kaft-NL WL2009R753 09 4rev2 0 · FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009...

www.watlab.be

WL Rapporten753_09

DEELRAPPORT 4: EXTRA AANPASSINGEN IN DE ZEESCHELDE

Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel

Mobiliteit enOpenbare Werken

departement

FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel

Deelrapport 4: Extra aanpassingen in de Zeeschelde

Maximova, T.; Ides, S.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F.

December 2009

WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0


This publication must be cited as follows:

Maximova, T.; Ides, S.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F. (2009). Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel. Deelrapport 4: Extra aanpassingen Zeeschelde. WL Rapporten, 753_09. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp, Belgium

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium

Flanders Hydraulics Research

Berchemlei 115 B-2140 Antwerpen Tel. +32 (0)3 224 60 35 Fax +32 (0)3 224 60 36 E-mail: [email protected] www.watlab.be

Nothing from this publication may be duplicated and/or published by means of print, photocopy, microfilm or otherwise, without the written consent of the publisher.


Document identification Title: Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel – Deelrapport 4: Extra aanpassingen Zeeschelde Customer: Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium Ref.: WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 Keywords (3-5): Hydrodynamics, numerical model, calibration, Scheldt estuary Text (p.): 14 Tables (p.): 4 Appendices (p.): / Figures (p.): 75

Customer Internal Exceptions

Flemish government Yes

Released as from Confidentiality:

No Online available Approval

Author

ir. Tatiana Maximova

Reviser

ir. Stefaan Ides

Project leader

ir. Stefaan Ides

Division Head

dr. Frank Mostaert

Revisions Nr. Date Description Author 1_0 02/10/2009 Concept version Maximova, T.

1_1 05/10/2009 Substantive revision Ides, S.

2_0 16/12/2009 Final version Maximova, T.

Abstract

In the framework of project “753_09: Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel” a calibration of the existing hydrodynamic NEVLA model of the Scheldt estuary – including all tributaries which are tidal dependant – was executed. In the reports (Vanlede et al., 2008a), (Vanlede et al., 2008b), (Maximova et al., 2009) and (Ides et al., 2008) a sensitivity analysis and a calibration of the NEVLA model of the Scheldt estuary were performed.

In the framework of some recent projects carried out at Flanders Hydraulics Research it was found that the model grid of the NEVLA model could be improved. The objective of this study is to improve the model grid and adapt the bathymetry. First of all the numerical schematization of the Deurganckdok was improved. The model grid was extended to include the entire area of the dock. Also the grid resolution was refined.

In the Sea Scheldt it was noticed that some parts of the intertidal area (the so-called slikke and schorre area) were not included in the model. In order to have a better model, the model grid was extended and necessary adaptations were made to include these areas.

Furthermore, it was noticed that the Durme was only partly included in the numerical model. This tributary of the Sea Scheldt was extended up to the limit of the tidal area.

In the original model the dams of Ballastplaat and Ouden Doel in the Sea Scheldt were schematized as thin dams in U and V direction located next to each other. Some efforts were made in order to schematize both dams in a better way, by adapting the local bathymetry. A new bathymetry was defined based on the available bathymetric samples.

Finally the model with the adapted grid and bathymetry was calibrated and validated. The analysis was based on the comparison of the magnitude and phase of the calculated and measured high and low waters.

Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel – Deelrapport 4: Extra aanpassingen Zeeschelde

Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 I FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Contents

Contents...................................................................................................................................................... I

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................... II

List of figures............................................................................................................................................. III

1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1

2 Units and reference plane...................................................................................................................2

3 The numerical model ..........................................................................................................................3

4 NEVLA grid & bathymetry adaptations ...............................................................................................4

4.1 Grid properties ................................................................................................................................4

4.2 Numerical schematization of the Deurganckdok.............................................................................4

4.3 Extension of the grid in order to include all tidal areas ...................................................................4

4.4 Schematization of the dams in the Sea Scheldt .............................................................................5

5 Calibration of the model with adapted grid..........................................................................................6

5.1 Upper Sea Scheldt..........................................................................................................................6

5.2 Zenne river......................................................................................................................................7

5.3 Dijle river .........................................................................................................................................8

6 Validation of the model with adapted grid ...........................................................................................9

6.1 The simulation period......................................................................................................................9

6.2 Boundary conditions .......................................................................................................................9

6.3 Results of the model validation.......................................................................................................9

6.3.1 Results for the entire simulation period .............................................................................10

6.3.2 Results for a short period with a storm event ....................................................................10

7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................13

8 References........................................................................................................................................14

Tables ......................................................................................................................................................T1

Figures .....................................................................................................................................................F1


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 II FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

List of tables Table 1. Differences in magnitude of high and low waters for model calibration .....................................T1 Table 2. Differences in phase of high and low waters for model calibration ............................................T2 Table 3. Differences in magnitude of high and low waters for model validation ......................................T3 Table 4. Differences in phase of high and low waters for model validation .............................................T4


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 III FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

List of figures Figure 1 - Grid of the NEVLA model ........................................................................................................F1

Figure 2 - Original grid for the Deurganckdok ..........................................................................................F2

Figure 3 - Grid for the Deurganckdok after adaptations...........................................................................F2

Figure 4 - Orthogonality of the original grid for the Deurganckdok ..........................................................F3

Figure 5 - Orthogonality of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok ...........................................F3

Figure 6 - M smoothness of the original grid for the Deurganckdok ........................................................F4

Figure 7 - M smoothness of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok .........................................F4

Figure 8 - N smoothness of the original grid for the Deurganckdok.........................................................F5

Figure 9 - N smoothness of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok..........................................F5

Figure 10 - Original bathymetry for the Deurganckdok (m below NAP) ..................................................F6

Figure 11 - Bathymetry for the Deurganckdok after grid adaptation (m below NAP) ...............................F6

Figure 12 - Grid adaptations for the Lower Sea Scheldt area (red: original grid; green: adapted grid) ...F7

Figure 13 - Grid adaptations for the Upper Sea Scheldt, Durme and Rupel area (red: original grid; green: adapted grid) ............................................................................................................................................F8

Figure 14 - Original grid for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel .............................F9

Figure 15 - Grid for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel after adaptations..............F9

Figure 16 - Original bathymetry for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel (m below NAP).......................................................................................................................................................F10

Figure 17 - Bathymetry for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel after grid adaptation (m below NAP) .......................................................................................................................................F10

Figure 18 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten ......................................................F11

Figure 19 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten after adaptations .......................................F11

Figure 20 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten (m below NAP) .................F12

Figure 21 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten after grid adaptation (m below NAP) ...............................................................................................................................................................F12

Figure 22 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands ..............................................F13

Figure 23 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands after adaptations ...............................F13

Figure 24 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands (m below NAP) .........F14

Figure 25 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands after grid adaptation (m below NAP).......................................................................................................................................................F14

Figure 26 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands .........F15

Figure 27 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands after adaptations...............................................................................................................................................................F15


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 IV FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Figure 28 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands (m below NAP) .......................................................................................................................................F16

Figure 29 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands after grid adaptation (m below NAP) .....................................................................................................................F16

Figure 30 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde ...........F17

Figure 31 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde after adaptations...............................................................................................................................................................F17

Figure 32 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde (m below NAP) ............................................................................................................................................F18

Figure 33 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde after grid adaptation (m below NAP) .....................................................................................................................F18

Figure 34 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde ................................................F19

Figure 35 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde after adaptations .................................F19

Figure 36 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde (m below NAP) ...........F20

Figure 37 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde after grid adaptation (m below NAP).......................................................................................................................................................F20

Figure 38 - Original grid for the Rupel river near Walem .......................................................................F21

Figure 39 - Grid for the Rupel river near Walem after adaptations ........................................................F21

Figure 40 - Original bathymetry for the Rupel river near Walem (m below NAP) ..................................F22

Figure 41 - Bathymetry for the Rupel river near Walem after grid adaptation (m below NAP) ..............F22

Figure 42 - Original grid for the downstream part of the Durme river.....................................................F23

Figure 43 - Grid for the downstream part of the Durme river after adaptations .....................................F23

