Return to Answer

deleted 1615 characters in body

Source Link

edited Sep 13, 2015 at 19:43

user4484

The following simulation results shows that the Tipping Bucket estimates suffer from significant errors if based on time scales less than ten to fifteen minutes.

Comparison of Tipping-Bucket Error Statistics:

^{(Source of above diagrams)}

In this study we attempted to characterize the errors associated with tipping-bucket rain gauges when used to provide rainfall intensity estimates at small temporal scales. The main source of the TB gauge sampling error is its sampling mechanism and its inability to capture the small temporal features of the rainfall time series. We found significant error levels in the 1-min estimates especially at low rain rates, but we also found that as the time scale of the computed rain rates increased, the error decreased substantially. With time scales longer than 15 min, the error becomes negligible. The gauge’s performance and its associated errors are sensitive to the applied sampling interval and the bucket volume. Therefore, we recommend sampling intervals on the order of 5–10 s, along with a bucket size no larger than 0.254 mm (0.01). Our analysis wasbased on rainfall observations that were mostly dominated by convective storms with few stratiform events. Similar analysis may be needed to investigate the scope of applicability of the developed formulas under different climatological regimes. However, the formulas serve as a first-order approximation that can be used in practical applications. (Source)(Source)

The following simulation results shows that the Tipping Bucket estimates suffer from significant errors if based on time scales less than ten to fifteen minutes.

Comparison of Tipping-Bucket Error Statistics:

^{(Source of above diagrams)}

In this study we attempted to characterize the errors associated with tipping-bucket rain gauges when used to provide rainfall intensity estimates at small temporal scales. The main source of the TB gauge sampling error is its sampling mechanism and its inability to capture the small temporal features of the rainfall time series. We found significant error levels in the 1-min estimates especially at low rain rates, but we also found that as the time scale of the computed rain rates increased, the error decreased substantially. With time scales longer than 15 min, the error becomes negligible. The gauge’s performance and its associated errors are sensitive to the applied sampling interval and the bucket volume. Therefore, we recommend sampling intervals on the order of 5–10 s, along with a bucket size no larger than 0.254 mm (0.01). Our analysis wasbased on rainfall observations that were mostly dominated by convective storms with few stratiform events. Similar analysis may be needed to investigate the scope of applicability of the developed formulas under different climatological regimes. However, the formulas serve as a first-order approximation that can be used in practical applications. (Source)

The following simulation results shows that the Tipping Bucket estimates suffer from significant errors if based on time scales less than ten to fifteen minutes.

Comparison of Tipping-Bucket Error Statistics:

^{(Source of above diagrams)}

In this study we attempted to characterize the errors associated with tipping-bucket rain gauges when used to provide rainfall intensity estimates at small temporal scales. The main source of the TB gauge sampling error is its sampling mechanism and its inability to capture the small temporal features of the rainfall time series. We found significant error levels in the 1-min estimates especially at low rain rates, but we also found that as the time scale of the computed rain rates increased, the error decreased substantially. With time scales longer than 15 min, the error becomes negligible. The gauge’s performance and its associated errors are sensitive to the applied sampling interval and the bucket volume. Therefore, we recommend sampling intervals on the order of 5–10 s, along with a bucket size no larger than 0.254 mm (0.01). Our analysis wasbased on rainfall observations that were mostly dominated by convective storms with few stratiform events. Similar analysis may be needed to investigate the scope of applicability of the developed formulas under different climatological regimes. However, the formulas serve as a first-order approximation that can be used in practical applications. (Source)

Source Link

created Sep 13, 2015 at 19:06

user4484

The following simulation results shows that the Tipping Bucket estimates suffer from significant errors if based on time scales less than ten to fifteen minutes.

Comparison of Tipping-Bucket Error Statistics:

^{(Source of above diagrams)}

In this study we attempted to characterize the errors associated with tipping-bucket rain gauges when used to provide rainfall intensity estimates at small temporal scales. The main source of the TB gauge sampling error is its sampling mechanism and its inability to capture the small temporal features of the rainfall time series. We found significant error levels in the 1-min estimates especially at low rain rates, but we also found that as the time scale of the computed rain rates increased, the error decreased substantially. With time scales longer than 15 min, the error becomes negligible. The gauge’s performance and its associated errors are sensitive to the applied sampling interval and the bucket volume. Therefore, we recommend sampling intervals on the order of 5–10 s, along with a bucket size no larger than 0.254 mm (0.01). Our analysis wasbased on rainfall observations that were mostly dominated by convective storms with few stratiform events. Similar analysis may be needed to investigate the scope of applicability of the developed formulas under different climatological regimes. However, the formulas serve as a first-order approximation that can be used in practical applications. (Source)