/222.89
238.76/226.89
240.97/225.74
107.40/107.5
227.65/224.94
191.47/194.09
161.13/173.16

231.98269.80245.13184.53226.26194.25187.41

Table 5.10. Salinity (PSU) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
StationRMS Error
Relative Error
at DAB (m)
(PSU)
(-)
2 at 70.14/0.73
0.28/0.71
16 at 3
1.52/2.94
0.93/0.96
16 at 11
0.26/1.01
0.65/0.81
19 at 2
1.37/1.40
0.50/0.50
22 at 6
0.81/0.82
0.15/0.12
23 at 2
1.39/1.20
0.56/0.50
24 at 2
0.79/1.14
0.29/0.40
33 at 20.90/1.08
0.10/0.13
154 at 2
0.76/1.68
0.57/0.50

56

Model Mean
(PSU)
30.40/30.77
31.27/32.82
31.03/32.14
29.86/29.96
27.64/27.02
28.64/28.45
25.48/25.15
20.21/18.14
7.00/5.05

Observed Mean
(PSU)
30.08
29.68
31.15
28.67
27.34
27.44
26.21
18.81
6.59

Table 5.11. Temperature (oC) Revised Low Flow Hindcast
September 10-24, 1984: ROMS MRG Results/ ROMS HRG Results
Stationat DAB (m)2 at 716 at 316 at 1119 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 224 at 233 at 2DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
Relative Error
RMS Error(-)(oC)
1.57/2.82
0.92/0.95
2.67/0.81
0.74/0.55
1.22/2.97
0.56/0.67
2.38/3.56
0.92/0.95
2.43/3.60
0.91/0.95
3.13/3.33
0.92/0.92
2.88/3.25
0.72/0.74
2.93/3.28
0.83/0.85
2.07/2.01
0.91/0.91

Model Mean(oC)
21.99/24.11
17.82/21.21
21.93/23.89
23.41/24.40
23.42/24.40
24.13/24.41
24.04/24.42
24.16/24.54
24.38/24.23

Observed Mean
(oC)
21.04
20.87
20.93
20.67
20.62
20.75
21.20
20.63
22.40

5.5 Extended Hindcast March – September 1984
To further assess the ability of the ROMS HRG to replicate conditions in Delaware Bay a sevenmonth hindcast was performed. Water level results were examined in 15 day increments to assess thevariability of the skill as shown in Table 5.12. The range of RMSE over the fourteen 15 day periods
decreases from 17 cm at Trenton, NJ to 7 cm at the Capes, indicating the influence of the flow
variations in the Delaware River. Similar water level RMSEs were obtained for two 30-day
simulations using the MRG. The percent of the RMSE to the mean tidal range at each station is
given to assess the deviation from 10%, which is being considered as a supplemental water levelskill assessment target to the formal targets outlined in NOS (1999) and in Hess et al. (2003). To
meet thisTable 5.12. Seven Month ROMS HRG Hindcast March-September 1984 Water Level RMSE(cm) Summary. The analyses are for 15 days, thus there are two entries for eachmonth. PMTR denotes the RMSE expressed as a percentage of the mean tide range.
ROMS MRG 30-day simulation water level RMSE (cm) are denoted by * over 27
Mar – 25 Apr 1984 and + over 26 Aug – 24 Sep 1984.
Station Mar
Apr
May JunJul
Aug Sep
Seven RMSE PMRTMonth Range
RMSE
Trenton 33/26 33/25 39/34 42/35 33/39 35/34 28/39
34
17
13.7
, NJ
29*
31+
Phila.,
27/21 27/21 30/24 32/28 31/32 25/26 20/25
27
12
14.8
PA
22*
24+
Lewes, 17/13 15/11 18/13 17/15 15/17 18/16 14/18
16
7
12.9
DE
12*
17+
Cape
21/14 20/15 21/15 18/16 16/18 14/19 15/20
17
7
11.4
May,
16*
20+
NJ

57

supplemental skill assessment target, the RMSEs would need to be reduced at Trenton, NJ by 9 cm,
at Phila, PA by 9 cm, at Lewes, DE by 4 cm, and at Cape May, NJ by 2 cm, respectively.
5.6 Tidal Analysis and Simulations
To further analyze the water level response, an estimate of the tidal error (TE) given in Table 5.13
was made by subtracting the 30 hour low pass filtered water level hindcast results from the hindcast
total water levels. The tidal errors range from order 15 cm at the Capes to order 25 cm at the head oftide at Trenton, NJ. Based on these results, it is of benefit to further seek improvements in tide only
simulations directly. Towards this end, three tidal simulations were performed using yearly averageriver flows. Wind, atmospheric pressure anomalies, and subtidal water levels were set to zero.
However, salinity and temperature were initialized to observed non-uniform conditions and time anddepth varying boundary conditions applied. Surface heat flux computations were made using thebulk flux formulation. For all three simulations at the C&D canal boundary the CLAMPED and
M2REDUCED options were used for the water level and two-dimensional vertically integrated
boundary velocities, respectively. Conditions varied along the southern and eastern open ocean
boundaries for the water level and two-dimensional vertically integrated boundary velocities in eachof the three simulations as shown in Table 5.1. RMSEs and relative errors are given in Table 5.13 foreach of these three simulations. Simulation 2 exhibited the lowest errors at the entrance to Delaware
Bay, but at the head of tide at Trenton, NJ, all the simulation results were similar as shown in Figure5.6. Of interest is the behavior of the simulations at several grid cells one grid cell in along the open
boundaries as indicated by the last seven OBC entries in Table 5.13. Simulation 2 exhibited waterlevels with the closest agreement to the boundary water level specification.
In Table 5.14, tidal current speed RMSEs and relative errors are considered. Tidally extracted
current components are determined by subtracting the low pass filtered current component from thetotal current hindcast component. In general, RMSE and relative errors for all three tidal simulations
are near the tidally extracted currents.
5.7 Summary and Additional Considerations
On the high resolution grid the C&D Canal and main navigation channel are well represented withthe currents at Station 154 and in the upper river sections improved. For the high flow 15-day
period, the ROMS MRG and HRG simulation results for water levels were very similar, while forthe 15-day low flow period the ROMS MRG results were superior. For both 15-day periods, the
ROMS MRG and HRG simulation results for Bay currents, salinity, and temperature werecomparable. This version of the model, DBOFS Version 1.0, was ported to NCEP and run in semioperational mode in early June 2009. Significant variations in water level RMSEs at Trenton, NJ
were exhibited during the seven month ROMS HRG hindcast using DBOFS Version 1.0 from Marchthrough September 1984 and indicated additional modification of the seven bottom roughness zones
used by Walters (1992a; 1992b) should be pursued. In Chapter 6, efforts are first described to adjust
the seven bottom roughness zone values under astronomical tide conditions.

58

Table 5.13. Water Surface Elevation-MSL (m)Tidal Extraction from Hindcast and Tidal Simulations 1-3: April 1984
StationMarcus Hook,
PA
Cape May, NJ
Ship John Shoal,
NJ
Tacony Bridge,
NJ
Burlington, NJ
Phila. USCG,
PA
Phila. Pier 11,
PA
Delaware City,
DE
Reedy Point, DE
Brandywine
Shoal, DE
Lewes, DE
Indian River,DE
Ocean City Pier,MD
Chesapeake
City, MD
Trenton, NJ
W-OBC
S-OBC 1
S-OBC2
S-OBC3
S-OBC4/EOBC1
E-OBC2
E-OBC3

TE
24

RMS Error (cm)
S1
S2
21
10

S3
16

Relative Error (-)
TE
S1
S2
0.04
0.04
0.01

S3
0.02

15
20

13
17

7
8

12
15

0.02
0.03

0.01
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01

21

17

12

16

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

21
20

18
17

18
8

19
14

0.02
0.03

0.01
0.02

0.01
0.00

0.02
0.01

18

13

16

16

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.02

18

14

8

13

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.01

17
17

13
15

8
7

12
13

0.02
0.03

0.01
0.02

0.01
0.00

0.01
0.01

13
15

11
12

6
15

11
18

0.02
0.05

0.01
0.03

0.00
0.05

0.01
0.06

14

14

5

10

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.02

14

13

10

12

0.04

0.04

0.02

0.03

24
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

19
3
18
12
9
8

21
2
2
2
1
2

22
2
10
8
8
7

0.02
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0.01
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.02

0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01

n/a
n/a

8
9

2
3

7
9

n/a
n/a

0.01
0.01

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01

59

Table 5.14. Current Speed (cm/s)
Tidal Extraction from Hindcast and Tidal Simulations 1-3: April 1984
DAB denotes distance above the bottom.
StationRMS Error
DAB (m)(cm/s)TE
S1
S2
S3
2 at 7
11.51 11.60
9.38
13.39
3 at 516.62 15.58
9.92
16.08
5 at 520.03 17.99
7.19
15.05
11 at 3
4.49
3.64
5.87
5.31
16 at 8
6.01
6.37
3.69
6.15
17 at 15
5.87
9.60
8.01
8.77
18 at 29.45
8.15
13.33 11.59
19 at 815.40 13.10
9.04
15.71
21 at 2
11.08 9.88
15.56 14.94
22 at 614.67 11.86 18.21 14.57
23 at 8
11.78 9.89
8.41
12.13
24 at 2
11.93 10.68 16.37 14.29
25 at 235.27 34.91 37.40 37.21
33 at 11m
18.25 14.01 21.13 18.47
51 at 930.81 26.89 26.80 29.51
154 at 8
50.05 47.67 34.87 39.77

60

TE
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.52
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.82
0.02
0.11
0.26

Relative Error
(-)
S1
S2
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.57
0.21
0.25
0.20
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.82
0.83
0.01
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.25
0.14

S3
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.38
0.17
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.82
0.02
0.10
0.17

Figure 5.6. Tidal Water Level (m-demeaned) at Trenton, NJ for Julian Days 90-100, 1984. Top,
Middle, and Bottom Panel: Simulation 1, Simulation 2 and Simulation 3. Simulations 1
and 2 employ external and Simulation 3 internal to ROMS tidal water levelspecification. Note predictions are at 6-minute intervals.

61

62

6. ROMS HIGH RESOLUTION GRID EXTENDED HINDCASTS
Prior to performing the 13 month extended hindcast, as suggested in Chapter 5, improvements weresought in the tidal response. The following approach was used. The simulation 2 CPPDEF options inTable 5.1 of Chapter 5 (FSCLAMPED and M2REDUCED) were used on the open ocean
boundaries. To further adjust the offshore tidal harmonic constants, harmonic analyses of simulated
water levels were performed at all water level stations and compared to NOS accepted harmonic
constants. Before performing the comparison, coastal water level time series were reconstructedfrom the 37 accepted NOS tidal harmonics. Next, the reconstructed time series were harmonicallyanalyzed to see how closely the tidal constituents could be recovered. Once it was determined, thatthe tidal constituents could be recovered, eighteen one-month tidal simulation were performed inwhich the off shore boundary tidal water level constituents were varied along with the bottomroughness zone values to seek to optimize the tidal response. Upon completion of the tidal response
optimization, an extended 13-month tidal simulation was performed and evaluated, followed by a
13-month hindcast simulation both over the period from March 1984 through March 1985.
6.1 29-day Harmonic Analysis Considerations
One notes the following issues associated with this process.
1. When one predicts a water level series from the harmonic constants, the constituent equilibrium
arguments, [(Vo+u)i]p , i=1,37, are based on 1 January hour zero of the year of the prediction, while
the constituent node factors, [fi ]p, i=1,37, are based on the middle of the year of prediction.
2. When one performs a harmonic analysis from the predicted water level series, the constituent
equilibrium arguments, [(Vo+u)i]a , i=1,37, are based on the start month, day, and hour of the series,
while the constituent reduction factors, [Fi ]a, i=1,37, are based on the middle of the prediction
period.
3. Note Fi=1/fi and thus the reduction factors are the reciprocals of the node factors, which vary
slowly over the year and are taken equal to the mid-year value.
4. Therefore the two sets of node factors are nearly equal. That is [fi ]p, i=1,37 ~ [fi ]a, i=1,37.
However, the two set of equilibrium arguments are significantly different, unless the prediction
period starts at the beginning of the year. That is [(Vo+u)i]p , i=1,37 ≠ [(Vo+u)i]a , i=1,37.
The above points are illustrated by:First, a prediction of water level series from the 37 NOS accepted harmonic constituents at Ocean
City Pier, MD, Chesapeake City, MD, Cape May, NJ, and Lewes, DE starting on 27 March 1984
over a period of 33 days.
Second, the performance of a 29-day harmonic analysis of the water level series is conducted with acomparison of the 24 tidal constituents derived from the analysis shown in the corresponding Tables
6.1-6.4. In Table 6.5, a NOS accepted constituent amplitude weighted ratio of the 29-day harmonic
analysis amplitude to the NOS accepted amplitude is given as the weighted gain. The weighted
63phase in Table 6.5 is the difference in phase in hours weighted analogously, while the estimated
RMS error is based on the method described by Hess (1994).
Table 6.1. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Ocean City Pier, MD.
Constituent
Model Amplitude (m)NOS Accepted
Difference
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o) Amp (m) Phase (o)M(2)
0.4990 215.70
0.5010 215.90-.0020 -0.20
S(2)0.0940 233.20
0.0970 234.60-.0030 -1.40
N(2)0.1220 199.70
0.1170 199.90
0.0050 -0.20
K(1)0.0760 113.60
0.0880 119.10-.0120 -5.50
M(4)0.0070 293.10
0.0070 291.60
0.00001.50
O(1)0.0870 115.60
0.0850 115.50
0.00200.10
M(6)0.0140 236.40
0.0140 236.50
0.0000 -0.10
S(4)0.0040 269.20
0.0030 271.30
0.0010 -2.10
NU(2)0.0240 201.90
0.0230 199.00
0.00102.90
Q(1)0.0170 116.50
0.0160 105.00
0.0010 11.50
P(1)0.0250 113.80
0.0310 117.90-.0060 -4.10
L(2)0.0170 194.30
0.0140 231.80
0.0030 -37.50
K(2)0.0260 234.60
0.0250 232.90
0.00101.70
Table 6.2. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Chesapeake City, MD.
Constituent
Model Amplitude (m)NOS Accepted
Difference
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o) Amp (m) Phase (o)M(2)
0.4320 308.60
0.4340 309.00
0.4340 309.00
S(2)0.0650 344.40
0.0590 341.50
0.00602.90
N(2).0810 290.30
0.0750 294.00
0.0060 -3.70K(1)0.0180 271.60
0.0320 268.90-.01402.70
M(4)0.0260 208.70
0.0260 208.80
0.0000 -0.10O(1)0.0150 286.20
0.0140 292.70
0.0010 -6.50
M(6)0.0090 25.60
0.0090 26.50
0.0000 -0.90
S(4)0.0020 261.80
0.0020 261.60
0.00000.20
NU(2)0.0160 292.80
0.0210 285.50-.00507.30
Q(1)0.0030 293.50
0.0090 274.10-.0060 19.40
P(1)0.0060 272.70
0.0100 256.20-.0040 16.50
L(2)0.0120 284.90
0.0300 303.00-.0180 -18.10
K(2)0.0180 347.30
0.0180 340.50
0.00006.80