Figure 44 - Original bathymetry for the downstream part of the Durme river (m below NAP)................F24

Figure 45 - Bathymetry for the downstream part of the Durme river after grid adaptation (m below NAP)...............................................................................................................................................................F24

Figure 46 - Original grid for the upstream part of the Durme river .........................................................F25

Figure 47 - Grid for the upstream part of the Durme river after adaptations ..........................................F25

Figure 48 - Original bathymetry for the upstream part of the Durme river (m below NAP) ....................F26

Figure 49 - Bathymetry for the upstream part of the Durme river after grid adaptation (m below NAP) F26

Figure 50 - Extended grid for the Durme river upstream Waasmunster ................................................F27

Figure 51 - Extended grid for the Durme river (parts 1 and 2) ...............................................................F28

Figure 52 - Extended grid for the Durme river (parts 3 and 4) ...............................................................F29

Figure 53 - Extended grid for the Durme river (part 5) ...........................................................................F29

Figure 54 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (parts 1 and 2) (m below NAP) ........F30

Figure 55 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (parts 3 and 4) (m below NAP) ........F31

Figure 56 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (part 5) (m below NAP) ....................F32


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 V FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Figure 57 - Tidal areas on the Dijle river not included in the adapted grid .............................................F33

Figure 58 - Original bathymetry near Merelbeke (m below NAP) ..........................................................F34

Figure 59 - Bathymetry near Merelbeke after adaptations (m below NAP)............................................F34

Figure 60 - Location of the leidam and strekdam in the original model and...........................................F35

Figure 61 - Original bathymetry of the area near leidam and strekdam (m below NAP)........................F36

Figure 62 - Implementation of leidam and strekdam by change of bathymetry (m below NAP) ............F36

Figure 63 - Bed roughness for the Lower Sea Scheldt for run 1. Roughness values expressed as Manning value (m1-/3s)............................................................................................................................F37

Figure 64 - Bed roughness for the Upper Sea Scheldt for run 1. Roughness values expressed as Manning value (m1-/3s)............................................................................................................................F38

Figure 65 - Bed roughness for the Upper Sea Scheldt for run 5. Roughness values expressed as Manning value (m1-/3s)............................................................................................................................F39

Figure 66 - Original grid point for Hombeek and point after correction ..................................................F40

Figure 67 - Location of the grid points for the stations Mechelen weir and Mechelen lock....................F41

Figure 68 - Differences in calculated and measured magnitude of high water levels ............................F42

Figure 69 - Differences in calculated and measured magnitude of low water levels .............................F43

Figure 70 - Differences in calculated and measured phase of high water levels ...................................F44

Figure 71 - Differences in calculated and measured phase of low water levels ....................................F45

Figure 72 - Water levels at Vlissingen for spring and neap tide.............................................................F46

Figure 73 - Water levels at Terneuzen for spring and neap tide ............................................................F47

Figure 74 - Water levels at Hansweert for spring and neap tide ............................................................F48

Figure 75 - Water levels at Baalhoek for spring and neap tide ..............................................................F49

Figure 76 - Water levels at Schaar van de Noord for spring and neap tide ...........................................F50

Figure 77 - Water levels at Bath for spring and neap tide......................................................................F51

Figure 78 - Water levels at Liefkenshoek for spring and neap tide ........................................................F52

Figure 79 - Water levels at Antwerp for spring and neap tide ................................................................F53

Figure 80 - Water levels at Hemiksem for spring and neap tide ............................................................F54

Figure 81 - Water levels at Temse for spring and neap tide ..................................................................F55

Figure 82 - Water levels at Schoonaarde for spring and neap tide........................................................F56

Figure 83 - Water levels at Wetteren for spring and neap tide...............................................................F57

Figure 84 - Water levels at Melle for spring and neap tide.....................................................................F58

Figure 85 - Water levels at Boom for spring and neap tide....................................................................F59

Figure 86 - Water levels at Walem for spring and neap tide ..................................................................F60

Figure 87 - Water levels at Mechelen lock and Mechelen downstream weir for spring and neap tide ..F61

Figure 88 - Water levels at Mechelen upstream weir for spring and neap tide ......................................F62


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 VI FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Figure 89 - Water levels at Rijmenam for spring and neap tide .............................................................F63

Figure 90 - Water levels at Kessel for spring and neap tide ..................................................................F64

Figure 91 - Water levels at Emblem for spring and neap tide ................................................................F65

Figure 92 - Water levels at Hombeek for spring and neap tide..............................................................F66

Figure 93 - Differences between calculated and measured magnitude of high waters for calibration and validation ................................................................................................................................................F67

Figure 94 - Differences between calculated and measured magnitude of low waters for calibration and validation ................................................................................................................................................F68

Figure 95 - Differences between calculated and measured phase of high waters for calibration and validation ................................................................................................................................................F69

Figure 96 - Differences between calculated and measured phase of low waters for calibration and validation ................................................................................................................................................F70

Figure 97 - Measured and calculated water level at Walem in 2002......................................................F71

Figure 98 - Measured and calculated water level at Wetteren in 2002 ..................................................F71

Figure 99 - Measured and calculated water level at Melle in 2002 ........................................................F72

Figure 100 - Measured and calculated water level at Liefkenshoek in 2002 .........................................F72

Figure 101 - Measured and calculated water level at Antwerp in 2002 .................................................F73

Figure 102 - Measured and calculated water level at Wetteren for the runs with increased discharge at Merelbeke ..............................................................................................................................................F74

Figure 103 - Measured and calculated water level at Melle for the runs with increased discharge at Merelbeke ..............................................................................................................................................F75


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 1 FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

1 Introduction

In the framework of the project “753_09: Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel” a calibration of the

existing hydrodynamic NEVLA model of the Scheldt estuary – including all tributaries which are tidal

dependant – was executed. In the reports ‘Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel – Deelrapport 1:

Gevoeligheidsanalyse’ (Vanlede et al., 2008a), ‘Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel – Deelrapport 2:

Afregelen van het Scheldemodel’ (Vanlede et al., 2008b), ‘Verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel –

Deelrapport 3: Kalibratie bovenlopen’ (Maximova et al., 2009) and ‘Vervolgstudie inventarisatie en

historische analyse van slikken en schorren langs de Zeeschelde – Gevoeligheidsonderzoek 2D

modellen’ (Ides et al., 2008) a sensitivity analysis and a calibration of the NEVLA model of the Scheldt

estuary were performed.

In the framework of some recent projects carried out at Flanders Hydraulics Research it was found that

the grid could be improved. First of all it was noticed that the numerical schematization of the

Deurganckdok is not optimal. The grid resolution in the area of the dock is too coarse (only 3 gridcells to

reproduce the total width of the dock), and from the point of view of orthogonality the grid could also be

improved. Last but not least only 2/3rd of the design length of the dock was implemented in the model, as

this was the case for the year 2006.

In the Sea Scheldt it was noticed that some parts of the tidal area (the so-called slikke and schorre area)

are not included in the model. Since these areas are small from point of view of tidal storage, this

probably does not affect the tidal penetration too much. However, in order to be able to use the model

for ecological purposes (for which intertidal areas are the main focus), the model grid had to be

extended and necessary adaptations had to be made to include these areas.

It was noticed that the Durme river was only partly implemented in the numerical model. This tributary of

the Sea Scheldt was extended up to the limit of the tidal area.

Finally, in the original model the strekdam and leidam in the Sea Scheldt were defined as thin dams in

U and V direction located next to each other. In the adapted model with the extended grid these dams

are represented in bathymetry. A new bathymetry was defined based on the available bathymetric

samples.

The model with adapted grid and bathymetry was calibrated and validated.



2 Units and reference plane

Time is expressed in MET (Mean European Time).

Depth, height and water levels are expressed in meter NAP (Normaal Amsterdams Peil). A bathymetric

depth is positive below the reference plane, water levels are positive above the reference plane.

The horizontal coordinate system used for the model is RD Parijs.



