sensors
Communication
Real-Time Rainfall Estimation Using Microwave Links: A Case
Study in East China during the Plum Rain Season in 2020
Kun Song , Xichuan Liu *






Citation: Song, K.; Liu, X.; Gao, T.
Real-Time Rainfall Estimation Using
Microwave Links: A Case Study in
East China during the Plum Rain
Season in 2020. Sensors 2021, 21, 858.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030858
Academic Editor: Filippo Giannetti
Received: 11 December 2020
Accepted: 26 January 2021
Published: 28 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sensors 2021, 21, 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030858
and Taichang Gao
College of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China;
songkun_0521@foxmail.com (K.S.); 2009gaotc@gmail.com (T.G.)
* Correspondence: liuxc2012@hotmail.com
Abstract: Accurate and real-time rainfall estimation is a pressing need for forecasting the flood
disaster and reducing the loss. In this study, we exploit the potential of estimating the rainfall
by microwave links in East China. Eight microwave links at 15 GHz and 23 GHz, operated by
China Mobile, are used for estimating the rain rate in real-time in Jiangyin, China from June to July
2020. First, we analyze the correlation between the rain-induced attenuation of microwave links
and the rain rate measured by rain gauges. The correlation coefficient values are higher than 0.77
with the highest one over 0.9, showing a strong positive correlation. The real-time results indicate
that microwave links estimate the rainfall with a higher temporal resolution than the rain gauges.
Meanwhile, the rain rate that was estimated by microwave links also correlates well with the actual
rain rate, and most of the values of the mean absolute error are less than 1.50 mm/h. Besides, the
total rainfall’s relative deviation values are less than 5% with the smallest one reaching 1%. The
quantitative results also indicate that microwave links could lead to better forecasting of water levels
and, hence, better warnings for flood disasters.
Keywords: rain sensor; microwave link; rainfall estimation
1. Introduction
Accurate and real-time rainfall estimation is essential for forecasting flood disaster
and reducing the loss of life and property. At present, the rain gauge (RG) is considered
to be an accurate ground-based estimation. However, it does not provide rain data with
high spatial resolution [1,2]. The weather radar can make up for RG’s shortcoming, but
ground clutter often affects it, which leads to less accurate ground-level measurements [3].
Therefore, it is necessary to develop an accurate, real-time, and ground-based approach to
be a complement to the RG and the weather radar.
Rainfall estimation using the widespread commercial microwave links (CML) has
become a promising approach in recent years, because CML’s carrier signal over 10 GHz is
attenuated by the rainfall. The rain-induced attenuation can be recorded as the reference
signal level (RSL) with the rainfall information [4,5]. Therefore, rainy/non-rainy periods
can be classified by the attenuation threshold [6], Markov switching model [7], and ex-
tension of the Multifamily Likelihood Ratio Test [8]. Additionally, 2 GHz-CML also can
classify rainy and non-rainy with the combination of statistical parameters of the attenu-
ation [9]. The classification accuracy of the studies above is higher than 80%, indicating
a satisfactory performance. Further, rainfall estimation by CML and uncertainty due to
spatial rainfall variability has been studied [10]. In 2010, the near-surface rain rate in the
alpine region of Southern Germany has been estimated by CMLs, and the result positively
correlates with the rainfall being estimated by radars [11]. A rainfall monitoring in Burkina
Faso, in Sahelian West Africa was conducted in 2012 with the correlation of the result
reaching 0.8 [12]. Besides, rainfall maps have been reconstructed in Israel by the network of
CMLs since 2005 [13,14]. Similarly, regional rainfall in the Netherlands has been estimated
in real-time by over 2400 CMLs since 2011 [15]. Sufficient conditions for reconstructing
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Sensors 2021, 21, 858 2 of 9

rainfall maps have been given by characterizing the statistics of the measurements [16].
Rainfall estimation by CML has two significant advantages: high spatial resolution due to
widespread CMLs and low cost due to no extra instruments [17,18].
In this study, we estimate the rainfall by CMLs during the plum rain season in 2020
in Jiangyin, China. The average total rainfall of the period in South China is 436.3 mm,
which is the second-highest rainfall for the same time since 1961 [19]. This study is the
first CML-based rainfall estimation in China. When compared with previous studies, we
focus more on the urban street’s rain rate, which is a smaller scale rainfall estimation. Thus,
we use eight CMLs (less than 1 km) to estimate rainfall. The rain-induced attenuation is
extracted from RSL. Subsequently, we analyze the correlation between the rain-induced
attenuation and rain rate estimated by RG. Besides, we compare the rainfall estimation by
different methods and then discuss the influence of the frequency and the length of CML.
The advantages and limitations of this approach are also pointed in this study.

