Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Hydrodynamic and Hydrographic Modeling of Istanbul Strait

Version 1 : Received: 27 August 2019 / Approved: 28 August 2019 / Online: 28 August 2019 (15:23:55 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Koşucu, M.M.; Demirel, M.C.; Kirca, V.O.; Özger, M. Hydrodynamic and Hydrographic Modeling of Istanbul Strait. Processes 2019, 7, 710. Koşucu, M.M.; Demirel, M.C.; Kirca, V.O.; Özger, M. Hydrodynamic and Hydrographic Modeling of Istanbul Strait. Processes 2019, 7, 710.

Journal reference: Processes 2019, 7, 710
DOI: 10.3390/pr7100710

Abstract

The aim of this study is to model hydrodynamic processes of the Istanbul Strait with its stratified flow characteristic and calibrate the most important parameters using local and global search algorithms. For that two open boundary conditions are defined, which are in the North and South part of the Strait. Observed bathymetric, hydrographic, meteorological and water level data are used to set up the Delft3D-FLOW model. First, the sensitivities of model parameters on the numerical model outputs are assessed using PEST toolbox. Then, the model is calibrated based on the objective functions focusing on the flowrates of upper and lower layers. The salinity and temperature profiles of the Strait are only used for model validation. The results show that the calibrated model outputs of Istanbul Strait are reliable and consistent with the in-situ measurements. The sensitivity analysis reveals that the Spatial Low-Pass Filter Coefficient, Horizontal Eddy Viscosity, Prandtl-Schmidt Number, Slope in log-log Spectrum and Manning Roughness Coefficient are most sensitive parameters affecting flowrate performance of the model. The agreement between observed salinity profiles and simulated model outputs is promising whereas the match between observed and simulated temperature profiles is weak showing that the model can be improved particularly for simulating the mixing layer.

Subject Areas

Istanbul Strait; stratified flow; gravity driven flow; numerical modelling

Comments (20)

Comment 1
Received: 9 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: This study mainly suffers from the straightforward application of the numerical model, DELFT3D, without any insight into the basic oceanographic principles of the Bosphorus Strait. Complete dependence on Delft 3D might lead only to erroneous scientific conclusions, as is the case in this study. Herein, the logical thinking is completely overlooked. The following points may shed light for the improvement of the paper.
1-It has surprisingly seen in the paper that the authors applied water level BC at stations Anadolu Kavagı and Pendik in Fig. 1 of their original manuscripts. Water level measurements should be placed offshore, close to the open boundary. However, it is seen that Pendik station is almost on the land. This station might reflect long term variations (like tides). What about the short term effects? Besides, islands just in front of this station might influence the water level fluctuations, which can lead to erroneous predictions. Pendik station should not be applied as boundary condition.
2-No information is given about the sampling rate of the stations. The quality of the measured data is neither checked nor discussed.
3-It is quite obvious that authors did not perform the literature review in detail. The most comprehensive and accurate environmental monitoring system is installed in the Bosphorus between September 2004 and January 2006, in relation to the design and construction requirements of the Bosphorus Tube Crossing Project. (Guler et al., 2006; Yuksel et al., 2008; Aydogan et al., 2010). Yuksel et al., (2008), Ozturk et al., (2012), Erdik et al., (2019) employed this monitoring system, at the northern and southern of Bosphorus, respectively, with 10-min sampling rate. This monitoring system is the most reliable and accurate data system in Bosphorus. Besides, stations are exactly at the northen and southern boundaries of the Bosphorus.
4-The proposed model has some deficiencies. The authors claim that “the calibrated model outputs of Istanbul Strait are reliable and consistent with the in-situ measurements”. My first question is where is the calibration? Do authors really think that the prediction of monthly upper and lower layer discharges satisfy the calibration purposes? Hydrodynamic conditions in Bosphorus vary on a daily basis, driven by meteorological, oceanographic conditions, and hydrologic conditions. Monthly discharge prediction might be applicable to main rivers in the globe but not to the chaotic straits, as is the case with Bosphorus. Please check with Jarosz et. al., (2011) to obtain daily discharges.
5- The prediction capacity of the best model is achieved with R=0.447. I have not seen nor heard any model, which claims to accurately predict discharges with R2=0.20.

References

Aydogan, B.; Ayat, B.; OztUrk, M.N.; Ozkan Cevik, E.; Yuksel, Y. Current velocity forecasting in straits 415 with artificial neural networks, a case study: Strait of Istanbul. Ocean Eng. 2010, 37, 443–453.
Erdik, T., Sen, O., Ozturk, I. 3D Numerical Modeling of Exchange Flows in Golden Horn Estuary. J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng., 2019, 145(5).
Guler, I.; Yuksel, Y.; Yalciner, A.C.; Cevik, E.; Ingerslev, C. Measurement and evaluation of the 410 hydrodynamics and secondary currents in and near a strait connecting large water bodies-A field study. 411 Ocean Eng. 2006, 33, 1718–1748. 412
Jarosz, E.W., Teague, J., Book, J.W., Besiktepe, S. Observed volume fluxes in the Bosphorus Strait. Geophysical Res Letters, 2011, 38, L21608.
Ozturk, M., Ayat, B., Aydogan, B., Yuksel, Y. 3D Numerical modeling of stratified flows: case study of the Bosphorus Strait." Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2012, 138(5), 406-419.
Yuksel, Y.; Ayat, B.; Nuri Ozturk, M.; Aydogan, B.; Guler, I.; Cevik, E.O.; Yalciner, A.C. Responses of the 413 stratified flows to their driving conditions-A field study. Ocean Eng. 2008, 35, 1304–1321.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 18 September 2019
Commenter: Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: “We kindly invite you to submit a discussion paper to the published paper in Processes-MDPI (soon online available) and reveal your identity so that we can clearly assess if there is any potential conflict of interest. We openly shared our manuscript and we expect our readers not to hide themselves when writing a public comment. Finally please use a proper/professional language in your informal comment. For that please follow the 11 steps described in Copernicus: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html.
Response 2 to Comment 1
Received: 21 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: My discussion above presented scientific comments and/or questions about the paper by authors. I strongly suggest authors make themselves aware of fatal errors in their paper and prepare a response to my comments. In addition, I would like to remind the authors that criticism of your paper addresses problems within your study in order to improve science and make your paper better.
Response 3 to Comment 1
Received: 21 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: There are two options to send scientific comments:

1)Leave a public comment

2)Send a private comment to the authors

Why did you choose the first one and hide yourself?

