A General Formulation for Raindrop Size Distribution

Sempere‐Torres, Daniel; Porrà, Josep M.; Creutin, Jean‐Dominique

doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033<1494:agffrs>2.0.co;2

Cited by 165 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Salles et al, 2002;van Dijk et al, 2002) and may even suffer dramatic changes within storms (Sempere- Torres et al, 1994). The decrease in the dispersion of the specific kinetic energy of short rainfall intervals for increasing rainfall intensity may appear unclear if several of the published specific kinetic energy -rainfall intensity equations are compared (e.g.…”

Section: Deriving Rainfall Kinetic Energy From Rainfall Depth/intensimentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the sources of uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy and erosivity – application to the Upper Llobregat Basin, NE Spain

Catari

Latron

Gallart

2011

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The diverse sources of uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy and rainfall erosivity, calculated from precipitation data, were investigated at a range of temporal and spatial scales in a mountainous river basin (504 km 2 ) in the south-eastern Pyrenees. The sources of uncertainty analysed included both methodological and local sources of uncertainty and were (i) tipping-bucket rainfall gauge instrumental errors, (ii) the efficiency of the customary equation used to derive rainfall kinetic energy from intensity, (iii) the efficiency of the regressions obtained between daily precipitation and rainfall erosivity, (iv) the temporal variability of annual rainfall erosivity values, and the spatial variability of (v) annual rainfall erosivity values and (vi) long-term erosivity values. The differentiation between systematic (accuracy) and random (precision) errors was taken into account in diverse steps of the analysis. The results showed that the uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy from rainfall intensity at the event and station scales was as high as 30%, because of insufficient information on rainfall drop size distribution. This methodological limitation must be taken into account for experimental or modelling purposes when rainfall kinetic energy is derived solely from rainfall intensity data. For longer temporal scales, the relevance of this source of uncertainty remained high if low variability in the types of rain was supposed. Temporal variability of precipitation at wider spatial scales was the main source of uncertainty when rainfall erosivity was calculated on an annual basis, whereas the uncertainty associated with Correspondence to: F. Gallart (francesc.gallart@idaea.csic.es) long-term erosivity was rather low and less important than the uncertainty associated with other model factors such as those in the RUSLE, when operationally used for long-term soil erosion modelling.

show abstract

Section: Deriving Rainfall Kinetic Energy From Rainfall Depth/intensimentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the sources of uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy and erosivity – application to the Upper Llobregat Basin, NE Spain

Catari

Latron

Gallart

2011

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This renormalization, originally introduced in (Ignaccolo et al, 2009;Ignaccolo and De Michele, 2010), operates differently from the other renormalizations available in Literature, e.g. (Willis, 1984;Sempere Torres et al, 1994;Maki et al, 2001;Testud et al, 2001;Uijlenhoet et al, 2003;Campos et al, 2006;Hazenberg et al, 2011). In fact Eq.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skewness as measure of the invariance of instantaneous renormalized drop diameter distributions – Part 2: Orographic precipitation

Ignaccolo

Michele

2012

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Here we use the skewness parameter, and the procedure developed in the companion paper (Ignaccolo and De Michele, 2012), to investigate the variability of instantaneous renormalized spectra of rain drop diameter in presence of orographic precipitation. Disdrometer data, available at Bodega Bay and Cazadero, California, are analyzed either as a whole, or as divided (using the bright band echo) in precipitation intervals weakly and strongly influenced by orography, and compared to results obtained at Darwin, Australia. We find that also at Bodega Bay and Cazadero exists a most common distribution of the skewness values of instantaneous spectra of drop diameter, but peaked at values greater than 0.64, found at Darwin. No appreciable differences are found in the skewness distributions of precipitation weakly and strongly influenced by orography. However the renormalized drop diameter spectra of precipitation with strong orographic component have fatter right tail than precipitation with a weaker orographic component. The differences between orographic and non-orographic precipitation are investigated within the parametric space represented by number of drops, mean value and standard deviation of drop diameter. A filter is developed which is able to identify 1 min time intervals during which precipitation is mostly of orographic origin.

show abstract

“…Considering the variation of DSDs with different rainfall intensities (Willis and Tattelman, 1989), a general formulation of the DSD in terms of the diameter D and the rain rate R as a reference variable is used to analyze the DSDs (Sempere Torres et al, 1994Torres et al, , 1998:…”

Section: Dsd Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of rainfall measurements from multiple instruments

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneous observations of rainfall collected by a tipping bucket rain gauge (TBRG), a weighing rain gauge (WRG), an optical rain gauge (ORG), a present weather detector (PWD), a Joss–Waldvogel disdrometer (JWD), and a 2-D video disdrometer (2DVD) during January to October 2012 were analyzed to evaluate how accurately they measure rainfall and drop size distributions (DSDs). For the long-term observations, there were different discrepancies in rain amounts from six instruments on the order of 0% to 27.7%. The TBRG, WRG, and ORG have a good agreement, while the PWD and 2DVD record higher and the JWD lower rain rates when R > 20 mm h⁻¹, the ORG agrees well with JWD and 2DVD, while the TBRG records higher and the WRG lower rain rates when R > 20 mm h⁻¹. Compared with the TBRG and WRG, optical and impact instruments can measure the rain rate accurately in the light rain. The overall DSDs of JWD and 2DVD agree well with each other, except for the small raindrops (D < 1 mm). JWD can measure more moderate-size raindrops (0.3 mm < D < 1.5 mm) than 2DVD, but 2DVD can measure more small-size raindrops (D < 0.3 mm). 2DVD has a larger measurement range; more overall raindrops can be measured by 2DVD than by JWD in different rain rate regimes. But small raindrops might be underestimated by 2DVD when R > 15 mm h⁻¹. The small raindrops tend to be omitted in the more large-size raindrops due to the shadow effect of light. Therefore, the measurement accuracy of small raindrops in the heavy rainfall from 2DVD should be handled carefully

show abstract

A General Formulation for Raindrop Size Distribution

Cited by 165 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing the sources of uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy and erosivity – application to the Upper Llobregat Basin, NE Spain

Assessing the sources of uncertainty associated with the calculation of rainfall kinetic energy and erosivity – application to the Upper Llobregat Basin, NE Spain

Skewness as measure of the invariance of instantaneous renormalized drop diameter distributions – Part 2: Orographic precipitation

A comparison of rainfall measurements from multiple instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About