2. Method for Estimating the Path-Averaged Rain Rate by CML

The signal of CML is attenuated by raindrops in its transmission path. An empirical
power–law equation between specific attenuation due to rain and the rain rate can be
written, as follows [20,21]:
k = a· Rb (1)
where k (dB/km) is specific attenuation due to rainfall, R (mm/h) is an equivalent path-
averaged rain rate of CML transmission path (because rainfall is not uniform across the
path in reality), and a and b are the coefficients. R can be retrieved by the following equation
on condition that k is known [21]:
 1
k b
R= (2)
a
In this study, the values of a and b are referred to Reference [21]. The total attenuation
of CML is given by Equation (3) [8]:

At (t) = A p (t) + A R (t) + Aw (t) + A a (t) + e (3)

where At (t) (dB) is the total attenuation of CML at time t; Ap (t) (dB) is the free path loss of
the attenuation at time t; AR (t) (dB) is the rain-induced attenuation of CML at time t; Aw (t)
(dB) is the water vapor that is induced attenuation at time t; Aa (t) (dB) is the attenuation
by the air (oxygen mainly) at time t; and, e (dB) is the measurement noise of CML. For
simplification, Equation (3) is rewritten, as follows:

At (t) = A R (t) + baseline (4)

where the baseline represents the attenuation due to other than rain at time t. Therefore, it
is necessary to extract the baseline from At (t). In general, the baseline is considered to be
either piecewise constant [5] or slowly changing with time [22]. However, in reality, the
baseline will be continuously updated with the minimum attenuation being measured in
the past few minutes. [23]. We set ∆T to represent the past few minutes. Thus, the baseline
is determined by Equation (5) in this study:

baseline = min{ At (t1 ), At (t2 ), · · · , At (t N )} (5)

where t1 , t2 , . . . , tN belongs to ∆T. We set ∆T = 15 min in this study. Subsequently, we can

extract AR (t) from At (t) by Equation (4). Additionally, the relationship between AR (t) (dB)
and k (dB/km) is as follows:
A R (t) = k·l (6)
where l (km) is the length of CML.
 Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW  3  of  9 
 

Sensors 2021, 21, 858 3 of 9

where l (km) is the length of CML. 
Finally, input AR(t) into Equation (2), and the path‐averaged rain rate can be calcu‐
lated, as follows: 
Finally, input AR (t) into Equation (2), and the path-averaged
1 rain rate can be calculated,
as follows:  AR t   b
R   1   (7)
AR (at) l b
R= (7)
a·l

3.3. Data 
Data
In this study, eight horizontal polarization CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are used to 
In this study, eight horizontal polarization CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are used
estimate the rain rate in Jiangyin, China (from 10 June to 7 July 2020). They were installed 
to estimate the rain rate in Jiangyin, China (from 10 June to 7 July 2020). They were
on the base towers over 30 m (operated by China Mobile) and provide RSL with a resolu‐
installed on the base towers over 30 m (operated by China Mobile) and provide RSL with
ation of 0.1 dB and a sample time of one minute. Table 1 shows the frequency, length, and 
resolution of 0.1 dB and a sample time of one minute. Table 1 shows the frequency,
power–law 
length, coefficients. 
and power–law Figure  1  shows 
coefficients. Figurethe  locations 
1 shows of  eight  CMLs 
the locations of eightand 
CMLsfour 
andtipping‐
four
bucket  RGs  (0.5‐mm  resolution  and  five‐minute  sample  time).  RGs  are 
tipping-bucket RGs (0.5-mm resolution and five-minute sample time). RGs are installed installed  near 
CMLs to verify the accuracy of rainfall estimation. 
near CMLs to verify the accuracy of rainfall estimation.

Table 1. The frequencies and lengths of eight CMLs. f and l represent the frequency and the 
Table 1. The frequencies and lengths of eight CMLs. f and l represent the frequency and the length.
length. 
CML #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
CML  #1  #2  #3  #4  #5  #6  #7  #8 
f (GHz)
f (GHz)  15 15 15 15  15
15  15 15  23
23  23
23  23
23  23
23 
l (km) 0.55 0.95 1.00 1.08 0.59 0.77 0.82 0.89
a l (km)  0.04 0.55 
0.04 0.95 
0.04 1.00 0.04 1.08  0.13 0.59  0.130.77  0.82 
0.13 0.89 
0.13
b a  1.12 0.04 
1.12 0.04 
1.12 0.04 1.12 0.04  1.02 0.13  1.020.13  0.13 
1.02 0.13 
1.02
b  1.12  1.12  1.12  1.12  1.02  1.02  1.02  1.02 

 
Figure 1. Locations of commercial microwave links (CMLs) and rain gauges (RGs) in the experi‐
Figure 1. Locations of commercial microwave links (CMLs) and rain gauges (RGs) in the experimental
mental area. The red point of the upper left subfigure shows the location of Jiangyin in China. 
area. The red point of the upper left subfigure shows the location of Jiangyin in China.