3 The numerical model

SIMONA (Simulatie Modellen Natte waterstaat) is a software developed by Rijkswaterstaat, the

Netherlands. It is a program for 2D and 3D modelling of water movement, particle dispersion and fluid

mud transport. SIMONA consists of a number of programs for preprocessing (preparation of simulations)

and post processing (visualisation of the model results) (Adema, 2006).

At Flanders Hydraulics Research the NEVLA model was developed for the Western Scheldt, the Sea

Scheldt and connected Flemish rivers. The model was developed in the SIMONA software and it

includes a broad sea area and all Flemish tidal rivers, such as Scheldt, Durme, Rupel, Nete (Beneden,

Grote and Kleine Nete), Dijle and Zenne. These rivers are represented until their tidal border (Vanlede et

al., 2008b).

Figure 1 presents the original grid of the NEVLA model. The number of grid points in the M-dimension is

341, in the N-dimension 2949. This gives more than 1 million grid points in total for the entire model. The

geographical position of the grid is 52.50 degrees in latitude and 0 degrees in longitude.



4 NEVLA grid & bathymetry adaptations

4.1 Grid properties

This report describes the changes made to the NEVLA grid. The grid orthoganality and smoothness in M

and N direction were checked after every adaptation of the numerical grid. The grid orthoganality is

calculated as a cosine value of the grid corners. A cosine value should be close to zero. Deviations up to

0.02 are acceptable. Near closed boundaries, the allowable deviation from orhogonality is even a bit

higher. Besides orthogonality the grid should also be smooth to minimize truncation errors in the finite

difference scheme. Adjacent grid cell sizes should vary less than 20 percent. Therefore, M and N

smoothness should be less than 1.2 (WL/Delft Hydraulics, 2007).

4.2 Numerical schematization of the Deurganckdok

The model grid was refined in the area of the Deurganckdok. A part of the grid in the environment of the

Deurganckdok was removed and replaced by a part of the grid taken from a previous study carried out

at Flanders Hydraulics Research (Flanders Hydraulics Research, 2004). Figures 2 and 3 show the

original grid and the grid after refinement. The grid properties are shown on Figures 4 - 9. Both

orthogonality and smoothness in M and N directions improved after the changes to the grid. It is

expected that the adapted grid results in an increased accuracy of the model. It is clear that the higher

resolution of the grid will better represent the local flow patterns at the entrance of the dock.

The bathymetry of the Deurganckdok used in the original model is shown on Figure 10. This is a design

bathymetry for the year 2006, based on the design parameters of the dock before construction. The

numerical schematisation of the Deurganckdok in this model is not optimal because only 2/3rd of the

dock is in operation (situation as it was in 2006). The model grid of the Deurganckdok was extended and

the bathymetry was adapted (Figure 11). The bathymetric samples for the year 2008 were used to

assign a bathymetry to the full length of the Deurganckdok.

4.3 Extension of the grid in order to include all tidal areas

The original NEVLA grid was extended and adapted in order to include all tidal areas for the Sea Scheldt

and tidal tributaries, since it was noticed that not all intertidal areas were included in the original model.

The bathymetric samples of this area delivered by the Maritime Access Division on the one hand and

the boundary (provided by INBO) presenting the border between the schorre area and the dry zone on

the other hand were used to determine in which zones the grid had to be extended.

The Maritime Access Division provided the bathymetric samples for the following years:



- The Upper Sea Scheldt, Rupel and Durme: Single Beam measurements from 2001;

- The Lower Sea Scheldt: Single Beam measurements from 2004-2005;

- The Western Scheldt: Single Beam measurements from 2006, LIDAR survey of intertidal and supralitoral

areas from 2003;

- The mouth area of the Western Scheldt: Single Beam measurements from 2002 - 2003

These are the most recent topo-bathymetric measurements.

The boundary between the slikke area and water is based on the tidal data of 2001 (Mean Low Water

level Spring tide) and bathymetry from the period of 2001. The boundary for the schorre area is based

on the vegetation mapping of the tidal marsh of September 2003.

Figures 12 and 13 show the locations where the model grid was adapted. Most changes had to be

implemented in the Upper Sea Scheldt and the Durme river. Figures 14 - 49 show the model grid and

bathymetry for the different locations before and after adaptations. The bathymetric samples from the

year 2004 provided by INBO (laser altimetry measurements) were used to define bathymetry for the

slikke and schorre areas. In the middle of the river channel bathymetry was defined based on the

samples delivered by the Maritime Acces Division (Single Beam measurements). A higher bathymetry (+

6m NAP) was assigned to all areas lying outside the border between the schorre area and the dry zone.

This was done in order to prevent unrealistic flooding of these areas.

The original model grid represents the Durme river only until Waasmunster. It does not include the entire

tidal area. The Durme river is tidally affected until Lokeren where a weir prevents the tidal wave from

penetrating more upstream. Figures 50 - 53 show the grid for the Durme river upstream Waasmunster

after extension. The bathymetry for this part of the Durme river is shown on Figures 54 - 56.

Some tidal areas on the Dijle river could not be included in the new grid (Figure 57). This is because

parts of the original grid for the Nete, Dijle and Zenne rivers have neighbouring M coordinates. This

allows to add only a few new grid cells in between these rivers. However, since these areas are rather

small, it is to be expected that those will not affect significantly the water levels. The local flow fields

however might be different in reality.

The bathymetry near Merelbeke was adapted in order to represent the sluice better. Figures 58 and 59

show the original bathymetry and the bathymetry after the adaptations at Merelbeke.

4.4 Schematization of the dams in the Sea Scheldt

In the original model the dam of Ballastplaat and Ouden Doel in the Sea Scheldt were defined as thin

dams in U and V direction located next to each other (Figure 60). If a thin dam is defined in the model,

water can not flow over this dam. However, in reality flow over the leidam and strekdam is possible from

a certain water level on between low water and high water (which occurs every tide). Figure 60 shows

the bathymetric samples for these dams. These samples were used to define a new bathymetry for the

dams (Figure 62).



5 Calibration of the model with adapted grid Model runs with new grid and bathymetry as described above were performed. The bed roughness field

similar to the one of the original calibrated NEVLA model (Maximova et al., 2009) was used for run 1

(Figures 63 - 64). For the extended grid areas the same roughness as for the neighbouring grid cells

was assigned. The same simulation period as in (Maximova et al., 2009) was used: June – July 2002.

Since the model grid, bathymetry and an implementation of the 2 dams in the Sea Scheldt in the model

were changed (in order to represent the reality in a better way), the results of run 1 are different from the

results of the reference run (Table 1 and 2). A new calibration of the adapted model had to be performed

in order to improve the tidal penetration in the model. The bed roughness was used as the only

calibration parameter. Different spatially varying roughness fields were implemented and the accuracy of

the model was compared with the measurements. The analysis of the results was based on a

comparison of the evolution of the water level in time, measured versus calculated values. The high and

low water values for the whole calculation period were determined and compared with the measured

values in the same period.

The mean differences in calculated and measured low and high waters were found. These differences

for the adapted model as described above were compared with the reference run (calibrated NEVLA

model in (Maximova et al., 2009)). The results are shown in Tables 1 - 2 and Figures 68 - 71.

Figures 72 - 92 show the comparison of the measured and calculated water levels for the reference run

before the grid adaptation and for the final calibration run (which is assumed to reproduce reality in a

reliable way) with the adapted grid, bathymetry and bed roughness.

5.1 Upper Sea Scheldt

The implementation of the leidam and strekdam in this part of the estuary by a local change of the

bathymetry results in an increase of the high waters at most stations along the Scheldt estuary and a

decrease of the low waters at stations located downstream Hemiksem. The water flow is no longer

permanently blocked by the thin dams in the model. On the one hand, the flood flow can penetrate into

the estuary easier, which results in an increase of the high waters upstream the dams. On the other

hand, in the beginning of the ebb, the cross section which is conveying the flow is much wider, therefore

low waters can leave the estuary faster. Since more water can flow upstream the dams during the flood

period and the water can also flow to the sea more easily in the beginning of the ebb period, it is not

clear how this will affect the high and low water levels.