64Table 6.3. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Cape May, NJ.
Constituent
Model Amplitude (m)NOS Accepted
Difference
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o) Amp (m) Phase (o)M(2)
0.7120 243.40
0.7140 243.60-.0020 -0.20
S(2)0.1260 265.40
0.1250 265.30
0.00100.10
N(2)0.1650 227.10
0.1590 227.50
0.0060 -0.40
K(1)0.1650 227.10
0.1590 227.50
0.0060 -0.40
M(4)0.0100 168.40
0.0100 171.10
0.0000 -2.70
O(1)0.0860 116.50
0.0840 115.80
0.00200.70
M(6)0.0080 302.50
0.0080 306.00
0.0000 -3.50
S(4)0.0010 280.80
0.00000.00
0.0010 -79.20
NU(2)0.0320 229.30
0.0320 224.80
0.00004.50
Q(1)0.0170 115.30
0.0130 117.10
0.0040 -1.80
P(1)0.0320 118.90
0.0360 124.40-.0040 -5.50
L(2)0.0240 221.70
0.0370 256.20-.0130 -34.50
K(2)0.0340 267.20
0.0330 264.00
0.0010
3.20
Table 6.4. Water Level Harmonic Constant Comparison at Lewes, DE.
Constituent
Model Amplitude (m)NOS Accepted
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)M(2)
0.6140 245.90
0.6160 246.10
S(2)0.1110 264.40
0.1080 266.80
N(2)0.1410 228.00
0.1340 228.40
K(1)0.0950 122.30
0.1030 126.40
M(4)0.0120 255.80
0.0130 256.40
O(1)0.0840 119.50
0.0830 118.80
M(6)0.0060 271.40
0.0060 274.70
S(4)0.0010 267.80
0.00000.00
NU(2)0.0270 230.40
0.0280 228.80
Q(1)0.0160 118.10
0.0130 115.90P(1)0.0310 122.10
0.0340 124.30
L(2)0.0200 222.50
0.0200 260.30
K(2)0.0300 265.90
0.0300 261.40

65

Difference
Amp (m) Phase (o)-.0020 -0.20
0.0030 -2.40
0.0070 -0.40-.0080 -4.10-.0010 -0.60
0.00100.70
0.0000 -3.30
0.0010 -92.20-.00101.60
0.00302.20-.0030 -2.20
0.0000 -37.80
0.00004.50

Table 6.5. Open Boundary Condition Tidal Error Summary
StationWeighted Gain
Weighted Phase
(-)
(hrs)
Ocean City Pier, MD
0.99
-0.05
Chesapeake City, MD
0.91
0.07
Cape May, NJ
0.99
-0.07
Lewes, DE
1.00
-0.06

Estimated RMSE
(cm)
1
2
2
2

One important detail about the 29-day harmonic analysis program is that it only calculates 10
constituents directly by Fourier series from the input 29-day time series. These constituents are M2,
S2, N2, K1, O1, and the overtides M4, M6, S4, S6, and M8. The program next infers the 14 additional
constituents which cannot be resolved with only 29 days of data by redistributing the energy in the
10 calculated constituents according to the standard ratios in the astronomical tide potential driving
force as discussed by Shureman (1958) on page 79. The input prediction has 37 accepted
constituents which were obtained by least squares analysis of several full years of data, so the ratiosof the small constituents to the large ones are determined by the actual data.
6.2 April 1984 Tidal Simulation Validation
To obtain accurate water levels from the coast to the head of tide, it was necessary to adjust: 1) the
amplitude and phase of the M2, N2, and S2 constituents , 2) the bottom friction coefficients in theseven zones used by Walters (1992a; 1992b), and 3) the bathymetric cutoff depths. The simulations
performed were for the 30 days of April 1984 and are summarized in Table 6.6. The boundary
harmonic constants sets are given in Table 6.7, the bottom friction sets in Table 6.8, and thebathymetric sets are given in Table 6.9. The associated water level station M2 amplitude and phaserms errors for the 18 simulations given in Table 6.6 are shown in Table 6.10. Note simulations 1-4
used free slip lateral boundary conditions, while the remaining simulations used a lateral boundary
condition half-way between free slip and no slip as used in POM. No difference in results was
obtained using the different lateral boundary conditions as noted in the comparison between
simulations 4 and 5. Simulation 1 corresponds to DBOFS Version 1.0 while simulation 18
corresponds to DBOFS Version 1.1 as implemented at NCEP. DBOFS Version 1.0 and Version 1.1
results are given in Tables 6.11 and 6.12, respectively. One notes the significant improvement inwater surface elevation RMSE at the Entrance to the Bay of order 10 cm (also see Figure 6.1), at
Philadelphia, PA of order 12 cm (also see Figure 6.2), and at the head of tide at Trenton, NJ of order
11 cm (also see Figure 6.3). Principal component direction current strength RMSEs are generally
less than 26 cm/s (0.5 kt) at all stations and where they exceed this value, this may be due to thediscrepancy in the principal component directions exhibited in the model versus the data. In thesecomparisons, the model currents are resolved along the measured principal component direction.
DBOFS Version 1.1 simulated currents are shown for JD 100-110, 1984 as one proceeds from theshelf at Stations 17 and 2 in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 through the Bay from Stations 19, 23, and 33 inFigures 6.6 – 6.8 and into the river at Station 154 and 51 in Figures 6.9 and 6.10, respectively.

66

Table 6.6. Tidal Validation Simulation Summary
Note Expmm.comf and Expmm.1.o use the Flather (1976) and Chapman (1985)
boundary conditions, while the remaining simulations use the clamped and reduced
boundary conditions.
Simulation
Date
Bathymetric
Bottom Friction
HA
No. and Name
Performed
Set
Set
Set
1 Expmm.comf
11/16/2009
1
1
0
2 Expmm.1.o
10/23/2009
1
1
0
3 Expmm.1
10/29/2009
2
1
0
4 Expmm.11
10/30/2009
2
1
1
5 Expmm.111
11/6/2009
2
1
1
6 Expmm.1111
11/9/2009
2
2
2
7 Expmm.11111
11/10/2009
2
3
2
8 Expmm.1.6
11/10/2009
2
4
2
9 Expmm.1.7
11/10/2009
2
5
2
10 Expmm.1.8
11/19/2009
2
6
2
11 Expmm.1.9
11/19/2009
2
7
2
12 Expmm.1.10
11/20/2009
2
8
3
13 Expmm.1.11
11/23/2009
2
9
3
14 Expmm.1.12
11/23/2009
2
10
3
15 Expmm.1.13
11/23/2009
2
11
3
16 Expmm.1.14
11/24/2009
2
12
4
17 Expmm.1.15
11/25/2009
2
12
4
18 Expmm.1.16
11/30/2009
3
12
4
Table 6.7. Water Level Open Boundary Major Harmonic Constituent Sets
853-4720 at Atlantic City, NJ
Set No.
M2
S2
N2
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)
0
0.594
210.4
0.116
227.8
0.141
193.7
1
0.494
210.4
0.136
218.8
0.210
152.7
2
0.524
210.4
0.116
227.8
0.201
200.0
3
0.524
210.4
0.116
227.8
0.201
200.0
4
0.524
215.4
0.116
227.8
0.171
200.0
Table 6.7. (Cont.) Water Level Open Boundary Major Harmonic Constituent Sets
857-0280 at Ocean City Pier, MD
Set No.
M2
S2
N2
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)
0
0.501
215.9
0.097
234.6
0.117
199.9
1
0.495
210.6
0.117
213.5
0.177
143.8
2
0.470
215.9
0.097
234.6
0.170
179.0
3
0.470
215.9
0.097
234.6
0.170
179.0
4
0.470
220.9
0.097
234.6
0.140
179.0
67

Table 6.7. (Cont.) Water Level Open Boundary Major Harmonic Constituent Sets
857-3927 at Chesapeake City, MD
Set No.
M2
S2
N2
Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)Amp (m) Phase (o)
0
0.434
309.0
0.059
341.5
0.075
294.0
1
0.314
296.0
0.049
328.5
0.065
275.0
2
0.332
303.0
0.049
335.5
0.075
294.0
3
0.332
303.0
0.049
335.5
0.055
284.0
4
0.332
303.0
0.049
335.5
0.055
284.0
Table 6.8. Bottom Friction Coefficient Sets.
Zone No.
Description
Set 1
Set 2
1
OB to Bay
0.005
0.005
Entrance
2
Bay Entrance to 0.007
0.007
Ship John Shoal
3
Ship John Shoal 0.005
0.005
to Station 33
4
Station 33 to 0.009
0.009
Station 154
5
Station 154 to 0.010
0.010
Station 51
6
Station 51 to 0.011
0.012
Station 52
7
Station 52 to 0.012
0.013
TTN
Table 6.8. (Cont.) Bottom Friction Coefficient Sets.
Zone No.
Description
Set 7
Set 8
1
OB to Bay
0.005
0.005
Entrance
2
Bay Entrance to 0.010- 0.010
Ship John Shoal 0.014
3
Ship John Shoal 0.014- 0.012
to Station 33
0.018
4
Station 33 to 0.018- 0.014
Station 154
0.020
5
Station 154 to 0.020- 0.016
Station 51
0.022
6
Station 51 to 0.022- 0.025
Station 52
0.028
7
Station 52 to 0.028- 0.028
TTN
0.036

68

Set 3
0.005

Set 4
0.005

Set 5
0.005

Set 6
0.005

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.010

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.014

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.018

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.020

0.015

0.025

0.045

0.036

0.016

0.066

0.066

0.039

Set 9
0.005

Set 100.005

Set 11
0.005

Set 12
0.005

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.012

0.012

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.014

0.012

0.016

0.016

0.020

0.018

0.025

0.020

0.0100.014
0.0140.016
0.0160.019
0.0190.022

0.012
0.014
0.016

Table 6.9. Bathymetric Sets
Set
Free Surface OpenNo.
Ocean Boundary
Condition
1
2
3

ChapmanClampedClampedC&D Canal River
Shelf
Entrance Adjustment Cutoff
Depth
(m)
No
300
Yes
130
Yes
130

Bay Cutoff
Depth (m)555Table 6.10. M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 1
Sim. 2Sim. 3
Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Ocean City Pier, MD
4.0
6.7
2.9
0.3
2.9 0.3
Chesapeake City, MD
9.8
8.0
10.2
5.9
10.2
5.8
Lewes, DE
8.9
3.1
6.7
-2.8
6.7 -2.8
Cape May, NJ
9.2
3.4
6.7
-2.6
6.7 -2.6
Brandywine Shoal,
10.9
4.7
8.5
-1.4
8.5 -1.4
DE
Ship John Shoal, DE
14.0
0.7
11.4
-5.9
11.4 -5.9
Reedy Point, DE
10.0 -2.2
7.8-8.7
7.7 -8.6
Delaware City, DE
9.5 -1.5
7.7-7.9
7.6 -7.9
Marcus Hook, PA
2.7
3.2
1.3
-3.4
1.3 -3.4
Phila. USCG, PA
10.4 -3.8
9.0 -10.6
9.0 -10.6
Phila. Pier 11, PA
13.7 -10.8 12.4 -17.7
12.4 -17.7
Tacony Bridge, NJ
15.6 -6.7 14.2 -13.7
14.2 -13.7
Burlington, PA
17.7 -11.1 16.1 -18.1
16.1 -18.1
Trenton, NJ
17.2 -12.7 15.2 -19.8
15.2 -19.8

