Checklist for Building a Hydrodynamic Model

Owned by Kester Scandrett
Last updated: 28 Apr, 2021 by Bui Bich Thuy (Deactivated)

When building a model in EEMS, we recommend you use this checklist to help make sure you have covered the important elements:

Pre-modeling

A1. A clear statement of study objectives and constraints, including scheduling

A2. Area of interest and list of questions/problems to be addressed by modeling defined

A3. Site characteristics, data, and important processes identified

A4. The appropriate model was chosen for items A1 to A3

  1. Correct equations solved (e.g., 1D/2D/3D, mild slope, hydrostatic assumption)
  2. Important processes included (e.g., long/short waves, rising/plunging flow, stratification/lateral variation)
  3. Computational requirements defined

A5. Data for boundary conditions and validation needs to be defined and available/acquired

A6. Resources sufficient (i.e., money, time, staff expertise, computer resources, data for boundaries and validation)

A7. Validation criteria established consistent with A1-A6

A8. A1-A7 documented and client concurrence obtained

A9. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Analyses performed

A10. A1-A9 documented and checked by the reviewer(s)

Model Setup

B1. Grid sufficiency

  1. Boundary locations tested for effect on the area of interest and test conditions
  2. Resolution tested by grid refinement test
  3. Bathymetry and features visually checked for accuracy

B2. Boundary conditions established appropriate to A1 – A3

B3. Initial conditions and spin-up is shown to be adequate to eliminate transients

B4. B1-B3 documented and checked by the separate reviewer(s)

Model Validation

C1. Adjustable parameters set within reasonable ranges of known uncertainty

C2. Model-Prototype agreement consistent with A1-A3 and A7

C3. C1-C2 documented with client concurrence and checked by reviewers(s)

Model Tests

D1. Test conditions consistent with A1-A3

D2. Sensitivity to parameters and plans tested

D3. Results consistent with expectations and other studies and within reasonable ranges

D4. D1-D3 documented with client concurrence and checked by the reviewer(s)

Reporting

E1. Items A-D documented inconsistent understandable fashion

E2. Results expressed with appropriate confidence limits and caveats

E3. Interpretation and conclusions are consistent with A1-A3 and E2

E4. Client and reviewer(s) feedback solicited and used to refine report(s)