Please refer to the following link for a serious comment and check the final decision of this article:

https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/hess-2018-342/hess-2018-342-SC1.pdf
We also invite to be brave in the scientific area and embrace the consequences. Once you open yourself then we can clarify the case of potential conflict of interest. We will then definitely take your points seriously and reply.

Currently your comments doesn’t meet the following rules of preprints.org:

“Comments must follow the standards of professional discourse and should focus on the scientific content of the article. Insulting or offensive language, personal attacks and off-topic remarks will not be permitted. Comments must be written in English. Preprints reserves the right to remove comments without notice. Readers who post comments are obliged to declare any competing interests, financial or otherwise.”
Response 4 to Comment 1
Received: 7 October 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: "Is writing directly to the journal without waiting for the DOI ethical?"

Now our revised paper is waiting for your harshest comments via susy system.

Submit your discussion/comment paper with your real identity which will increase your scientific visibility.

Thank you
Response 5 to Comment 1
Received: 3 February 2020
Commenter: Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Thank you for your comments. Fig 7b is corrected in our manuscript. We were not aware of errors made in the proof-reading phase.

New Figure 7b.


You discussion paper to the journal is still expected and welcome.
Response 6 to Comment 1
Received: 7 February 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Correction published on 6 February 2020, see Processes 2020, 8(2), 205.
Download the text: www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/2/205https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/2/205

Please consider sending these fruitful comments to the journal.
Response 7 to Comment 1
Received: 20 March 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Reply to Comments on “Hydrodynamic and Hydrographic Modeling of Istanbul Strait”
Commenter: Vitaly Albon Zorbani from sku.ac.xx and his friends from Bosporus
Comment 1- Bla bla about Pendik station and small islands.
Reply to the comment: Source of the Southern Boundary condition, namely the Pendik station, is near to the Southern part of the Strait, very close to (if not right on) the edge of the computational mesh. This station is not inside of an estuary or on land. Pendik water level measurement station is on the South coast of the Anatolian Side of Istanbul. Erdik et al (Erdik et al., 2018) used Pendik Water Level data to calibrate their model. Therefore commenter should know that, the water level measurement station –which is in Pendik- is not in a sheltered area.

Comment - 2- Bla bla about correlation coefficient used in this study
Reply to the comment: The commenter mentions only Northern Upper Layer Flowrates’ data and its correlation value. However, we have 48 observed and modeled flowrate values (shown in Figure 1), and their correlation is 0.945. Holistic assessment requires paying attention to whole data.



Figure 1: Whole Observed and Modeled Flowrate Data m3/s

Comment - 3- Bla bla about again the correlation coefficient, lucky boy.
Reply to the comment: Although we have reported only correlation coefficient results in our study, we have used Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in the calibration as part of the multi-objective calibration framework. We shared the python code and PEST instruction file in Github for the readers: https://github.com/cuneyd. Moreover, we developed the error metric SPAEF comprised of three modules 1) correlation coefficient, 2) coefficient of variation 3) histogram match (Demirel et al., 2018; Koch et al., 2018). In our upcoming studies, we will incorporate SPAEF and RMSE. It should be noted that RMSE and PE are both bias-sensitive error metrics and Correlation coefficient is a bias-insensitive metric.

Comment - 4- Bla bla about the calibration framework.
Reply to the comment: This is not a contradiction. Maybe this comment originates from a bit professional illiteracy. The models are made to simulate physical behavior of a system. The discharge in the Istanbul Strait directly affects water temperature and salinity and all three are part of the physical structure of strait system. The important point is that the calibration and validation should be made with two independent sets of data. In a recent study, the authors calibrated a physically based model using only discharge observations in the outlet of the Skjern River in Denmark and validated the model using satellite based remote sensing of actual evapotranspiration (Demirel et al., 2018).

Comment - 5- Bla bla about calibrating Delft3D with monthly values.
Reply to the comment: Dias and Lopes (2006), Matte et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2010) discourse about calibration of tidal zones hydrodynamics. In Istanbul Strait, the tidal effect is obviously negligible, therefore; the average flowrate values can be obtained by executing calibration in Istanbul Strait hydrodynamics.

Comment - 6- Bla bla about confidence interval and Fig. 7a.
Reply to the comment: The commenter focuses only Figure 7a in the paper which is corresponding to just quadrant of whole data. However, when the scatter diagram and %95 confidence curves of all points are plotted, it is seen that there is only two points outside of the confidence interval. In the Figure 2, this issue is shown.



Figure 2: Scatter Diagram and %95 confidence interval of flowrate values.

Comment - 7- Bla bla about hydrodynamic processes in the Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: It is understood that commenter fully misunderstood the purpose of the study as well as the general idea behind numerical modelling of hydraulic and hydrographic processes. This misunderstanding can possibly be attributed to the lack of academic experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. It is obvious (and natural) that fluctuations/differences will be observed in the monthly mean hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean parameters of a designated month in successive years. But it is also obvious that a dominant yearly periodic component (or behavior) should be observed. The idea here is to come up with a model that can capture the general behavior of the stratified flow within the Bosporus Strait for a given month within a typical year, which can be associated with the long-term hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean statistics of a given locality (Army Corps, 2006; Özhan & Abdalla, 1999);, together with the sensitivity analyses of the modelling parameters.

Comment - 8- Bla bla about Fig. 7a and 7b.
Reply to the comment: Figures 7a and 7b are same, it is true. Correction is published (https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100710) . We checked the submitted latest version and this mistake is not present at our side. This is clearly a mistake of the editorial office of the Journal and possibly happened during the typesetting/proofing process. In Figures 9 and 10, readers can easily understand the locations of the two seas, if they view briefly Figure 2 in the paper.