In the first model run with the adapted grid and bathymetry, the model accuracy for low and high waters

improved for most stations (Table 1). However, the calculated low waters significantly worsened at

Wetteren and Melle in run 1 in comparison to the reference run. In order to increase too low low waters

at these stations the bed roughness was increased between Schoonaarde and Wetteren in run 2 from

0.020 to 0.022 m1-/3s. This helped to improve the low waters at Wetteren. However, the low waters at



Melle were still too low.

In run 3 the same roughness as in run 2 was used upstream Hemiksem. Near Bath the roughness was

decreased from 0.034 to 0.028 m1-/3s, between Antwerp and Hemiksem the roughness was increased

from 0.024 to 0.026 m1-/3s. However, this did not result in an improvement of the model accuracy (Table

1). In all next runs after run 3 the same bed roughness as in the reference run was used for the Lower

Sea Scheldt. In run 4 the bed roughness between Schoonaarde and Melle was increased to 0.023 m1-

/3s. These changes resulted in an increase of the low waters at Wetteren and Melle and a decrease of

the high waters at Melle.

In run 5 the bed roughness between Schoonaarde and Wetteren was the same as in run 4 (0.023

m1-/3s), and between Wetteren and Melle it was increased up to 0.025 m1-/3s (Figure 65). This helped to

improve too low low waters at Melle. The high waters at Melle became too low (but they are still higher

than in the reference run).

In run 6 the bed roughness between St. Amands and Melle was increased up to 0.022 m1-/3s between

St. Amands and Schoonaarde, 0.023 m1-/3s between Schoonaarde and Wetteren, 0.024 m1-/3s between

Wetteren and Melle. This increase of the bed roughness resulted in a decrease of the high waters and

an increase of the low waters upstream St. Amands. The low waters at Schoonaarde became too high.

Therefore, the best results were obtained in run 5. The results of the run with the adapted grid and

bathymetry improved or stayed the same as in the reference run (Tables 1 - 2, Figures 68 – 71 and

Figures 72 - 92). The changes made in the model in this study improved the accuracy of the model for

most stations. The differences between the model results and measurements decreased for high and

low water magnitude and high water phase. The differences in low water phase increased a little bit in

the Upper Sea Scheldt.

Further studies of the model are needed. The model accuracy should be improved for the high waters at

Melle and Temse. The high waters at Melle are too low. The roughness field for the simultaneous

improvement of both high and low waters at Melle still needs to be found.

The high and low waters at Temse are not accurate. It is necessary to analyse the water levels at

Temse based on a longer period of measurements and more accurate measurements of the low waters,

since there is a problem with the water level station during low water period of the tidal cycle.

Furthermore, the model accuracy for the stations located on the Rupel river (Boom and Walem) and the

Nete river (Emblem and Kessel) should be studied more in the future. The accuracy of the model for low

waters at these stations still can be improved.

5.2 Zenne river

At Hombeek located along the Zenne river, the low water levels calculated in the reference run are much

higher than the measurements (Figure 92). During the calibration process in (Maximova et al., 2009)

several attempts were made to decrease low waters by adaptation of bathymetry and roughness.

However, no successful change was found.



Later analysis showed that the grid point for the water level station Hombeek was defined wrong in the

original NEVLA model (Figure 66). After the correction of the point for Hombeek, the model results for

this station significantly improved (Figure 92).

5.3 Dijle river

During the calibration in (Maximova et al., 2009) the water levels of the river Dijle were analysed at two

measurement stations: Mechelen and Rijmenam. To improve the model accuracy for these stations, a

weir (which is a simplification of the real weir at Mechelen) was implemented in Mechelen. Two

measurement stations were defined in the original model near Mechelen: upstream and downstream the

weir. The calculated water levels at station Mechelen located downstream the weir (Figure 67) were

analysed during the calibration and compared with the measurements from the HIC database.

A weir implementation helped to improve the model results for Rijmenam. However, the low water levels

at Mechelen (downstream the weir) did not improve and were higher than the measurements. The

adaptations of the local bathymetry and bed roughness up- and downstream Mechelen did not result in

a decrease of too high low waters for this station.

The comparison of the calculated and measured water levels for station Mechelen located upstream the

weir is shown on Figure 88. As a result of the weir implementation in the model the low waters upstream

the weir increased.

Later analysis showed that the model results for station Mechelen located downstream the weir were

compared with the wrong station from the HIC database. The measurements from station Mechelen lock

from the HIC database were used for the analysis instead of Mechelen weir. After the correction of this

mistake, the correspondence between the model results and measurements improved for station

Mechelen located downstream the weir (Figure 87). The low waters oscillate downstream the weir

because they are probably affected by the weir structure. The calculated high and low waters are close

to the measurements for most moments in time. Only during the neap tide some of the calculated low

waters are higher than the measurements.

The measurement station located near Mechelen lock was not implemented in the original model and

was not used during the calibration. This station was defined in the model later (Figure 67) and water

levels were compared with the measurements from the HIC database. The analysis showed that the

calculated high waters for station Mechelen lock are close to the measurements (Figure 87). However,

the calculated low waters are higher than the measurements. Station Mechelen lock in the model is

defined in the river channel, while in reality it is located in the lock entrance (Figure 67). The lock could

not be implemented in the model grid because the original grids for the Dijle and Zenne rivers have

neighbouring M coordinates. This allows to add only a few new grid cells between these rivers.

However, the distance between the location of the station in the model and in reality is small and this

should not be a reason for the differences in low waters. Therefore, the accuracy of the model for the

low waters at Mechelen lock still should be improved.



6 Validation of the model with adapted grid

After calibration of the model it is necessary to check how the calibrated model performs for a different

simulation period. A testing of the model performance on data that have not been used for the

calibration is called model validation. A period including some high high water was chosen for the model

validation.

6.1 The simulation period

The model was validated for the period from 15/10/2002 00:00 to 15/11/2002 23:30. On 26/10/2002,

27/10/2002 and 07/11/2002 the high waters at Antwerp were higher than 4.00 m NAP. A highest high

water during the simulation period (4.30 m NAP) was observed at Antwerp on 07/11/2002 4:40.

According to (Jeuken et al., 2007), the high water at Antwerp reaches 4.07 m NAP two times a year, a

level of 4.22 m NAP once every year.

Since the simulation period is approximately 4 weeks, the effect of the spring-neap tidal cycle is included

in the mean water level values, as well as a broad range of the upstream discharges. New upstream and

downstream boundary conditions were specified for this period. All other input parameters were left the

same as in the calibrated model.

6.2 Boundary conditions

The water levels at Cadzand and Westkapelle (HMCZ database) were used as downstream boundary

conditions. The NEVLA model has several upstream boundaries. The discharges at these upstream

boundaries were available from the Hydrometry group of Flanders Hydraulics Research. The daily

discharge series for a simulation period were available for Zenne – Zemst, Dijle – Haacht, Grote Nete –

Itegem, Kleine Nete – Grobbendonk and Scheldt - Merelbeke. 10 min discharge series were available

for Scheldt – Dendermonde and for the Bath canal. Zero discharge was specified for Durme –

Waasmunster, Schelde – Gentbrugge, and Bovenschelde – Zwijnaarde.

Wind was included in the model run. Wind data were available from the Hydro Meteo Centrum Zeeland

(HMCZ) database. The wind data measured at the station Hansweert were imposed as a uniform wind

field influencing the whole model area. This data consist of wind magnitude (10 min average value) and

direction (10 min average value in degrees towards North).

6.3 Results of the model validation

The analysis was based on a comparison of the measured and calculated magnitude and phase of the

high and low waters. The high and low water values for the whole calculation period were determined

and compared with the measured values in the same period. The average differences in calculated and



measured low and high waters were found for the whole simulation period (one month).

Furthermore, these differences were calculated for a short period with an extremely high water level

(from 06/11/2002 10:00 to 08/11/2002 14:00). This was done in order to check if the model can simulate

water levels correctly for a storm event.

