Chandra 1

Denia Chandra
Pak Ngemal
Math 10 SL
7 November 2014
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

10

Height (m)

0
-2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

After plotting the graph of the change in tide height in The Bay of
Fundy in Nova Scotia, Canada on 27 December 2003, the result is in the
graph above. As observed, the graph goes up and down like a wave as the
values of x and y varies. At the beginning of the data, the height of the
tide increases until 4 oclock at dawn. Then, since its in the morning, the
height of the tide decreases until 9 oclock in the morning. As seen in the
graph above, the height of the tide decreases a lot until 9 oclock in the
morning, but then it increases again until 3 oclock in the afternoon. Then
it decreases again until 9 oclock at night; subsequently it increases again
until 11 oclock at night.
The variables in this graph is the values of x and y, and the parameter
will be determined through calculating the values of A, B, C and D, using
the general sine function (y=A sin B (x- C) + D).
a. Finding the parameters
I. A= amplitude

Chandra 2
maximumminimum 12.30.7 11.6
=
=
=5.8
2
2
2
II.

B= period
B= 12
Period in general sine function=

2
B

2 2
= =
B 12 6
III.

D= principal axis (affects vertical translation)

maximum+minimum 12.3+0.7 13
=
= =6.5
2
2
2
C= affects horizontal translation
With the value of the principal axis or parameter D, we can
find the value of C. Plot the principal axis in the graph by
making a line with the function of y=6.5. As seen in the graph
below, the estimated value of C is 12.
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

10

Height (m)

IV.

0
-2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

From the determined values of the parameters, we have

developed the general sine function that models the behavior
noted in the graph, which is y= 5.8 sin ( /6(x 12)) + 6.5.

Chandra 3
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

10

Height (m)

0
-2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

As seen in the graph above there is a line, which is the graph of the
function y= 5.8 sin ( /6(x 12)) + 6.5, the graph of the function and
the graph of the data are similar however, it still can have some
improvement to become a better fit. As observed, the line doesnt meet
some of the points from the data because its wavelength is not wide
enough. When counted its percentage error, the result is still 12. 87%.
Time
(AST)

true
value

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9
9.7
11.6
12.3
11.6

experimental
value
(original)

6.5
9.4
11.5229
12.3
11.5229
9.4
6.5
3.6
1.4771
0.7
1.4771
3.6
6.5
9.4
11.5229
12.3
11.5229

(experimental
value-true
value)/true value
- original

% error
(original)

-13.33%
-7.84%
-2.35%
2.50%
5.71%
5.62%
3.17%
0.00%
-7.68%
-22.22%
-17.94%
-10.00%
-5.80%
-3.09%
-0.66%
0.00%
-0.66%

13.33%
7.84%
2.35%
2.50%
5.71%
5.62%
3.17%
0.00%
7.68%
22.22%
17.94%
10.00%
5.80%
3.09%
0.66%
0.00%
0.66%

Chandra 4
9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4

17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

9.4
6.5
3.6
1.4771
0.7
1.4771
3.6

-5.05%
-10.96%
-20.00%
-29.66%
0.00%
84.64%
50.00%
AVERAGE

5.05%
10.96%
20.00%
29.66%
0.00%
84.64%
50.00%
12.87%

Therefore, to create a better fit for the data we should modify the
function. We should consider the percentage error when modifying the
function to minimalize the error of the modified function.
For the first trial, I changed the equation into y=5.74 sin(2 /
12.07(x-12))+6.58, in which I increase the parameter D and decrease the
parameter A and B. This is because I observed that the amplitude should
be smaller, it needs to be placed higher, and I decided to increase the
period, so that the wave can be wider.
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

Time
(AST)

true
value

experimen
tal value
(m1)

10

Height (m)

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9
9.7
11.6
12.3
11.6
9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4
2

6.7891
9.6144
11.6358
12.3179
11.4798
9.3437
6.4754
3.6349
1.5745
0.8402
1.6265
3.7251
6.58
9.4349
11.5335
12.3198
11.5855
9.5251
6.6846
3.8163
1.6802
0.8421
1.5242
3.5456
8