Comment - 9- Bla bla about the vertical current velocity profile in Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: Since the model was run with hourly water level and six-hourly wind input data, the model was capable of capturing such one-layer flow conditions when occurred in the modeled duration, such as largely encountered within the October month. However, the general structure of the flow in the Bosporus Strait is two-layered.

Comment - 10- Bla bla about warm up period.
Reply to the comment: Because of the shortness of warm up process (not longer than 1-2 days), the Authors did not need to touch on this issue. In the present model, warm up process does not affect the hydrodynamic structure of the Strait.

Comment - 11- Bla bla about the Table 2
Reply to the comment: Based on the results gradient based Levenberg-Marquardt Method is selected as the most appropriate method for the calibration as other two methods i.e. SCE-UA and CMAES require much more model runs to converge.

Comment - 12- Bla bla about meandering and eddy activity in the western Black Sea.
Reply to the comment: This locality is far out of the model boundary, which renders these current structures ineffective for the general behavior of the hydrodynamic model, considering the dominant flow convergence geometry at the North entrance of the Strait. It should be noted that we also did not include Aegean, Mediterranean, Ionian and Adriatic Seas in our model.

Comment - 13- Bla bla about the boundary conditions.
Reply to the comment: This comment can also be attributed to the lack of academic (published) experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. The deforming/curvilinear mesh is widely used in hydrodynamic modelling of convergent/divergent flow with similar geometries (Ahmed et al., 2012; Elhakeem et al., 2015; Kurniawan et al., 2014). There are no significant lateral gradients in the water levels or other forcing mechanism such as wind. Erdik et al. (Erdik et al., 2018) also used water level values on their Istanbul Strait model boundary conditions as uniformly distributed along the boundaries.

References

Ahmed, A. S. M., Abou-Elhaggag, M. E., & El-Badry, H. (2012). Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Gulf of Aqaba. Journal of Environmental Protection, 03(08), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2012.328107
Army Corps, U. S. (2006). Coastal Engineering Manual. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Demirel, M. C., Mai, J., Mendiguren, G., Koch, J., Samaniego, L., & Stisen, S. (2018). Combining satellite data and appropriate objective functions for improved spatial pattern performance of a distributed hydrologic model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(2), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1299-2018
Elhakeem, A., Elshorbagy, W., & Bleninger, T. (2015). Long-term hydrodynamic modeling of the Arabian Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 94(1–2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.020
Erdik, T., Şen, O., Erdik, J. D., & Öztürk, İ. (2018). Long-Term 3D Hydrodynamic Modeling and Water Surface Statistics in Marmara Sea. Marine Geodesy, 41(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2017.1362082
Koch, J., Demirel, M. C., & Stisen, S. (2018). The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(5), 1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1873-2018
Kurniawan, A., Hasan, G. M. J., Ooi, S. K., Kit, L. W., Loh, L. L., & Bayen, S. (2014). Understanding Hydrodynamic Flow Characteristics in a Model Mangrove Ecosystem in Singapore. APCBEE Procedia, 10, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.10.054
Özhan, E., & Abdalla, S. (1999). Türkiye kıyıları için rüzgar ve derin deniz atlası. METU Civil Engineering Dept.
Dias, J. M., & Lopes, J. F. (2006). Calibration and validation of hydrodynamic, salt and heat transport models for Ria de Aveiro lagoon (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, 1680-1684.
Erdik, T., Sen, O., Ozturk, I. (2019). “3D Numerical Modeling of Exchange Flows in Golden Horn Estuary”. J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng., 145(5).
Gee, S. (2014). Fraud and fraud detection: a data analytics approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Hasan, G. J., van Maren, D. S., & Ooi, S. K. (2016). Hydrodynamic modeling of Singapore's coastal waters: Nesting and model accuracy. Ocean Modelling, 97, 141-151.
Hiatt, M., Snedden, G., Day, J. W., Rohli, R. V., Nyman, J. A., Lane, R., & Sharp, L. A. (2019). Drivers and impacts of water level fluctuations in the Mississippi River delta: Implications for delta restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 224, 117-137.
Ilicak, M., Ozgokmen, T. M., Ozsoy, E., and Fischer, P. F. (2009). “Non-hydrostatic modeling of exchange flows across complex geometries.” Ocean Modelling, 29(3), 159–175.
Indrayan, A., & Holt, M. P. (2016). Concise encyclopedia of biostatistics for medical professionals. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Jarosz, E., Teague, W. J., Book, J. W., Besiktepe, S. (2011). “On flow variability in the Bosporus Strait.” Journal Geophys Res, 116, C08038.
Matte, P., Secretan, Y., & Morin, J. (2017). Hydrodynamic modeling of the St. Lawrence fluvial estuary. I: Model setup, calibration, and validation. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 143(5), 04017010.
Murty, P. L. N., Bhaskaran, P. K., Gayathri, R., Sahoo, B., Kumar, T. S., & SubbaReddy, B. (2016). Numerical study of coastal hydrodynamics using a coupled model for Hudhud cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183, 13-27
Oguz, T., Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Unluata, U. (1990). Modeling of hydraulically controlled exchange flow in the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 20(7), 945-965.
Oguz, T., and Besiktepe, S. (1999). Observations on the Rim Current structure, CIW formation and transport in the western Black Sea. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 46(10), 1733-1753.
Oguz, T., 2005. Hydraulic adjustments of the Bosphorus exchange flow. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 1–5.
Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Goryachkin, Y. (1996). A review of the exchange flow regime and mixing in the Bosphorus Strait. Bulletin-Institut Oceanographique Monaco-Numero Special, 187-204.
Ozturk, M., Ayat, B., Aydogan, B., &Yuksel, Y. (2012). "3D Numerical modeling of stratified flows: case study of the Bosphorus Strait." Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 138(5), 406-419.
Oztürk, M. (2013). Numerical modeling of the effect of duration of barotropic forcing on sea strait flow: case study of the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 139(11), 1199-1211.
Rosenthal, G., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2011). Statistics and data interpretation for social work. Springer publishing company.
Sannino, G., Sozer, A., & Ozsoy, E. (2017). A high-resolution modelling study of the Turkish Straits System. Ocean Dynamics, 67(3-4), 397-432.
Stanev, V.E., Peneva, E., 2002. Regional sea level response to global climatic change: Black Sea examples. Global and Planetary Change 32, 33–47.
Stanev, E. V., Grashorn, S., Zhang, Y. J. (2017). “Cascading ocean basins: numerical simulations of the circulation and interbasin exchange in the Azov-Black-Marmara-Mediterranean Seas system” Ocean Dynamics, 67, 1003-1025.
Stramska, M., Kowalewska-Kalkowska, H., & Świrgoń, M. (2013). Seasonal variability in the Baltic Sea level. Oceanologia, 55(4), 787-807.
Timmons, D. L., Johnson, C. W., & McCook, S. (2012). Fundamentals of Algebraic Modeling. Nelson Education.
Tomascik, T. (1997). The ecology of the Indonesian seas. Oxford University Press.
Unlulata, U., Oguz, T., Latif, M. A., & Ozsoy, E. (1990). On the physical oceanography of the Turkish Straits. In The physical oceanography of sea straits (pp. 25-60). Springer, Dordrecht. York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
Yuksel, Y., Ayat, B., Ozturk, M. N., Aydogan, B., Guler, I., Cevik, E. O., & Yalciner, A. C. (2008). Responses of the stratified flows to their driving conditions—A field study. Ocean Engineering, 35(13), 1304-1321.
Yuce, H. (1996). Mediterranean water in the Strait of Istanbul (Bosphorus) and the Black Sea exit. Estuarine, coastal and shelf Science, 43(5), 597-616.
Zhang, A., Hess, K. W., & Aikman III, F. (2010). User-based skill assessment techniques for operational hydrodynamic forecast systems. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 3(2), 11-24.
Response 8 to Comment 1
Received: 21 March 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Thank you for the detailed answers.
Comment 2
Received: 10 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The present paper has some mistakes in the basic application of the error statistics. By using the data depicted in Fig. 7a, the basic error statistics are calculated as Mean absolute error 3968 m3/s, R2 0.24 and finally BIAS -8.58. These findings suggest that the proposed model is poorly calibrated, yielding inaccurate output. In addition, the model seems to be biased.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 2
Received: 18 September 2019
Commenter: Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: “We kindly invite you to submit a discussion paper to the published paper in Processes-MDPI (soon online available) and reveal your identity so that we can clearly assess if there is any potential conflict of interest. We openly shared our manuscript and we expect our readers not to hide themselves when writing a public comment. Finally please use a proper/professional language in your informal comment. For that please follow the 11 steps described in Copernicus: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html.
Response 2 to Comment 2
Received: 7 October 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: "Is writing directly to the journal without waiting for the DOI ethical?"