River
Cutoff
Depth
(m)
5
5
2

Sim. 4
Amp Phase(cm) (o)-2.4 -2.8
0.8
2.3
0.6 -4.1
0.1 -4.1
1.8 -2.9
4.4 -7.8
1.9 -10.6
1.8 -9.9-3.8 -5.3
3.5 -12.6
6.8 -19.7
8.2 -15.7
9.3 -20.3
8.0 -22.0

Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 5Sim. 6
Sim. 7Sim. 8Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Ocean City Pier, MD-2.4-2.8 -2.4
-2.8
-2.4
-2.8
-2.4
-2.8
Chesapeake City, MD
0.8
2.3
1.2
2.2
1.3
2.2
1.6
2.6
Lewes, DE
0.6
-4.1
0.3
-4.2
0.3
-4.2
0.6
-4.1
Cape May, NJ
0.1
-4.1
0.8
-4.2
0.7
-4.1
0.2
-4.1
Brandywine Shoal,
1.8
-2.9
2.1
-2.9
2.0
-2.9
1.9
-2.8
DE
Ship John Shoal, DE
4.4
-7.8
5.0
-8.0
5.0
-7.8
4.9
-7.3
Reedy Point, DE
1.9 -10.6
2.9-10.9
3.5 -10.7
5.0 -10.0
Delaware City, DE
1.8
-9.9
2.9
-10.2
3.7 -10.1
5.6-9.6
Marcus Hook, PA-3.8-5.3 -2.8
-6.4
-1.9
-7.4
1.1
-9.6
69

Phila. USCG, PA
Phila. Pier 11, PA

3.5 -12.6
6.8 -19.7

3.3
6.5

-12.6
-19.7

1.9
4.9

-12.3
-19.3

-0.9
1.7

-13.6
-20.5

Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 5Sim. 6
Sim. 7Sim. 8Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Tacony Bridge, NJ
8.2 -15.7
7.8-15.6
5.8 -14.7-0.2 -13.6
Burlington, PA
9.3 -20.3
8.9-19.9
6.4 -18.5-2.1 -13.1
Trenton, NJ
8.0 -22.0
7.6-21.5
4.9 -19.9-4.9 -12.4
Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 9Sim. 10
Sim. 11Sim. 12
Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Ocean City Pier, MD
-2.4
-2.8
-2.3
-2.9
-2.3 -2.9-2.4
2.1
Chesapeake City, MD
1.8
2.8
-0.2
3.9
-0.8
3.9
-0.3
5.7
Lewes, DE
0.5
-4.0
0.4
-5.4
-0.6 -5.9
0.3-0.5
Cape May, NJ
0.1
-4.0
-0.7
-4.7
0.4 -6.3-0.8
0.3
Brandywine Shoal,
1.8
-2.7
0.7
-3.2
0.4 -4.6
0.5
1.7
DEShip John Shoal, DE
4.9
-7.0
0.8
-5.8
-1.9 -4.9
0.3-0.7
Reedy Point, DE
6.0
-9.8
-3.3
-7.6
-5.5 -7.3-2.2-3.3
Delaware City, DE
6.9
-9.4
-3.4
-6.9
-5.7 -6.6-2.3-2.6
Marcus Hook, PA
2.7 -11.2 -12.3-3.8-15.2 -1.4 -10.1
0.7
Phila. USCG, PA-4.3 -12.1 -13.6-6.6-13.2 -6.5
-9.2
-3.2
Phila. Pier 11, PA-1.9 -18.7 -10.9 -13.5-10.4 -13.5-6.4 -10.2
Tacony Bridge, NJ-4.1 -11.3 -11.9-7.8-10.9 -8.5
-6.8
-4.9
Burlington, PA-6.2 -11.5 -13.6 -10.5-12.3 -11.8
-7.9
-8.1
Trenton, NJ-9.3 -11.1 -17.0 -11.3-15.5 -12.8 -10.7-9.1
Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 13Sim. 14Sim. 15
Sim. 16
Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Ocean City Pier, MD
-2.4
2.1
-2.4
2.1
-2.4
2.1
-2.3
2.0
Chesapeake City, MD
-0.4
5.5
-0.4
5.4
-0.3
5.5
-0.6
5.1
Lewes, DE
0.3 -0.4
0.3 -0.5
0.5 -0.5
0.3 -0.6
Cape May, NJ
-0.8
0.3
-0.7
0.2
-0.4 -0.2 -0.8
0.1
Brandywine Shoal, DE
0.5
1.8
0.5
1.7
0.8
1.4
0.4
1.5
Ship John Shoal, DE
0.3 -0.7
0.4 -0.9
0.9 -1.3-0.2-0.9
Reedy Point, DE-2.6 -3.4-2.8 -3.6-2.6 -4.0 -3.0
-3.5
Delaware City, DE-2.8 -2.6-3.1 -2.8-2.9 -3.1 -2.9
-2.8
70

Marcus Hook, PA
Phila. USCG, PA

-10.8
-8.1

1.6
-3.5

-11.3
-7.6

2.0
-3.5

-11.1
-7.1

1.9
-4.0

-8.7
-3.3

1.5
-4.9

Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 13Sim. 14Sim. 15
Sim. 16
Amp Phase Amp Phase
Amp Phase
Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Phila. Pier 11, PA-5.3 -10.5-4.6 -10.5-4.1 11.1-0.2 -12.0
Tacony Bridge, NJ
-5.4
-5.7
-4.3 -6.1-3.9 -6.6
0.6-7.9
Burlington, PA
-6.1
-9.0
-4.8 -10.1-4.3 -10.5
0.8 -12.1
Trenton, NJ-8.8 -10.1-7.3 -11.5-6.8 -11.8 -1.3 -13.7
Table 6.10. (Cont.) M2 Tidal Constituent Amplitude (cm) and Phase (o) Errors.
StationSim. 17Sim. 18
Amp Phase Amp Phase(cm) (o)(cm) (o)Ocean City Pier, MD-2.3
1.8 -2.3
2.0
Chesapeake City,
1.0 11.1
-0.5
5.1
MD
Lewes, DE-0.1 -1.9
0.3 -0.6
Cape May, NJ-1.2 -0.8-0.8
0.1
Brandywine Shoal,-0.2 0.7
0.4
1.6
DEShip John Shoal, DE-2.8 2.3 -0.2
-0.8
Reedy Point, DE-6.0 0.9 -2.5
-3.4
Delaware City, DE-6.8 2.3 -2.3
-2.7
Marcus Hook, PA-15.0 9.0 -8.1
0.6
Phila. USCG, PA-10.8 5.1 -4.0
-5.4
Phila. Pier 11, PA-7.9 - 2.1 -1.0 -12.5
Tacony Bridge, NJ-7.5 2.3 -0.5
-7.4
Burlington, PA-7.9 -0.9 -0.3
-9.9
Trenton, NJ-10.5 -1.3 -2.2 -10.0
Table 6.11. DBOFS Version 1.0 and Version 1.1 April 1984 Tidal Simulation Results:
Water Surface Elevation.
Station
RMSE (m)Relative Error (-)
Version 1.0 Version
Version 1.0
Version 1.1
1.1
Marcus Hook, PA
Cape May, NJ
Ship John Shoal,
NJ
Tacony Bridge, NJ
Burlington, NJ
Phila. USCG, PA

13
13
15

10
4
7

0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.00
0.00

19
25
16

12
16
10

0.02
0.03
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.01

71

Table 6.11. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.0 and Version 1.1 April 1984 Tidal Simulation Results:
Water Surface Elevation.
Station
RMSE (m)Relative Error (-)
Version 1.0 Version 1.1
Version 1.0
Version 1.1
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Delaware City,
DE
Reedy Point, DE
Brandywine
Shoal, DE
Lewes, DE
Indian River, DE
Ocean City Pier,MD
Chesapeake City,
MD
Trenton, NJ
W-OBC
S-OBC 1
S-OBC2
S-OBC3
S-OBC4/E-OBC1
E-OBC2
E-OBC3

21
14

17
7

0.03
0.01

0.02
0.00

13
14

7
6

0.01
0.02

0.00
0.00

11
18
10

3
14
5

0.01
0.06
0.02

0.00
0.04
0.00

9

4

0.02

0.00

30
1
10
8
8
8
7
9

19
6
5
5
5
5
6
7

0.03
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

Table 6.12. DBOFS Version 1.0 and Version 1.1 April 1984 Tidal Simulation Results:
Principal Component Direction Current.
StationDAB (m)2 at 73 at 55 at 511 at 316 at 817 at 1518 at 219 at 821 at 222 at 623 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 1151 at 9154 at 8

RMSE (cm/s)
Version 1.0 Version 1.1
12.7
15.3
17.6
7.8
16.8
8.0
5.6
3.8
6.5
4.0
8.4
7.0
12.2
7.2
16.3
8.4
16.1
11.5
14.8
14.1
11.7
6.9
12.7
9.8
33.9
30.3
16.7
17.5
33.7
29.6
35.6
33.2

Relative Error (-)
Version 1.0
Version 1.1
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.42
0.24
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.81
0.81
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.11

72

Figure 6.1. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Lewes, DE. Top panel
shows DBOFS Version 1.0 results. Bottom panel shows DBOFS Version 1.1
results. Predictions are at 6-minute intervals.

73

Figure 6.2. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Philadelphia, PA. Top panel
shows DBOFS Version 1.0 results. Bottom panel shows DBOFS Version 1.1 results.
Predictions are at 6-minute intervals.

74

Figure 6.3. Simulated Astronomical Tide JD 100-110, 1984 at Trenton, NJ. Top panel
shows DBOFS Version 1.0 results. Bottom panel shows DBOFS Version 1.1 results.
Predictions are at 6-minute intervals.

75

Figure 6.4. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 17. Predictions are
at 6-minute intervals.

76

Figure 6.5. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 2. Predictions are
at 6-minute intervals.

77

Figure 6.6. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 19. Predictions
are at 6-minute intervals.

78

Figure 6.7. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 23. Predictions are
at 6-minute intervals.

79

Figure 6.8. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 33. Predictions
are at 6-minute intervals.

80

Figure 6.9. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 154. Predictions are
at 6-minute intervals.

81

Figure 6.10. DBOFS Version 1.1 Tidal Current JD 100-110, 1984 at Station 51.
Predictions are at 6-minute intervals.

826.3 March1984 – March 1985 Tidal Simulation Validation
An extended 13-month tidal simulation was performed over the period March 1984-March 1985.
The objective was to assess the tidal dynamics over an extended time frame and compare with theresults for April 1984. Since the Sa and Ssa long period constituents are included, the seasonalheating and cooling effects are also included in the tidal dynamics. USGS daily mean flow values
were used as inflows, with salinity set to zero and temperature specified from the NOS historical
Delaware River and Bay circulation survey dataset (Klavans et al., 1986). Water surface elevation
results are shown in Table 6.13 compared to NOS tidal predictions in terms of RMSE and Willmott(1985) relative error. The results at the entrance to Delaware Bay, at Philadelphia, PA and at
Trenton, NJ are consistent with the results for April 1984 and vary gradually from month to month.
Note all model and predicted time series are at 6 minute intervals and were demeaned.
Model principal component direction currents are compared to NOS predictions in Table 6.14 interms of RMSE and Willmott (1985) relative error and are generally consistent with the results forApril 1984 and vary slightly from month to month. Model currents are resolved along the observed
flood direction. All model and current time series are at 6 minute intervals and were not demeaned.
Table 6.13. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation Results.
StationMarch April May June
July
August Sept
Marcus Hook, PA
12/1
10/1
11/1 11/1
12/1
12/1
11/1
Cape May, NJ
7/0
4/0
5/0
8/1
9/1
8/1
6/0
Ship John Shoal, DB
9/1
8/0
9/1
12/1
12/1
11/1
8/0
Tacony Bridge, NJ
15/1
13/1
13/1 14/1
16/2
17/2
16/2
Burlington, NJ
18/2
17/1
17/1 19/2
21/2
21/2
21/2
Phila. USCG, PA
12/1
10/1
11/1 12/1
14/1
14/1
14/2
Phila. Pier 11, PA
19/2
18/2
17/2 18/2
20/3
21/3
22/3
Delaware City, DE
9/1
7/0
8/1
9/1
11/1
10/1
9/1
Reedy Point, DE
8/1
7/0
8/0
9/1
11/1
11/1
9/1
Brandywine Shoal, DB
8/1
6/0
7/0
9/1
10/1
8/1
6/0
Lewes, DE
7/1
3/0
5/0
8/1
9/1
8/1
5/0
Ocean City Pier, MD
7/1
5/0
5/1
7/1
8/1
7/1
6/1
Chesapeake City, MD
4/1
4/0
4/0
4/0
4/0
4/0
4/0
Trenton, NJ
22/2
20/2
20/2 21/2
24/2
25/2
25/2
Table 6.13. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation Results.
StationOct
Nov
Dec JanFeb
Mar
Marcus Hook, PA
10/1
11/1
11/1 10/1
10/1
10/1
Cape May, NJ
5/0
6/0
7/1
8/1
7/1
7/1
Ship John Shoal, DB
8/0
9/1
10/1 10/1
8/1
8/1
Tacony Bridge, NJ
14/1
13/1
12/1 12/1
14/1
13/1
Burlington, NJ
18/2
17/1
16/1 16/1
16/1
17/1
Phila. USCG, PA
12/1
11/1
10/1 10/1
11/1
11/1
Phila. Pier 11, PA
19/2
18/2
16/1 17/2
19/3
20/3

