Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum
amy

Date referred to the extracted astronomical constituents values

Recommended Posts

I have a SMS project using ADCIRC and astronomic forcing alone. The ADCIRC model control indicates the length of the simulation (simulation starts: 0 days and simulation ends: 15 days), however I cannot find the information referred to the exact period of the year for which the values of the astronomical constituents were extracted (from the Le Provost database). The tidal/harmonics tab at ADCIRC model control presents the indication: "date unknown". Where can I find that information? I could not find it in fort.15 file. I believe that those dates should be written somewhere.

Thank you.

Amy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy,

ADCIRC has not traditionally saved this date. It is used when you extract the tidal potential and tidal amplitude values from the database, but it is not saved in the fort.14 or fort.15.

SMS saves it as part of the project that builds the ADCIRC files. If you have the ".sms" project file, it is there. You can view the value by loading the project into SMS and looking at the time control tab of the model control. You can also load the sms project file into HDFview which is a free viewer/editor for HDF5 files.

There are some new features in ADCIRC that use the date, so this information may become part of the standard ADCIRC simulation.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Alan,

thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, following your suggestion I am not able to view the date by loading the project (the date is not saved in time control tab, appearing the default value, and it appears "Date: unknown" in tidal/harmonics tab).

When contacting Aquaveo technical support, I was informed that after saving and reopening the project, this date is not displayed. They mentioned that, if I want to confirm that I have the correct dates for the constituents, the only way is to re-extract the constituent information and doing trial and error on the date until getting exactly the same values for the amplitude and phases (they are visible) for all the nodes at the ocean boundary. This is a time consuming solution that does not make much sense in my opinion.

This is a problematic situation when a SMS project is given to us and we have no idea about the period of the year to which the simulation results correspond.

Amy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy,

I just reviewed this with the tech support and here is what I understand:

1- The date in the "Time" tab is recorded with the SMS project. It is the intent of SMS that this date should be specified before extracting tidal constituents and be kept current with the boundary conditions being applied in the simulation.

2- The date in the "Tidal Constituent" tab comes from the ADCIRC control file. This means that the date is unknown. The tidal constituent tab allows the user to apply amplitudes and phases for the boundary nodes based on any tidal database, including those not supported from inside of SMS. This means that once the user specifies the tidal constituents, there is know way to verify the values short of performing the extraction again.

3- When SMS extracts tidal constituents from either the LeProvost or ADCIRC databases, the default date if populated with the reference date from the time tab. That does not mean that the user is forced to use that date. Since the user can provide any data he/she feels is appropriate, ADCIRC (and SMS) leave that responsibility with the user. The user could document the process he/she followed in the meta-data of the project.

Therefore, my understanding is this:

a- If the process is followed correctly, the user will specify a simulation reference date in the time tab and all data will be consistent with that date.

b- The simulation reference date is preserved in the SMS project file.

c- The user can further document the work that has been done in metadata for the project.

d- Nothing is forcing the user to follow these practices, so a reviewer or engineer that is trying to apply the model must be careful not to assume too much, and may want to perform verifications.

Do you have any suggestions that we could implement from an interface point of view to facilitate the process?

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×