Now our revised paper is waiting for your harshest comments via susy system.

Submit your discussion/comment paper with your real identity which will increase your scientific visibility.

Thank you
Response 3 to Comment 2
Received: 7 February 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Correction published on 6 February 2020, see Processes 2020, 8(2), 205.
Download the text: www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/2/205

Please consider sending these fruitful comments to the journal.
Response 4 to Comment 2
Received: 20 March 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Comment 1- Regarding Pendik station and small islands.
Reply to the comment: Source of the Southern Boundary condition, namely the Pendik station, is near to the Southern part of the Strait, very close to (if not right on) the edge of the computational mesh. This station is not inside of an estuary or on land. Pendik water level measurement station is on the South coast of the Anatolian Side of Istanbul. Erdik et al (Erdik et al., 2018) used Pendik Water Level data to calibrate their model. Therefore commenter should know that, the water level measurement station –which is in Pendik- is not in a sheltered area.

Comment - 2- Regarding correlation coefficient used in this study
Reply to the comment: The commenter mentions only Northern Upper Layer Flowrates’ data and its correlation value. However, we have 48 observed and modeled flowrate values (shown in Figure 1), and their correlation is 0.945. Holistic assessment requires paying attention to whole data.



Figure 1: Whole Observed and Modeled Flowrate Data m3/s

Comment - 3- Regarding again the correlation coefficient, lucky boy.
Reply to the comment: Although we have reported only correlation coefficient results in our study, we have used Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in the calibration as part of the multi-objective calibration framework. We shared the python code and PEST instruction file in Github for the readers: https://github.com/cuneyd. Moreover, we developed the error metric SPAEF comprised of three modules 1) correlation coefficient, 2) coefficient of variation 3) histogram match (Demirel et al., 2018; Koch et al., 2018). In our upcoming studies, we will incorporate SPAEF and RMSE. It should be noted that RMSE and PE are both bias-sensitive error metrics and Correlation coefficient is a bias-insensitive metric.

Comment - 4- Regarding the calibration framework.
Reply to the comment: This is not a contradiction. Maybe this comment originates from a bit professional illiteracy. The models are made to simulate physical behavior of a system. The discharge in the Istanbul Strait directly affects water temperature and salinity and all three are part of the physical structure of strait system. The important point is that the calibration and validation should be made with two independent sets of data. In a recent study, the authors calibrated a physically based model using only discharge observations in the outlet of the Skjern River in Denmark and validated the model using satellite based remote sensing of actual evapotranspiration (Demirel et al., 2018).

Comment - 5- Regarding calibrating Delft3D with monthly values.
Reply to the comment: Dias and Lopes (2006), Matte et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2010) discourse about calibration of tidal zones hydrodynamics. In Istanbul Strait, the tidal effect is obviously negligible, therefore; the average flowrate values can be obtained by executing calibration in Istanbul Strait hydrodynamics.

Comment - 6- Regarding confidence interval and Fig. 7a.
Reply to the comment: The commenter focuses only Figure 7a in the paper which is corresponding to just quadrant of whole data. However, when the scatter diagram and %95 confidence curves of all points are plotted, it is seen that there is only two points outside of the confidence interval. In the Figure 2, this issue is shown.



Figure 2: Scatter Diagram and %95 confidence interval of flowrate values.