83

Table 6.13. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation Results.
StationOct
Nov
Dec JanFeb
Mar
Delaware City, DE
7/0
7/0
8/1
9/1
9/1
8/1
Reedy Point, DE
8/0
8/1
8/0
8/1
8/1
8/1
Brandywine Shoal, DB
7/0
7/1
8/1
9/1
7/1
6/1
Lewes, DE
4/0
5/0
6/1
8/1
7/1
6/1
Ocean City Pier, MD
5/1
5/1
7/1
8/1
7/1
6/1
Chesapeake City, MD
4/0
5/1
5/1
5/1
5/0
5/1
Trenton, NJ
22/2
20/2
19/2 19/1
20/2
20/2
Table 6.14. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation PCD Current Results.
StationDAB (m)2 at 73 at 55 at 511 at 316 at 817 at 1518 at 219 at 821 at 222 at 623 at 824 at 233 at 1151 at 9154 at 8

March

April

May

June

July

August

Sept

24/8
8/1
11/1
4/2
3/21
5/8
8/2
13/3
12/4
23/9
15/4
11/4
34/13
20/8
38/17

25/9
6/0
9/1
4/2
3/22
6/11
7/2
12/2
12/4
23/9
15/4
10/3
35/15
20/8
36/15

22/7
6/0
9/1
4/2
2/15
6/11
8/2
12/2
12/4
22/8
13/3
9/3
33/13
19/7
36/15

27/11
7/0
9/1
4/2
4/30
7/13
8/2
13/3
12/4
22/8
15/4
10/3
34/14
20/7
33/13

28/11
8/1
10/1
4/2
4/29
6/9
8/2
14/3
13/4
23/9
16/4
11/4
35/14
21/8
35/13

27/10
8/1
10/1
3/2
3/18
5/8
8/2
14/3
13/4
24/9
16/4
12/4
36/14
22/9
37/15

21/5
7/1
10/1
3/2
3/22
6/12
8/2
12/2
12/4
23/8
14/3
11/4
34/13
20/8
39/18

Table 6.14. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Tide Simulation PCD
Current Results.
Station DAB (m)2 at 73 at 55 at 511 at 316 at 817 at 1518 at 219 at 821 at 222 at 623 at 824 at 233 at 1151 at 9154 at 8

Oct
20/6
7/1
10/1
4/2
3/19
11/30
8/2
11/2
12/4
22/9
13/3
10/4
34/14
21/8
36/16

Nov
20/5
7/1
9/1
4/2
3/20
9/20
8/2
11/2
12/4
20/7
12/3
10/3
33/14
20/8
36/15

Dec
19/5
7/1
10/1
4/2
3/20
9/17
8/2
12/2
12/5
20/7
13/3
9/3
33/14
19/7
36/15

Jan
19/6
7/0
9/1
4/1
3/19
6/12
8/2
11/2
12/4
21/7
13/3
10/3
33/12
19/7
35/15

84

Feb
20/5
7/0
9/1
3/1
3/16
5/7
8/2
11/2
12/4
22/8
13/3
11/4
33/13
20/8
35/15

Mar
21/7
7/0
9/0
3/2
3/16
5/8
8/2
11/2
12/4
23/9
14/3
11/4
34/14
21/8
36/15

6.4 March1984 – March 1985 Hindcast Simulation Validation
The specification of the meteorological forcings was accomplished via Barnes (1973) interpolationof surface meteorological observations as previously described. Of interest is to note that theforcings were computed at 3 hour intervals and compared with observations at one hour intervals asshown in Tables 6.15 – 6.17 at 15-day intervals for atmospheric pressure, wind speed, and winddirection, respectively. In most 15-day segments, the wind speed errors are less than 4 m/s (< 10kts) and the wind direction errors are less than 22.5 degrees (within an octant), indicating that the 3hour interpolation interval is sufficient. The extended hindcast was analyzed in 15-day segments forwater levels, currents, salinity, and temperature in terms of RMSE and Willmott (1985) relative error
as discussed in turn.
Water Levels
In Table 6.18, the water level comparisons are given in 15-day segments. One notes that the RMSEs
are generally very consistent over the initial 7-8 month period, while over the winter period there aredata issues within the upper estuary caused by icings as indicated by the missing values in Table
6.18.. One also notes that there are datum problems for the observed water levels at Burlington, PA,
Newbold, PA, and at Chesapeake City, MD. In general RMSEs increase from order 8 cm at the
Entrance to order 10 cm at Marcus Hook, PA and are order 15 cm at Philadelphia, PA before
increasing to order 20 cm at Trenton, NJ. Simulated water surface elevation time series plots fromthe Bay entrance at Lewes, DE, up river to Philadelphia Pier 11, PA, and finally to the head of tideat Trenton, NJ are shown in Figures 6.11 – 6.13 for JD 70-91, 1984, respectively, in Figures 6.14 6.16 for JD 92 – 107, respectively, in Figures 6.17 – 6.19 for JD 137-152, respectively, in Figures
6.20 – 6.22 for JD 153-168, respectively, in Figures 6.23 – 6.25 for JD 229-244, respectively, in
Figures 6.26-6.28, respectively for JD 306-321, respectively, in Figures 6.29-6.31, respectively for
JD 351-366, in Figures 6.32-6.34, respectively for JD 47-60, and in Figures 6.35-6.37 in Figures
6.38-6.40, respectively for JD 75-90. Several interesting aspects of the water level response occur.
Flow events at the Trenton, NJ location are noted in the JD 92-107 and JD 137-152 time series plots,with the influences extending to Philadelphia, PA. Average daily inflow values are used for thepresent forcings, but it may be necessary during high flow events to use 3-6 hour interval flows.
During the JD 306-321, 1984 and JD 33-47, 1985 period, the water level gage at Philadelphia, PA
goes flat to zero indicating potential ice problems. During 1985, there may also be an issue with therecorded water level gage datum at Trenton, NJ.
Currents
In Tables 6.20 and 6.21, the simulated currents are compared to observed currents in 15-day
segments for speed and direction, respectively. In general, the RMSEs are very consistent from one
15-day period to another with the RMSEs at most stations under 26 cm/s (<0.5kt). The direction
comparisons are more problematical at Stations 154 and 51 in the river and at Station 16 on the
shelf. In Tables 6.22 and 6.23, the mean of the simulated currents speeds and directions arecompared to the mean observed current speed and directions, respectively. At most stations there isgood agreement and consistent results from one 15-day period to the next. Current speed anddirection time series plots are shown for Stations 23, 33, and 51 progressing from the lower Bay into
the river below Philadelphia, PA in Figures 6.41-6.43, respectively for JD 76-91, 1984, in Figures856.44-6.46, respectively for JD 153-168, in Figures 6.47-6.49, respectively for JD 229-254, in Figures
6.50-6.52, for JD 351-366, and in Figure 6.53 at Station 23 and in Figure 6.54 at Station 51 for JD
75-90, 1985. There are limited observation data, but favorable comparisons are achieved at Stations
33 and 51 during JD 229-254, 1984 and at Stations 23 and 51 during JD 75-90, 1985.
Salinity
In Table 6.24, the simulated salinities are compared to observed salinities in 15-day segments. In
general, the RMSEs are very consistent from one 15-day period to another with the RMSEs at moststations under 3 PSU. The comparisons are more problematical at Stations 23 and 33 in the upper
Bay in the region of the large salinity gradient. In Table 6.25, the mean of the simulated salinities arecompared to the mean observed salinities. At most stations there is good agreement and consistent
results from one 15-day period to the next. The simulated salinities appear to be too low at Stations
23 and 33 during the first 7 months, but then come in closer agreement to the observations over thelast 5 months indicating that there may be some issues with the initial condition specification.
Salinity time series plots at Stations 23 and 33 are shown in Figures 6.55 and 6.56, respectively, for
JD 76-91, 1984, in Figures 6.57 and 6.58, respectively, for JD 153-168, in Figures 6.59 and 6.60,
respectively, for JD 229-244, in Figures 6.61 and 6.62, respectively, for JD 351-366, and in Figure6.63 at Station 23 for JD 75-90, 1985. One notes the large amplitude order 5 to 6 PSU in thesimulated salinity at Station 33, indicating that it is located in the region of strong salinity gradient.
During the JD 153-168, 1984 period there is evidence that the simulated salinity is too low at Station
33. The amplitude of the simulated salinity at Station 23, further down estuary, mid-Bay, isgenerally less than 4 PSU and is reduced from that at Station 33, indicating that the gradients insalinity are not as strong at this station.
Temperature
In Table 6.26, the simulated temperatures are compared to observed temperatures in 15-day
segments. In general, the RMSEs are very consistent from one 15-day period to another with the
RMSEs at most stations under 3 oC . There is consistent over-heating by order 5 oC during the first 8
months of the simulation and ice forms during the winter. However, during the spring of 1985 thetemperatures recover in close agreement to observations. This behavior is further confirmed byexamining the temperature time series plots at Station 23 and 33, for JD 76-91, 1984, in Figures 6.64
and 6.65, in Figures 6.66 and 6.67 for JD 153-168, and in Figures 6.68 and 6.69 for JD 229-244,
respectively, in Figure 6.70 at Station 33 for JD 351-366, and in Figure 6.71 at Station 23 for JD 7590, 1985. In general, the heating and cooling cycle is well represented, as shown in Table 6.27, butthere may be some issues with the radiation balance.

86Table 6.15. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Atmospheric Pressure:
RMSE (mb)/RE(%).
Station No.
March April
May
June
July
August Sept
61N Indian River, 2/1
DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
4/6
44009
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
44012
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
Table 6.15. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Atmospheric Pressure:
RMSE (mb)/RE(%).
Station No.
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
61N Indian River, DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
44009
0/0
0/0
0/0
44012
0/0
0/0
0/0
Table 6.16. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Wind Speed: RMSE(m/s)/ RE(%).
Station No.
March April
May
June
July
August Sept
61N Indian River, 3/30
DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
3/24
44009
1/4
1/7
1/4
1/3
1/4
0/4
1/4
44012
1/3
1/4
0/4
1/4
Table 6.16. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Wind Speed:
RMSE (m/s)/RE(%).
Station No.
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
61N Indian River, DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
44009
1/3
0/1
1/3
44012
0/2
0/1
0/2
Table 6.17. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Wind Direction: RMSE (oT)/RE(%).
Station No.
March April
May
June
July
August Sept
61N Indian River, 39/6
DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
40/7
44009
22/2
22/2
17/1
16/1
16/1
15/1
15/0
44012
15/1
16/1
15/1
12/0

87

Table 6.17. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Wind Direction:
RMSE (oT)/RE(%).
Station No.
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
61N Indian River, DE
N91 Cape May, NJ
44009
14/1
13/0
15/1
44012
12/0
13/0
15/1
Table 6.18. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985Water Surface Elevations:
RMSE (cm)/RE(%)
Station No.
March
April
May
June
July
AugustTrenton, NJ
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Lewes, DE
Cape May, NJ

25/23
2/2
17/15
2/1
14/12
2/1
15/11
2/1

23/16
2/1
12/11
1/1
9/9
1/1
9/10
1/1

17/26
1/2
11/11
1/1
10/9
1/1
9/9
1/1

22/20
1/1
13/12
1/1
11/10
1/2
10/11
1/1

25/20
2/1
17/16
2/2
12/11
1/2
10/11
1/1

20/23
1/2
11/11
1/1
11/10
1/1
10/8
1/1

Sept
18/18
1/1
10/15
1/1
8/8
1/1
7/8
1/1

Table 6.18. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Mean Water Surface Elevations:
RMSE (cm)/RE(%)
Station No.
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Trenton, NJ
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Lewes, DE
Cape May, NJ

23/20
2/1
16/11
2/1
8/8
1/1
8/7
1/0

23/25
2/2
-/-/9/9
1/1
8/8
1/1

19/16
1/1
13/13
1/1
10/10
1/1
9/9
1/1

33/33
4/4
-/-/11/13
1/2
11/12
1/1

-/-/-/23
-/4
12/9
1/1
12/9
1/1

21/22
2/2
13/16
1/2
10/9
1/1
9/9
1/1

Table 6.19. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Mean Water Surface Elevations (cm):Model/Observed.
Station No.
March
April
May
June
July
August Sept
Trenton, NJ
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Lewes, DE
Cape May, NJ