6.3.1 Results for the entire simulation period

The results of the model validation for October – November 2002 are presented in Tables 3 and 4 and

on Figures 93 - 96. The model performs well downstream Hemiksem. The average differences in

magnitude and phase of high and low waters calculated for the entire simulation period are not high. The

differences in magnitude do not exceed 8 cm, the differences in phase do not exceed 5 min. Upstream

Hemiksem the model accuracy worsens. The high waters on average are lower than measurements for

all stations in the Upper Sea Scheldt, Rupel and its tributaries except Schoonaarde, Melle and Kessel.

The low waters at all stations upstream Hemiksem are much lower than the measurements. The

differences in some low waters at Wetteren and Melle exceed 50 cm (Figures 98 and 99). The

differences in high water phase are small. The maximal differences of 16 min in low water phase are

observed at Melle and Wetteren.

The average difference in high waters at Walem is smaller than 1 cm. However, the actual differences

are larger than 20 cm at some moments (Figure 97). Nevertheless, the differences in most high waters

at this station are not high. Opposite to this, the calculated low waters at Walem are constantly too low.

The average differences in high waters at Schoonaarde, Wetteren and Melle are small. However, the

actual differences in high waters at these stations are much larger (Figures 98 and 99). They vary in

time from positive to negative values and the average differences become close to zero. This is not the

case for the stations downstream Hemiksem. The model accuracy is better there and the differences

between the calculated and measured high and low waters are less than 5 to 10 cm for most high and

low waters except the period with the storm event (Figures 100 and 101).

Therefore, the model validation showed that the calibrated model performs well downstream Hemiksem

for a period with normal spring and neap tide. Upstream Hemiksem the differences between the

calculations and measurements become larger. This can be related to the fact that only daily discharge

time series were available at Merelbeke. From the sensitivity analysis (Ides et al., 2008) it was found

that the use of daily averaged discharges at this location worsens the calculated discharges in the Upper

Sea Scheldt up to Hemiksem compared to hourly averaged discharges.

6.3.2 Results for a short period with a storm event

The results of the analysis of the model accuracy for a short period with a storm event are presented in

Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 93 - 96. The analysis shows that the calibrated model can not simulate a

period with an extremely high spring tide very accurately. The differences between the calculations and

measurements become high already at Baalhoek (11 cm). The calculated high and low waters are lower

than the measurements for most stations. Only in the Upper Sea Scheldt and Kessel the calculated high



waters are higher than the measurements. At Melle the calculated low waters are too high on average.

The high and low waters at most stations are delayed in the model. The maximal delay in the high water

phase (16 min) is observed at Antwerp. The low waters in the Upper Sea Scheldt are delayed by 16 to

25 min.

The calibrated model does not simulate accurately a period with an extreme high water level. The

accuracy of the model worsens in comparison to the period with normal tide. The reasons for this and

the possibilities to improve the model accuracy for such circumstances should be studied more in the

future. Some possible improvements are given here.

A first reason for the model not to reproduce extreme high waters in the Sea Scheldt correctly is the lack

of controlled inundation areas in the model grid. These areas will be inundated only from a certain,

relatively high water level on and their main goal is to decrease the extreme high water levels for a

couple of centimetres, but they will also influence the level of the low waters. Since these areas are not

included in the model, it is to be expected that the model will not be a reliable tool for these extreme

water levels in the Sea Scheldt.

For the modelled high waters for example, the controlled inundation area of Paardeweide (located near

Uitbergen) would have become active in reality. This controlled inundation area is inundated about once

in a year during the period with the medium flood risk. The effect of the inundation of the Paardeweide

area would have affected the measured high water levels in the upstream part of the estuary.

The extreme water levels that have been simulated in the model are events which happen once to twice

a year. If a stronger storm is simulated in the model, the differences between the model results and

measurements will be even larger since more controlled inundation areas will be flooded in reality and

this effect will not be taken into account in the calculations. However, the high water levels in the model

are reproduced too low compared to reality for the Western Scheldt and the Lower Sea Scheldt. The

effect of including the inundation area would even decrease the calculated high water levels, and thus

worsen the results of the model. In the Upper Sea Scheldt, the high water levels are calculated too high.

As a consequence the introduction of inundation areas in this zone might improve the model results.

Another reason for the rather poor model accuracy in the Upper Sea Scheldt may be the use of the daily

discharges at Merelbeke. The averaging of some important peak discharges throughout a day can

worsen the model accuracy. The use of the 10 minute time series can significantly improve the model

accuracy for the Upper Sea Scheldt area.

The low waters in the Upper Sea Scheldt during the extremely high water events are lower than the

measurements for all stations except Melle during the storm period. On the contrary the high waters are

higher than the measurements. It was analyzed how the model would react if the discharge at

Merelbeke was increased by 20% respectively by 100%. It is expected that increase of the discharge

would affect the low waters more than the high waters because flood flow is much larger than the

upstream discharge.



The increase of the discharge at Merelbeke resulted in an increase of high and low waters in the Upper

Sea Scheldt (Figures 102 – 103). The high waters increased and became too high. Some low waters at

Wetteren improved when the discharge was increased by 20%. However, some of them became too

high. When the discharge was increased by 100%, the high and low waters in the Upper Sea Scheldt

became too high. At stations located more downstream the changes were smaller because the

discharge at Merelbeke is much smaller than the flood discharge at these stations. The analysis showed

that the increase of the discharge did not help to improve the model accuracy.

A possible approach to improve the model accuracy during extreme storm events is to adapt the wind

drag coefficient. This coefficient is used for the computation of the force on the water surface due to

wind. If the coefficient increases than the wind effect on the water levels increases too. The wind

direction is about 300 degrees during the period with the extreme high water. This means that wind

blows into the estuary and pushes the water. This can result in an increase of the high waters. However,

the wind was not strong during the analyzed storm period (always less than 13 m/s). Thus, an increase

of the wind drag coefficient in the model will probably not have an important effect on the results.

Finally it is mentioned that the model is not calibrated yet for the intertidal (and subtidal) areas. They are

inundated during the flood period and can have an important effect on the water level during storm

events. In the current model no distinction is made between the bed roughness of the channels and the

roughness of the intertidal areas.



7 Conclusion

The original grid of the NEVLA model was extended and the bathymetry was adapted. The following

changes were implemented:

- All intertidal areas were included in the model. This was done based on the analysis of the land

boundary (provided by INBO) and the bathymetric samples of these areas.

- The numerical schematization of the Deurganckdok was improved. The model grid for the dock

was extended and refined.

- The grid for the Durme river was extended until the tidal border.

- The leidam and strekdam in the Sea Scheldt were defined in the model bathymetry.

After the grid adaptation the number of grid points in the N-dimension increased from 2949 to 3001 and

it stayed the same as in the original model in the M-dimension (equal to 341).

The model with adapted grid was calibrated. The bed roughness was used as the only calibration

parameter. The analysis of the results was based on a comparison of the evolution of the water level in

time, measured versus calculated values. The average differences between the modeled and calculated

high and low waters were found. The accuracy of the model with the extended grid and adapted

bathymetry improved or did not change in comparison to the calibrated model with the original grid and

bathymetry.

The calibrated model was validated for a period with normal tide and for a period with an extreme high

water. The model validation showed that the calibrated model performs well for most stations for normal

spring and neap tide. However, the accuracy worsens during the storm period. The reasons for this and

the possibilities to improve the model accuracy should be studied more in the future.



8 References

Adema, J., (2006). Evaluatie van hydraulische modellen voor operationele voorspellingen. Deelopdracht 3: Afregelen van Vlaamse rivieren in het Kustzuid model en vergelijking Kalman sturing. Rapport Alkyon A1401R3r2, in opdracht van WL Borgerhout (M.729-09).

Flanders Hydraulics Research, (2004). Model 755/1: Alternatieve stortlocaties in de Beneden-Zeeschelde. Simulaties voor terugstorten van baggerspecie in de Beneden-Zeeschelde. Stortlocatie Vlakte van Hoboken.

Ides, S.; Vanlede, J.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F., (2008). Vervolgstudie inventarisatie en historische analyse van slikken en schorren langs de Zeeschelde – Gevoeligheidsonderzoek 2D modellen. WL Rapporten, 713_21. Flanders Hydraulics Research, Antwerp, Belgium.