Comment - 7- Regarding hydrodynamic processes in the Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: It is understood that commenter fully misunderstood the purpose of the study as well as the general idea behind numerical modelling of hydraulic and hydrographic processes. This misunderstanding can possibly be attributed to the lack of academic experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. It is obvious (and natural) that fluctuations/differences will be observed in the monthly mean hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean parameters of a designated month in successive years. But it is also obvious that a dominant yearly periodic component (or behavior) should be observed. The idea here is to come up with a model that can capture the general behavior of the stratified flow within the Bosporus Strait for a given month within a typical year, which can be associated with the long-term hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean statistics of a given locality (Army Corps, 2006; Özhan & Abdalla, 1999);, together with the sensitivity analyses of the modelling parameters.

Comment - 8- Regarding Fig. 7a and 7b.
Reply to the comment: Figures 7a and 7b are same, it is true. Correction is published (https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100710) . We checked the submitted latest version and this mistake is not present at our side. This is clearly a mistake of the editorial office of the Journal and possibly happened during the typesetting/proofing process. In Figures 9 and 10, readers can easily understand the locations of the two seas, if they view briefly Figure 2 in the paper.

Comment - 9- Regarding the vertical current velocity profile in Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: Since the model was run with hourly water level and six-hourly wind input data, the model was capable of capturing such one-layer flow conditions when occurred in the modeled duration, such as largely encountered within the October month. However, the general structure of the flow in the Bosporus Strait is two-layered.

Comment - 10- Regarding warm up period.
Reply to the comment: Because of the shortness of warm up process (not longer than 1-2 days), the Authors did not need to touch on this issue. In the present model, warm up process does not affect the hydrodynamic structure of the Strait.

Comment - 11- Regarding the Table 2
Reply to the comment: Based on the results gradient based Levenberg-Marquardt Method is selected as the most appropriate method for the calibration as other two methods i.e. SCE-UA and CMAES require much more model runs to converge.

Comment - 12- Regarding meandering and eddy activity in the western Black Sea.
Reply to the comment: This locality is far out of the model boundary, which renders these current structures ineffective for the general behavior of the hydrodynamic model, considering the dominant flow convergence geometry at the North entrance of the Strait. It should be noted that we also did not include Aegean, Mediterranean, Ionian and Adriatic Seas in our model.

Comment - 13- Regarding the boundary conditions.
Reply to the comment: This comment can also be attributed to the lack of academic (published) experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. The deforming/curvilinear mesh is widely used in hydrodynamic modelling of convergent/divergent flow with similar geometries (Ahmed et al., 2012; Elhakeem et al., 2015; Kurniawan et al., 2014). There are no significant lateral gradients in the water levels or other forcing mechanism such as wind. Erdik et al. (Erdik et al., 2018) also used water level values on their Istanbul Strait model boundary conditions as uniformly distributed along the boundaries.

References

Ahmed, A. S. M., Abou-Elhaggag, M. E., & El-Badry, H. (2012). Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Gulf of Aqaba. Journal of Environmental Protection, 03(08), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2012.328107
Army Corps, U. S. (2006). Coastal Engineering Manual. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Demirel, M. C., Mai, J., Mendiguren, G., Koch, J., Samaniego, L., & Stisen, S. (2018). Combining satellite data and appropriate objective functions for improved spatial pattern performance of a distributed hydrologic model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(2), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1299-2018
Elhakeem, A., Elshorbagy, W., & Bleninger, T. (2015). Long-term hydrodynamic modeling of the Arabian Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 94(1–2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.020
Erdik, T., Şen, O., Erdik, J. D., & Öztürk, İ. (2018). Long-Term 3D Hydrodynamic Modeling and Water Surface Statistics in Marmara Sea. Marine Geodesy, 41(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2017.1362082
Koch, J., Demirel, M. C., & Stisen, S. (2018). The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(5), 1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1873-2018
Kurniawan, A., Hasan, G. M. J., Ooi, S. K., Kit, L. W., Loh, L. L., & Bayen, S. (2014). Understanding Hydrodynamic Flow Characteristics in a Model Mangrove Ecosystem in Singapore. APCBEE Procedia, 10, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.10.054
Özhan, E., & Abdalla, S. (1999). Türkiye kıyıları için rüzgar ve derin deniz atlası. METU Civil Engineering Dept.
Dias, J. M., & Lopes, J. F. (2006). Calibration and validation of hydrodynamic, salt and heat transport models for Ria de Aveiro lagoon (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, 1680-1684.
Erdik, T., Sen, O., Ozturk, I. (2019). “3D Numerical Modeling of Exchange Flows in Golden Horn Estuary”. J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng., 145(5).
Gee, S. (2014). Fraud and fraud detection: a data analytics approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Hasan, G. J., van Maren, D. S., & Ooi, S. K. (2016). Hydrodynamic modeling of Singapore's coastal waters: Nesting and model accuracy. Ocean Modelling, 97, 141-151.
Hiatt, M., Snedden, G., Day, J. W., Rohli, R. V., Nyman, J. A., Lane, R., & Sharp, L. A. (2019). Drivers and impacts of water level fluctuations in the Mississippi River delta: Implications for delta restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 224, 117-137.
Ilicak, M., Ozgokmen, T. M., Ozsoy, E., and Fischer, P. F. (2009). “Non-hydrostatic modeling of exchange flows across complex geometries.” Ocean Modelling, 29(3), 159–175.
Indrayan, A., & Holt, M. P. (2016). Concise encyclopedia of biostatistics for medical professionals. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Jarosz, E., Teague, W. J., Book, J. W., Besiktepe, S. (2011). “On flow variability in the Bosporus Strait.” Journal Geophys Res, 116, C08038.
Matte, P., Secretan, Y., & Morin, J. (2017). Hydrodynamic modeling of the St. Lawrence fluvial estuary. I: Model setup, calibration, and validation. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 143(5), 04017010.
Murty, P. L. N., Bhaskaran, P. K., Gayathri, R., Sahoo, B., Kumar, T. S., & SubbaReddy, B. (2016). Numerical study of coastal hydrodynamics using a coupled model for Hudhud cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183, 13-27
Oguz, T., Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Unluata, U. (1990). Modeling of hydraulically controlled exchange flow in the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 20(7), 945-965.
Oguz, T., and Besiktepe, S. (1999). Observations on the Rim Current structure, CIW formation and transport in the western Black Sea. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 46(10), 1733-1753.
Oguz, T., 2005. Hydraulic adjustments of the Bosphorus exchange flow. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 1–5.
Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Goryachkin, Y. (1996). A review of the exchange flow regime and mixing in the Bosphorus Strait. Bulletin-Institut Oceanographique Monaco-Numero Special, 187-204.
Ozturk, M., Ayat, B., Aydogan, B., &Yuksel, Y. (2012). "3D Numerical modeling of stratified flows: case study of the Bosphorus Strait." Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 138(5), 406-419.
Oztürk, M. (2013). Numerical modeling of the effect of duration of barotropic forcing on sea strait flow: case study of the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 139(11), 1199-1211.
Rosenthal, G., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2011). Statistics and data interpretation for social work. Springer publishing company.
Sannino, G., Sozer, A., & Ozsoy, E. (2017). A high-resolution modelling study of the Turkish Straits System. Ocean Dynamics, 67(3-4), 397-432.
Stanev, V.E., Peneva, E., 2002. Regional sea level response to global climatic change: Black Sea examples. Global and Planetary Change 32, 33–47.
Stanev, E. V., Grashorn, S., Zhang, Y. J. (2017). “Cascading ocean basins: numerical simulations of the circulation and interbasin exchange in the Azov-Black-Marmara-Mediterranean Seas system” Ocean Dynamics, 67, 1003-1025.
Stramska, M., Kowalewska-Kalkowska, H., & Świrgoń, M. (2013). Seasonal variability in the Baltic Sea level. Oceanologia, 55(4), 787-807.
Timmons, D. L., Johnson, C. W., & McCook, S. (2012). Fundamentals of Algebraic Modeling. Nelson Education.
Tomascik, T. (1997). The ecology of the Indonesian seas. Oxford University Press.
Unlulata, U., Oguz, T., Latif, M. A., & Ozsoy, E. (1990). On the physical oceanography of the Turkish Straits. In The physical oceanography of sea straits (pp. 25-60). Springer, Dordrecht. York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
Yuksel, Y., Ayat, B., Ozturk, M. N., Aydogan, B., Guler, I., Cevik, E. O., & Yalciner, A. C. (2008). Responses of the stratified flows to their driving conditions—A field study. Ocean Engineering, 35(13), 1304-1321.
Yuce, H. (1996). Mediterranean water in the Strait of Istanbul (Bosphorus) and the Black Sea exit. Estuarine, coastal and shelf Science, 43(5), 597-616.
Zhang, A., Hess, K. W., & Aikman III, F. (2010). User-based skill assessment techniques for operational hydrodynamic forecast systems. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 3(2), 11-24.
Comment 3
Received: 14 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Some misuses and flaws are encountered in this study. For the improvement, the following points are suggested:

