ACCURACY OF RAIN INTENSITY

MEASUREMENTS AND ITS

INFLUENCE ON THE STATISTICS OF
EXTREME EVENTS
L.G. Lanza and E. Vuerich
University of Genova, Italian Air Force
The tradition of intercomparison studies …
1871 – SYMONS PERFORMS THE FIRST INTERCOMPARISON
OF RAIN GAUGES AT HAWSKERS (YORKSHIRE)

Father Francesco Denza (1872)

Italian Meteorological Society
“….in order that meteorological
studies produce advantages for
human beings… it is not only
necessary to have lots of
observatories and observations /
measurements be done with
intelligence and accuracy, but it is
moreover requested a
meteorological investigation with
same methodology and with well
compared instruments”.
EXPERIMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECT
OF MEASUREMENT HEIGTH (SYMONS 1862)
 Previous related WMO Intercomparisons:
International Comparison of National Precipitation Gauges with a Reference Pit Gauge (Sevruk et al., 1984).
WMO Solid Precipitation Measurement Intercomparison (Goodison et al., 1998).
Precipitation intensity was investigated for the first time in the assessment of present weather systems:
WMO Intercomparison of Present Weather Sensors/Systems (Leroy et al., 1998).
but only for qualitative information (light, moderate, heavy)

focus on rainfall accumulation

low intensity rainfall (snow)
overall effect of counting and catching errors
Catching errors = The errors due to the weather conditions at the collector, as well as those related
to wetting, splashing and evaporation processes. They indicate the ability of the instrument to collect the
exact amount of water that applies from the definition of precipitation at the ground, i.e. the total water
falling over the projection of the collector’s area over the ground.
Counting errors = Counting errors are on the other hand related to the ability of the instrument to
“sense” correctly the amount of water that is collected by the instrument.
They can be experienced both in catching and non-catching type of instruments, although in the latter case
the assessment of such errors is very difficult, and is hard to be performed in laboratory conditions.
 From Laboratory to Field Tests
The main objective of the Laboratory Intercomparison was to test the
performances of catchment type rainfall intensity gauges of different
measuring principles under documented conditions.

Laboratory Æ controlled conditions

constant flow rate
known reference flow rate
counting errors
Drawbacks:
no real rainfall (variability, etc.)
no catching errors
no real operating conditions

Æ Follow-up in the field

WMO Field Intercomparison
of Rainfall Intensity Gauges
Vigna di Valle (Rome)
Started in October 2007
 Tipping-bucket rain gauges
300
RIMCO HS-TB3

Tipping-bucket rain gauges with correction

300
CAE
IMS

I measured [mm/h]
200
SIAP Waterlog
ETG
PAAR

I measured [mm/h]
200 Yokogawa
Casella

Meteoservis MR3H
100 Lambrecht

100

0
0 100 200 300 0
0 100 200 300
I reference [mm/h]
I reference [mm/h]
Performances of each

Weighing gauges Water level gauges

300
300
Serosi
individual gauge

I measured [mm/h]
200 200
I measured [mm/h]

Alluvion

100 100

0
0
0 100 200 300
0 100 200 300
I reference [mm/h] I reference [mm/h]
 The WMO Field Intercomparison of RI
gauges was started in October 2007 in
Vigna di Valle, Rome (Italy).
Installation of the instruments in the field :02
was preceded by the laboratory
calibration of all submitted catching type
rain gauges at the University of Genova.
Periodic testing of these gauges by means
of dynamic calibration was performed
throughout the measurement campaign,
using a portable calibration device.
 WMO LAB INT
DIAM
UNIG
2004-2005 :02
WMO FIELD INT
E
(Project Leader: 2007-2009 (Project Leader:
Luca G. Lanza) E. Lanzinger)
Novel approach:
tests are performed at one-minute
resolution. “Instantaneous” RI rather
than long term averages.
Tipping-bucket rain gauges
635 mm/h
300 ETG
RIMCO
2000 mm/h
720 mm/h
HS-TB3

Meteoservis MR3H 600 mm/h

Yokogawa
IMD
I measured [mm/h]

200
CAE

Waterlog SIAP
PAAR

Casella

100 Lambrecht

0
0 100 200 300
I reference [mm/h]
 Preliminary tests in the laboratory

Constant
Water source Water collector
flow rate

Fixed head or pump Rain gauge

Weighing device Weighing device

Computer control
 Best performing
tipping-bucket rain gauge

:02

Box-plots indicate the mean (solid line),

median (thin line), 25-75th percentiles (box
limits), 10-90th percentiles (whisker caps)
and outliers (black circles).
 Best performing
weighing gauge

:02

Box-plots indicate the mean (solid line),

median (thin line), 25-75th percentiles (box
limits), 10-90th percentiles (whisker caps)
and outliers (black circles).
 Typical (left) and bad (below)
tipping-bucket rain gauges

:02

Box-plots indicate the mean (solid line),

median (thin line), 25-75th percentiles (box
limits), 10-90th percentiles (whisker caps)
and outliers (black circles).
 ITALIAN AIR FORCE University
METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE of Genova

RESMA

:02
 MRW500 PMB2
9
WMO REFERENCE RAIN GAUGE

A large Pit 1,7 meters deep was built

6WHHO and divided in 4 parts (4 pits) for
hosting the working reference (4
PITS – ITALY - EN13798:2002

EDUV different instruments).

9 4 standard galvanized steel gratings
*ULGV 187,5 x 187,5 x 12,0 cm (LxWxH)
IUDPHV will be positioned on pit walls. Spaces:
37,5 cm 12,5 x 12,5 cm. Accuracy: ±5mm;
R102 T-200B3 Strips:3mm

70 cm 70 cm

187,5 cm

400 cm
5REXVW
EULFN ZDOOV
:02
 220
-1
Measured
200 RI [mm•h ] PP040-MTX

180 AP23 PAAR

160 DQA031-LSI LASTEM

UNCORRECTED
140
TIPPING-BUCKET
120
ARG100-EML
100
RIM7499020 Mc VAN
80

60 Rain Collector II-DAVIS

40

20
Reference RI [mm•h-1]
0
:02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
 220
UMB7525/I/SIAP-MICROS
-1
Measured
200 RI [mm•h ]

180

160
PMB2-CAE
SOFTWARE
140
CORRECTED R102-ETG
TIPPING-BUCKET
120

100

80

60

40

20
-1
Reference RI [mm•h ]
:02 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
 220
LB-15188-LAMBRECHT
-1
Measured
200 RI [mm•h ]

180

160
PULSE
140
CORRECTED
TIPPING-BUCKET
120
PT 5.4032.35.008-THIES
100

80

60

40

20
Reference RI [mm•h-1]
0
:02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
:02
 220
PG200-EWS
-1
Measured
200 RI [mm•h ]
PLUVIO-OTT
180

WEIGHING
160
GAUGES140 T200B-

MRW500 -METEOSERVIS
120

100 ANS 410/H-EIGENBRODT

80
TRwS-MPS
60

40
VRG101-VAISALA
20
Reference RI [mm•h-1]
0
:02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
:02
 220
PARSIVEL-OTT
-1
Measured
200 RI [mm•h ]
LPM-THIES
180

NON CATCHING
160
GAUGES WXT510-VAISALA
140

120

100

80
PWD22-VAISALA
60
LCR-PVK
40

20
Reference RI [mm•h-1]
0
:02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
:02
 Molini, Lanza e La Barbera (2005).
The impact of TBRs measurement errors on
design rainfall for urban-scale applications.
Hydrological Processes, 19(5)