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) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ! S/N !! Findings !! Visual Proof | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |A-1|| '''Comparing the number of records taken per sensor:''' |
In general, the uncertainty of the mobile sensors is higher than the static sensors. Comparing the number of records captured by the sensors over the simulation period, the mobile sensors show a much larger variation in the number of records compared to static sensors. | In general, the uncertainty of the mobile sensors is higher than the static sensors. Comparing the number of records captured by the sensors over the simulation period, the mobile sensors show a much larger variation in the number of records compared to static sensors. | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
|| [[File:Task2A-1.png|600px|frameless]] | || [[File:Task2A-1.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |A-2|| '''Comparing the uncertainty of the readings taken by each sensor:''' |
The static sensors can be said to have experienced less uncertainty than the mobile sensors. This can be observed from the number of high readings recorded on 6th April and 7th April, days where no significant event had occurred to increase the radiation levels in St. Himark. We would thus expect the radiation readings for these two days to be around the background radiation level, however the mobile sensor readings record many high radiation levels of up to 1700cpm in that period. | The static sensors can be said to have experienced less uncertainty than the mobile sensors. This can be observed from the number of high readings recorded on 6th April and 7th April, days where no significant event had occurred to increase the radiation levels in St. Himark. We would thus expect the radiation readings for these two days to be around the background radiation level, however the mobile sensor readings record many high radiation levels of up to 1700cpm in that period. | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
|| [[File:Task2A-2.png|600px|frameless]] | || [[File:Task2A-2.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |A-3|| '''Anomalies Detected:''' |
# For the static sensors, sensor-id 4 recorded a negative reading of -20 on 10th April, 2100. This is an anomaly as the radiation readings would not dip below 0, since background radiation is always present. Hence, we can conclude that this reading is due to a sensor malfunction. | # For the static sensors, sensor-id 4 recorded a negative reading of -20 on 10th April, 2100. This is an anomaly as the radiation readings would not dip below 0, since background radiation is always present. Hence, we can conclude that this reading is due to a sensor malfunction. | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |A-4|| To conclude the findings, static sensor 4 and 15 have higher uncertainty due to their abnormal readings and lack of readings, respectively. |
As for the mobile sensors, those which record less than half of the maximum number of radiation readings for the mobile sensors can be said to be unreliable due to their lack of readings. The identified mobile sensors are 18, 48, 49, 6, 34. | As for the mobile sensors, those which record less than half of the maximum number of radiation readings for the mobile sensors can be said to be unreliable due to their lack of readings. The identified mobile sensors are 18, 48, 49, 6, 34. | ||
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.''' | ||
+ | || [[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: |
+ | '''Northwest, Weston, Southton, Easton, East Parton, West Parton, Oak Willow, Chapparal, Terrapin Springs, Pepper Mill, Wilson Forest.''' | ||
+ | || [[File:Task2B-2.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 100: | 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. | ||
+ | || | ||
+ | [[File:Task2C-3.png|600px|frameless]] | ||
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 19:18, 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?