Jeuken, C.; Hordijk, D.; Ides, S.; Kuijper, C.; Peeters, P.; de Sonneville, B.; Vanlede, J., (2007). Koploperproject LTV O&M – Thema Veiligheid – Deelproject 1. Inventarisatie historische ontwikkeling van de hoogwaterstanden in het Schelde estuarium. WL Rapporten, 756_03. Flanders Hydraulics Research & WL Delft Hydraulics, Antwerp, Belgium.

Maximova, T.; Ides, S.; Vanlede, J.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F., (2009). Verbetering 2D randvoorwaardenmodel. Deelrapport 3: Calibratie bovenlopen. WL Rapporten, 753_09. Flanders Hydraulics Research, Antwerp, Belgium.

Vanlede, J.; Decrop, B.; De Clercq, B.; Ides, S.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F., (2008a). Permanente verbetering modelinstrumentarium: verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel. Deel 1: gevoeligheidsonderzoek. WL Rapporten, 753_09. Flanders Hydraulics Research, Antwerp, Belgium.

Vanlede, J.; Decrop, B.; De Clercq, B.; Ides, S.; De Mulder, T.; Mostaert, F., (2008b). Permanente verbetering modelinstrumentarium: verbetering randvoorwaardenmodel. Deel 2: afregelen van het Scheldemodel. WL Rapporten, 753_09. Flanders Hydraulics Research, Antwerp, Belgium.

WL/Delft Hydraulics, (2007). Delft3D-RGFGRID. Generation and manipulation of curvilinear grids for FLOW and WAVE. User manual.


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 T1 FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Tables Table 1. Differences in magnitude of high and low waters for model calibration (NV: water level could not be determined based on the used algorithm)

difference in high water (calculation - measurement) (cm) difference in low water (calculation - measurement) (cm)

Station reference

run* run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5** run 6 reference

run* run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5** run 6

Vlissingen 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 Terneuzen -6.0 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 -5.7 -5.7 -5.6 0.6 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 Hansweert -4.3 -3.6 -3.7 -3.7 -3.7 -3.8 -3.6 -0.2 -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.5 -1.5 -1.6 Baalhoek -7.2 -6.0 -6.1 -5.7 -6.0 -6.0 -6.1 -4.8 -6.2 -5.6 -6.6 -6.1 -6.1 -6.2

Schaar van de Noord -7.4 -5.6 -5.7 -5.2 -5.7 -5.5 -5.7 -4.0 -5.4 -5.3 -6.1 -5.3 -5.3 -5.4 Bath -1.2 1.0 0.9 1.7 0.9 1.1 0.9 -3.1 -4.7 -4.5 -5.6 -4.5 -4.6 -4.7

Liefkenshoek -6.9 -3.2 -3.3 -2.0 -3.3 -3.0 -3.2 -0.3 -1.9 -1.6 -3.1 -1.6 -1.9 -1.8

Antwerp -6.7 -3.5 -3.6 -2.1 -3.6 -3.4 -3.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 Hemiksem -3.0 -2.1 -2.1 -3.4 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8 -7.0 -5.6 -5.6 -4.5 -5.7 -6.0 -6.2

Temse*** -11.9 -9.6 -9.4 -10.9 -9.4 -9.2 -8.8 -21.1 -19.7 -19.8 -18.9 -20.0 -20.2 -20.6

Schoonaarde 1.1 -0.2 2.3 1.2 5.0 6.0 -1.5 -9.1 3.2 2.3 2.4 0.9 0.6 11.3 Wetteren -3.5 1.0 -2.1 -2.8 -0.5 1.5 -4.8 -9.5 -13.6 -6.7 -6.9 -2.7 -1.6 3.0

Melle -22.3 -12.5 -15.7 -15.7 -18.4 -22.1 -25.0 -11.0 -29.4 -24.4 -25.2 -14.1 -7.7 -7.1

Boom -6.6 -4.9 -4.9 -6.2 -4.8 -4.7 -4.4 -15.0 -12.7 -12.7 -11.8 -12.9 -13.0 -13.3 Walem -10.5 -9.0 -9.0 -10.3 -8.9 -8.8 -8.5 -29.1 -24.5 -24.5 -23.8 -24.6 -24.7 -24.9

Mechelen -2.0 -6.6 -6.5 -7.9 -6.4 -6.5 -6.5 NV

Kessel 14.3 12.9 12.3 11.5 12.1 12.2 12.6 NV * reference run is the calibrated model before the grid adaptation (Maximova et al., 2009) ** run 5 gives the best results *** the low water measurements at Temse are not accurate. The measurement instrument is located in a muddy environment, the level of the mud being approximately the level of the low water



Table 2. Differences in phase of high and low waters for model calibration (NV: water level could not be determined based on the used algorithm)

difference in phase of high water (calculation – measurement) (min)

difference in phase of low water (calculation – measurement) (min)

Station reference

run* run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5** run 6 reference

run* run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5** run 6

Vlissingen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 Terneuzen 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Hansweert 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 7 6 5 6 6 5 5 Baalhoek -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 3 2 1 3 3 2 3

Schaar van de Noord -1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 Bath -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Liefkenshoek 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 4 3 4 4 5

Antwerp 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 4 5 5 5 Hemiksem 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3

Temse*** 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2

Schoonaarde 3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1 9 12 12 11 11 11 13 Wetteren 3 -3 -1 0 -2 -3 -1 12 15 16 17 17 16 19

Melle 10 -2 -2 0 1 0 0 15 13 16 15 14 21 19

Boom 7 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 Walem 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 4

Mechelen 13 3 4 3 4 4 4 NV

Kessel -3 -4 -5 -6 -5 -3 -3 NV * reference run is the calibrated model before the grid adaptation (Maximova et al., 2009) ** run 5 gives the best results *** the low water measurements at Temse are not accurate. The measurement instrument is located in a muddy environment, the level of the mud being approximately the level of the low water



Table 3. Differences in magnitude of high and low waters for model validation (NV: water level could not be determined based on the used algorithm)

Difference (calculation - measurement)

high water (cm) low water (cm) Station

reference run*

calibration (June – July 2002)**

validation (Oct-Nov 2002)

validation for storm period

(06-08 Nov 2002)

reference run*




(06-08 Nov 2002) Vlissingen 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.5 Terneuzen -6.0 -5.7 -3.1 -6.5 0.6 -0.3 -1.7 -1.8 Hansweert -4.3 -3.8 -0.4 -6.4 -0.2 -1.5 -1.9 -2.5 Baalhoek -7.2 -6.0 -3.0 -11.2 -4.8 -6.1 -7.3 -10.3

Schaar van de Noord -7.4 -5.5 -2.0 -9.6 -4.0 -5.3 -5.7 -8.6 Bath -1.2 1.1 0.3 -11.0 -3.1 -4.6 -5.4 -8.8

Liefkenshoek -6.9 -3.0 -2.8 -15.8 -0.3 -1.9 -4.1 -4.9

Antwerp -6.7 -3.4 -2.4 -17.9 1.5 1.0 -2.9 -3.2 Hemiksem -3.0 -2.0 -13.9 -20.9 -7.0 -6.0 -22.5 -23.3

Temse*** -11.9 -9.2 -7.1 -13.1 -21.1 -20.2 -32.2 -48.4

Schoonaarde 1.1 6.0 1.4 8.5 -9.1 0.6 -26.5 -23.5 Wetteren -3.5 1.5 -1.1 10.8 -9.5 -1.6 -14.0 -25.7

Melle -22.3 -22.1 4.3 23.4 -11.0 -7.7 -5.3 11.3

Boom -6.6 -4.7 -7.4 -12.2 -15.0 -13.0 -25.1 -27.8 Walem -10.5 -8.8 -0.4 -2.1 -29.1 -24.7 -31.2 -32.3

Mechelen -2.0 -6.5 -6.5 -9.7 NV

Kessel 14.3 12.2 11.4 26.2 NV * reference run is the calibrated model before the grid adaptation (Maximova et al., 2009) ** calibrated model with adapted grid (run 5) *** the low water measurements at Temse are not accurate. The measurement instrument is located in a muddy environment, the level of the mud being approximately the level of the low water