10

(experimental
value-true
value)/true
value - m1

-9.48%
-5.74%
-1.39%
2.65%
5.32%
4.99%
2.78%
0.97%
-1.59%
-6.64%
-9.64%
-6.87%
-4.64%
-2.73%
-0.57%
0.16%
-0.13%
-3.79%
-8.43%
-15.19%
-19.99%
20.30%
90.53%
47.73%
AVERAGE

12

Time (AST)

14

16

18

20

22

**The pink
line is the
% errororiginal
(m1)
function,
and the blue
line is the
first
9.48%
experimenta
5.74%
l function.
1.39%
2.65%
5.32%
4.99%
2.78%
0.97%
1.59%
6.64%
9.64%
6.87%
4.64%
2.73%
0.57%
0.16%
0.13%
3.79%
8.43%
15.19%
19.99%
20.30%
90.53%
47.73%
11.34%
24

Chandra 5
However, when I did the calculations for its percentage error, the
error is still pretty close with the original one, and I think that the
percentage error can be lower.
In the second trial, I modified again the function into y=5.7 sin(2
/12.43(x-12.05))+6.59 and as you can see I decided to change the
value of parameter B, C and D. I changed the parameter B, C, and D
slightly because they just need some slight adjustments so that the lines
will meet all the plotted data on the graph. For parameter B, I increased it
because I want the lines to meet both crests, and then I increase the value
of parameter C and D so that the lines will be placed higher and more to
the right. The parameter A was not changed because I figure that the line
was already in the same level as the crests and trough.
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

**The pink
line is the
original
function,
and the
blue line is
the first
experiment
al function,
and the
black line is
second
experiment

12

10

Height (m)

10

12
Time (AST)

14

16

18

20

22

24

Chandra 6

Time (AST)

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

true
value

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9
9.7
11.6
12.3
11.6
9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4

experiment
al value
(m2)

(experimental
value-true
value)/true
value - m2

% error (m2)

As

7.6782
10.2514
11.9089
12.236
11.1509
8.9251
6.1151
3.424
1.5247
0.8924
1.6852
3.7047
6.446
9.2232
11.3418
12.2719
11.7809
9.9914
7.3513
4.5207
2.2076
0.9907
1.1743
2.7125

2.38%
2.38%
0.50%
0.50%
0.92%
0.92%
1.97%
1.97%
2.30%
2.30%
0.28%
0.28%
-2.93%
2.93%
-4.89%
4.89%
-4.71%
4.71%
-0.84%
0.84%
-6.38%
6.38%
-7.38%
7.38%
-6.58%
6.58%
-4.92%
4.92%
-2.23%
2.23%
-0.23%
0.23%
1.56%
1.56%
0.92%
0.92%
0.70%
0.70%
0.46%
0.46%
5.12%
5.12%
41.53%
41.53%
46.79%
46.79%
13.02%
13.02%
AVERAGE
6.65%
seen above in the percentage error template, for the function of y=5.7
sin(2 /12.43(x-12.05))+6.59, I got a percentage error of 6.65, which I
think is already enough or in appearance its already close with the
plotted data. However I feel like the percentage error can be lower, so for
my third trial, I modified again the function into y=5.7 sin(2pi/12.43(x12.03))+6.59.

**The pink line is

the original
function, and
the blue line is
the first
experimental
function, the
black line is the
second
experimental
function, while
the brown line is
the third

Chandra 7
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

10

Height (m)

0 0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

For the third trial, I just decrease the value of the parameter C
slightly so that the line will be placed slightly more to the left. As seen in
the graph above, the difference between first experimental function and
the second experimental function is not that significant because when I
tried using the percentage error, the percentage error only decreases by
0.01%.

