Uncertainty in complex three-dimensional sediment transport models: equifinality in a model application of the Ems Estuary, the Netherlands

Estuarine suspended sediment transport models are typically calibrated against suspended sediment concentration data. These data typically cover a limited range of the actual suspended sediment concentration dynamics, constrained in either time or space. As a result of these data limitations, the available data can be reproduced with complex 3D transport models through multiple sets of model calibration parameters. These various model parameter sets influence the relative importance of transport processes such as settling, deposition, erosion, or mixing. As a result, multiple model parameter sets may reproduce sediment dynamics in tidal channels (where most data is typically collected) with the same degree of accuracy but simulate notably different sediment concentration patterns elsewhere (e.g. on the tidal flats). Different combinations of model input parameters leading to the same result are known as equifinality. The effect of equifinality on predictive model capabilities is investigated with a complex three-dimensional sediment transport model of a turbid estuary which is subject to several human interventions. The effect of two human interventions (offshore disposal of dredged sediment and restoration of the tidal channel profile) was numerically examined with several equifinal model settings. The computed effect of these two human interventions was relatively weakly influenced by the model settings, strengthening confidence in the numerical model predictions.

[1]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[2]  D. Myrhaug,et al.  Wave-current interaction within and outside the bottom boundary layer , 1993 .

[3]  M. Blaas,et al.  Complexity, accuracy and practical applicability of different biogeochemical model versions , 2010 .

[4]  D. S. van Maren,et al.  The effect of land reclamations and sediment extraction on the suspended sediment concentration in the Ems Estuary , 2016 .

[5]  Yinglong J. Zhang,et al.  The tidal asymmetries and residual flows in Ems Estuary , 2014, Ocean Dynamics.

[6]  Lawrence P. Sanford,et al.  Assessing the paradigm of mutually exclusive erosion and deposition of mud, with examples from upper Chesapeake Bay , 1993 .

[7]  Wendy S. Parker,et al.  Predicting weather and climate: Uncertainty, ensembles and probability , 2010 .

[8]  N. Booij,et al.  A third‐generation wave model for coastal regions: 2. Verification , 1999 .

[9]  G. Stelling,et al.  Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model , 2004 .

[10]  W. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[11]  T. Kessel,et al.  Modelling the seasonal dynamics of SPM with a simple algorithm for the buffering of fines in a sandy seabed , 2007 .

[12]  Keith Beven,et al.  Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling , 1993 .

[13]  Laura Uusitalo,et al.  An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of deterministic models in decision support , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  Michele Scardi,et al.  Assessing the Uncertainties of Model Estimates of Primary Productivity in the Tropical Pacific Ocean Revised , 2008 .

[15]  D. S. van Maren,et al.  The impact of channel deepening and dredging on estuarine sediment concentration , 2015 .

[16]  Linda Pilkey-Jarvis,et al.  :Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Cant Predict the Future , 2007 .

[17]  B. C. Prooijen,et al.  A conceptual framework for shear flow–induced erosion of soft cohesive sediment beds , 2012 .

[18]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[19]  J. Winterwerp,et al.  Predicting the effect of a Current Deflecting Wall on harbour siltation , 2011 .

[20]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[21]  E. Lorenz.  Deterministic nonperiodic flow , 1963 .

[22]  Wim van Leussen,et al.  The determination of the sizes and settling velocities of estuarine flocs by an underwater video system , 1993 .

[23]  J. Widdows,et al.  Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments , 2007 .

[24]  M. van der Wegen,et al.  Towards a probabilistic assessment of process-based, morphodynamic models , 2013 .

[25]  C. Stow,et al.  Skill Assessment for Coupled Biological/Physical Models of Marine Systems. , 2009, Journal of marine systems : journal of the European Association of Marine Sciences and Techniques.

[26]  J. Andrew G. Cooper,et al.  Alternatives to the Mathematical Modeling of Beaches , 2004 .

[27]  Keith Beven,et al.  A dynamic TOPMODEL , 2001 .

[28]  N. Booij,et al.  A third-generation wave model for coastal regions-1 , 1999 .

[29]  Jørgen Fredsøe,et al.  Turbulent Boundary Layer in Wave‐current Motion , 1984 .

[30]  J. Kindle,et al.  Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment , 2009 .

[31]  K. Taylor.  Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram , 2001 .

[32]  V. N. Jonge,et al.  The influence of channel deepening on estuarine turbidity levels and dynamics, as exemplified by the Ems estuary , 2014 .

[33]  J. Winterwerp,et al.  Man-induced regime shifts in small estuaries—II: a comparison of rivers , 2013, Ocean Dynamics.

[34]  J. Winterwerp,et al.  Fine sediment transport into the hyper-turbid lower Ems River: the role of channel deepening and sediment-induced drag reduction , 2015, Ocean Dynamics.