1-Authors mention in lines 129 and 130 of their manuscript “While the upper layer flow is towards North from the Black Sea to the Marmara Sea, the lower layer flow is towards South from the Marmara Sea to the Black Sea”. Authors really consider upper layer flow towards North and lower layer flow towards South? In Fig. 1 of your original manuscript, Marmara Sea is in the South while Black Sea is at the North.

2-Why did authors employ arc-shaped boundaries? This issue is not discussed.

3-How could station measurements be interpolated at arch-shaped boundaries? Station Anadolu is located inside the Bosphorus.

4-Authors did not divide the data into the training and testing parts.

5-Why did the authors apply PEST for calibration purposes? OpenDA of Delft3D pinpoints sensitive parameters automatically. What is the purpose of using PEST? In some cases in the paper, manual calibration seems to be better.

6- The authors applied only the correlation coefficient (CC) in the study. However, CC only considers linear relationships between X and Y and for any relationship to exist, any change in X has to have a constant proportional change in Y. If the relationship is not linear then the result is inaccurate. At first sight, no lineer relationship exists.

7-Authors did not pay attention to temperature and salinity vertical profiles in the Bosphorus. This is one of the main flaws in the study.

8- The authors mention northern sill in Fig. 2 of their manuscript. However, it is not included in the developed mesh in Fig. 6. Please pay attention to the Oguz et al., (1990) to discover how northern sill influences flow patterns in the strait.


9-The authors did not consider some basic conceptions underlying the Bosphorus principle in the model. They assumed that upper and lower layer flow rates at the southern end are almost the same as 9150 and -9720 m3/s. This issue is the biggest pitfall in this study. As seen in Table 3 of the original manuscript, upper and lower flow rates are almost the same only in January. What about the other months? Authors inevitably contradict themselves.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 3
Received: 18 September 2019
Commenter: Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: “We kindly invite you to submit a discussion paper to the published paper in Processes-MDPI (soon online available) and reveal your identity so that we can clearly assess if there is any potential conflict of interest. We openly shared our manuscript and we expect our readers not to hide themselves when writing a public comment. Finally please use a proper/professional language in your informal comment. For that please follow the 11 steps described in Copernicus: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html.
Response 2 to Comment 3
Received: 7 October 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: "Is writing directly to the journal without waiting for the DOI ethical?"

Now our revised paper is waiting for your harshest comments via susy system.

Submit your discussion/comment paper with your real identity which will increase your scientific visibility.

Thank you
Response 3 to Comment 3
Received: 3 February 2020
Commenter: Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Thank you for your comments. Fig 7b is corrected in our manuscript. We were not aware of errors made in the proof-reading phase.

New Figure 7b.


