LAST CHANGED : 2023/09/11 01:36:56 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_64685.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 : wh300 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 18:00:06 on 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 0.00 0001 2023/08/18 17:14:45 on 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 0.00 0001 2023/08/24 13:14:45 off 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 0.00 0001 2023/09/06 18:55:54 off 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 0.00 0001 2023/09/07 21:36:38 off 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 0.00 0001 2023/09/10 09:36:39 off 120 70 2 7 2 -1.33 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: additional rotation 0 final transducer angle is: -1.33 (2) scale factor original scale factor 1 additional scale factor (none) (3) ADCP (dx=starboard, dy=fwd) meters from GPS original: 0 -14 correction 0 0 final offset 0 -14 COMMENTS : To re-generate 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 --- original processing parameters from dbinfo.txt ---------- ## (determined from "sonar"): model = wh ## (determined from "sonar"): frequency = 300 ## (determined from "sonar"): instname = wh300 ## (determined from "sonar"): pingtype = bb beamangle 20 cruisename FKt230812_RDI datatype uhdas dbname a_ftoo ens_len 120 fixfile a_ftoo.gps frequency 300 hcorr_inst seapath instname wh300 model wh pingtype bb proc_engine python ref_method refsm refuv_smoothwin 3 refuv_source nav sonar wh300 txy_file a_ftoo.agt xducer_dx 1 xducer_dy -14 yearbase 2023 ================================================== POST PROCESSING STEPS: ================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 1. Check visual oddities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # To generate the figures for figview.py I ran this. quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --auto # I ran this to look for gaps in the cruise track. plot_nav.py nav/a*.gps # I will need to run patch_hcor.py to adress gaps in the heading correction. # i ran this: (to interpolate for missing heading correction fixes) cd cal/rotate patch_hcorr.py cd ../.. # I ran this to look for gaps in the heading correction. figview.py # I ran this to look for missing heading correction values or missing positions. dataviewer.py # I ran this. catwt.py catxy.py **watertrack** ----------- Number of edited points: 31 out of 34 median mean std amplitude 1.0070 1.0070 0.0084 phase -0.2170 -0.1140 0.3720 ----------- **transducer-gps offset** ----------- guessing ADCP (dx=starboard, dy=fwd) meters from GPS positions from a_ftoo.agt calculation done at 2023/12/02 00:22:21 xducer_dx = -0.386168 xducer_dy = 0.250023 signal = 427.982505 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 2. ADCP calibration ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No change to calibrations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 3. Editing points ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # To go through the dataset and edit out bad values. dataviewer.py -e # To recompute the calibration residuals. quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --auto # Check whether the uvship algorithm helps cd .. cp -a wh300 wh300_nouvship cd wh300 quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun navsteps:calib --refuv_source uvship --auto dataviewer.py -c . ../wh300_nouvship # Much smoother results around dday 242.6. # 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 . ../wh300.orig # To compare this sonar with another sonar. dataviewer.py -c ../os38bb . # 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 ../wh300 ../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: the forward velocities of the two sonars differ # enough to be obvious. It appears that the transducer angles are consistent # with each other, but the scale factor is a problem. ### Attempt quantitative comparisons of reference layer velocities ### using plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange $MIN:$MAX $SONAR1 $SONAR2 ### plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:90 ../wh300 ../ec150fm ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150fm for it to better match wh300, these are APPROXIMATE values to use. Use these as if they came from cal/watertrk or cal/botmtrk. scale factor:f 0.994 to ec150fm rotation angle: 0.08deg to ec150fm ================ plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 30:90 ../wh300 ../ec150cw zrange is 30:90 parts is ['30', '90'] ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to ec150cw for it to better match wh300, these are APPROXIMATE values to use. Use these as if they came from cal/watertrk or cal/botmtrk. scale factor:f 0.994 to ec150cw rotation angle: -0.07deg to ec150cw ================ # Amusing that the rotation angles are almost precisely opposite. plot_reflayer.py --plotfp --zrange 40:90 ..os38bb ../wh300 zrange is 40:90 parts is ['40', '90'] ======> NOTE ABOUT CALIBRATIONS <======= If there was a reason to apply a calibration to wh300 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 0.996 to wh300 rotation angle: -0.21deg to wh300 ================ # This looks pretty bad, but there is so little overlap that it is # not very meaningful. # Unfortunately, it does not appear to be possible to come up with a # combination of scale factors and transducer that is justifiable and # would get all of the instruments to agree in this cruise and the others # with the same sonars on the same ship. It could be that there is # a depth-dependent scale factor, or that there simply isn't enough data # and the statistics are poor, or that my choice of comparison depths is # not optimal. # In summary, it appear that the transducer angle is close to correct for # all of the sonars but that there are unresolved problems with scale # factors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### 5. Make plots and files ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # To divy up the cruise into sections I ran this. mkdir webpy cp ../os38bb.edit/webpy/sectinfo.txt webpy quick_web.py --redo ### Run this to extract matlab files quick_adcp.py --steps2rerun matfiles --auto ### Run this to extract a netCDF file adcp_nc.py adcpdb contour/wh300 FKt230812 wh300 --ship_name "Falkor too" ### Run this to look at the headers ncdump -h contour/wh300.nc |egrep '(cruise_id|sonar|platform|yearbase)' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------