Ten days RSLs of CMLs are used in this study. The total rainfall, as measured by
Ten days RSLs of CMLs are used in this study. The total rainfall, as measured by dif‐
different RGs, ranges from 217.5 mm to 237.5 mm with the highest daily rainfall over 40 mm.
ferent RGs, ranges from 217.5 mm to 237.5 mm with the highest daily rainfall over 40 mm. 
Figure 2a,c,e show the comparison among At ,t, baseline of CML, and R of RG; Figure 2b,d,f 
Figure 2a,c,e show the comparison among A baseline of CML, and R of RG; Figure 2b,d,f
show the comparison between AR and R. It shows that At and AR both positively correlate
with R. The correlation coefficients (CC) between AR and R are higher than 0.7 with the
highest one over 0.9, indicating that CMLs have the potential of estimating the rainfall.
 
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW  4  of  9 
 

Sensors 2021, 21, 858

show the comparison between AR and R. It shows that At and AR both positively correlate  4 of 9
with R. The correlation coefficients (CC) between AR and R are higher than 0.7 with the high‐
est one over 0.9, indicating that CMLs have the potential of estimating the rainfall. 

(a) : 20200610 (CML #5 & RG #3) (b) : 20200610 (CML #5 & RG #3)
50

rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

attenuation (dB)

attenuation (dB)
A 40 4 A CC = 0.77 40
48 t R
baseline R
46 R 20 2 20
44
42 0 0 0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59
(c) : 20200627 (CML #7 & RG #1) (d) : 20200627 (CML #7 & RG #1)
46 30 6 30

rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

attenuation (dB)

attenuation (dB)
At AR CC = 0.80
44
baseline 20 4 R 20
42 R
10 2 10
40
38 0 0 0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59
(e) : 20200628 (CML #2 & RG #2) (f) : 20200628 (CML #2 & RG #2)
40 3 40

rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

attenuation (dB)

attenuation (dB)
48 At AR CC = 0.77

47 baseline 2 R
R 20 20
46 1

45 0 0 0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59
(g) : 20200629 (CML #8 & RG #1) (h) : 20200629 (CML #8 & RG #1)
56 60 6 60
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

attenuation (dB)

attenuation (dB)

At AR CC = 0.86
54
baseline 40 4 R 40
52 R
20 2 20
50
0 0 0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59
(i) : 20200707 (CML #6 & RG #3) (j) : 20200707 (CML #6 & RG #3)
60 6 60
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

36
attenuation (dB)

attenuation (dB)

A A CC = 0.94
t R
34 baseline 40 4 R 40
R
32 20 2 20
30
0 0 0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 23:59
 
Figure 2. Time series of the total attenuation (Att), the baseline, the rain‐induced attenuation (A
Figure 2. Time series of the total attenuation (A ), the baseline, the rain-induced attenuation (ARR), and the rain rate (R) in 
), and the rain rate (R) in
different days by different CMLs. (a,c,e,g,i) show the comparison among At ,t, baseline, and R; (b,d,f,h,j) show the compari‐
different days by different CMLs. (a,c,e,g,i) show the comparison among A baseline, and R; (b,d,f,h,j) show the comparison
son between A R, and R. 
between AR , and R.

4. Results 
4. Results
We calculate the mean absolute error (MAE), absolute deviation (AD), and relative 
We calculate the mean absolute error (MAE), absolute deviation (AD), and relative
deviation (RD) to quantify the results. Equations are shown, as follows: 
deviation (RD) to quantify the results. Equations are shown, as follows:
1 n
MAE 1 n RM ,i  RR,i   (8)
MAE = n∑i |1R M,i − R R,i | (8)
n i =1
AD  Rainfall M  Rainfall R   (9)
AD = Rain f all M − Rain f all R (9)
Rainfall  RainfallR
RD Rain f all MM − Rain f all 100%  
R (10)
RD = Rainfall
Rain f allR
·100% (10)
R
where R
where RM,i  and RR,i represent the rain rate by CML and by RG at time index i, respectively; 
M,i and RR,i represent the rain rate by CML and by RG at time index i, respectively;
and, Rainfall
and, RainfallMM and Rainfall
and RainfallR represent the total rainfall by CML and RG, respectively. 
R represent the total rainfall by CML and RG, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the results of the rain rate and daily rainfall. The MAE values are less 
Figure 3 shows the results of the rain rate and daily rainfall. The MAE values are
than 1.6 mm/h, and most of the CC values are higher than 0.6 with the highest value reach‐
less than 1.6 mm/h, and most of the CC values are higher than 0.6 with the highest value
ing to 0.83. It indicates that CML accurately estimates the rain rate. Besides, most of the 
reaching to 0.83. It indicates that CML accurately estimates the rain rate. Besides, most of
the RD values for daily rainfall are less than 10%, which means that CML can also estimate
the daily rainfall.

