WHOTS - ADCP Compass Calibration History

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Julie Fletcher Manager Marine Observations, NZ Chair, VOS Panel PMO-III, March 2006, Hamburg, Germany. Ship Inspections.
Advertisements

Customer Support Center Measurement Business Headquarters YOKOGAWA
ADCP Compass Calibrations
Review and Rating Discharge Measurements David S. Mueller Office of Surface Water March 2010.
Lab3: writing up results and ANOVAs with within and between factors 1.
Summary 1 l The Analytical Problem l Data Handling.
Basic Questions Regarding All Analytical & Instrumental Methods (p 17-18) What accuracy and precision are required? How much sample do I have available,
Magnetometer calibration and detection Robert Szewczyk, Alec Woo Nest Retreat June 17, 2002.
Experimental Statistics I.  We use data to answer research questions  What evidence does data provide?  How do I make sense of these numbers without.
Chapter 12, Part 1 STA 200 Summer I Measures of Center and Spread Measures of Center: – median – mean Measures of Spread: – quartiles & five number.
Review and Rating of Moving-Boat ADCP Q Measurements
EMS Survey instruments The How, What and When Presented by James Tweedie, GeoMEM Ltd.
LC and SMBA Updates Office of Surface Water Hydroacoustics Webinar January 6 and 9, 2008 David S. Mueller.
Fundamentals of Data Analysis Lecture 9 Management of data sets and improving the precision of measurement.
Quality WHAT IS QUALITY
A Statistical Analysis of Seedlings Planted in the Encampment Forest Association By: Tony Nixon.
WHOTS - ADCP Compass Calibration History Version 1: September 23, 2014 By: Walt Deppe.
Mercury G3 Service Tool Training Overview When opening G3 you will start at this screen first import thing to look for is communication.
11 Creating an Ancestor Book (A Multi-Generation Photographic History) Frank Comprelli SIR Area 2 Computer and Technology Group September 17, 2009.
EISCAT Real Time Graph ● Plot the incoming data in “realtime” ● Experiment name ● Give disk information – Recording? – Space left ● Calculate basic parameters.
Quality Assurance How do you know your results are correct? How confident are you?
Frame with Cutout Random Load Fatigue. Background and Motivation A thin frame with a cutout has been identified as the critical component in a structure.
Microsoft Premier Offering Project Server 2007 Health Review Bishan Ruder Premier Field Engineer (PFE) Enterprise Project Management (EPM)
MEASURE : Measurement System Analysis
Errors and Uncertainties In Measurements and in Calculations.
NICMOS Calibration Challenges in the Ultra Deep Field Rodger Thompson Steward Observatory University of Arizona.
Lesson Applying Differential Leveling Techniques.
Allocation of Unidentified Gas Statement – Interim Report findings 17 th September 2012.
Exercise 17. No.1  (Worse) Closely examining the test results, the final trial was delayed by the laboratory manager for another two week.  (Better.
RD Instruments Home of the ADCP Measuring Water in Motion and Motion in Water AVOIDING BIASED DATA DURING REAL TIME HADCP DATA COLLECTION.
Extra-Tropical Storm Surge (ETSS 1.5) Pre-Implementation Briefing College Park, MD October 8, 2014 Arthur Taylor, Huiqing Liu and Ryan Schuster MDL/NWS/NOAA.
1 A review of CFS forecast skill for Wanqiu Wang, Arun Kumar and Yan Xue CPC/NCEP/NOAA.
GSPC -II Program GOAL: extend GSPC-I photometry to B = V ˜ 20 add R band to calibrate red second-epoch surveys HOW: take B,V,R CCD exposures centered at.
Overview of Instrument Calibration Presents by NCQC, India.
1 NHSC PACS NHSC/PACS Web Tutorials Running PACS photometer pipelines PACS-403 (for Hipe 13.0) Level 1 to Level 2.5 processing: The Unimap pipeline Prepared.
The GRAND proto A prototype array to evaluate the potential of the radio polarization measurement for EAS identification.
Patch Testing. HYSWEEP ® Calibration of a Multibeam System Patch Testing Single and Dual Head Multibeam Systems. Patch Testing Single and Dual Head Multibeam.
Quality Assurance.
Quality is a Lousy Idea-
Single Pixel Mixer Tests July 2008 (version 2, posted 11 Aug 2008)
Quality Assurance in the clinical laboratory
Business Development Manager
Evaluation of 6dF Data Lesa Moore Macquarie University
Status Report of EDI on the CAA
Analyzing Redistribution Matrix with Wavelet
WHOTS - ADCP Compass Calibration History
PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTATION FOR CONSTITUENT BODIES MEETINGS
MEASURE : Measurement System Analysis
TM 720: Statistical Process Control
A Step-By-Step Tutorial for the Discipline Data Reporting Tool The Delaware Positive Behavior Support Project Slide 1:   Welcome to.
Experimental Power Graphing Program
A Step-By-Step Tutorial for the Discipline Data Reporting Tool The Delaware Positive Behavior Support Project Slide 1:   Welcome to.
Quality is a Lousy Idea-
Copyright 2008 Coast Guard Auxiliary Association, Inc.
READING A PAPER.
HyCal Energy Calibration using dedicated Compton runs
An Objective Measurement of Training ?
Text Analytics and Machine Learning Workshop Machine Learning Session
Workforce Engagement Survey
Why Projections Matter in an Active Horizontal Drilling Program
Problems with the Run4 Preliminary Phi->KK Analysis
Cell sizes Cells are often too small to be seen with the naked eye
Mapping Data Production Processes to the GSBPM
NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT and PROCESS
G16 vs. G17 IR Inter-comparison: Some Experiences and Lessons from validation toward GEO-GEO Inter-calibration Fangfang Yu, Xiangqian Wu, Hyelim Yoo and.
Country & Law.
Exercise 1 Use Transform  Compute variable to calculate weight lost by each person Calculate the overall mean weight lost Calculate the means and standard.
NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT and PROCESS
Unit J: Creating a Database
Saul Carliner, PhD, CTDP Professor Concordia University
Presentation transcript:

WHOTS - ADCP Compass Calibration History Version 5: January 18, 2017 By: Walt Deppe

File History Version 1 – Walt Deppe, 9/23/2014

Outline Background Things to look for & keep in mind Switch from Snug to UH Magnetic Anomaly Surveys Things to look for & keep in mind ADCP S/N & Deployment List Individual Instrument Error Analysis Observations Recommendations

Background Snug Harbor: initial compass calibration location Between WHOTS-1 and -2, turnaround & compass calibration done at sea Some early compass calibration spin data not recorded (and s/n 1825 originally prepared by WHOI) Switched calibration location from Snug to UH after large magnetic anomalies detected at Snug Calibration frame changed over years Trash can Wooden frame Aluminum frame (current)

Switch from Snug to UH Following WHOTS-7 compass calibration and before WHOTS-6 post-deployment check, compass-spin location switched from Snug Harbor to UH Lower Campus Soccer Field after large magnetic field anomalies detected at Snug Magnetic Anomaly Surveys (August 2010) Located on OHU in ‘C:\Users\Craig\Documents\WHOTS\Compass_Calibs’ Snug Harbor Analysis (Aug 24th): magnetic_survey.doc UH Soccer Field Analysis (Aug 27th): magnetic_survey2.doc “The manufacturer of the compass used for the survey did not list accuracy specifications but given the compass does not appear to be crafted with precision tools and given the very poor eyesight of the surveyor, it is possible that the +/- 1.5 differences seen could be considered “in the noise”. “If/when the Lower Campus site is used for compass calibrations, it would be advisable to perform the calibrations at the midpoint of the 100 point reference line outlined in this survey as it appears to have the smallest mean differences from magnetic north and the smallest standard deviations. “