Table 4. Differences in phase of high and low waters for model validation (NV: water level could not be determined based on the used algorithm)

Difference (calculation - measurement)

phase of high water (min) phase of low water (min) Station

reference run*




(06-08 nov 2002)

reference run*




(06-08 nov 2002) Vlissingen 0 0 -2 -1 3 3 1 3 Terneuzen 1 1 0 3 5 5 3 6 Hansweert 4 3 2 1 7 5 6 8 Baalhoek -1 0 -1 5 3 2 1 -1

Schaar van de Noord -1 -1 -2 5 3 2 0 -2 Bath -1 -1 2 0 4 1 0 1

Liefkenshoek 4 1 2 5 6 4 3 8

Antwerp 8 5 5 16 6 5 2 8 Hemiksem 3 2 0 5 4 3 3 4

Temse*** 3 1 0 0 2 0 4 25

Schoonaarde 3 -3 -2 2 9 11 10 16 Wetteren 3 -3 0 11 12 16 16 25

Melle 10 0 0 1 15 21 17 17

Boom 7 3 1 2 5 4 1 6 Walem 5 4 0 2 2 4 1 2

Mechelen 13 4 3 3 NV

Kessel -3 -3 3 11 NV * reference run is the calibrated model before the grid adaptation (Maximova et al., 2009) ** calibrated model with adapted grid (run 5) *** the low water measurements at Temse are not accurate. The measurement instrument is located in a muddy environment, the level of the mud being approximately the level of the low water


Final version WL2009R753_09_4rev2_0 F1 FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009

Figures

Figure 1 - Grid of the NEVLA model



Figure 2 - Original grid for the Deurganckdok (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)

Figure 3 - Grid for the Deurganckdok after adaptations (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal

areas)



Figure 4 - Orthogonality of the original grid for the Deurganckdok

Figure 5 - Orthogonality of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok



Figure 6 - M smoothness of the original grid for the Deurganckdok

Figure 7 - M smoothness of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok



Figure 8 - N smoothness of the original grid for the Deurganckdok

Figure 9 - N smoothness of the grid after adaptations for the Deurganckdok



Figure 10 - Original bathymetry for the Deurganckdok (m below NAP)

Figure 11 - Bathymetry for the Deurganckdok after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 12 - Grid adaptations for the Lower Sea Scheldt area (red: original grid; green: adapted grid; blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 13 - Grid adaptations for the Upper Sea Scheldt, Durme and Rupel area (red: original grid; green: adapted grid; blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 14 - Original grid for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)

Figure 15 - Grid for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel after adaptations (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 16 - Original bathymetry for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel (m below NAP)

Figure 17 - Bathymetry for the Upper Sea Scheldt at the confluence with the Rupel after grid adaptation (m

below NAP)



Figure 18 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)

Figure 19 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten after adaptations (blue line: border between

intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 20 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten (m below NAP)

Figure 21 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Driegoten after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 22 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands (blue line: border between intertidal

and supratidal areas)

Figure 23 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands after adaptations (blue line: border between




Figure 24 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands (m below NAP)

Figure 25 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Sint – Amands after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 26 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands (blue line:

border between intertidal and supratidal areas)

Figure 27 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands after adaptations (blue

line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 28 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands (m

below NAP)

Figure 29 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Dendermonde and Sint – Amands after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 30 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde (blue line:

border between intertidal and supratidal areas)

Figure 31 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde after adaptations (blue

line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 32 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde (m below

NAP)

Figure 33 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt between Schoonaarde and Dendermonde after grid

adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 34 - Original grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)

Figure 35 - Grid for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde after adaptations (blue line: border between




Figure 36 - Original bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde (m below NAP)

Figure 37 - Bathymetry for the Lower Sea Scheldt near Schoonaarde after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 38 - Original grid for the Rupel river near Walem (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal

areas)

Figure 39 - Grid for the Rupel river near Walem after adaptations (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)



Figure 40 - Original bathymetry for the Rupel river near Walem (m below NAP)

Figure 41 - Bathymetry for the Rupel river near Walem after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 42 - Original grid for the downstream part of the Durme river (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)

Figure 43 - Grid for the downstream part of the Durme river after adaptations (blue line: border between




Figure 44 - Original bathymetry for the downstream part of the Durme river (m below NAP)

Figure 45 - Bathymetry for the downstream part of the Durme river after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 46 - Original grid for the upstream part of the Durme river (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)

Figure 47 - Grid for the upstream part of the Durme river after adaptations (blue line: border between intertidal

and supratidal areas)



Figure 48 - Original bathymetry for the upstream part of the Durme river (m below NAP)

Figure 49 - Bathymetry for the upstream part of the Durme river after grid adaptation (m below NAP)



Figure 50 - Extended grid for the Durme river upstream Waasmunster (red: original grid; green: adapted grid; blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 51 - Extended grid for the Durme river (parts 1 and 2) (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)



Figure 52 - Extended grid for the Durme river (parts 3 and 4) (blue line: border between intertidal and

supratidal areas)

Figure 53 - Extended grid for the Durme river (part 5) (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal

areas)



Figure 54 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (parts 1 and 2) (m below NAP)



Figure 55 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (parts 3 and 4) (m below NAP)



Figure 56 - Bathymetry for the extended grid for the Durme river (part 5) (m below NAP)



Figure 57 - Tidal areas on the Dijle river not included in the adapted grid (blue line: border between intertidal and supratidal areas)



Figure 58 - Original bathymetry near Merelbeke (m below NAP)

Figure 59 - Bathymetry near Merelbeke after adaptations (m below NAP)



Figure 60 - Location of the leidam and strekdam in the original model and available bathymetric samples (m below NAP)



Figure 61 - Original bathymetry of the area near leidam and strekdam (m below NAP)

Figure 62 - Implementation of leidam and strekdam by change of bathymetry (m below NAP)



Figure 63 - Bed roughness for the Lower Sea Scheldt for run 1. Roughness values expressed as Manning value (m1-/3s)



Figure 64 - Bed roughness for the Upper Sea Scheldt for run 1. Roughness values expressed as Manning

value (m1-/3s)



Figure 65 - Bed roughness for the Upper Sea Scheldt for run 5. Roughness values expressed as Manning

value (m1-/3s)



Figure 66 - Original grid point for Hombeek and point after correction



Figure 67 - Location of the grid points for the stations Mechelen weir and Mechelen lock



Difference in high water (calculation - measurement) (m)

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

WalemMec

helen

Kesse

l

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

reference run run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5 run 6

Figure 68 - Differences in calculated and measured magnitude of high water levels



Difference in low water (calculation - measurement) (m)

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

Walem

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)


Figure 69 - Differences in calculated and measured magnitude of low water levels



Difference in phase of high water (calculation - measurement) (min)

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

16

20

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

WalemMec

helen

Kesse

l

diffe

renc

e in

tim

e (m

in)


Figure 70 - Differences in calculated and measured phase of high water levels



Difference in phase of low water (calculation - measurement) (min)

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

16

20

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

Walem

diffe

renc

e in

tim

e (m

in)


Figure 71 - Differences in calculated and measured phase of low water levels



Comparison of water levels for Vlissingen (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured before grid adaptation after grid adaptation

Comparison of water levels for Vlissingen (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 72 - Water levels at Vlissingen for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Terneuzen (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Comparison of water levels for Terneuzen (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 73 - Water levels at Terneuzen for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Hansweert (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Hansweert (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Figure 74 - Water levels at Hansweert for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Baalhoek (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vels

(m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Baalhoek (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vels

(m N

AP)


Figure 75 - Water levels at Baalhoek for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Schaar van de Noord (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Schaar van de Noord (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 76 - Water levels at Schaar van de Noord for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Bath (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Bath (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 77 - Water levels at Bath for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Liefkenshoek (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Liefkenshoek (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 78 - Water levels at Liefkenshoek for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Antwerp (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Comparison of water levels for Antwerp (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 79 - Water levels at Antwerp for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Hemiksem (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Hemiksem (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 80 - Water levels at Hemiksem for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Temse (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

