130 likes | 229 Views
IN-SITU WAVE GROUP. Kent Hathaway, Moderator QARTOD II February 28 – March 2, 2005. Sensor selection. Datawell buoy QC chosen as example of a process to establish a QA/QC recipe Our group will compile recipes for other sensors prior to QARTOD II publication. What is a Datawell buoy?.
E N D
IN-SITU WAVE GROUP Kent Hathaway, Moderator QARTOD IIFebruary 28 – March 2, 2005
Sensor selection • Datawell buoy QC chosen as example of a process to establish a QA/QC recipe • Our group will compile recipes for other sensors prior to QARTOD II publication
What is a Datawell buoy? • Spherical • Directional • Mooring – connected by bungee cord. • Surface following, with vertical accelerometer, compass, pitch and roll sensors • Vertical motion not susceptible to the pitch • No limitation on depth • Sophisticated processing inside • Protective triangle- protects from spinning during ship collisions.
1. What real-time quality control tests should be applied? Datawell transmits both an XYZ file and a spectral file Frequency domain: • Check Factors Test – ratio of vertical to horizontal displacement • Inclination Test • Period exceedence Test • Threshold Test- Hs, Tp, Dp, (SNR, Hrms, Tm, Dm) Time Domain: • Spikes, flat episodes, range, consecutive values, acceleration, mean test Quality of Telemetery: • Discontinuities in transmission • Data Corruption - CRC
2. What categories of real-time quality descriptor flags should be required? • Datawell uses own flag system, but these can be mapped to agree with QARTOD I system • -9= missing • 0= quality not evaluated • 1= bad • 2=questionable/suspect • 3= passed real-time QA/QC (as opposed to GOOD) • Distinction should be made between real-time flags and post-processing flags • Flags should be defined in metadata
3. What real-time metadata descriptors should be included? • Providers should stay attuned to the IOOS/DMAC evolution • Providers should work towards making headers available in FGDC compliant format on request • Examples of datawell headers are listed on pages 58-61 of QARTOD I Report • Will work with metadata initiative group to define header parameters.
4. What real-time calibration flags should be required? • Buoy is calibrated at manufacturer prior to purchase. Data provider should include calibration date and method, as defined by manufacturer, in metadata. • Pre-deployment verification (prior to each deployment): • bounce • compass • inclination • electronic checks • In situ verification (parameters returned with each data stream): • check factor • inclination
5. What common data formats should be required? • Datawell output permits mapping to any desired data format: • ASCII or binary • NetCDF • compressed • FM-13 and FM-65 • others
6. Additional requirements associated with DMAC? • Data providers should: • keep apprised of DMAC evolution • prepare to deliver dynamic data service based upon further specifications by DMAC • provide guidance to DMAC regarding transport protocols and formats for data transfer???
Describe key next steps and current roadblocks to developing and implementing an operational QA/QC capability. • Roadblocks • Lack of specifics in DMAC • Capacity for verification procedures among certain users • Developing QA/QC capability takes time and experience • Need standardization of XML tags • Data transport between regional organizations
Next steps • Undergo same exercise for other wave sensors such as pressure gauges, buoys, ADCPs, radar, HF • Email draft “recipe” and list of metadata parameters to rest of group to get feedback • Assemble matrix using this feedback