Magnetic Anomaly Surveys Snug Harbor UH Lower Campus Soccer Field

Things to look for & keep in mind Differences between calibrations done at Snug (worse) and UH (better) Tightening of error amplitude after calibration during pre-deployment observations Comparison between spin error amplitudes & RDI “Overall Error” output Calibration purpose: reducing error around compass rows due to battery interference signature Pre-deployment, pre-calibration spin is using calibration matrix determined for previous battery pack before last deployment Spin errors currently not used in any data processing, only RDI calibration matrix affects data

ADCP S/N & Deployment List 300 kHz s/n 4891 (WHOTS – 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,12) s/n 7637 (WHOTS – 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,13) 600 kHz s/n 1825 (WHOTS – 4, 6, 8, 10,12) s/n 13917 (WHOTS – 7, 9, 11,13) 1200 kHz s/n 2530 (WHOTS – 5)

Individual Instrument Error Analysis For Each ADCP: Compass spin error plots by deployment Compass spin error stats over time Comparison of spin stats w/ RDI output ADCPs s/n 4891 s/n 7637 s/n 1825 s/n 13917 s/n 2350

S/N 4891

s/n 4891 – 300 kHz No spin errors recorded for WHOTS-1 pre-deployment (Snug) or post-deployment (@ sea) or WHOTS-2 pre-deployment (@ sea) Note WHOTS-6 post-deployment mean error (performed at UH soccer field) does not reflect large pre-deployment offset (performed at Snug)

s/n 4891

S/N 7637

s/n 7637 – 300 kHz Instrument damaged during WHOTS-5. No post-deployment check. No pre-deployment post-cal spin check errors available Note WHOTS-7 post-deployment mean error (performed at UH soccer field) does not reflect large pre-deployment offset (performed at Snug) A boat docked 60 m. away half-way through pre-deployment calibration for WHOTS-7

s/n 7637

S/N 1825

s/n 1825 – 600 kHz WHOTS-4, prepared by WHOI (no cal records available) Note WHOTS-6 post-deployment mean error (performed at UH soccer field) does not reflect large pre-deployment offset (performed at Snug)

s/n 1825

S/N 13917

s/n 13917 – 600 kHz Instrument damaged during WHOTS-7. No post-deployment check.

s/n 13917

S/N 2530

s/n 2530 – 1200 kHz Only one deployment

s/n 2530

Summary of RDI Overall Errors

Heading comparison for same session Differences between mean offsets from spin checks for 2 ADCPs during same compass assessment session (top): pre-deployment, after calibration (bottom): post-deployment *Pre-dep WHOTS-11 had ~4° mean offset, but consistent between two ADCPs, therefore, likely bad N-S line setup that time

Observations Calibrations done at Snug have mostly larger mean errors (offsets) but similar error amplitudes to UH calibrations Pre-Deployment, After Calibration consistently smallest error amplitude Spin error amplitudes & RDI Overall Error very similar, as expected Not large enough sample size at any calibration location to conclude that offsets based on mean error should be applied at this time Large mean errors (offsets) could be a product of magnetic anomalies at calibration site or inconsistencies/errors in setup of N-S reference line

Recommendations Continue doing calibrations at UH Soccer field Find cross-references (E/W) for calibration stand location along N-S reference line in order to keep consistency between calibrations Most important thing to check for Low pre-deployment after-cal “overall error”/spin error amplitude (<2°) Apply no corrections/offsets based on spin-mean Calibration purpose: reducing error around compass rows due to battery interference signature Large spin-mean offsets likely due to magnetic anomalies at cal site (Snug) or inconsistencies/inaccuracies in setting up N-S line

Recommendations Run new Matlab graphing scripts produced by Walt for each instrument after every calibration session (spin & stats) Path: /export/aina1/whots/ADCP_cmpscals/ Create new text files for each spin session according to templates template_adcpSNNUMcmpss_eval_PRE_whotsDEPNUM.txt template_adcpSNNUMcmpss_eval_POST_whotsDEPNUM.txt plot_adcp_cmpscal.m – By-deployment/instrument compass spin error plots stats_adcp_cmpscal.m – By-instrument compass spin error stat plots over time Use as sanity check and to follow history for each instrument These scripts will make for more consistent cataloging of results for future deployments