LAST CHANGED : 2023/09/11 01:36:17 CRUISE NAME(S) : FKt230812 CRUISE DATES : 2023/08/16 to 2023/09/11 SHIP NAME : Falkor too PORTS : Balboa Panama to Puerto Ayora Galapagos Ecuador CHIEF SCIENTIST : Roxanne Beinart DATABASE NAME : a_ftoo DATA FILES : ftoo2023_227_64803.raw to ftoo2023_253_00000.raw STATUS : to do done ------ ----------- averaged [ X ] at sea loaded [ X ] at sea NOTE: heading correction instrument exists NOTE: time-dependent heading corrections applied IN the ensembles (see cal/rotate/ens_hcorr.ang) check heading correction [ X ] calibration [ X ] edited [ X ] re-check heading correction [ X ] check editing [ X ] figures [ X ] INSTRUMENT : os38 ACQUISITION : PROGRAM : uhdas PROCESSING : python LOGGING : PARAMETERS : BT : bottom track mode (on or off) SI : sampling interval or averaging period for ensemble (sec) NB : number of bins BL : bin length (m) TD : transducer depth (m) BK : blanking length (m) HO : heading offset applied by DAS (deg) HB : heading bias (deg) CRPH : compensation for roll-pitch-heading, 1:on, 0:off) yy/mm/dd hh:mm:ss BT SI NB BL TD BK HO HB CRPH 2023/08/16 18:05:09 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 2023/08/17 01:31:24 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 2023/08/17 21:17:44 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 2023/08/18 22:17:47 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 2023/09/06 23:42:40 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 2023/09/08 02:39:41 off 300 100 12 7 16 0.21 0.00 0001 HEADING : PRIMARY : heading from gyro1 CORRECTION : heading correction from seapath NOTE: time-dependent heading corrections applied IN the ensembles (see cal/rotate/ens_hcorr.ang) POSITIONS : gps positions from posmv_gps CALIBRATION : (check original processing parameters) (1) transducer alignment original transducer alignment: 0.21 additional rotation 0 final transducer angle is: 0.21 (2) scale factor original scale factor 1 additional scale factor (none) (3) ADCP (dx=starboard, dy=fwd) meters from GPS original: xducer_dx=0 xducer_dy=-10 correction 0 0 final offset 0 -10 COMMENTS : To regenerate the figures for figview.py quick_adcp.py was run first. Gaps in the heading correction were present, and patch_hcorr.py was applied. Data below the bottom was removed, as well as small bits of data at the the bottom of the sonars range was removded. PROCESSOR : Jamie Ash --- final processing parameters from dbinfo.txt ---------- ## (determined from "sonar"): model = os ## (determined from "sonar"): frequency = 38 ## (determined from "sonar"): instname = os38 ## (determined from "sonar"): pingtype = bb beamangle 30 cruisename FKt230812_RDI datatype uhdas dbname a_ftoo ens_len 300 fixfile a_ftoo.gps frequency 38 hcorr_inst seapath instname os38 model os pingtype bb proc_engine python ref_method refsm refuv_smoothwin 3 refuv_source nav sonar os38bb txy_file a_ftoo.agt xducer_dx 1 xducer_dy -10 yearbase 2023 ================================================== POST PROCESSING STEPS: ================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 1. Check visual oddities ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # I ran this to look for gaps in the cruise track. plot_nav.py nav/a*.gps # I ran this to look for gaps in the heading correction. figview.py # I ran this looking for missing heading correction values. dataviewer.py # I ran this to check watertrack calibration. # I ran this: (to interpolate for missing heading correction fixes) cd cal/rotate patch_hcorr.py cd ../.. **watertrack** ----------- Number of edited points: 26 out of 29 median mean std amplitude 1.0050 1.0061 0.0038 phase 0.1305 0.1527 0.2766 ----------- **transducer-gps offset** ----------- guessing ADCP (dx=starboard, dy=fwd) meters from GPS positions from a_ftoo.agt calculation done at 2023/12/05 01:03:08 xducer_dx = -2.398497 xducer_dy = 0.940100 signal = 826.433155 ----------- # Same as other sonars on this ship, the ship speed goes on the fritz # and there is a substansial gap in the reference layer velocity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 2. ADCP calibration ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Not needed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 3. Editing points ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # I ran this go through the dataset and edit out bad values. dataviewer.py -e # I ran this to recompute the calibration residuals. quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --auto # There was a strong scattering layer throughout this data set. # Some