124/125
146/153
95/91
117/117
55/57
78/82
62/65
83/87

200/197
169/172
137/136
128/126
81/81
76/78
87/91
83/88

153/158
158/156
112/114111/110
61/62
60/60
68/71
67/69

88

157/165
135/144
114/115
111/112
62/65
67/68
68/72
74/76

147/151
132/139
109/117105/110
56/61
61/65
63/65
68/69

133/143
136/140
112/115
115/112
70/75
76/75
76/77
82/83

133/134
131/130
112/107
116/110
75/75
81/81
81/82
81/83

Table 6.19. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Mean Water Surface Elevations(cm): Model/Observed.
Station No.
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Trenton, NJ
Phila. Pier 11, PA
Lewes, DE
Cape May, NJ

135/133
140/142
116/110
119/118
81/81
78/78
87/89
84/86

134/130
121/118
78/76
63/61
85/86
70/71

120/118
124/121
96/94
99/96
58/57
59/56
65/67
66/68

125/117
108/99
64/62
47/43
72/75
55/58

120/115
113/113
87/83
62/64
43/43
69/74
51/54

120/119
122/120
91/89
97/90
50/50
59/59
57/61
66/69

Table 6.20. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Speed Skill Results:
RMSE (cm/s) / RE (%).
March
April
May
June
July
AugustSept
StationDAB (m)2 at 14

x-24/
x-15

5 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 3

x-6/
x-54

5-4/
41-46

7-9/
53-54

x-5/
x-42

5-5/
48-38

7-4/
58-32

17 at 1517 at 23

7-x/
63-x

14-15/
75-63
x-22/
x-76

27-31/
75-73

30-16/
79-71

17-9/
68-48

18 at 2

x-8/
x-8
x-10/
x-10

19 at 219 at 822 at 2

x-11/
x-18

22 at 6x-17/
x-16
11-14/
21-32

23 at 223 at 824 at 2

x-6/
x-6
x-9/
x-13

25 at 289

Table 6.20. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Speed Skill
Results: RMSE (cm/s) / RE (%).
Station
March
April
May
June
July
AugustSept
DAB (m)33 at 233 at 1120-29/
12-20

23-20/
46-33
23-33/
11-26

19-17/
31-22
27-29/
17-21

51 at 251 at 918-18/
16-17
17-24/
25-26

154 at 2
154 at 8

Table 6.20. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current
Speed Skill Results: RMSE (cm/s) / RE (%).
Station Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 217-13/
15-16
20-21/
17-12
x-10/
x-4
x-10/
x-3

18-17/
14-9
11-11/
8-6
12-14/
7-7

x-7/
x-25
14-8/
46-47
15-9/
43-50
17-11/
51-51

6-5/
28-18
8-7/
63-53
9-7/
62-53
14-13/
68-64

8-12/
15-38
9-12/
12-24
10-10/
7-9
16-17/
20-23
6-13/
7-21

9-10/
16-13

16-x/
20-x

90

13-x/
19-x
23-x/
14-x
15-18/
20-37
16-19/
14-19
15-32/
17-27

Table 6.20. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current
Speed Skill Results: RMSE (cm/s) / RE (%).
Station Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)23 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8

10-21/10-24

10-12/
8-8

17-14/
18-15

7-13/13-53
9-17/22-68
26-24/
77-73
18-17/
20-17
21-22/
17-23

22-x/
68-x
17-16/
17-16

25-25/
67-59
11-x/
8-x

x-18/
x-27
x-14/
x-13
x-28/
x-39

17-16/
22-20
16-14/
14-10
31-25/
30-26

Table 6.21. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current Speed (cm/s)
Skill Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)2 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 317 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 222 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 2
154 at 8

March

April

May

June

July

AugustSeptx-49/x-64

x-8/x-8

9-8/7-7

8-7/11-12

x-10/x-10

11-9/11-8

12-10/8-9

38-22/11-14

23-23/18-11

8-x/11-x

17-20/15-22
x-27/x-14

33-38/13-14

x-29/x-28
x-49/x-49
x-11/x-18

31-x/26-x
x-44/x-45
30-32/19-17

69-56/70-60

91

33-29/51-39
64-58/65-62

x-29/x-29
x-27/x-32
30-30/40-40 28-x/31-x
64-58/62-61 60-x/57-x
37-38/48-45
54-53/64-64 53-53/62-63
32-31/39-47 30-x/32-x
x-41/x-59

Table 6.21. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current Speed(cm/s) Skill Results: Model/Observed.
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8

43-37/48-39
42-51/49-56
x-50/x-48
x-59/x-61
x-16/x-17
12-11/19-13
13-11/20-13
16-17/22-15
26-31/22-14
31-37/25-20
42-51/40-32
40-46/36-32
27-33/25-28
37-45/31-26
25-30/23-14
23-28/20-9

36-40/42-47
51-55/59-62
42-41/47-42

41-48/46-51
42-48/38-41
50-57/52-58
14-16/13-13
9-12/12-13
10-12/12-12
19-20/14-14

43-x/35-x

27-32/23-27
36-43/31-37

36-x/43-x
51-54/56-59

44-40/41-36

37-37/48-38
52-x/51-x

x-37/x-48
x-52/x-57
x-41/x-34

38-37/51-50
54-52/62-60
43-39/53-45

Table 6.22. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Direction Skill Results:
RMSE (oT) / RE (%).
March
April
May
June
July
August Sept
StationDAB (m)2 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 370-56/
62-22

16 at 816 at 1117 at 317 at 1517 at 23

104-79/
57-34
x-95/
x-40

72-114/8-22

64-103/
58-42

92

66-x/
12-x

Table 6.22.(Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Direction Skill
Results: RMSE (oT) / RE (%).
Station
March
April
May
June
July
August Sept
DAB (m)18 at 2

x-8/
x-0
x-9/
x-0

19 at 219 at 822 at 2

x-18/
x-1

12-x/
1-x

22 at 6

x-17/
x-1
6-5/
0-0

23 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 11

11-42/
0-5

47-39/
9-5
18-37/
1-4

31-23/
3-2
26-30/
2-3

51 at 251 at 921-23/
1-2
12-35/
0-4

154 at 2
154 at 8x-46/
x-6
x-122/
x-60
15-x/
1-x
23-x/
2-x
9-25/
0-2
19-28/
1-2
35-x/
4-x
x-57/
x-13

Table 6.22. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Direction Skill
Results: RMSE (oT) / RE (%).
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 322-12/
2-1
18-20/
1-1
x-7/
x-0
x-9/
x-0

13-13/
1-1
13-20/
1-1
16-24/
1-2

x-34/
x-3

21-x/
69-x

7-x/
0-x

93

Table 6.22. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Current Direction Skill
Results: RMSE (oT) / RE (%).
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)16 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8

30-46/
46-4
25-48/
38-7
58-66/
29-12
10-4/
0-49
8-6/
0-0
15-6/
1-0
17-18/
1-1
7-7/
0-0
5-4/
0-0
39-x/
4-x
124-8/
91-79
68-67/
15-15
28-25/
2-2
41-44/
5-6

42-x/
15-x
36-x/
39-x
72-36/
55-4

11-11/
0-0
11-11/
0-0

64-x/
13-x
24-26/
2-2

18-17/
1-1

132-125/
57-52
4-x/
0-x

x-8/
x-0
x-4/
x-0
x-116/
x-47

9-8/
0-0
21-12/
1-0
52-42/
9-6

Table 6.23. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current Direction (oT)Skill Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)2 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 316 at 816 at 11

March

April

May

June

July

August176-185/212-260

94

Sept

Table 6.23. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current
Direction (oT) Skill Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)17 at 317 at 15

March

April

May

June

July

AugustSept
167-168/
217-242x-255/
x-213

17 at 23245-266/
187-138295-263/262-92207-x/
118-x
x-226/
x-233
x-229/
x-255

18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 2x-232/
x-237

235-x/
243-x
x-223/
x-235
227-233/271-269

22 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 2212-201/229-229

33 at 11227-223/289-266
210-206/
225-229227-224/258-258
207-210/232-22051 at 2
195-193/201-195
165-175/
150-164

51 at 9154 at 2
154 at 8

x-182/
x-248
x-107/
x-184
228-x/
259-x
210-x/
228-x
193-192/
197-190193-193/
195-194
175-x/
174-x
x-184/
x-208

Table 6.23. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current
Direction (oT) Skill Results: Model/Observed.
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)237-238/224-226

2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 5230-231/216-216
x-218/
x-220
x-216/
x-222

232-232/221-222219-215/220-218217-214/219-219229-x/
212-x

95

Table 6.23. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Current Direction(oT) Skill Results: Model/Observed.
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)11 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8x-210/
x-237
153-172/229-185
157-174/219-184
164-180/223-195
226-225/244-315227-231/261-220236-237/247-231224-222/243-219227-235/
257-252242-245/257-246
170-x/
252-x
105-109/183-181192-193/200-199
192-193/196-203182-178/
180-154

208-x/
288-x
132-x/
66-x
131-x/
55-x
166-160/
218-164

238-236/267-256245-243/
255-253245-246/241-245

193-x/
199-x
192-194/201-198

194-194/
200-204
195-x/
176-x

x-196/
x-223
x-196/
x-213
x-152/
x-164

196-193/205-204
196-194/
198-197
151-158/
153-164

Table 6.24. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Salinity Skill Results: RMSE
(PSU)/ RE (%).
StationDAB (m)2 at 2

March

April

May

June

2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 3

96

July

AugustSeptx-0.8/
x-41

0.5-1.4/54-71

4.2-x/
66-x
x-0.4/
x-42

Table 6.24. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Salinity Skill Results:
RMSE (PSU)/ RE (%).
StationDAB (m)16 at 3

March

April

May

16 at 816 at 1117 at 3

June

July

AugustSeptx-0.7/
x-62

0.7-0.5/
62-82

1.2-1.6/
52-64

1.4/
59-

x-0.8/
x-85

1.1-1.1/
84-91

1.4-1.3/
81-79

1.2-0.5/
67-62

0.3-0.5/66-56

17 at 1517 at 23x-1.5/
x-66

x-2.2/
x-51
x-1.8/
x-47

18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 2x-3.4/
x-49

1.8-x/
35-x
x-1.1/
x-16
0.8-1.4/
46-48

22 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 2x-1.8/
x-60

25 at 233 at 2
6.6-6.8/
60-67

33 at 1151 at 251 at 99.0-9.1/
78-67
2.9-7.2/
28-67

8.1-6.4/
70-53
6.5-7.9/62-70
0.0-0.0/0-0
3.9-5.4/
91-70

154 at 2

4.6-x/
55-x
3.2-x/
46-x
0.0-0.0/0-0
0.0-0.0/0-100
4.7-x/84-x
x-4.4/ x-70

154 at 8

Table 6.24. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Salinity Skill Results:
RMSE (PSU)/ RE (%).
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 2

0.4-0.3/
19-44
0.7-0.2/
55-71
x-0.5/
x-8

0.4-0.3/37-22
0.3-0.2/45-12
0.2-x/
3-x

0.4-x/
43-x
0.1-x/
24-x

1.5-1.3/
77-49

97

Table 6.24. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Salinity Skill Results:
RMSE (PSU)/ RE (%).
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)5 at 5x-0.5/
x-8

1.4-1.3/
21-22

11 at 3x-0.5/
x-57
0.6-0.5/92-60
0.8-0.5/97-76
1.0-0.9/69-73

0.4-0.2/
51-28
0.5-0.2/
53-60
1.2-1.0/72-76
0.4-0.2/
79-53

16 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8

2.1-0.7/52-24
1.6-0.2/
57-5
0.2-0.3/
5-13
1.7-1.6/
36-41
1.2-0.4/50-61
0.2-0.4/8-25
2.0-1.8/68-78

0.0-0.2/
74-83
0-0.2/
100-100
3.6-2.6/
67-62

0.4-1.0/23-74
0.4-0.9/20-75

0.3-x/
100-x
0.3-0.4/
100-100

3.2-2.5/60-59

0.5-0.5/
100-100
0.5-x/
100-x

x-0.0/
x-100
x-0.0/
x-100
x-1.9/
x-59

0.0-0.0/100-0
0.0-0.0/99-58
2.0-2.3/
59-89

Table 6.25. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Salinity (PSU) Skill
Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)2 at 2

March

April

May

June

2 at 72 at 145 at 2

98

July

AugustSept

x-31.0/x-31.731.0-31.1/
30.4-29.9

30.8-x/26.8-xx-30.7/x-30.8x-30.6/x-30.3

Table 6.25. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Salinity (PSU)
Skill Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)5 at 511 at 316 at 3

March

April

May

16 at 816 at 1117 at 3

June

July

AugustSept

x-31.5/x-32.031.9-32.0/
32.5-31.7

31.8-31.7/
30.8-30.2

31.8-x/30.5-xx-32/2/x-33.032.2-32.1/
33.2-33.2

31.9-31.8/
33.1-32.8
32.0-32.1/
31.9-32.3

17 at 1517 at 23x-32.5/x-33.032.6-32.4/
31.7-30.9

32.0-31.8/
30.7-30.5

31.8-31.8/
30.7-31.5
x-27.0/x-26.2x-29.5x-28.118 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 2x-25.3/x-28.425.9-x/27.5-xx-26.9/x-26.928.0-28.4
27.3-27.1