Time
(AST)

true
value

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9
9.7
11.6
12.3
11.6
9.9
7.3

experime
ntal
value
(m3)

7.7347
10.2954
11.9294
12.2278
11.1161
8.8724
6.0577
3.3762
1.4986
0.8944
1.7148
3.7546
6.5036
9.2742
11.3734
12.2762
11.7568
9.945
7.2941

(experime
ntal
value-true
value)/tru
e value m3

3.13%
0.94%
1.10%
1.90%
1.98%
-0.31%
-3.85%
-6.22%
-6.34%
-0.62%
-4.73%
-6.14%
-5.74%
-4.39%
-1.95%
-0.19%
1.35%
0.45%
-0.08%

% error
(m3)

3.13%
0.94%
1.10%
1.90%
1.98%
0.31%
3.85%
6.22%
6.34%
0.62%
4.73%
6.14%
5.74%
4.39%
1.95%
0.19%
1.35%
0.45%
0.08%

Chandra 8
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4

19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

-0.73%
3.38%
40.03%
49.08%
14.79%
AVERAGE

4.4671
2.171
0.9802
1.1926
2.7549

0.73%
3.38%
40.03%
49.08%
14.79%
6.64%

With a percentage error of 6.64%, I think this is the lowest

percentage error I can obtain from modifying the function.
Comparing with the sinusoidal regression
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y

12

10

Height (m)

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy

9.34

9.32

9.3

9.28

9.26

Height (m)

As observed from the graph

above, the sinusoidal regression and
the modified function (y=5.7 sin(2
/12.43(x-12.03))+6.59) are pretty
similar. At a glance, there seem to be
no more than two lines, but when we
zoom it, there are 2 lines (the pink line
is the sinusoidal regression while the
black one is my modified function).
The difference between the two lines
is approximately only 0.02 units when
zoomed.

9.24

9.22

9.2

9.18

9.16

9.14
17.1

17.15

17.2

17.25

17.3
Time (AST)

17.35

17.4

17.45

Chandra 9
To find how similar my modified function with the sinusoidal
regression, I calculate the percentage error of the sinusoidal regression
using the general sine function of y = 5.7132sin (0.5064x + 0.1956) +
6.5867, and then the percentage error will be 6.65%. Compared to my
modified functions percentage error, the difference is only 0.01%,
therefore although with a slight difference, my modified function is more
accurate than the sinusoidal regression.

Data taken before December the 27th, 2003

- What is the tidal range between 1601 hours and 2236 hours?
The tidal range between 1601 hours and 2236 hours is
determined by subtracting the highest period and the lowest
period in the given time. Therefore, to find the tidal range, we
should subtract 5.8 and 0.7,and the answer will be 6.5.

Supposedly there was a strong wind to the shore in Nova

Scotia on 27 December 2003 from 01.00 04.00. What would
the graph look like? Explain your answer.

The original data of the height tide during 27 December 2003 in Nova
Scotia is as below.
Time
00.0 01.0 02.0 03.0 04.0 05.0 06.0 07.0 08.0 09.0 10.0 11.0
(AST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
Heig
7.5 10.2 11.8 12.0 10.9 8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4.0
ht
(m)
Time
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0
(AST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
Heig
6.9
9.7 11.6 12.3 11.6 9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4
ht
(m)
So, if there is a strong wind from 01.00-04.00, the height of the tide
will increase because when a strong wind comes, the wave produced is
taller. So, from 01.00-04.00 I increased all the numbers by 2.0 because I
think to still make the data reasonable, I dont want to make a huge gap
between the original one and the one I predict but still shows that a strong
wind has affected the waves. A wind needs time to build up into a strong
wind and will eventually cool down, so still following the concept in the
original data, starting from 01.00, the height of the tide will gradually
increase until 03.00, and on 04.00, the wave has decreased.
So, below are the data that I modified to represent a strong wind
coming during 01.00 04.00, and the graph

Chandra 10

Time
00.0 01.0 02.0 03.0 04.0 05.0 06.0 07.0 08.0 09.0 10.0 11.0
(AST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
Heig
7.5 12.2 13.8 14.0 12.9 8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4.0
ht
(m)
Time
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0
(AST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
Heig
6.9
9.7 11.6 12.3 11.6 9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4
ht
(m)
When I put the data into a graph, the graph is shown as below,
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y
14

12

10

Height (m)

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (AST)

Comparing between the data taken from the 27th December 2003
and 28th December 2003

Chandra 11
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
y
12

10

Height (m)

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (AST)

