Drop size distribution comparisons between Parsivel and 2-D video disdrometers
Drop size distribution comparisons between Parsivel and 2-D video disdrometers
复制标题
DOI：
10.5194/adgeo-30-3-2011
复制
发表时间：
2011-05
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Thurai;W. Petersen;A. Tokay;C. Schultz;P. Gatlin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Thurai;W. Petersen;A. Tokay;C. Schultz;P. Gatlin
抽象的。来自2-D视盘测量仪(2DVD)的测量被用于比较阿拉巴马州亨茨维尔的水滴大小分布(DSD)和共同定位的Parsivel测量结果。根据两台仪器的质量加权平均直径Dm、质谱图的标准差σm和降雨率R进行比较，所有这些都基于1minDSD。时间序列比较显示，在R<20 mm h−1的情况下，这三个参数在所有三个参数上都非常接近。在四个情况下，对于“重”事件，所有三个参数都有差异，当R达到高值时(特别是在30 mm hσ1以上)，PARSIVEL显示出较高的DM、−m和R。造成这种差异的可能原因包括存在一小部分未完全融化的比重计，它们的下落速度高于预期，与降雨相比，其轴比非常不同，表明冰雹或冰球或冰粒很小。我们还在这里介绍了Parsivel与Parsivel之间的比较以及两种2DVD设备之间的比较，即一个低调单元和2009年11月安装在同一站点的最新一代“紧凑型单元”。这些比较是为了评估相同类型的仪器之间的可变性。比较了相关系数和分数标准差。
Abstract. Measurements from a 2-D video disdrometer (2DVD) have been used for drop size distribution (DSD) comparisons with co-located Parsivel measurements in Huntsville, Alabama. The comparisons were made in terms of the mass-weighted mean diameter, Dm, the standard deviation of the mass-spectrum, σm, and the rainfall rate, R, all based on 1-min DSD from the two instruments. Time series comparisons show close agreement in all three parameters for cases where R was less than 20 mm h−1. In four cases, discrepancies in all three parameters were seen for "heavy" events, with the Parsivel showing higher Dm, σm and R, when R reached high values (particularly above 30 mm h−1). Possible causes for the discrepancies include the presence of a small percentage of non-fully melted hydrometers, with higher than expected fall velocity and with very different axis ratios as compared with rain, indicating small hail or ice pellets or graupel. We also present here Parsivel-to-Parsivel comparisons as well as comparisons between two 2DVD instruments, namely a low-profile unit and the latest generation, "compact unit" which was installed at the same site in November 2009. The comparisons are included to assess the variability between the same types of instrument. Correlation coefficients and the fractional standard errors are compared.