859
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Hindcast of Water Level and Flow in the St. Lawrence River Over the 2005–2012 Period

, &
Pages 264-277 | Received 27 Feb 2015, Accepted 10 Feb 2016, Published online: 20 Apr 2016

Figures & data

Fig. 1 Model domain and position of water level gauges and flow sections from Lake St-Pierre to Québec.

Fig. 1 Model domain and position of water level gauges and flow sections from Lake St-Pierre to Québec.

Fig. 2 Position of the water level gauges, flow sections, and meteorological stations in the downstream portion of the model domain.

Fig. 2 Position of the water level gauges, flow sections, and meteorological stations in the downstream portion of the model domain.

Fig. 3 Position of the water level gauges around the Montréal Islands.

Fig. 3 Position of the water level gauges around the Montréal Islands.

Fig. 4 Stage-discharge relationship at Pointe-Claire (Station 2) for the model upstream flow boundary conditions.

Fig. 4 Stage-discharge relationship at Pointe-Claire (Station 2) for the model upstream flow boundary conditions.

Fig. 5 Example of a storm surge observed at the Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive (Station 34) water level gauge.

Fig. 5 Example of a storm surge observed at the Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive (Station 34) water level gauge.

Fig. 6 Low-frequency oscillations at High Water and Low Water marks observed at Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive water level gauge with a 30-day moving average filter on the residual (observations minus tidal predictions). The bottom curve is the daily average flow at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21).

Fig. 6 Low-frequency oscillations at High Water and Low Water marks observed at Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive water level gauge with a 30-day moving average filter on the residual (observations minus tidal predictions). The bottom curve is the daily average flow at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21).

Fig. 7 Example of the water levels at the three downstream boundaries. The difference in amplitude and phase among the three is the result of the calibration process using the observed water levels at the tidal gauges upstream of the boundaries.

Fig. 7 Example of the water levels at the three downstream boundaries. The difference in amplitude and phase among the three is the result of the calibration process using the observed water levels at the tidal gauges upstream of the boundaries.

Fig. 8 Mean error, standard deviation, and γ2 value of the model results for each tidal station. The tidal gauge number refers to the consecutive numbers in .

Fig. 8 Mean error, standard deviation, and γ2 value of the model results for each tidal station. The tidal gauge number refers to the consecutive numbers in Table A2.

Fig. 9 Standard deviation of the model result errors at the downstream tidal stations. The tidal gauge number refers to the consecutive number of .

Fig. 9 Standard deviation of the model result errors at the downstream tidal stations. The tidal gauge number refers to the consecutive number of Table A2.

Fig. 10 Flows at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21) derived from current measurements and from the model results, along with the ratio between the two values. The time on the abscissa is hours from 14:48 utc on 15 June 2009.

Fig. 10 Flows at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21) derived from current measurements and from the model results, along with the ratio between the two values. The time on the abscissa is hours from 14:48 utc on 15 June 2009.

Table 1. The ratio of the model flow results to flows derived from ADCP measurements for the sections. Mean and standard deviation values are calculated excluding Station 27.

Fig. 11 Daily flow values at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21) for the years of the hindcast period 2005–2012. The flow on the ordinate is for 2005 data; 10,000 m³ s−1 has been added consecutively to each following year for clarity.

Fig. 11 Daily flow values at the Vieux-Québec section (Station 21) for the years of the hindcast period 2005–2012. The flow on the ordinate is for 2005 data; 10,000 m³ s−1 has been added consecutively to each following year for clarity.

Fig. 12 Regression between the monthly-mean flows from the present model results with the monthly-mean flows using the Bourgault and Koutitonsky (Citation1999) relationship.

Fig. 12 Regression between the monthly-mean flows from the present model results with the monthly-mean flows using the Bourgault and Koutitonsky (Citation1999) relationship.

Fig. 13 Regression of daily flows between Bouchard and Morin (Citation2000), based on upstream flows, and this study.

Fig. 13 Regression of daily flows between Bouchard and Morin (Citation2000), based on upstream flows, and this study.

Fig. 14 Estimated flows from Bouchard and Morin (Citation2000) for 2012 in a and this study in b; 10,000 m³ s−1 has been added to the former for clarity.

Fig. 14 Estimated flows from Bouchard and Morin (Citation2000) for 2012 in a and this study in b; 10,000 m³ s−1 has been added to the former for clarity.

Table A1. Geographical positions of the stations with observations of water level (WL), current (C), flow (F), and wind (W).

Table A2. List of water level stations and length of the water level time series. The Consecutive Number is the number used in and .

Table A3. List of the sections with current measurements.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.