2010
DOI: 10.5194/adgeo-25-11-2010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Undercatch of tipping-bucket gauges in high rain rate events

Abstract: Abstract. We have investigated differences in rainfall accumulations for seven high rain rate events from three gauges: a Geonor T-200B vibrating-wire weighing gauge and two MetOne tipping-bucket gauges. The Geonor gauge and one tipping-bucket gauge are located in a pit so that their collection orifices are at ground level. Thus their measured rainfall accumulations are minimally affected by wind speed. The other tipping-bucket gauge is located 105 m from the pit and is surrounded by an Alter-type slatted wind… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies on tipping bucket rain gauges have observed extensive underestimation of rainfall amounts (of up to 50%), primarily due to acceleration of airflow over the top of the gauge, with other error sources including splashing, and the finite time required for the buckets to reset in between tips during heavy rain (e.g., Devine and Mekis, 2008;Duchon and Biddle, 2010). An empirical correction was applied to the Nordic data to account for wind effects, following the work on a similar gauge by Mekonnen et al (2015).…”
Section: Rainfall Undercatchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on tipping bucket rain gauges have observed extensive underestimation of rainfall amounts (of up to 50%), primarily due to acceleration of airflow over the top of the gauge, with other error sources including splashing, and the finite time required for the buckets to reset in between tips during heavy rain (e.g., Devine and Mekis, 2008;Duchon and Biddle, 2010). An empirical correction was applied to the Nordic data to account for wind effects, following the work on a similar gauge by Mekonnen et al (2015).…”
Section: Rainfall Undercatchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the loss of water during the tipping of the buckets (Duchon and Biddle, 2010). Wind can also greatly reduce the size of the effective catching area, as rain does not fall vertically, resulting in a rain rate underestimation assessed quantitatively at about 15 % for an average event (Duchon and Essenberg, 2001).…”
Section: Characteristics Of the Rain Gauge National Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the adhesion and evaporation of precipitation from the funnel, adhesion of precipitation to the filter, absorption of dirt and debris around the filter, splashing from the precipitation base or ground, and calibration of the bucket mechanism also cause errors. Additionally, the tipping bucket gauges noticeably underestimate intense storm event rainfall totals relative to weighing-bucket gauges (Duchon & Biddle, 2010).…”
Section: Radarsmentioning
confidence: 88%