 
 Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW  5  of  9 
 

Sensors 2021, 21, 858 5 of 9

RD values for daily rainfall are less than 10%, which means that CML can also estimate 
the daily rainfall. 

(a):20200610 (b):20200610 (c):20200616 (d):20200616

40 20 30
RG #3 RG #3 RG #1 20 RG #1
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

CML #6 CML #6 CML #7 CML #7
15

rainfall (mm)

rainfall (mm)
30 20 15
CC=0.62
CC=0.82 10 AD=-0.72mm MAE=0.90mm/h
20 10
MAE=0.46mm/h RD=-5%
10
10 5 5 AD=-0.88mm
RD=-4%
0 0 0 0
00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59
(e):20200618 (f):20200618 (g):20200623 (h):20200623
15 20 15
RG #3 10 RG #3 RG #1 RG #1
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

CML #3 CML #3 CML #4 CML #4
15
rainfall (mm)

rainfall (mm)
10 10
CC=0.44 CC=0.54
AD=-0.39mm 10
MAE=0.61mm/h 5 RD=-4% MAE=0.70mm/h
5 5
5
AD=0.79mm
RD=6%
0 0 0 0
00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59
(i):20200627 (j):20200627 (k):20200628 (l):20200628
40 30 40
RG #4 20 RG #4 RG #3 RG #3
rain rate (mm/h)

CML #1 CML #1 rain rate (mm/h) CML #5 CML #5

30 CC=0.65 30
rainfall (mm)

rainfall (mm)
15 20
MAE=0.93mm/h CC=0.54
20 MAE=1.47mm/h 20
10
10
10 5 AD=-2.63mm 10
AD=-0.98mm
RD=-13% RD=-3%
0 0 0 0
00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59
(m):20200629 (n):20200629 (o):20200705 (p):20200705
60 40 30 40
RG #2 RG #3 RG #3
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

CML #2 RG #2 CML #6 CML #6

30 30
rainfall (mm)

rainfall (mm)
40 CML #2 20
CC=0.73 CC=0.64 AD=0.85mm
MAE=1.55mm/h 20 MAE=1.51mm/h 20 RD=2%
20 10
10 AD=-1.59mm 10
RD=-4%
0 0 0 0
00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59
(q):20200706 (r):20200706 (s):20200707 (t):20200707
30 30 40 15
RG #1 RG #1 RG #1 RG #1
rain rate (mm/h)

rain rate (mm/h)

CML #8 CML #8 CML #7 CML #7

rainfall (mm)

rainfall (mm)

20 20 30
10
CC=0.62
MAE=1.09mm/h 20 CC=0.83 AD=-0.74mm
MAE=0.42mm/h
10 10 5 RD=-5%
AD=-0.13mm 10
RD=-0.1%
0 0 0 0
00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59 00:00 12:00 23:59
 
Figure 3. Result of the rain rate and rainfall by CMLs and RGs on different days. Subfigures in the first and the third column
Figure 3. Result of the rain rate and rainfall by CMLs and RGs on different days. Subfigures in the first and the third 
show the results of the rain rate, and subfigures in other columns show the result of the rainfall.
column show the results of the rain rate, and subfigures in other columns show the result of the rainfall. 

Figure 4 shows the comparison of the total rainfall between CML and RG, with Table
Figure 4 shows the comparison of the total rainfall between CML and RG, with    2
providing the quantitative results. It shows that the MAE values are less than 1.2 mm/h,
Table 2 providing the quantitative results. It shows that the MAE values are less than 1.2 
and most of the RD values are less than 5% with the smallest one reaching 1%, indicating an
mm/h, and most of the RD values are less than 5% with the smallest one reaching 1%, 
accurate estimation by CML. Note that CML estimation is the path-averaged measurement,
indicating an accurate estimation by CML. Note that CML estimation is the path‐averaged 
while RG estimation is the point-measurement, which suggests that the results by the two
measurement, while RG estimation is the point‐measurement, which suggests that the re‐
estimations are not entirely consistent with each other.
sults by the two estimations are not entirely consistent with each other. 