The graph above is the comparison between the data taken from 27
and 28 December 2003. The dots symbolize the data from the 27th
December to 28th December 2003, while the blue line is the modified
function taken from the data of 27 December 2003 (y=5.7 sin(2 /
12.09(x-12.05))+6.59). As seen in the graph, the function doesnt fit for
both days maybe because each day the condition of the wind,
temperature, and other natural factors that affects the height tide
changes unpredictably. Therefore it affects the difference in both data.
According to the data, the second days tallest height tide is lower than
the first days tallest height tide, thus in the graph the second days crests
are not met with the modified function from the first day. Same goes with
the lowest point and the troughs, as the second days lowest height tide is
higher than the first days lowest height tide, thus in the graph the
modified function from the first day cannot fit with the plotted data of the
second day.
Some of the factors that causes the result has different periodic
phenomena on the second day is because the previous day has a stronger
wind than the second day. Thus the frequency on the 27th of December is
more than the 28th December, which affects the period as well, as it is is
lower on the 27th December than on the 28th December.
Since I mentioned before that the function still could have some
modifications for it to be more accurate, I first calculate the percentage
error of the modified function. After calculating it, Im able to get a
percentage error of 6.56%, which I didnt see coming because I thought it
wasnt quite a good fit, but with a percentage error of 6.56%, I think the
function is pretty accurate.

Chandra 12

Time
(AST)

true
value

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9
9.7
11.6

experime
ntal
value
(original)

7.7347
10.2954
11.9294
12.2278
11.1161
8.8724
6.0577
3.3762
1.4986
0.8944
1.7148
3.7546
6.5036
9.2742
11.3734

(experiment
al valuetrue
value)/true
value original

% error
(original
)

3.13%
0.94%
1.10%
1.90%
1.98%
-0.31%
-3.85%
-6.22%
-6.34%
-0.62%
-4.73%
-6.14%
-5.74%
-4.39%
-1.95%

3.13%
0.94%
1.10%
1.90%
1.98%
0.31%
3.85%
6.22%
6.34%
0.62%
4.73%
6.14%
5.74%
4.39%
1.95%

Chandra 13
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

12.3
11.6
9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4
5.0
7.9
10.2
11.6
11.6
10.5
8.5
6.0
3.5
1.7
1.2
2.2
4.4
7.2
9.7
11.3
11.8
11.1
9.4
7.0
4.4
2.2
1.0
1.3

12.2762
11.7568
9.945
7.2941
4.4671
2.171
0.9802
1.1926
2.7549
5.2765
8.1266
10.5924
12.0571
12.1543
10.8598
8.4973
5.6578
3.0514
1.3301
0.9244
1.9358
4.1113
6.9068
9.623
11.5806
12.29
11.5737
9.6108
6.8924
4.0983
1.9275
0.9229
1.3357

-0.19%
1.35%
0.45%
-0.08%
-0.73%
3.38%
40.03%
49.08%
14.79%
5.53%
2.87%
3.85%
3.94%
4.78%
3.43%
-0.03%
-5.70%
-12.82%
-21.76%
-22.97%
-12.01%
-6.56%
-4.07%
-0.79%
2.48%
4.15%
4.27%
2.24%
-1.54%
-6.86%
-12.39%
-7.71%
2.75%
AVERAGE

0.19%
1.35%
0.45%
0.08%
0.73%
3.38%
40.03%
49.08%
14.79%
5.53%
2.87%
3.85%
3.94%
4.78%
3.43%
0.03%
5.70%
12.82%
21.76%
22.97%
12.01%
6.56%
4.07%
0.79%
2.48%
4.15%
4.27%
2.24%
1.54%
6.86%
12.39%
7.71%
2.75%
6.56%

However, I think the percentage error can be lower, so I modified

again the function. Since the modified function from the 27th December
2003 data is already pretty close, I just change all the parameters by
adding them by 0.01. Therefore from the function of y=5.7 sin(2 /
12.09(x-12.05))+6.59, I change it into y=5.71 sin(2 /12.44(x-12.04))
+6.6.

Chandra 14
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy
The Change in Tide Height in The Bay of Fundy

8.48

12
8.475

10
Height (m)

8.47

8.465

Height (m)

8.46

25.09
8.455

25.1

25.11

25.12

25.13

25.14

25.15

25.16

25.17

25.18

Time (AST)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (AST)

As seen in the graph above, both lines are pretty similar because I
just changed all parameters by 0.01. But when it is seen closely, there is a
0.015 difference between the lines (the blue one marks the original
function while the black one marks the recently modified function).
However when counted its percentage error, the difference is not by
0.01 but by 0.14. So, for the function of y=5.71 sin(2 /12.44(x-12.04))
+6.6, the percentage error is 6.42, in which I think is the lowest
percentage error I can achieve from modifying the function to fit the
combined data.

