LAST CHANGED : 2023/09/11 01:34:59 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 75 24 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 xducer_dy correction 0 -10 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 ---------- # # written 2023/08/16 18:05:15 # this file contains CODAS quick_adcp.py info #name, value pairs #-------------------- ## (determined from "sonar"): model = os ## (determined from "sonar"): frequency = 38 ## (determined from "sonar"): instname = os38 ## (determined from "sonar"): pingtype = nb beamangle 30.0 cruisename FKt230812 datatype uhdas dbname a_ftoo ens_len 300 fixfile a_ftoo.gps frequency 38 hcorr_inst seapath instname os38 model os pingtype nb proc_engine python ref_method refsm refuv_smoothwin 3 refuv_source uvship sonar os38nb txy_file a_ftoo.agt xducer_dx 1 xducer_dy -10 yearbase 2023 ================================================== POST PROCESSING STEPS: ================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 1. Check visual oddities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # I ran this to generate the figures for figview.py quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --auto ### Run this: (to look for gaps in the cruise track) plot_nav.py nav/a*.gps figview.py dataviewer.py catwt.py catxy.py # I ran this: (to interpolate for missing heading correction fixes) cd cal/rotate patch_hcorr.py cd ../.. # In need of patch_hcorr cannot to correct heading sin the cruise track. # There is no need to apply any calibratiuon adjustments for this cruise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 2. ADCP calibration ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **watertrack** ------------ Number of edited points: 25 out of 27 amp = 1.0024 + 0.0001 (t - 240.0) phase = 0.12 + 0.0164 (t - 240.0) median mean std amplitude 1.0010 1.0024 0.0040 phase 0.0620 0.1242 0.2809 ------------ (python3) [jules@joules os38nb]$ catxy **transducer-gps offset** ------------ guessing ADCP (dx=starboard, dy=fwd) meters from GPS positions from a_ftoo.agt calculation done at 2023/12/05 00:58:52 xducer_dx = -1.531111 xducer_dy = -0.338214 signal = 826.433155 ------------] no additional calibration ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 3. Editing points ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # To go through the dataset and edit out bad values I ran. dataviewer.py -e # To recompute the calibration residuals I ran. quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --auto # Check whether the uvship algorithm helps cd .. cp -a os38nb os38nb_nouvship cd os38nb quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --refuv_source uvship --auto dataviewer.py -c . ../os38nb_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. ### Rerun the watertrack calibration after editing and uvship catwt.py getting watertrack from cal/watertrk/adcpcal.out **watertrack** ----------- Number of edited points: 22 out of 23 median mean std amplitude 1.0050 1.0060 0.0039 phase 0.1490 0.1713 0.2998 ----------- # Not really enough points for meaningful statistics here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 4. Check edited, calibrated dataset against original dataset ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Run this: (Has this corrected the problems in the original?) dataviewer.py -c . ../os38nb.orig ### Run this to compare this sonar with another sonar (after both are finished) dataviewer.py -c ../wh300 . # There are generally only 3 bins of os38nb data within the wh300 effective # depth range, so this comparison does not work well. dataviewer.py -c ../ec150fm . # When the ship is on station, the differences between the sonars are pretty # clearly due to resolution differences--horizontal stripes of positive and # negative differences in regions of high vertical shear and little # disagreement in low shear occasions. However, there is clearly a problem # when the ship is steaming--entire profiles are offset. It appears not to # be a problem with transducer angle, but instead of scale factor: when # headed east on dday 232.3, the ec150fm has lower u and while heading west # on dday 232.5, the ec150fm has higher u. Since u is eastward water # velocity, it means the ec150fm has a smaller velocity in the forward # direction (or the os38nb is biased towards zero relative to the ship). dataviewer.py -c ../os38bb . # 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 ../os38nb ../ec150fm ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150fm 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 0.996 to ec150fm rotation angle: 0.14deg to ec150fm ================ plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:180 ../os38nb ../ec150cw zrange is 30:180 parts is ['30', '180'] ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150cw 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 0.985 to ec150cw rotation angle: -0.35deg 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 of opposite sign, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # I ran this to divvy up the cruise sections. mkdir webpy cp ../wh300/webpy/sectinfo.txt webpy quick_web.py --redo # 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/os38nb FKt230812 os38nb --ship_name "Falkor too" # I ran this to look at the headers. ncdump -h contour/os38nb.nc |egrep '(cruise_id|sonar|platform|yearbase)' # complete.