You discussion paper to the journal is still expected and welcome.
Response 4 to Comment 3
Received: 7 February 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Correction published on 6 February 2020, see Processes 2020, 8(2), 205.
Download the text: www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/2/205

Please consider sending these fruitful comments to the journal.
Response 5 to Comment 3
Received: 20 March 2020
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Reply to Comments on “Hydrodynamic and Hydrographic Modeling of Istanbul Strait”
Commenter: Vitaly Albon Zorbani from sku.ac.xx and his friends from Bosporus
Comment 1- Bla bla about Pendik station and small islands.
Reply to the comment: Source of the Southern Boundary condition, namely the Pendik station, is near to the Southern part of the Strait, very close to (if not right on) the edge of the computational mesh. This station is not inside of an estuary or on land. Pendik water level measurement station is on the South coast of the Anatolian Side of Istanbul. Erdik et al (Erdik et al., 2018) used Pendik Water Level data to calibrate their model. Therefore commenter should know that, the water level measurement station –which is in Pendik- is not in a sheltered area.

Comment - 2- Bla bla about correlation coefficient used in this study
Reply to the comment: The commenter mentions only Northern Upper Layer Flowrates’ data and its correlation value. However, we have 48 observed and modeled flowrate values (shown in Figure 1), and their correlation is 0.945. Holistic assessment requires paying attention to whole data.



Figure 1: Whole Observed and Modeled Flowrate Data m3/s

Comment - 3- Bla bla about again the correlation coefficient, lucky boy.
Reply to the comment: Although we have reported only correlation coefficient results in our study, we have used Mean Absolute Error (MAE) in the calibration as part of the multi-objective calibration framework. We shared the python code and PEST instruction file in Github for the readers: https://github.com/cuneyd. Moreover, we developed the error metric SPAEF comprised of three modules 1) correlation coefficient, 2) coefficient of variation 3) histogram match (Demirel et al., 2018; Koch et al., 2018). In our upcoming studies, we will incorporate SPAEF and RMSE. It should be noted that RMSE and PE are both bias-sensitive error metrics and Correlation coefficient is a bias-insensitive metric.

Comment - 4- Bla bla about the calibration framework.
Reply to the comment: This is not a contradiction. Maybe this comment originates from a bit professional illiteracy. The models are made to simulate physical behavior of a system. The discharge in the Istanbul Strait directly affects water temperature and salinity and all three are part of the physical structure of strait system. The important point is that the calibration and validation should be made with two independent sets of data. In a recent study, the authors calibrated a physically based model using only discharge observations in the outlet of the Skjern River in Denmark and validated the model using satellite based remote sensing of actual evapotranspiration (Demirel et al., 2018).

Comment - 5- Bla bla about calibrating Delft3D with monthly values.
Reply to the comment: Dias and Lopes (2006), Matte et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2010) discourse about calibration of tidal zones hydrodynamics. In Istanbul Strait, the tidal effect is obviously negligible, therefore; the average flowrate values can be obtained by executing calibration in Istanbul Strait hydrodynamics.

Comment - 6- Bla bla about confidence interval and Fig. 7a.
Reply to the comment: The commenter focuses only Figure 7a in the paper which is corresponding to just quadrant of whole data. However, when the scatter diagram and %95 confidence curves of all points are plotted, it is seen that there is only two points outside of the confidence interval. In the Figure 2, this issue is shown.



Figure 2: Scatter Diagram and %95 confidence interval of flowrate values.

Comment - 7- Bla bla about hydrodynamic processes in the Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: It is understood that commenter fully misunderstood the purpose of the study as well as the general idea behind numerical modelling of hydraulic and hydrographic processes. This misunderstanding can possibly be attributed to the lack of academic experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. It is obvious (and natural) that fluctuations/differences will be observed in the monthly mean hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean parameters of a designated month in successive years. But it is also obvious that a dominant yearly periodic component (or behavior) should be observed. The idea here is to come up with a model that can capture the general behavior of the stratified flow within the Bosporus Strait for a given month within a typical year, which can be associated with the long-term hydraulic/hydrographic/met-ocean statistics of a given locality (Army Corps, 2006; Özhan & Abdalla, 1999);, together with the sensitivity analyses of the modelling parameters.

Comment - 8- Bla bla about Fig. 7a and 7b.
Reply to the comment: Figures 7a and 7b are same, it is true. Correction is published (https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100710) . We checked the submitted latest version and this mistake is not present at our side. This is clearly a mistake of the editorial office of the Journal and possibly happened during the typesetting/proofing process. In Figures 9 and 10, readers can easily understand the locations of the two seas, if they view briefly Figure 2 in the paper.

Comment - 9- Bla bla about the vertical current velocity profile in Bosporus.
Reply to the comment: Since the model was run with hourly water level and six-hourly wind input data, the model was capable of capturing such one-layer flow conditions when occurred in the modeled duration, such as largely encountered within the October month. However, the general structure of the flow in the Bosporus Strait is two-layered.

Comment - 10- Bla bla about warm up period.
Reply to the comment: Because of the shortness of warm up process (not longer than 1-2 days), the Authors did not need to touch on this issue. In the present model, warm up process does not affect the hydrodynamic structure of the Strait.

Comment - 11- Bla bla about the Table 2
Reply to the comment: Based on the results gradient based Levenberg-Marquardt Method is selected as the most appropriate method for the calibration as other two methods i.e. SCE-UA and CMAES require much more model runs to converge.

Comment - 12- Bla bla about meandering and eddy activity in the western Black Sea.
Reply to the comment: This locality is far out of the model boundary, which renders these current structures ineffective for the general behavior of the hydrodynamic model, considering the dominant flow convergence geometry at the North entrance of the Strait. It should be noted that we also did not include Aegean, Mediterranean, Ionian and Adriatic Seas in our model.

Comment - 13- Bla bla about the boundary conditions.
Reply to the comment: This comment can also be attributed to the lack of academic (published) experience of the Discusser/Commenter in hydrodynamic modelling. The deforming/curvilinear mesh is widely used in hydrodynamic modelling of convergent/divergent flow with similar geometries (Ahmed et al., 2012; Elhakeem et al., 2015; Kurniawan et al., 2014). There are no significant lateral gradients in the water levels or other forcing mechanism such as wind. Erdik et al. (Erdik et al., 2018) also used water level values on their Istanbul Strait model boundary conditions as uniformly distributed along the boundaries.