22 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 2x-24.4/x-26.125 at 233 at 233 at 11

4.8-8.1/
11.9-13.8

9.7-11.2/
17.1-20.0
8.8-7.8/
11.2-14.6

11.8-15.5/
19.6-21.3
10.2-12.9/
16.5-19.4

51 at 20.0-0.0/0-0
1.1-1.2/
4.5-6.4

51 at 9154 at 2
154 at 899

16.3-x/20.6-x15.1-x/18.2-x0.0-0.0/0-1
0.0-0.0/0-0
2.2-x/
6.7-x
x-3.5/
x-8.2

Table 6.25. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Salinity (PSU)
Skill Results: Model/Observed.
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 251 at 9154 at 8

30.9-30.8/
30.7-31.0
30.7-30.8/
30.1-30.8
x-31.0/x-30.7x-31.0/x-30.731.1-30.7/
31.4-31.0
31.0-30.7/
31.1-30.7
30.7-x/31.0-x30.6-30.4/
30.0-28.3

x-32.6/x-32.232.0-32.0/
32.0-32.2
32.0-32.0/
31.6-31.7
32.1-32.3/
33.0-33.2

32.8-32.8/
32.4-32.6
32.6-32.8/
32.2-32.8
32.6-32.8/
31.4-31.7
32.6-32.9/
32.9-33.0

27.2-27.5/
27.4-27.5
29.8-30.0/
29.3-30.2
29.8-29.9/
29.7-30.0
27.3-27.4/
27.6-28.8
28.7-28.8/
27.7-28.9
28.7-28.8/
28.6-28.7
24.9-25.5
26.6-27.1

0.0-0.2/
7-4
0.0-0.2/
0-0
5.5-7.2/
8.9-9.8

31.3-x/31.6-x31.1-x/31.0-x31.3-31.6/
32.7-32.9

29.1-29.2/
29.2-30.1
29.1-29.2/
29.1-30.1

0.3-x/
0.0-x
0.3-0.4/
0.0-0.0

28.4-29.9/
26.9-27.7

0.5-0.5/
0.0-0.0
0.5-x/
0.0-x

100x-0.0/
x-0.0
x-0.0/
x-0.0
x-6.5/
x-3.1

0.0-0.0/
0.0-0.0
0.0-0.0/
0.0-0.0
2.1-2.9/
4.0-3.9

Table 6.26. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Temperature Skill Results:
RMSE (oC)/ RE (%).
StationDAB (m)2 at 2

March

April

May

June

July

August5.7-x/
67-x
x-3.8/
x-72
x-3.7/
x-71

2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 3

6.1-x/
54-x

16 at 816 at 1117 at 317 at 1517 at 23

4.7-4.5/
62-65
x-4.1/
x-81

2.9-2.7/
57-47

3.8-2.7/74-52

2.7-x/
52-x
x-3.3/
x-60
x-3.1/
x-74

18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 25.9-x/
68-x
x-2.9/
x-67
3.3-3.1/
93-70

22 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 233 at 233 at 11Sept

3.0-3.5/
87-81

51 at 251 at 9154 at 2
154 at 8

4.4-5.4/
89-80
2.6-3.8/70-76

4.0-5.4/
62-80
3.4-3.8/
67-76

x-2.5/
x-54
2.3-x/
50-x
2.7-x/
55-x
0.2-0.4/
10-6

x-0.7/
x-21

101

Table 6.26. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Temperature Skill
Results: RMSE (oC)/ RE (%).
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 2

4.3-3.1/
88-83
4.3-3.1/
88-82
x-2.7/
x-83
x-2.7/
x-82
x-3.9/
x-93
3.9-2.2/
85-80
3.8-2.3/
84-76
1.5-1.0/75-71
3.2-2.7/
82-95
3.9-3.6/
79-97
3.8-3.4/
81-97
2.9-2.6/
74-96
3.1-2.2/
77-73
3.2-2.4/90-74
2.4-1.9/
76-91

0.4-0.5/
11-69

3.5-5.3/53-64
3.5-5.3/
51-65
3.8-5.0/
46-76
3.8-5.1/
46-76
3.7-4.8/
62-89
3.8-5.2/
63-65
3.1-4.2/
67-60
1.9-1.5/
52-43

4.8-/
89-x
5.1-x/
96-x

1.6-1.68/
66-82

2.3-3.3/
31-48
2.3-3.3/31-48

1.2-0.9/
49-42

1.1-5.4/40-74
x-1.0/
x-76
x-0.8/
x-59

51 at 9154 at 8

0.9-0.4/
39-31

102

x-0.9/
x-94
1.1-0.6/44-35
0.7-0.6/
15-22

Table 6.27. DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Temperature (oC) Skill
Results: Model/Observed.
StationDAB (m)2 at 2

March

April

May

June

July

AugustSeptx-25.2/x-22.7

24.6-x/19.3-xx-23.8/x-19.5x-23.8/x-19.622.5-22.5/
13.2-18.8

22.4-x/17.0-x

2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 317 at 1517 at 23

21.0-20.2/
16.6-17.1
x-11.1/x-7.1

13.0-15.9/
10.1-13.3

18.9-21.2/
15.1-18.9

23.3-23.5/
19.1-15.8
x-23.4/x-20.0x-23.6/x-20.418 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 2x-25.7/x-16.6

26.8-x/20.8-xx-23.5/x-20.525.7-23.6/
21.9-20.5

22 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 2x-22.9/x-20.325 at 233 at 233 at 1122.1-25.4/
22.6-22.1

51 at 251 at 9154 at 2
154 at 8

26.4-27.4/
23.1-22.1
26.6-27.5/
24.1-23.8

27.9-27.4/
24.0-24.9
28.2-27.5/
24.8-24.8

25.6-x/23.5-x25.6-x/23.2-x24.4-21.6/
23.8-21.9

x-21.7/x-19.5103

Table 6.27. (Cont.) DBOFS Version 1.1 March 1984-March 1985 Hindcast Mean Temperature (oC)
Skill Results: Model/Observed.
Station
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
DAB (m)2 at 72 at 145 at 25 at 511 at 316 at 816 at 1117 at 1517 at 23
18 at 219 at 219 at 822 at 623 at 223 at 824 at 225 at 233 at 233 at 1151 at 2

21.6-20.3/
17.2-17.3
21.5-20.3/
17.2-17.3
x-20.2/x-17.6x-20.2/x-17.6
x-21.0/x-17.019.9-17.5/
17.0-16.8
20.0-17.9/
17.1-17.1
17.8-16.1/
16.8-16.4
20.1-19.8/
16.9-16.8
21.0-19.9/
17.0-16.6
20.9-19.9/
17.1-16.7
20.1-19.9/
17.2-16.9
20.4-19.8/
17.3-17.6
20.4-19.8/
16.9-17.5
19.0-19.2/
16.6-16.6

17.7-17.6/
18.0-17.5

18.9-15.5/
15.5-10.2
18.8-15.4/
15.4-10.1
18.2-14.7/
14.6-9.9
18.2-14.7/
14.5-9.9
19.4-x/15.8-x19.0-x/15.4-x19.1-x/16.1-x13.9-13.3/
15.2-12.9

13.5-x/9.9-x
13.4-x/9.4-x

7.2-7.7/
5.6-6.2

17.6-12.6/
15.3-9.6
17.6-12.6/
15.3-9.6

6.5-7.3/
5.6-6.4

6.3-6.6/
6.0-1.4
x-1.8/
x-5.3
x-2.9/
x-5.5

51 at 9154 at 8

17.8-18.2/
17.0-17.1

104

x-7.1/
x-9.0
6.0-7.1/
7.0-7.7
5.7-6.9/
6.2-7.4

Figure 6.11. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

105

Figure 6.12. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984 at Philadelphia, PA.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

106

Figure 6.13. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 70-91, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

107

Figure 6.14. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

108

Figure 6.15. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984 at Philadelphia, PA.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

109

Figure 6.16. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 92-107, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

110

Figure 6.17. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

111

Figure 6.18. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984 at Philadelphia,
PA. Observations are at one hour intervals.

112

Figure 6.19. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 137-152, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

113

Figure 6.20. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

114

Figure 6.21. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984 at Philadelphia,
PA. Observations are at one hour intervals.

115

Figure 6.22. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 153-168, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

116

Figure 6.23. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

117

Figure 6.24. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984 at Philadelphia,
PA. Observations are at one hour intervals.

118

Figure 6.25. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 229-244, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

119

Figure 6.26. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

120

Figure 6.27. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984 at Philadelphia,
PA. Observations are at one hour intervals.

121

Figure 6.28. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 306-321, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

122

Figure 6.29. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

123

Figure 6.30. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984 at Philadelphia,
PA. Observations are at one hour intervals.

124

Figure 6.31. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 351-366, 1984 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

125

Figure 6.32. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

126

Figure 6.33. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985 at Philadelphia, PA.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

127

Figure 6.34. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 32-47, 1985 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

128

Figure 6.35. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

129

Figure 6.36. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985 at Philadelphia, PA.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

130

Figure 6.37. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 47-60, 1985 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

131

Figure 6.38. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985 at Lewes, DE.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

132

Figure 6.39. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985 at Philadelphia, PA.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

133

Figure 6.40. DBOFS Version 1.1 Water Surface Elevation JD 75-90, 1985 at Trenton, NJ.
Observations are at one hour intervals.

134

Figure 6.41. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23.

135

Figure 6.42. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33.

136

Figure 6.43. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 51.

137

Figure 6.44. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23.

138

Figure 6.45. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

139

Figure 6.46. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 51.

140

Figure 6.47. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 23.

141

Figure 6.48. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

142

Figure 6.49. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 229-254, 1984 at Station 51. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

143

Figure 6.50. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 23.

144

Figure 6.51. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33.

145

Figure 6.52. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 51.

146

Figure 6.53. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23. Observations are at 10minute intervals.

147

Figure 6.54. DBOFS Version 1.1 Current JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 51. Observations are at 10minute intervals.

148

Figure 6.55. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23.

149

Figure 6.56. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33.

150

Figure 6.57. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23.

151

Figure 6.58. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

152

Figure 6.59. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 23.

153

Figure 6.60. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

154

Figure 6.61. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 23.

155

Figure 6.62. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33.

156

Figure 6.63. DBOFS Version 1.1 Salinity JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23. Observations are at 10minute intervals.

157

Figure 6.64. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 23.

158

Figure 6.65. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 76-91, 1984 at Station 33.

159

Figure 6.66. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 23.

160

Figure 6.67. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 153-168, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are
at 10-minute intervals.

161

Figure 6.68. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 23.

162

Figure 6.69. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 229-244, 1984 at Station 33. Observations are
at 10-minute intervals.

163

Figure 6.70. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 351-366, 1984 at Station 33.

164

Figure 6.71. DBOFS Version 1.1 Temperature JD 75-90, 1985 at Station 23. Observations are at
10-minute intervals.

165

6.5. Summary and Additional Considerations
The optimized offshore tidal water level constituents and bottom roughness coefficient sets obtained
for the April 1984 tidal simulation, lead to much improved model responses in both the 13-monthtidal and hindcast simulations. Due to the fact that the offshore boundary extends to the continental
shelf break, it is necessary during the optimization process to perform harmonic analysis of the tidal
simulations to further refine the tidal water level harmonic constants obtained from the ADCIRC
Western North Atlantic tidal inversion. This approach was not necessary for the previous generation
forecast systems, whose offshore boundaries did not extend substantially on to the shelf andtherefore their tidal water level harmonic constants could be obtained by an adjustment of nearby
coastal water level station values. Sufficient accuracies in these revised model predictions wereobtained to justify the development of the semi-operational nowcast/forecast system at NCEP.

166

7. SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST/FORECAST SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION
To develop a semi-operational nowcast/forecast system, it was necessary to revise the COMF used at
CO-OPS for implementation at NCEP. In this effort, it was necessary to standardize the initialcondition, boundary condition, and forcing files for the operational nowcast forecast systems to be
run at NCEP. To support this effort several templates were developed to aid in the development of
the appropriate fixed files.
7.1 River Template
To specify the lateral (river) boundary conditions the template given in Table 7.1 was developed for
DBOFS.
Table 7.1. Template of River Control File for DBOFS.
Section 1:
NO
1
2
3
4
5
PA
6
PA
7
8
9
10
11

USGS real-time streamflow gages

USGS_ID
01411500
01412800
01463500
01465500
01467087

NWS_ID min(cfs) max(cfs) mean(cfs)
Name
20.
5260.
253.
Maurice River, Norma, NJ
5.
2150.
56.
Cohansey River, Seeley, NJ
1240. 279000.
11850.
Delaware River, Trenton, NJ
3.
27300.
302.
Neshaminy Creek, Langhorne, PA
1.
3140.
41.
Frankford Creek, Philadelphia,

014745001.

93400.

2773.

Schuylkill River, Philadelphia,

0147712001478650
01482500
01484525
01477000

3.
35.
0.
0.
6.