 
 Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
Sensors 2021, 21, 858 6 6 
ofof 
9 9 
 

250
RG
CML

200

150
rainfall (mm)

100

50

0
RG#4 CML#1 RG#2 CML#2 RG#3 CML#3 RG#1 CML#4 RG#3 CML#5 RG#3 CML#6 RG#1 CML#7 RG#1 CML#8  
Figure 4. Comparison between the total rainfall of ten days estimated by eight CMLs and that by RGs near the CMLs. 
Figure 4. Comparison between the total rainfall of ten days estimated by eight CMLs and that by RGs near the CMLs.

Table 2. The overall results of rainfall estimation by the CMLs. 
Table 2. The overall results of rainfall estimation by the CMLs.
CML  #1  #2  #3  #4  #5  #6  #7  #8 
CML #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
MAE (mm/h)  1.12  1.14  1.12  1.15  1.01  1.00  0.91  0.92 
MAE (mm/h) 1.12 1.14 1.12 1.15 1.01 1.00 0.91 0.92
AD (mm) 
AD (mm) 9.5
9.5 −3.7 −3.7 1.7 1.7 −5.2−5.2  4.6 4.6  3.4 3.4  4.3
4.3  2.42.4 
RD RD (%) 
(%) 4 4  −2 −2  1 1  −2 −2  2 2  1 1  2 2  1 1 

5.5. Discussions 
Discussions
5.1. Influence of the Frequency and the Length of CML 
5.1. Influence of the Frequency and the Length of CML
CML at a higher frequency has a larger attenuation signal under the same weather 
CML at a higher frequency has a larger attenuation signal under the same weather
condition. A different strength of attenuation signals can influence the accuracy of rainfall 
condition. A different strength of attenuation signals can influence the accuracy of rainfall
estimation [10,24]. Estimations of the rain rate by CML #5–8 (at 23 GHz) are more accurate 
estimation [10,24]. Estimations of the rain rate by CML #5–8 (at 23 GHz) are more accurate
than CML #1–4 (at 15 GHz) in Table 2, which implies that rainfall estimation by CML at a 
than CML #1–4 (at 15 GHz) in Table 2, which implies that rainfall estimation by CML at a
higher frequency is more suitable for estimating the rainfall. It is because the extraction of 
higher frequency is more suitable for estimating the rainfall. It is because the extraction of
the rain‐induced attenuation from a higher attenuation is more accurate [10]. 
the rain-induced attenuation from a higher attenuation is more accurate [10].
AA study has investigated the impact on RSL of short CMLs caused by the near‐field 
study has investigated the impact on RSL of short CMLs caused by the near-field
effect, showing that the links shorter than 1.3 km have poorer performance by the power–
effect, showing that the links shorter than 1.3 km have poorer performance by the power–
law equation [25]. A recurrent neural network approach was used to overcome the effect. 
law equation [25]. A recurrent neural network approach was used to overcome the effect.
InIn our study, CML #1 and #5 (shorter than 0.6 km) also performed in a similar manner as 
our study, CML #1 and #5 (shorter than 0.6 km) also performed in a similar manner as in
Table 2, indicating that the near-field effect influences the rainfall estimation. Consequently,
in Table 2, indicating that the near‐field effect influences the rainfall estimation. Conse‐
wequently, we will adopt the deep‐learning method to solve the problem according to Ref‐
will adopt the deep-learning method to solve the problem according to Reference [25]
inerence [25] in the future. 
the future.

5.2. Advantages and Limitations of the Rainfall Estimation by CMLs

5.2. Advantages and Limitations of the Rainfall Estimation by CMLs 
The sample time of CML and RG are one-minute and five-minute, respectively in our
The sample time of CML and RG are one‐minute and five‐minute, respectively in our 
study. Figure 5 gives the comparison of the rain rate estimation between CML and RG. It
study. Figure 5 gives the comparison of the rain rate estimation between CML and RG. It 
shows that CML can sense the rain rate more constantly than RG, which is necessary in
shows that CML can sense the rain rate more constantly than RG, which is necessary in 
ensuring the life safety during the rainstorm. We assume that the rain rate by RG during
ensuring the life safety during the rainstorm. We assume that the rain rate by RG during 
the five-minute interval is constant in order to analyze the correlation of one-minute data.
the five‐minute interval is constant in order to analyze the correlation of one‐minute data. 
The CC values in Figure 5a,b,d are acceptable, but the value in Figure 5c is not good,
The CC values in Figure 5a,b,d are acceptable, but the value in Figure 5c is not good, be‐
because the rainfall estimation by CML is the path-averaged, while the estimation by RG
cause the rainfall estimation by CML is the path‐averaged, while the estimation by RG is 
is the point measurement. Besides, the rain rate is time-varied in reality; however, we
the point measurement. Besides, the rain rate is time‐varied in reality; however, we as‐
assume the estimation by RG as a constant during the sample interval, which increases
sume the estimation by RG as a constant during the sample interval, which increases the 
the correlation error. The resolutions of CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are 1.2 mm/h and
correlation error. The resolutions of CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are 1.2 mm/h and 0.4 
0.4 mm/h, respectively, with the quantization level of 0.1 dB, which are higher than that
mm/h, respectively, with the quantization level of 0.1 dB, which are higher than that of 

