Hydrodynamic Model Calibration and Validation

@EightVeer

Hi there, We can validate and calibrate the existing MIKE 21 hydrodynamic model against current meter and water level observations, with proper handling of current direction as a circular variable. We will review the setup, compare observed and modeled results, identify the main discrepancy drivers, and provide RMSE and related statistical checks with clear calibration recommendations. We have public Freelancer review history covering AI adoption, data management and analytical engagements. This first workstream is limited to data review, quantitative analysis and prioritised findings for Hydrodynamic Model Calibration and Validation. Broader implementation would be scoped separately on Freelancer. Best Regards, 8veer

@Shahzadanalyst

Hi, I’d be interested in assisting with the data analysis and validation side of this project. I have strong experience in statistical analysis, Excel, Python, SPSS, data processing, and interpreting modelled versus observed datasets. I can analyse current speed, direction, and water-level observations, calculate appropriate validation metrics such as RMSE, identify discrepancies, and present clear model-versus-observation comparisons. For current direction, I understand that angular data needs to be treated appropriately rather than applying a simple linear RMSE without considering the 0°/360° boundary. I can also provide clear statistical tables, plots, and an organized validation report. I would be transparent about the modelling component: I would not claim MIKE 21 calibration experience that I do not have. If you require someone to directly modify and run the MIKE 21 model, that specialist experience should be confirmed before the calibration stage. I can, however, handle the associated data processing, statistical validation, visualization, and reporting accurately.

@alluankit01

Hi, I can assist with your hydrodynamic model calibration and validation by reviewing the MIKE 21 setup, comparing model outputs with field observations, calculating validation statistics, and identifying physically reasonable corrections. The best solution is to first review the model configuration, bathymetry, boundary conditions, tidal forcing, simulation outputs, and in-situ/current meter data. Then I’ll compare observed vs modelled current speed, current direction, and water level, calculate RMSE and other indicators, and recommend calibration changes to improve the model while keeping the results scientifically valid. I’m comfortable with hydrodynamic model validation, MIKE 21-style workflow, coastal/current data analysis, Excel/CSV observation processing, RMSE calculation, water level comparison, current speed validation, current direction/angular error handling, boundary condition review, bathymetry checks, and technical reporting. Deliverables will include: * Model setup review * Observation vs model comparison * Current speed RMSE analysis * Current direction validation * Water level RMSE analysis * Calibration recommendations * Discrepancy explanation * Validation tables and plots * Final concise validation report I’ll focus on practical calibration, correct statistical handling, and clear explanation of why differences occur so the model can be improved toward the required validation targets. Best regards Ankit

@abdullaha0624

I understand the goal is not just calculating RMSE. The MIKE 21 model must be calibrated until current speed, current direction and water level meet the required validation targets while remaining physically realistic. I can review model outputs against field observations, identify discrepancies, refine relevant parameters and perform statistical validation. Current direction will be assessed using appropriate circular error methods rather than ordinary linear differences. I have a few quick questions. Is the complete MIKE 21 model setup available? How many observation stations are included? Which MIKE 21 version are you using? Thank you. I’m ready to review the model and validation data.

@engruhulajom

Hello There! I’m Ruhul Ajom, an experienced full-stack developer with 10+ years of experience, and I can dive into your project immediately. I understand you need an experienced MIKE 21 specialist to calibrate and validate a coastal hydrodynamic model against current meter and water-level observations, including CS, CD, RMSE analysis, and scientifically appropriate discrepancy assessment. I have rich experience in data analysis, Python, Excel/CSV processing, statistical analysis, and technical automation. I am skilled in handling structured datasets, validation workflows, and developing analysis tools for complex technical projects. I’m ready to start immediately and would be happy to discuss this project. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Ruhul Ajom

@adriank06

Current Direction is the sensitive part of this validation, and I would handle it with circular/angular error, not simple degree subtraction. Your goal is not just to report RMSE, but to identify why MIKE 21 outputs differ from current meter and water level observations, then calibrate the model while keeping the results physically defensible. I understand that CD errors need special treatment because 350° vs 10° should be treated as a 20° difference, not 340°. I can support the validation workflow by comparing model outputs against Excel/CSV observations, calculating RMSE and related indicators for current speed, current direction, and water level, and separating discrepancies into likely physical causes such as boundary forcing, bathymetry, bottom friction, tidal phase lag, or measurement alignment issues. Before starting, I’d like to know: are the model outputs and observations already time-synchronized to the same datum, timezone, and vertical reference? Also, do you want directional validation reported as angular RMSE only, or alongside vector-based velocity error? Would you like to open the chat and share the available model/observation files so I can assess the calibration path?