1260.
14200.
4460.
1260.
6510.

40.
45.
20.
95.
92.

Racoon Creek, Swedesboro, NJ
Brandywine Creek, Wilmington, DE
Salem River, Woodstown, NJ
Millsboro Pond, Millsboro, DE
Chester Creek, PA

Section 2: ROMS river discharge inputs
GRID_ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

I/Xpos
94
88
77
78
79
73
76
73
86
73
87
65
73
67

J/Ypos
92
128
730
730
730
608
542
426
341
283
206
52
349
96

DIR FLAG DQ_USGS_ID DQ_Scale TS_USGS_ID TS_SCALE River_Basin_Name
0301411500
1.001474500
1.0
MAURICE RIVER
0301412800
1.001474500
1.0
COHANSEY RIVER
1
301463500
0.3301463500
1.0
DELAWARE RIVER
1
301463500
0.3401463500
1.0
DELAWARE RIVER
1
301463500
0.3301463500
1.0
DELAWARE RIVER
0301465500
1.001467087
1.0
NESHAMINY CREEK
0301467087
1.001467087
1.0
FRANKFORD CREEK
0301474500
1.001474500
1.0
SCHUYLKILL RIVER
0301477120-1.001474500
1.0
RACCOON CREEK
0301478650
1.201474500
1.0
BRANDYWINE CREEK
0301482500-1.001474500
1.0
SALEM RIVER
0301484525
1.001474500
1.0
MILLSBORO POND
0301477000
1.001474500
1.0
CHESTER CREEK
0
301484525
0.2501474500
1.0
ROACH MARSH

Note min, max, and mean flows are in cfs. Note DQ_SCALE is negative for Raccoon Creek
and Salem River to note the flow is in the direction of decreasing coordinate values.

1677.2 Open Boundary Condition Template
For the open boundary condition, the template given in Table 7.2 was constructed, which seeks touse secondary and backup water level gages for subtidal water level. In general the A and B
coefficients would need to be determined via linear regression of at least one month of subtidal
water levels.
Table 7.2. Template of Open Boundary Condition Control File for DBOFS.
Section 1:
NO
1
2
3
4
5

OBC Boundary Signal Information

NOS_ID
853-4720
857-0283
857-3927
853-6110
857-9999

SEC_WL_ID
2
1
5
99
99

As
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

Bs
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

BKP_WL_ID Ab
4
1.0
4
1.0
99
1.0
99
1.0
99
1.0

Bb
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

PORTS_SIG_ID
0
0
1
99
99

Clim_SIG_ID
Name
0
Atlantic City, NJ
0 Ocean City Inlet, MD
1 Chesapeake City, MD
99Cape May, NJ
99
Baltimore, MD

Note for subtidal water level: SEC_WL_ID is the secondary water level station
id and BKP_WL is the backup water level station id.
A(s,b) and B(s,b) are used to estimate the water level at the NOS_ID as
follows:
WL(NOS_ID)= As*WL(SEC_WL_ID) + Bs, and WL(NOS_ID)= Ab*WL(BKP_WL_ID) + Bb.
Note ids equal to 99 indicate no stations for secondary or backup water level.
Note for T and S: PORTS_SIG_ID and CLIM_SIG_ID equal zero corresponds toLevitus. If PORTS_SIG_ID is not
zero, specify PORTS signal information in Section 2. If CLIM_SIG_ID is notzero then you must provide
T and S information in Section 3 as follows. Note ids equal to 99 indicate nostations for PORTS or climatology, these are water level backup stations only.
Section 2: PORTS Signal Information
NO
PORTS Station
BKP_PORTS_ID Tadj
Sadj
1
DBOFS-Chesapeake
2
0.
-5.
2
CBOFS-Baltimore
990.
0.
Note Tajd and Sadj are temperature and salinity adjustments in deg C and PSU,
respectively,
which are added to the CBOFS-Baltimore station values used to backup
Chesapeake City, MD.
If CBOFS-Baltimore is not available than one uses the climatological values in
Section 3.
Section 3: Interior Boundary Signal T/S Climatology
NO
T/S Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
13
3
8 12 15 18 19 22
24 18 12 7--Temperature (Deg C)
8
6
4
4
3 7
10 10
9
5 7 8
--Salinity (PSU)
Section 4: ROMS grid control information
Section #
1
2
3
4
5

IROMS_L
60
70
1
119
119

IROMS_U JROMS_L
69
1
119
1
1
210
119
2
119
60

JROMS_U Bdy_ID_1 Bdy_ID_2 Scale_1
1
2
1
1.
1
2
2
0.
211
3
3
1.
59
1
1
0.
69
1
2
1.

Scale_2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

P_ID
0
0
1
0
0

C_ID
0
0
1
0
0

Note L_U denotes lower and upper bounds of grid cell indicies. Note Bdy_IDs andScales used for subtidal water level signal determination. PORTS and Clim_Sig_IDs

168

used for T and S. If PORTS (P_ID) and Climatology(C_ID)Signal IDS are 0 use
Levitus. If P_ID is not zero attempt to use PORTS data in Section 2, if notavailable use climatological information in section 3.

In addition, the specification of the subtidal water level was generalized based the previous
operational forecast systems in New York (NYOFS), Chesapeake Bay (CBOFS), and Galveston Bay(GBOFS) using the following approach. During the nowcast, consider water level observations,wlobs(T-nΔt), where T is the forecast start time and n=0,….,24 with Δt=1 hr. Note one could alsouse 6 minute data. The coastal water level station is near the offshore model boundary intersection
with the coast. During the nowcast, consider Extratropical Storm Surge (ETSS) model predictions
wlmod(T-nΔt), at this same coastal water level station with the T and nΔt as defined above. One thenforms corrections, δ(T-nΔt)=wlobs(T-nΔt) – wlmod(T-nΔt).
Consider0df (T , T  24t )    (T  nt ) / 25

(7.1)

n  24

and (T  nt )   (T  nt )  df (T , T  24t )(7.2)

During the Nowcast:
OBCN(T-nΔt)= wlmod(T-nΔt) + df(T,T-24Δt) + ε(T-nΔt), n=0,…,24(7.3)

At each Δt during the nowcast period, one may scale the correction, δ(T - nΔt), which is equal todf(T,T - 24Δt) + δ(T - nΔt), on a e-folding scale based on increasing distance from the shore
point.
During the forecast:
OBCF(T + nΔt)= wlmod(T + nΔt) + F1df(T,T - 24Δt) + F2ε(T) , n=0,…,24(7.4)

where F1=max(0.,1-nΔt/TR1) and F2=max(0.,1-nΔt/TR2).
At each Δt during the forecast period, one may scale the correction, F1df(T,T - 24Δt) + F2ε(T), on ae-folding scale based on increasing distance from the shore point. One notes the specification of TR1
and TR2 are as follows for the previous operational forecast systems.
Chesapeake Bay Operational Forecast System (CBOFS): TR1= ∞, TR2 = 6
New York Harbor Operational Forecast System (NYOFS): TR1= 6, TR2=6
Galveston Bay Operational Forecast System (GBOFS):
TR1=∞, TR2=∞
To standardize the specification of the tidal boundary conditions at each open boundary cell, a
harmonic constituent netCDF file for water level amplitude and phase and East and North verticallyintegrated horizontal current amplitudes and phases was constructed, such that all phases are in
GMT. The HPC-COMF software at NCEP access this netCDF harmonic constituent file and for tidal
169

currents computes the current ellipse parameters required by ROMS. The software also computes thenode factors and equilibrium arguments and adjusts the harmonic constants.
7.3 Vertical Datum Considerations

Model datum specification is made to be consistent with the VDATUM Project utilizing thefollowing approach. In GBOFS, the model datum was taken as equivalent to MTL and the MTL to
MLLW field over the Galveston Bay grid was provided via VDATUM to enable specification of thewater level forecast fields with respect to MLLW. In NYOFS and CBOFS, model datum is assumed
equal to MSL and the VDATUM MSL to MLLW field is used to enable specification of the waterlevel forecast fields with respect to MLLW. An alternative approach used here is to assume model
datum equal to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) in the upper reaches of theDelaware Estuary in the river sections above Philadelphia, PA, but near the coast assume model
datum equal to MSL. Therefore, an additional field, model datum minus mean sea level, wasdeveloped. For the majority of the coastal estuaries, the values in this file will be zero. For the
Delaware Estuary, nonzero values were added as one proceeded up the Delaware River above
Marcus Hook, PA to the head of tide at Trenton, NJ. As more gravity data become available thecoastal geoid will be better determined; then these values can be further refined up the estuary. On
the shelf, with advanced satellite altimeter observations, the tie to the mean sea level at the coast canbe better determined as well.
A program was developed to access the VDATUM database for three separate VDATUM Projects
with datum information to interpolate onto the high resolution DBOFS grid the following four datum
fields: MLLW to MSL, MLW to MSL, MHHW to MSL, and MHW to MSL. The MLLW to MSL
field is shown in Figure 7.1 and exhibits a smooth transition of contours out on to the continental
shelf from the lower Bay region.

170

Figure 7.1 DBOFS MLLW to MSL Datum Conversion.

1717.4 Operational Summary

In early June 2009, DBOFS Version 1.0 was provided to CO-OPS for implementation in thedevelopment mode at NCEP. The bathymetry was revised to increase the cutoff depth from 2 m to 5
m to overcome a stability problem. Since the revised bathymetry was used in late June 2009, thehydrodynamics have been very stable.
During the period June – December 2009, the work reported in Chapter 6 was conducted to further
seek improvements and to develop DBOFS Version 1.1. In December 2009, DBOFS Version 1.1
was provided to CO-OPS and they implemented this version in January 2010 in parallel with version
1.0. The two versions are compared in Table 7.3 over the seven month period March-September
1984. One notes the substantial improvement gained by refining the open boundary tidal constituentsand further adjusting the bottom roughness coefficients. The ten percent of water level range RMSE
criteria is now satisfied at all stations up the estuary.
Table 7.3. Seven Month March-September 1984 Water Level RMSE (cm) Summary. The
analyses are for 15 days, thus there are two entries for each month. PMTR denotes the
RMSE expressed as a percentage of the mean tide range. First line denotes DBOFS
Version 1.0 results, while DBOFS Version 1.1 results are given in line 2 and in line 3
for tide only.
Station Mar
Apr
May JunJul
Aug Sep
Seven RMSE PMRTMonth Range
RMSE
13.7
17
34
Trenton 33/26 33/25 39/34 42/35 33/39 35/34 28/39
9.3
8
23
, NJ
25/25 23/16 17/26 22/20 25/20 20/23 18/18
9.3
5
23
25
25
24
21
20
20
22
14.8
12
27
Phila.,
27/21 27/21 30/24 32/28 31/32 25/26 20/25
7.7
7
14
PA
17/15 12/11 11/11 13/12 17/16 11/11 10/15
10.4
5
19
22
21
20
18
17
18
19
12.9
7
16
Lewes, 17/13 15/11 18/13 17/15 15/17 18/16 14/18
8.9
6
11
10/9 11/10 12/11 11/10 8/8
DE14/12 9/9
5.6
6
7
5
8
9
8
5
3
8
11.4
7
17
21/14 20/15 21/15 18/16 16/18 14/19 15/20
Cape
6.7
8
10
10/11 10/11 10/8 7/8
15/11 9/10 9/9
May,
4.7
5
7
6
8
9
8
5
4
7
NJ