 
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW  7  of  9 
Sensors
  2021, 21, 858 7 of 9

RG (6 mm/h), according to Equation (4). This shows that CMLs can more accurately esti‐
of RG (6 mm/h), according to Equation (4). This shows that CMLs can more accurately
mate the rainfall rate. 
estimate the rainfall rate.

(a):20200629 (b):20200705
60 30
RG #2 RG #3
50 CML #2 25 CML #6

rain rate (mm) CC = 0.60 CC = 0.53

rain rate (mm)

40 20

30 15

20 10

10 5

0 0
04:25 04:55 05:24 16:45 17:11 17:38
(c):20200706 (d):20200707
12 50
RG #1 RG #1
10 CML #8 CML #7
40
CC = 0.04 CC = 0.85
rain rate (mm)

rain rate (mm)

8
30
6
20
4

10
2

0 0
06:24 07:24 08:24 22:00 22:30 22:59
 
Figure 5. Comparison of the rain rate estimation with the one-minute sample time by the CMLs and
Figure 5. Comparison of the rain rate estimation with the one‐minute sample time by the CMLs 
that by RGs with the five-minute sample time on different days. The CC values in (a,b,d) are better
and that by RGs with the five‐minute sample time on different days. The CC values in (a,b,d) are 
than the value in (c).
better than the value in (c). 
However, when compared with the dedicated instrument for estimating the rainfall,
However, when compared with the dedicated instrument for estimating the rainfall, 
CML is uncertain, because their geometry and frequencies are optimized in order to im-
CML is uncertain, because their geometry and frequencies are optimized in order to im‐
prove communication performance rather than estimate the rainfall [26–28]. Many error
prove communication performance rather than estimate the rainfall [26–28]. Many error 
sources, such as the uncertainty of the rain-induced attenuation model, the baseline deter-
sources, such as the uncertainty of the rain‐induced attenuation model, the baseline de‐
mination, and the antenna wetting, influence the accuracy of the rainfall estimation [10].
termination, and the antenna wetting, influence the accuracy of the rainfall estimation[10]. 
Many publications studied the error sources to improve the accuracy [29–31].
Many publications studied the error sources to improve the accuracy [29–31]. 
5.3. Related Work
5.3. Related Work 
The rain rate of one-minute resolution has been estimated by using a German-wide
CMLs The rain rate of one‐minute resolution has been estimated by using a German‐wide 
with the average bias of the rainfall estimation reaching to 19% (less than 2% in our
CMLs with the average bias of the rainfall estimation reaching to 19% (less than 2% in our 
study) [32]. Most CMLs, which range from 10 to 40 GHz, have a length from 5 to 10 km.
study) [32]. Most CMLs, which range from 10 to 40 GHz, have a length from 5 to 10 km. 
When compared with Reference [32], the lengths of CMLs in our study are less than 1 km,
When compared with Reference [32], the lengths of CMLs in our study are less than 1 km, 
because we focus more on the rain rate of the street scale, and the rain rate by short CML
because we focus more on the rain rate of the street scale, and the rain rate by short CML 
is more representative for the smaller scale. In 2017, an experiment of rainfall estimation
is more representative for the smaller scale. In 2017, an experiment of rainfall estimation 
with 10 s sample time has been conducted using a 700 m microwave link in China [33].
The results showed that correlations of rainfall estimation varied from 0.6 to 0.9, which is
with 10 s sample time has been conducted using a 700 m microwave link in China [33]. 
similar to our study. Besides, only 2.5% of RSL during the non-rainy time was counted
The results showed that correlations of rainfall estimation varied from 0.6 to 0.9, which is 
as rainy time. Unlike Reference [33], eight microwave links in our study are operated by
similar to our study. Besides, only 2.5% of RSL during the non‐rainy time was counted as 
Chinatime. 
rainy  Mobile for commercial
Unlike  Reference  communication with less
[33],  eight  microwave  estimation
links  accuracy.
in  our  study  It is the first
are  operated  by 
CML-based rainfall estimation in China.
China Mobile for commercial communication with less estimation accuracy. It is the first 
CML‐based rainfall estimation in China. 
6. Conclusions
In this study, eight CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are used to estimate the rainfall, in
6. Conclusions 
Jiangyin, China, during the plum rain season in 2020. We adopt a dynamic determination
In this study, eight CMLs at 15 GHz and 23 GHz are used to estimate the rainfall, in 
of the baseline in order to continuously calculate the baseline for reducing the uncertain-
Jiangyin, China, during the plum rain season in 2020. We adopt a dynamic determination 
ties and obtaining the accurate rain-induced attenuation. Subsequently, we analyze the
of the baseline in order to continuously calculate the baseline for reducing the uncertain‐
correlation between AR and R. The CC values are higher than 0.77, with the highest one
ties and obtaining the accurate rain‐induced attenuation. Subsequently, we analyze the 
reaching to 0.94, indicating a strongly positive correlation, as shown in Figure 3.