data bellow the scatttering layer was removed. # Additionaly, some data below the scattering layer was reclaimed. # Check whether the uvship algorithm helps cd .. cp -a os38bb os38bb_nouvship cd os38bb quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --refuv_source uvship --auto dataviewer.py -c os38bb ../os38bb_nouvship # Most of the cruise was on station or moving very slowly, so # uvship made very little difference. There were a few occasions # where it was clearly beneficial, so leave it in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 4. Check edited, calibrated dataset against original dataset ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Has this corrected the problems in the original? dataviewer.py -c . ../os38bb ### Run this to compare this sonar with another sonar (after both are finished) dataviewer.py -c ../wh300 . # This is a somewhat difficult comparison to make sense of since the os38bb # has few bins within the wh300 range. In addition, the much higher vertical # resolution of the wh300 means that areas of high vertical shear have # horizontal stripes of positive and negative differences. Nevertheless, it # appears that there are systematic differences that get much worse when # steaming; on station the differences appear to be mostly due to resolution. # The os38bb appears to report higher speeds in the direction of travel # than the wh300. That is consistent with the watertrack estimate of # a scale factor of 1.005, but there's little data behind that estimate and # it is not supported by the other cruises this year. dataviewer.py -c ../os38nb . # In general, this is exactly what one hopes for in such a comparison: # a generally random-appearing sprinkling of small-scale differences. # No surprise, since it's the same hardware. However, there is a period # from dday 239.0 to 239.5 where the os38bb sees a reversal in flow # between 450 and 550 m. May be an artifact due to a relatively strong # scattering layer there. This appears to happen repeatedly at night, # when much of the biomass scattering the ping has migrated to shallow # water, leaving weaker deep scattering. Not at all sure which sonar is # more correct. ### Attempt quantitative comparisons of reference layer velocities ### using plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange $MIN:$MAX $SONAR1 $SONAR2 ### plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:180 ../os38bb ../ec150fm ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150fm for it to better match os38bb, these are APPROXIMATE values to use. Use these as if they came from cal/watertrk or cal/botmtrk. scale factor:f 0.992 to ec150fm rotation angle: -0.00deg to ec150fm ================ plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:180 ../os38bb ../ec150cw ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150cw for it to better match os38bb, these are APPROXIMATE values to use. Use these as if they came from cal/watertrk or cal/botmtrk. scale factor:f 0.987 to ec150cw rotation angle: -0.25deg to ec150cw ================ # These are consistent with the observation that the os38nb has a higher # scale factor than the ec150. Odd that the recommended angle corrections # are so different, but that's probably just an indication of how # uncertain these comparisons are. (The ec150fm operated only for part of the # the beginning of the cruise while the ec150cw only operated near the end.) plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:800 ../os38nb ../os38bb zrange is 30:800 parts is ['30', '800'] ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to os38bb for it to better match os38nb, these are APPROXIMATE values to use. Use these as if they came from cal/watertrk or cal/botmtrk. scale factor:f 1.002 to os38bb rotation angle: -0.01deg to os38bb ================ # Since it's the same hardware, it is no surprise that the agreement is quite # nice, particularly in the transducer angle. Interesting that there does # appear to be a noticeable difference in scale factor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 5. Make plots and files ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # To carry over the section info from another sonar. quick_web.py --interactive # I ran this to extract matlab files. quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun matfiles --auto # I ran this to extract a netCDF file. adcp_nc.py adcpdb contour/os38bb FKt230812 os38bb --ship_name "Falkor too" # I ran this to look at the headers. ncdump -h contour/os38bb.nc |egrep '(cruise_id|sonar|platform|yearbase)'