Raw data review (QA1): Difference between revisions

From Atomix
Yuengdjern (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
m Burst links
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
* Orientation deviates from expected values
* Orientation deviates from expected values
</div>
</div>
== There is wave or periodic motion ==
== Wave or periodic motion contamination ==
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="waves?" data-collapsetext="Collapse" data-expandtext="Expand">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="waves?" data-collapsetext="Collapse" data-expandtext="Expand">


Line 36: Line 36:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="nonstationary" data-collapsetext="Collapse" data-expandtext="Expand">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="nonstationary" data-collapsetext="Collapse" data-expandtext="Expand">


* variance of velocity bursts shows spatial or temporal trends  
* variance of velocity [[Burst sampling|bursts]] shows spatial or temporal trends  
</div>
</div>
== Stratification is too large ==
== Stratification is too large ==

Latest revision as of 19:21, 8 March 2022

The objective of the raw data review is to ensure that the velocity data used for the calculation of the structure functions are of good quality before proceeding with the turbulence analysis. Bad data are typically identified from the velocity data themselves and other ancillary data (e.g. correlations). It is recommended that velocity data should be flagged if the following are observed:

Data quality is poor

Unrealistic velocity values

Significant instrument motion and orientation

Wave or periodic motion contamination

Velocity shear is too large

Stationary assumption may be violated

Stratification is too large


Next step: Compute structure functions and dissipation estimates

Previous step: Deployment

Return to ADCP Flow Chart front page