Data Format Descriptions
Processed Hourly Wind Files Produced by Weber/Wuertz Alogithm
FILE NAMING CONVENTION:
SSSYYJJJ.HHw where SSS = SiteID YY = Year JJJ = Julian Day HH = Hour Date and time are in UTC and represent the end time of the average.
The data format is as follows for each SSSYYJJJ.HHw file: NOTE: UF=Unchanged Field. These data fields are always hardwired to constant values (as specified below) that are independent of radar parameter settings and therefore should be ignored. Line 1: Station name Line 2: N Latitude*100, W Longitude*100, and site elevation (m) Line 3: Date and end time of average: yy mm dd hh mm ss UF=0 Line 4: Recommended minimum number of wind samples to include in average Line 5: For each meteorological wind component (in the order of u,v and w), the total number of profiles available for processing. UF=10 UF=10 UF=10 UF=5.00000 UF=5.00000 UF=5.00000 Line 6: nci, nspec, pw (ns), and ipp (ms), each with a pair of values: first value is for oblique beams, second for vertical. Line 7: Nyquist velocity (m/s) for oblique and vertical. UF=1. Height to the middle of the first gate (m AGL), oblique and vertical Number of gates, oblique and vertical Spacing of gates (m), oblique and vertical Line 8: Azimuth and elevation of beam, first oblique and second oblique Line 9: etc., for each height: Height above mean sea level (km) Wind speed and direction (m/s and degrees E of N from) Averaged meteorological component speed (m/s) w.r.t. u,v and w Number of samples that made the average w.r.t. u,v and w Average SNR (dB) in the average w.r.t. u,v and w Quality assessment information is contained in three different data fields. First, if the daily time-height consistency test failed then the height (line: 9 field: 1) is negated for that particular gate. Second, if one or more of the oblique radial velocities to be included in the average is not corrected with the vertical radial velocity (due to moment level time-height consistency test failure), then the field(s) specifying the number of samples qualifying for the average (line: 9 fields: 7 and 8) are negated. Third, the number of samples in the average (line: 9 fields: 7 and 8) may be compared with the recommended prescribed minimum (line: 4) to assess the representativeness of the average wind. All data failing to meet the quality assurance constraints should be viewed as suspect and validated by the user upon further review.