Difference between revisions of "IS428 AY2019-20T1 Assign Lee Cheng Leng Task 2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cllee.2017 (talk | contribs) |
Cllee.2017 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |B-1|| Based on the variance in radiation levels per neighbourhood over the entire simulation period found from the mobile sensor data, it was discovered that the top five neighbourhoods with the greatest variation radiation levels are as follows: |
'''Wilson Forest, East Parton, Chapparal, Downtown, Northwest.''' | '''Wilson Forest, East Parton, Chapparal, Downtown, Northwest.''' | ||
|| [[File:Task2B-1.png|600px|frameless]] | || [[File:Task2B-1.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |B-2|| Based on the static sensor data, these regions are more prone to uncertainty. This is because there are no static sensors located in these regions. Given that static sensors have lower uncertainty in its measurements, the radiation readings taken from these regions are prone to higher uncertainty. |
The neighbourhoods are: | The neighbourhoods are: | ||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |C-1|| The earthquake is likely to have occurred on the morning of 8th April. This is due to the following reasons: |
+ | |||
+ | Looking closely at some of the mobile sensors which recorded readings lower than the average amount (18, 48, 6, 49, 34), many of them stopped reporting readings in the morning of 8th April. This could be due to damage done to the mobile sensors during the earthquake. | ||
+ | || [[File:Task2C-1.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |C-2|| The average readings in each neighbourhood increased in the day following the earthquake, possibly due to the coolant leak from the nuclear plant which took time to spread to other neighbourhoods in St. Himark. |
− | + | ||
− | + | The lack of readings due to damage by the earthquake increases the uncertainty of the measurements as there are large gaps in the analysis for such sensors, leading us to make less accurate judgements of the state of radiation levels in the city. | |
+ | |||
+ | As we can see, the radiation readings taken following the earthquake are much more volatile and have a larger variance. This is shown by the large spikes in radiation readings, which would be justified due to the coolant leak. However, these large spikes are followed by readings which do not vary that much from the background radiation level. This thus increases the uncertainty of the radiation readings. | ||
+ | || Example | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 17:26, 12 October 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use visual analytics to represent and analyze uncertainty in the measurement of radiation across the city.
a. Compare uncertainty of the static sensors to the mobile sensors. What anomalies can you see? Are there sensors that are too uncertain to trust?
b. Compare uncertainty of the static sensors to the mobile sensors. What anomalies can you see? Are there sensors that are too uncertain to trust?
c. What effects do you see in the sensor readings after the earthquake and other major events? What effect do these events have on uncertainty?