Improving Model–Observation Agreement: Adding Residual (Surge) to TPXO

Dear [name removed],

I am currently running a test case for a coastal–estuarine region. I started with TELEMAC-2D and the results are quite good so far. The model is forced with TPXO09 tides at the open boundaries, as well as time-varying discharge and wind forcing.

As you can see, the observed signal still shows a residual component—most likely meteorological tides—that is not captured by the model.

My questions are:

Is there any way to improve the overall validation? I have tried adjusting various coefficients, but nothing seems to match the observations.

I am considering adding a residual signal extracted from offshore observational data to the TPXO-derived boundary values, so that the model would also account for meteorological tides. Is this approach recommended, and if so, how should it be implemented?

Best regards,

Hi

In addition to the wind forcing, I would recommend to also take in account the pressure effect.

There is an option to take in account the barometric effect at the tidal boundaries…

Regards

1 Like

Thank you [name removed].

I am gonna do that. I saw your merge request on the gitlab. Is it just a matter of keyword? ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE ON TIDAL BOUNDARIES = YES?

Do you do that based on an ASCII ATMOSPHERIC FILE with the pressure values or BINARY ATMOSPHERIC FILE? Is it a V8P5 update? i am using now V8P4 version?

Best regards,

Hi [name removed]

I developed this on my own version in v8p4 but this has been officially implemented in v8p5 so I think you should update your version.

In my case I work with Binary atmospheric file but i think this could work also with ascii atmospheric file…

Regards