References

Ahmed, A. S. M., Abou-Elhaggag, M. E., & El-Badry, H. (2012). Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Gulf of Aqaba. Journal of Environmental Protection, 03(08), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2012.328107
Army Corps, U. S. (2006). Coastal Engineering Manual. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Demirel, M. C., Mai, J., Mendiguren, G., Koch, J., Samaniego, L., & Stisen, S. (2018). Combining satellite data and appropriate objective functions for improved spatial pattern performance of a distributed hydrologic model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(2), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1299-2018
Elhakeem, A., Elshorbagy, W., & Bleninger, T. (2015). Long-term hydrodynamic modeling of the Arabian Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 94(1–2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.020
Erdik, T., Şen, O., Erdik, J. D., & Öztürk, İ. (2018). Long-Term 3D Hydrodynamic Modeling and Water Surface Statistics in Marmara Sea. Marine Geodesy, 41(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2017.1362082
Koch, J., Demirel, M. C., & Stisen, S. (2018). The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(5), 1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1873-2018
Kurniawan, A., Hasan, G. M. J., Ooi, S. K., Kit, L. W., Loh, L. L., & Bayen, S. (2014). Understanding Hydrodynamic Flow Characteristics in a Model Mangrove Ecosystem in Singapore. APCBEE Procedia, 10, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.10.054
Özhan, E., & Abdalla, S. (1999). Türkiye kıyıları için rüzgar ve derin deniz atlası. METU Civil Engineering Dept.
Dias, J. M., & Lopes, J. F. (2006). Calibration and validation of hydrodynamic, salt and heat transport models for Ria de Aveiro lagoon (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, 1680-1684.
Erdik, T., Sen, O., Ozturk, I. (2019). “3D Numerical Modeling of Exchange Flows in Golden Horn Estuary”. J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng., 145(5).
Gee, S. (2014). Fraud and fraud detection: a data analytics approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Hasan, G. J., van Maren, D. S., & Ooi, S. K. (2016). Hydrodynamic modeling of Singapore's coastal waters: Nesting and model accuracy. Ocean Modelling, 97, 141-151.
Hiatt, M., Snedden, G., Day, J. W., Rohli, R. V., Nyman, J. A., Lane, R., & Sharp, L. A. (2019). Drivers and impacts of water level fluctuations in the Mississippi River delta: Implications for delta restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 224, 117-137.
Ilicak, M., Ozgokmen, T. M., Ozsoy, E., and Fischer, P. F. (2009). “Non-hydrostatic modeling of exchange flows across complex geometries.” Ocean Modelling, 29(3), 159–175.
Indrayan, A., & Holt, M. P. (2016). Concise encyclopedia of biostatistics for medical professionals. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Jarosz, E., Teague, W. J., Book, J. W., Besiktepe, S. (2011). “On flow variability in the Bosporus Strait.” Journal Geophys Res, 116, C08038.
Matte, P., Secretan, Y., & Morin, J. (2017). Hydrodynamic modeling of the St. Lawrence fluvial estuary. I: Model setup, calibration, and validation. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 143(5), 04017010.
Murty, P. L. N., Bhaskaran, P. K., Gayathri, R., Sahoo, B., Kumar, T. S., & SubbaReddy, B. (2016). Numerical study of coastal hydrodynamics using a coupled model for Hudhud cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183, 13-27
Oguz, T., Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Unluata, U. (1990). Modeling of hydraulically controlled exchange flow in the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 20(7), 945-965.
Oguz, T., and Besiktepe, S. (1999). Observations on the Rim Current structure, CIW formation and transport in the western Black Sea. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 46(10), 1733-1753.
Oguz, T., 2005. Hydraulic adjustments of the Bosphorus exchange flow. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 1–5.
Ozsoy, E., Latif, M. A., Sur, H. I., & Goryachkin, Y. (1996). A review of the exchange flow regime and mixing in the Bosphorus Strait. Bulletin-Institut Oceanographique Monaco-Numero Special, 187-204.
Ozturk, M., Ayat, B., Aydogan, B., &Yuksel, Y. (2012). "3D Numerical modeling of stratified flows: case study of the Bosphorus Strait." Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 138(5), 406-419.
Oztürk, M. (2013). Numerical modeling of the effect of duration of barotropic forcing on sea strait flow: case study of the Bosphorus Strait. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 139(11), 1199-1211.
Rosenthal, G., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2011). Statistics and data interpretation for social work. Springer publishing company.
Sannino, G., Sozer, A., & Ozsoy, E. (2017). A high-resolution modelling study of the Turkish Straits System. Ocean Dynamics, 67(3-4), 397-432.
Stanev, V.E., Peneva, E., 2002. Regional sea level response to global climatic change: Black Sea examples. Global and Planetary Change 32, 33–47.
Stanev, E. V., Grashorn, S., Zhang, Y. J. (2017). “Cascading ocean basins: numerical simulations of the circulation and interbasin exchange in the Azov-Black-Marmara-Mediterranean Seas system” Ocean Dynamics, 67, 1003-1025.
Stramska, M., Kowalewska-Kalkowska, H., & Świrgoń, M. (2013). Seasonal variability in the Baltic Sea level. Oceanologia, 55(4), 787-807.
Timmons, D. L., Johnson, C. W., & McCook, S. (2012). Fundamentals of Algebraic Modeling. Nelson Education.
Tomascik, T. (1997). The ecology of the Indonesian seas. Oxford University Press.
Unlulata, U., Oguz, T., Latif, M. A., & Ozsoy, E. (1990). On the physical oceanography of the Turkish Straits. In The physical oceanography of sea straits (pp. 25-60). Springer, Dordrecht. York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
Yuksel, Y., Ayat, B., Ozturk, M. N., Aydogan, B., Guler, I., Cevik, E. O., & Yalciner, A. C. (2008). Responses of the stratified flows to their driving conditions—A field study. Ocean Engineering, 35(13), 1304-1321.
Yuce, H. (1996). Mediterranean water in the Strait of Istanbul (Bosphorus) and the Black Sea exit. Estuarine, coastal and shelf Science, 43(5), 597-616.
Zhang, A., Hess, K. W., & Aikman III, F. (2010). User-based skill assessment techniques for operational hydrodynamic forecast systems. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 3(2), 11-24.

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 20
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.