Time
(AST)

true
value

experime
ntal
value
(m3)

00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00

7.5
10.2
11.8
12
10.9
8.9
6.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
4
6.9

7.7458
10.3094
11.9468
12.2489
11.1403
8.8979
6.0816
3.3948
1.5084
0.8936
1.7038
3.7367
6.4846

(experiment
al valuetrue
value)/true
value - m3

% error
(m3)

3.28%
1.07%
1.24%
2.07%
2.20%
-0.02%
-3.47%
-5.70%
-5.73%
-0.71%
-5.34%
-6.58%
-6.02%

3.28%
1.07%
1.24%
2.07%
2.20%
0.02%
3.47%
5.70%
5.73%
0.71%
5.34%
6.58%
6.02%

Chandra 15
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
00.00
01.00
02.00
03.00
04.00
05.00
06.00
07.00
08.00
09.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00

9.7
11.6
12.3
11.6
9.9
7.3
4.5
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.4
5.0
7.9
10.2
11.6
11.6
10.5
8.5
6.0
3.5
1.7
1.2
2.2
4.4
7.2
9.7
11.3
11.8
11.1
9.4
7.0
4.4
2.2
1.0
1.3

9.2614
11.3736
12.2936
11.7918
9.9935
7.3477
4.5152
2.2033
0.9894
1.1766
2.7182
5.2292
8.0825
10.5656
12.0583
12.188
10.9222
8.577
5.7381
3.1144
1.3612
0.9163
1.8907
4.0412
6.8307
9.5625
11.5546
12.3093
11.6383
9.7091
7.0034
4.197
1.9907
0.9355
1.2948

-4.52%
-1.95%
-0.05%
1.65%
0.94%
0.65%
0.34%
4.92%
41.34%
47.08%
13.26%
4.58%
2.31%
3.58%
3.95%
5.07%
4.02%
0.91%
-4.37%
-11.02%
-19.93%
-23.64%
-14.06%
-8.15%
-5.13%
-1.42%
2.25%
4.32%
4.85%
3.29%
0.05%
-4.61%
-9.51%
-6.45%
-0.40%
AVERAGE

4.52%
1.95%
0.05%
1.65%
0.94%
0.65%
0.34%
4.92%
41.34%
47.08%
13.26%
4.58%
2.31%
3.58%
3.95%
5.07%
4.02%
0.91%
4.37%
11.02%
19.93%
23.64%
14.06%
8.15%
5.13%
1.42%
2.25%
4.32%
4.85%
3.29%
0.05%
4.61%
9.51%
6.45%
0.40%
6.42%

Reflect upon your working:

1. To what extent your results and methods make sense in the context
of the problem.
In my opinion, the results and methods make sense in the
context of the problem because according to the data, the
results are not far off from the plotted data therefore showing

Chandra 16
that the function is already near to accurate. To make the
function close to accurate, there should be an extent to the
change in parameter when modifying the function so that the
result will is not far off from the data or the original function. As
observed, I changed all the parameters but the changes only
ranges from approximately 0.01-0.1 for all the parameters. I
think if the change is drastic or far more than the range, the
result will not make sense in the context of the problem.
2. Discuss the degree of accuracy on your results
I think that my results are reasonably accurate because for
each results, I calculate its percentage error, and for both of the
results I got a percentage error of around 6%, which are 6.64%
and 6.42%. With a percentage error of around 6%, it shows that
there is not much error in the function and that the function is
already so close with the ideal function.
3. How can your results be related to real life?
I think the results are related to real life and it makes
sense, such as the height of the tide are reasonable in a real life
context (the height of the tide ranges from a very short tide,
which is less than 1m, into a very tall tide, which is 12 m tall or
even taller). And also that if there is a stronger wind, the height
of the tide will be taller than if the wind is not stronger because
then the wind will give more force to the water and will result a
taller height tide.