 
Sensors 2021, 21, 858 8 of 9

Besides, the quantitative results of the rainfall show that most of the MAE values are
less than 1.50 mm/h. The RD values are less than 5%, with the smallest one reaching 1%,
which indicated that CML can accurately estimate the rainfall. Additionally, we discuss
the influence of the frequency and the advantages of CML. This study is also compared
with the previous works.
This study verifies that CML can be a complement to the weather radar and the
rain gauge. Further, the CML system could provide much more refined rain data for
meteorology, hydrology, and many other fields if cooperating with the mobile network
operators. Of course, further works need to be done due to the limitations of the CML.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.S. and X.L.; methodology, K.S.; software, K.S.; valida-
tion, K.S. and X.L.; formal analysis, X.L.; investigation, X.L.; data curation, K.S.; writing—original
draft preparation, K.S.; writing—review and editing, K.S.; visualization, K.S.; supervision, T.G.;
project administration, T.G.; funding acquisition, T.G. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number
41975030; 41505135; 41475020.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Mingzhong Zou from Jiangyin River Management Divi-
sion, China for collecting and archiving the data used in this study. The authors thank the Jiangsu
M&R Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd, China for constructing and maintaining the MLs network.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Goldshtein, O.; Messer, H.; Zinevich, A. Rain Rate Estimation Using Measurements From Commercial Telecommunications Links.
IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2009, 57, 1616–1625. [CrossRef]
2. Lorenz, C.; Kunstmann, H. The Hydrological Cycle in Three State-of-the-Art Reanalyses: Intercomparison and Performance
Analysis. J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 1397–1420. [CrossRef]
3. Anagnostou, E.; Krajewski, W.; Smith, J. Uncertainty quantifica-tion of mean-areal radar-rainfall estimates. J. Atmos. Ocean.
Technol. 1999, 16, 206–215. [CrossRef]
4. Messer, H.; Zinevich, A.; Alpert, P. Environmental Monitoring by Wireless Communication Networks. Science 2006, 312, 713.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Overeem, A.; Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R. Measuring urban rainfall using microwave links from commercial cellular communication
networks. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47. [CrossRef]
6. Schleiss, M.; Berne, A. Identification of Dry and Rainy Periods Using Telecommunication Microwave Links. IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. Lett. 2010, 7, 611–615. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, Z.; Schleiss, M.; Jaffrain, J.; Berne, A.; Rieckermann, J. Using Markov switching models to infer dry and rainy periods from
telecommunication microwave link signals. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2012, 5, 1847–1859. [CrossRef]
8. Harel, O.; Messer, H. Extension of the MFLRT to Detect an Unknown Deterministic Signal Using Multiple Sensors, Applied for
Precipitation Detection. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 2013, 20, 945–948. [CrossRef]
9. Song, K.; Liu, X.; Gao, T.; Yin, M.; He, B. The Feasibility Analysis of Cellphone Signal to Detect the Rain: Experimental Study.
IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2020, 17, 1158–1162. [CrossRef]
10. Berne, A.; Uijlenhoet, R. Path-averaged rainfall estimation using microwave links: Uncertainty due to spatial rainfall variability.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34. [CrossRef]
11. Chwala, C.; Gmeiner, A.; Qin, W.; Hipp, S.; Nienaber, D.; Siart, U.; Eibert, T.; Pohl, M.; Seltmann, J.; Fritz, J.; et al. Precipitation
observation using microwave backhaul links in the alpine and pre-alpine region of Southern Germany. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2012, 16, 2647–2661. [CrossRef]
12. Doumounia, A.; Gosset, M.; Cazenave, F.; Kacou, M.; Zougmore, F. Rainfall Monitoring based on Microwave links from cellular
telecommunication Networks: First Results from a West African Test Bed. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 6016–6022. [CrossRef]
13. Messer, H. Rainfall Monitoring Using Cellular Networks. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2007, 24, 142–144. [CrossRef]
14. Messer, H.; Zinevich, A.; Alpert, P. Environmental Sensor Networks Using Existing Wireless Communication Systems for Rainfall
and Wind Velocity Measurements. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 2012, 15, 32–38. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2021, 21, 858 9 of 9