12-07-020:00

12-07-026:00

12-07-0212:00

12-07-0218:00

13-07-020:00

13-07-026:00

13-07-0212:00

13-07-0218:00

14-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Temse (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Figure 81 - Water levels at Temse for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Schoonaarde (spring tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Schoonaarde (neap tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 82 - Water levels at Schoonaarde for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Wetteren (spring tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Wetteren (neap tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Figure 83 - Water levels at Wetteren for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Melle (spring tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Melle (neap tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 84 - Water levels at Melle for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Boom (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Boom (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 85 - Water levels at Boom for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Walem (spring tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Walem (neap tide)

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 86 - Water levels at Walem for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Mechelen (spring tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

25/06/0212:00

25/06/0218:00

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured lock calculated lock measured downstream weir calculated downstream weir

Comparison of water levels for Mechelen (neap tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

2/07/020:00

2/07/026:00

2/07/0212:00

2/07/0218:00

3/07/020:00

3/07/026:00

3/07/0212:00

3/07/0218:00

4/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured lock calculated lock measured downstream weir calculated downstream weir

Figure 87 - Water levels at Mechelen lock and Mechelen downstream weir for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Mechelen upstream weir (spring tide)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

26/06/020:00

26/06/026:00

26/06/0212:00

26/06/0218:00

27/06/020:00

27/06/026:00

27/06/0212:00

27/06/0218:00

28/06/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)

measured Mechelen upstream weir

Comparison of water levels for Mechelen upstream weir (neap tide)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

6/07/020:00

6/07/026:00

6/07/0212:00

6/07/0218:00

7/07/020:00

7/07/026:00

7/07/0212:00

7/07/0218:00

8/07/020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured Mechelen upstream weir

Figure 88 - Water levels at Mechelen upstream weir for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Rijmenam (spring tide)

0

1

2

3

4

5

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Rijmenam (neap tide)

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-07-020:00

5-07-026:00

5-07-0212:00

5-07-0218:00

6-07-020:00

6-07-026:00

6-07-0212:00

6-07-0218:00

7-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)


Figure 89 - Water levels at Rijmenam for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Kessel (spring tide)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Kessel (neap tide)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 90 - Water levels at Kessel for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Emblem (spring tide)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Comparison of water levels for Emblem (neap tide)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2-07-020:00

2-07-026:00

2-07-0212:00

2-07-0218:00

3-07-020:00

3-07-026:00

3-07-0212:00

3-07-0218:00

4-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 91 - Water levels at Emblem for spring and neap tide



Comparison of water levels for Hombeek (spring tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

26-06-020:00

26-06-026:00

26-06-0212:00

26-06-0218:00

27-06-020:00

27-06-026:00

27-06-0212:00

27-06-0218:00

28-06-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured original location corrected location

Comparison of water levels for Hombeek (neap tide)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-07-020:00

5-07-026:00

5-07-0212:00

5-07-0218:00

6-07-020:00

6-07-026:00

6-07-0212:00

6-07-0218:00

7-07-020:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured original location corrected location

Figure 92 - Water levels at Hombeek for spring and neap tide



Difference in high water (calculation - measurement) (m)

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

WalemMec

helen

Kesse

l

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

calibrated model with extended grid validation for Oct - Nov 2002 validation for storm period 06-08/11/2002

Figure 93 - Differences between calculated and measured magnitude of high waters for calibration and validation



Difference in low water (calculation - measurement) (m)

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

Walem

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)


Figure 94 - Differences between calculated and measured magnitude of low waters for calibration and validation



Difference in phase of high water (calculation - measurement) (min)

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

WalemMec

helen

Kesse

l

diffe

renc

e in

tim

e (m

in)


Figure 95 - Differences between calculated and measured phase of high waters for calibration and validation



Difference in phase of low water (calculation - measurement) (min)

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Vlissinge

nTern

euze

nHans

weert

Baalho

ek

Schaar

van d

e Noo

rd

Bath

Liefke

nsho

ekAntw

erpHemiks

em

Temse

Schoon

aarde

Wetteren

Melle

Boom

Walem

diffe

renc

e in

tim

e (m

in)


Figure 96 - Differences between calculated and measured phase of low waters for calibration and validation



Water level Walem

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16-10-02 0:00 21-10-02 0:00 26-10-02 0:00 31-10-02 0:00 5-11-02 0:00 10-11-02 0:00 15-11-02 0:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

measured validation for October - November 2002difference in HW (calculation - measurement) difference in LW (calculation - measurement)

Figure 97 - Measured and calculated water level at Walem in 2002

Water level Wetteren

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16-10-02 0:00 21-10-02 0:00 26-10-02 0:00 31-10-02 0:00 5-11-02 0:00 10-11-02 0:00 15-11-02 0:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

measured validation for October - November 2002difference in HW (calculation - measurement) difference in LW (calculation - measurement)

Figure 98 - Measured and calculated water level at Wetteren in 2002



Water level Melle

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16-10-02 0:00 21-10-02 0:00 26-10-02 0:00 31-10-02 0:00 5-11-02 0:00 10-11-02 0:00 15-11-02 0:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP

)

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

measured model validation for October - November 2002difference in HW (calculation - measurement) difference in LW (calculation - measurement)

Figure 99 - Measured and calculated water level at Melle in 2002

Water level Liefkenshoek

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16-10-02 0:00 21-10-02 0:00 26-10-02 0:00 31-10-02 0:00 5-11-02 0:00 10-11-02 0:00 15-11-02 0:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

measured validation for October - November 2002difference in LW (calculation - measurement) difference in HW (calculation - measurement)

Figure 100 - Measured and calculated water level at Liefkenshoek in 2002



Water level Antwerp

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16-10-02 0:00 21-10-02 0:00 26-10-02 0:00 31-10-02 0:00 5-11-02 0:00 10-11-02 0:00 15-11-02 0:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

diffe

renc

e in

wat

er le

vel (

m)

measured validation for October - November 2002

difference in HW (calculation - measurement) difference in LW (calculation - measurement)

Figure 101 - Measured and calculated water level at Antwerp in 2002



Water level Wetteren (spring tide, storm period)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6-11-020:00

6-11-026:00

6-11-0212:00

6-11-0218:00

7-11-020:00

7-11-026:00

7-11-0212:00

7-11-0218:00

8-11-020:00

8-11-026:00

8-11-0212:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)

measured calculated run with Q Merelbeke + 20% run with Q Merelbeke + 100%

Water level Wetteren (neap tide)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

29-10-020:00

29-10-026:00

29-10-0212:00

29-10-0218:00

30-10-020:00

30-10-026:00

30-10-0212:00

30-10-0218:00

31-10-020:00

31-10-026:00

31-10-0212:00

31-10-0218:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 102 - Measured and calculated water level at Wetteren for the runs with increased discharge at Merelbeke



Water level Melle (spring tide, storm period)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6-11-020:00

6-11-026:00

6-11-0212:00

6-11-0218:00

7-11-020:00

7-11-026:00

7-11-0212:00

7-11-0218:00

8-11-020:00

8-11-026:00

8-11-0212:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Water level Melle (neap tide)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

29-10-020:00

29-10-026:00

29-10-0212:00

29-10-0218:00

30-10-020:00

30-10-026:00

30-10-0212:00

30-10-0218:00

31-10-020:00

31-10-026:00

31-10-0212:00

31-10-0218:00

date and time

wat

er le

vel (

m N

AP)


Figure 103 - Measured and calculated water level at Melle for the runs with increased discharge at Merelbeke

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium

Flanders Hydraulics Research

Berchemlei 115

B-2140 Antwerp

Tel. +32 (0)3 224 60 35

Fax +32 (0)3 224 60 36

E-mail: [email protected]

www.watlab.be

kaft-NL WL2009R753 09 4rev2 0 · FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009...

Documents

Transcript of kaft-NL WL2009R753 09 4rev2 0 · FORMULIER: F-WL-PP10-1 Versie 02 GELDIG VANAF: 17/04/2009...