172

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the Model Evaluation Experiment Project, two 15-day simulation periods one for highflow (April 1984) and one for low flow (September 1984) were used to compare POM with ROMS
on the MEE Project medium resolution grid and to investigate the sensitivity of the water level
response to the Walters (1992a; 1992b) bottom friction zones using different bottom friction
coefficient sets. A high resolution grid using the DELFT3D RGFGRID package (Delft Hydraulics,
2004) was developed and the previous 15-day periods were used to further refine the bottomroughness and the open boundary condition conditions with the result being the construction of
DBOFS version 1.0. An initial seven month hindcast was performed and evaluated for total waterlevels and tides for DBOFS Version 1.0, which was provided to CO-OPS in June 2009. To seek
further improvements, an extensive set of 18 tidal simulations were used to further adjust the bottomroughness and open boundary water level specification via modification of the open water levelboundary tidal constituents to develop DBOFS Version 1.1. Both 13-month simulations were
performed using DBOFS Version 1.1 and informally skill assessed for water levels, currents,
salinity, and temperature in terms of RMSE and Willmott et al. (1985) relative error. Improvements
in water level RMSEs were significant over those in DBOFS Version 1.0 and met the informal ten
percent range criteria at all stations. As a result, it is recommended that a formal skill assessment be
performed over the 13-month period March 1984- March 1985 for both the hindcast and tidal
simulations described in Chapter 6 for DBOFS Version. In addition, DBOFSVersion 1.1
implemented in the development mode at NCEP should be formally skill assessed and comparedwith the results for the 13-month hindcast and tidal simulations to insure proper implementation at
NCEP.
In conjunction with the model development effort, the results of the 13-month hindcast suggest thatfurther improvements can be made in the following areas:
The temperature response exhibited overheating during the summer and fall of 1984, thereby
suggesting that the downward short wave radiation be attenuated. However, during the winter, thewater temperatures in the upper Bay and lower river sections remained extremely cold with freezing
indicated. This indicated that the attenuation in downward short wave radiation may need to beseasonally specified. Heat flux algorithm adjustments may need to be further considered in the
coastal zone in conjunction with ice dynamics. The development of the cold water pool along theouter shelf also was a feature that needs a more refined open boundary condition than Levitus
climatology.
The salinity response in the lower Bay was considerably fresher than the observations at Station 33,
and suggests that the location of the salt wedge needs further study.The δxH/H criteria of under 0.25
is violated throughout the grid and may result in horizontal pressure gradient errors which tend toeffect the salt wedge representation. It is recommended that additional levels in the vertical beconsidered as well as the δxΔH/H criteria. Additional data from the DRBC salt line dataset may be
useful in further studying the salt wedge dynamics.
Bottom currents tend to be overestimated and there becomes a trade-off between water level
173

representation, salt wedge location, and current dynamics. Additional ADCP data over verticalsections in the upper Bay would be useful to further adjust the hydrodynamics. Inclusion of thealongshore transport over the shelf should also be further investigated.
To extend the model prediction skill to major storm surge events (enumerated by Mark andScheffner, 1994), accounting for the low lying marsh areas through the use of using wetting anddrying techniques (see Schmalz, 2007) should be considered. In addition, the treatment of thechange in cross-sectional area with discharge due to the low lying marsh areas is extremely difficult
to accomplish. We note at the flood stage of 20 ft the corresponding flow is 137,000 cfs. At 330,000
cfs based on an average daily flow, which is the flood of record the stage would be 29 ft. One might
estimate channel width changes as the flows increase by using a very simple method as follows. If
the cross-section were approximately 300m wide by 5m in depth for 3900 m3/s (137,000 cfs), thenthe expected flow velocity would be order 2.6 m/s. Assuming the same flow speed of 2.6 m/s and anincrease of 3 m in elevation the channel width (w) would can be approximated as 9430 m3/s
(330,000 cfs) = 2.6m/s * w*(5+3m), which would imply w = 453m. This would be an increase of
153m assuming a constant depth of 8 m, which is somewhat under the 29 ft (8.84m) level. Anotherapproach might be to assume a maximum flow speed of 3 m/s at 29 ft (8.84m) and then based on thisuniform depth compute w= 355.6 m. Additional efforts may have to be made to adjust the bottomroughness as a function of Delaware River flow at Trenton, NJ to simulate frictional effects at higher
flows.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been carried out in the Coast Survey Development Laboratory (CSDL) of NOS’s
Office of Coast Survey under the direction of Dr. Frank Aikman, Chief of the Marine Modeling andAnalysis Programs. Mr. Richard C. Patchen, Chief Science Officer, directed the MEE Project andprovided format information for the archived CTD/CT data. Mr. Philip H. Richardson and Mr.
Thomas Loeper assisted in the CTD and CT/Current data recovery and analysis efforts. Dr. Lyon
Lanerolle provided the POM and ROMS medium resolution grid with initial bathymetry as well as
many useful discussions ROMS numerics throughout the project. Dr. Aijun Zhang performed thePOM skill assessment with the MEE.

174

REFERENCES

Aikman III, F., M.S. Vincent, and R.C. Patchen, 2008: Development and Evolution of Operational
Forecast Systems for the Coastal and Estuarine Environment in NOAA’s National Ocean
Service, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling,
ASCE, 671-684.
Barnes, S. L., 1973: Mesoscale Objective Map Analysis Using Weighted Time Series Observations,
NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL NSSl-62, National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman,
OK.
Brigham Young University Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory, 2006: The Surface-water
Modeling System (SMS) – Version 9.2, SMS Tutorials, Salt Lake City, UT.
Blumberg, A. F., and G. L. Mellor, 1987: A Description of a Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean
Circulation Model. Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models, (ed. Heaps), American
Geophysical Union, Washington, DC., 1 - 16.
Blumberg, A. F., and H.J. Herring, 1987: Circulation Modeling using Orthogonal Curvilinear
Coordinates, in Three-Dimensional Models of Marine and Estuarine Dynamics, (ed. Nihoul andJamart), Elsevier Oceanography Series, 45, 55-88.
Celebioglu, T.K., and M. Piasecki, 2006: Comparison of Turbulence Models with the use of UnTrim
in the Delaware Bay, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Estuarine andCoastal Modeling, ASCE, 105-122.
Chapman, D.C., 1985: Numerical Treatment of Cross-Shelf Open Boundaries in a Barotropic
Coastal Ocean Model, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 15, 1060-1075
Chen, C., R.H. Liu, and R. C. Beardsley, 2003: An unstructured grid, finite-volume, threedimensional primitive equations ocean model: application to coastal ocean and estuaries.
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 20, 159-186.
Chen, C., R. C. Beardsley, and G. Cowles, 2006: An unstructured grid, finite-volume ocean model(FVCOM) system. Special Issue entitled “Advances in Computational Oceanography”,
Oceanography, vol. 19, No. 1, 78-89.
Delft Hydraulics, 2004: Delft3D-RGFGRID: Generation and manipulation of curvilinear grids for
FLOW and WAVE User Manual, Delft, The Netherlands.
DiLorenzo, J.L., P. Huang, M.L. Thatcher, and T.O. Najarian, 1994: Dredging Impacts on Delaware
Estuary Tides, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal
Modeling, ASCE, 86-104.

175

Feyen, J. and Z. Yang, 2008: Generation of synoptic water level and depth-averaged velocity timeseries on the Delaware Bay for use in model coupling, Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE, 339-357.
Flather, R.A., 1976: A tidal model of the north-west European continental shelf, Mémoires SociétéRoyale des Sciences de Liège, 6e série, tome X, 141-164.
Galperin, B. and G.L. Mellor, 1990a: A Time-dependent, Three-dimensional Model of the Delaware
Bay and River System: Part 1: Description of the Model and Tidal Analysis, Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science, 31, 231-253.
Galperin, B. and G.L. Mellor, 1990b: A Time-dependent, Three-dimensional Model of the Delaware
Bay and River System: Part 2: Three-dimensional Flow Fields and Residual Circulation,
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 31, 255-281.
Gross, T.F, H. Lin, Z. Bronder, M.S. Vincent, 2006: Coastal Ocean Modeling Framework: COMF,NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 22, Silver Spring, MD.
Haidvogel, D.P., H. Arango, W.P. Budgell, B.D. Cornuelle, E. Curchister, E. Di Lorenzo, K.Fennel,
W. R. Geyer, A. J. Hermann, L. Lanerolle, J. Levin, J. C. McWilliams, A. J. Miller, A. M.
Moore, T. M. Powell, A. F. Shchepetkin, C. R. Sherwood, R. P. Signell, John C. Warner, J.
Wilkin, 2008: Regional Ocean Forecasting in Terrain-following Coordinates: Model
Formulation and Skill Assessment, Journal of Computational Physics, 3595-3624.
Hess, K.W., 1994: Tampa Bay Oceanography Project: Development and Application of the
Numerical Circulation Model, NOAA Technical Report NOS OES 5, Silver Spring, MD.
Hess, K.W., T.F. Gross, R.A. Schmalz, J.G.W. Kelley, F. Aikman, E. Wei, and M.S. Vincent, 2003:
NOS Standards for Evaluating Operational Nowcast and Forecast Hydrodynamic Model
Systems, NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 17, Silver Spring, MD.
Johnson, J.A., L.M. Cohen, L.L. Stahl, and R.C. Patchen, 1988: Final Validation of the Delaware
River and Bay Model System, NOAA Internal Report NOS, Rockville, MD.
Kim, K.W. and B.H. Johnson, 1998: Assessment of Channel Deepening in the Delaware River andBay, USACE, Technical Report CHL-98-29, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Klavens, A.S., P.J. Stone, and G.A. Stoney, 1986: Delaware River and Bay Circulation Survey:
1984-1985, NOS Oceanographic Circulation Survey Report No. 9, Rockville, MD.
Lanerolle, L., 2008: “Numerical Modeling of the Delaware River and Bay during Spring-Fall of
1984 using the Regional Ocean Modeling System, Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE, 724-743.

176

Loeper, T., 2006: Restoration of CTD Data from the 1984-1985 Delaware River and Bay Circulation
Survey, NOAA/NOS/CSDL Informal Technical Note No. 6, Silver Spring, MD.
Mark, D.J. and N.W. Scheffner, 1994: Validation of a Continental-Scale Storm Surge Model for the
Coast of Delaware, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal
Modeling, ASCE, 249-263.
Mukai, A.Y., J.J. Westerink, and R.A. Luettich, 2001: Guidelines for Using the Eastcoast 2001
Database of Tidal Constituents within the Western North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico andCaribbean Sea, US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulic Engineering Technical
Note (IV-XX), Vicksburg, MS.
Myers, E. P. June 22, 2007: Personal Communication (edward.myers@noaa.gov)
Myers, E. P., 2008: Evaluation of the SELFE/ELCIRC Models in the Delaware Bay Model
Evaluation Experiment, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Estuarine andCoastal Modeling, ASCE, 764-782.
Nickelsburg, W., 2006: Personal email (Walter.Nickelsburg@noaa.gov) on March 17, 2006.
NOS, 1999: NOS Procedures for Developing and Implementing Operational Nowcast and Forecast
Systems for PORTS, NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 0020, Silver Spring, MD.
Parker, B.B., 1984: Frictional Effects on the Tidal Dynamics of a Shallow Estuary, PhD Thesis, The
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 292pp.
Parker, B.B., 1991: “The Relative Importance of the Various Nonlinear Mechanisms in a Wide
Range of Tidal Interactions (Review).” In Tidal Hydrodynamics, B. B. Parker (ed), John Wiley& Sons, Inc., New York, 237-269.
Patchen, R.C., 2008: Establishment of a Delaware Bay Model Evaluation Environment, Proceedingsof the 10th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE, 783-818.
Ramsey, J.S., R.P. Hamilton, and D.G. Aubrey, 1996: Nested Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic
Modeling of the Delaware Estuary, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE, 53-65.
Richardson, P.H. and R. A. Schmalz, 2006: Restoration of Delaware River and Bay Circulation
Survey, Current Meter and CTD Observations 1984-1985, NOAA/NOS/CSDL Informal
Technical Note No. 5, Silver Spring, MD.
Shureman, P., 1958. Manual of Harmonic Analysis and Prediction of Tides, Special Publication 98,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

177

Schmalz, R. A., 1994: Summary Report, Volume 1: Application and Documentation of the Long
Island Sound Three-Dimensional Circulation Model, NOAA Technical Report NOS OES 003,
Silver Spring, MD.
Schmalz, R. A., 2000a. High-Resolution Houston Ship Channel ADCP and CTD Survey: ModelData Intercomparisons, NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 6, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Schmalz, R. A., 2000b. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Model Developments for a Galveston
Bay Nowcast/Forecast System, NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 9, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Schmalz, R. A. and P.H. Richardson, 2002: Evaluation of the NOS Experimental Nowcast/Forecast
System for Galveston Bay, NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 14, Silver Spring, MD.
Schmalz, R. A., 2007: NOS Experimental Galveston Bay Nowcast/Forecast System: Storm Surge
Studies, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS CS 10, Silver Spring, MD.
Shchepetkin A. F., and J. C. McWilliams, 2005: The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): a
split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model, Ocean Modelling,
9 (4) 347-404.
USGS Woods Hole Science Center, 2007: SeaGrid Orthogonal Grid Maker for Matlab,
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/operations/modeling/seagrid.
Walters, R.A., 1992a: A Study of Salt Transport Processes in Delaware Bay, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE, 240-251.
Walters, R.A., 1992b: A 3D, finite element model for coastal and estuarine circulation, Continental
Shelf Research, 12, 83-102.
Whitney, M.M. and R.W. Garvine, 2006: Simulating the Delaware Bay Buoyant Outflow:
Comparison with Observations, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 36, 3-21.
Willmott, C. J., S. G. Ackleson, R. E. Davis, J. J. Feddema, K. M. Klink, D.R. Legates, J.
O’Donnell, and C. M. Rowe, 1985: Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, 8995-9005.
Zhang, Y.-L. and A.M. Baptista, 2008: "A semi-implicit Eulerian-Lagrangian finite element model
for cross-scale ocean circulation, with hybrid vertical coordinates", Ocean Modelling, 21(3-4),
71-96.
Zhang, A., K.W. Hess, E. Wei, and E. Myers, 2006: Implementation of Model Skill Assessment
Software for Water Level and Current in Tidal Regions, NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 24,
Silver Spring, MD.

178

Zhang, A. and E.J. Wei, 2008: Delaware River and Bay Hydrodynamic Simulation with FVCOM ,Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, ASCE,
18-37.
Zhang, A., Z. Yang, G. Mott, D. Cao, F. Aikman, J. Kelley, E. Wei, R. Schmalz, and L. Lanerolle,
2010: High Performance Computer Coastal Ocean Modeling Framework for the NOS Coastal
Operational Forecast System, NOAA Technical Report (in preparation), Silver Spring, MD.

179