15. Overeem, A.; Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R. Country-wide rainfall maps from cellular communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 2013, 110, 2741–2745. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Gazit, L.; Messer, H. Sufficient Conditions for Reconstructing 2-D Rainfall Maps. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2018, 56,
6334–6343. [CrossRef]
17. Cherkassky, D.; Ostrometzky, J.; Messer, H.; Sensing, R. Precipitation Classification Using Measurements From Commercial
Microwave Links. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2014, 52, 2350–2356. [CrossRef]
18. Overeem, A.; Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R. Two and a half years of country-wide rainfall maps using radio links from commercial
cellular telecommunication networks. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 8039–8065. [CrossRef]
19. National Climate Center. Available online: http://www.ncc-cma.net/cn/ (accessed on 1 August 2020).
20. Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Stricker, J.N.M. Rainfall measurement using radio links from cellular communication networks. Water
Resour. Res. 2007, 43, 455–456. [CrossRef]
21. International Telecommunication Union. Specific Attenuation Model for Rain for Use in Prediction Methods. 2005. Available
online: https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.838/en (accessed on 1 August 2020).
22. Fenicia, F.; Pfister, L.; Kavetski, D.; Matgen, P.; Iffly, J.-F.; Hoffmann, L.; Uijlenhoet, R. Microwave links for rainfall estimation in
an urban environment: Insights from an experimental setup in Luxembourg-City. J. Hydrol. 2012, 69–78. [CrossRef]
23. Ostrometzky, J.; Messer, H. Dynamic Determination of the Baseline Level in Microwave Links for Rain Monitoring From Minimum
Attenuation Values. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2018, 11, 24–33. [CrossRef]
24. Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Berne, A. Errors and Uncertainties in Microwave Link Rainfall Estimation Explored Using Drop Size
Measurements and High-Resolution Radar Data. J. Hydrometeorol. 2010, 11, 1330–1344. [CrossRef]
25. Habi, H.V.; Messer, H. Uncertainties in Short Commercial Microwave Links Fading Due to Rain. In Proceedings of the ICASSP
2020—2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Barcelona, Spain, 4–8 May 2020; pp.
9006–9010.
26. Zinevich, A.; Messer, H.; Alpert, P. Prediction of rainfall intensity measurement errors using commercial microwave communica-
tion links. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2010, 3, 1385–1402. [CrossRef]
27. Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Holleman, I. Sources of error in microwave link rainfall estimation. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Weather Radar and Hydrology, Grenoble, France, 10–12 March 2008.
28. Leijnse, H.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Stricker, J.N.M. Microwave link rainfall estimation: Effects of link length and frequency, temporal
sampling, power resolution, and wet antenna attenuation. Adv. Water Resour. 2008, 31, 1481–1493. [CrossRef]
29. Cherkassky, D.; Ostrometzky, J.; Messer, H. The Use of Linear Feature Projection for Precipitation Classification Using Measure-
ments from Commercial Microwave Links. In Proceedings of the Latent Variable Analysis & Signal Separation-international
Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, 12–15 March 2012.
30. Schleiss, M.; Rieckermann, J.; Berne, A. Quantification and Modeling of Wet-Antenna Attenuation for Commercial Microwave
Links. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2013, 10, 1195–1199. [CrossRef]
31. Kharadly, M.M.Z.; Ross, R. Effect of wet antenna attenuation on propagation data statistics. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2001, 49,
1183–1191. [CrossRef]
32. Graf, M.; Chwala, C.; Polz, J.; Kunstmann, H. Rainfall estimation from a German-wide commercial microwave link network:
Optimized processing and validation for 1 year of data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 24, 2931–2950. [CrossRef]
33. Han, C.; Bi, Y.; Duan, S.; Lu, G. Rain Rate Retrieval Test From 25-GHz, 28-GHz, and 38-GHz Millimeter-Wave Link Measurement
in Beijing. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2019, 12, 2846–2858. [CrossRef]