Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-118
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-118
Submitted as: methods for assessment of models
 | 
09 Oct 2024
Submitted as: methods for assessment of models |  | 09 Oct 2024
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Using automatic calibration to improve the physics behind complex numerical models: An example from a 3D lake model using Delft3d (v6.02.10) and DYNO-PODS (v1.0)

Marina Amadori, Abolfazl Irani Rahaghi, Damien Bouffard, and Marco Toffolon

Abstract. Models are simplified descriptions of reality and are intrinsically limited by the assumptions that have been introduced in their formulation. With the development of automatic calibration toolboxes, finding optimal parameters that suit the environmental system has become more convenient. Here, we explore how optimization toolboxes can be applied innovatively to uncover flaws in the physical formulations of models. We illustrate this approach by evaluating the effect of simplifications embedded in the formulation of a widely used hydro-thermodynamic model. We calibrate a Delft3D model based on temperature profiles for a case study, Lake Morat (Switzerland), through the optimization tool DYNO-PODS. Results show that neglecting the fraction β of shortwave radiation absorbed at the water surface can be compensated by higher values of the light extinction coefficient. This leads to unrealistic values of the latter parameter, as the optimization pushes the coefficient towards the limit of no transparency, consistent with the need to reproduce a significant absorption at the surface. While it is well-known that β is significantly larger than zero, its absence in the model was never noticed as critical. The extensive use of automatic calibration tools may offer similar outcomes in other applications.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Marina Amadori, Abolfazl Irani Rahaghi, Damien Bouffard, and Marco Toffolon

Status: open (until 04 Dec 2024)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Marina Amadori, Abolfazl Irani Rahaghi, Damien Bouffard, and Marco Toffolon
Marina Amadori, Abolfazl Irani Rahaghi, Damien Bouffard, and Marco Toffolon

Viewed

Total article views: 70 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
53 15 2 70 1 0
  • HTML: 53
  • PDF: 15
  • XML: 2
  • Total: 70
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Oct 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Oct 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 70 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 70 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 15 Oct 2024
Download
Short summary
Models simplify reality using assumptions, which can sometimes introduce flaws and affect their accuracy. Properly calibrating model parameters is essential, and although automated tools can speed up this process, they may occasionally produce incorrect values due to inconsistencies in the model. We demonstrate that by carefully applying automated tools, we were able to identify and correct a flaw in a widely used model for lake environments.