Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Review papers

Raindrop size distribution and terminal velocity for rainfall erosivity studies. T
A review
⁎
Maria A. Seriob, Francesco G. Carolloa, Vito Ferrob,
a
Department of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
b
Department of Earth and Marine Science, University of Palermo, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Marco Borga, The knowledge of the rainfall drop size distribution (DSD) at the land surface is essential for understanding
Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of Sergio M. precipitation mechanisms affecting soil erosion processes. Rainfall erosivity is defined as the potential of rain to
Vicente-Serrano, Associate Editor cause erosion and it can be evaluated by rainfall kinetic power, which is determined by DSD and raindrop
Keywords: terminal velocity.
Rainfall erosivity This paper firstly deals with the raindrop terminal velocity estimate. Then the most widely used DSD are
Rainfall kinetic power reviewed highlighting the difference between the raindrop size distribution per unit volume of air and that per
Rainfall intensity unit area and time. The reliability of the available kinetic power-rainfall intensity relationships and their ap-
Raindrop size distribution
plication in several part of the world is discussed, highlighting that the use of rainfall intensity is not sufficient to
Seasonality
determine the rainfall kinetic power everywhere. Finally, the influence of seasonality on both raindrop size
distribution and rainfall energy characteristics is investigated using DSD measurements carried out by an optical
disdrometer placed at Palermo experimental area.

1. Introduction
The acceleration of soil erosion process through anthropogenic
perturbation has severe impacts on soil and environmental quality. Soil
erosion reduces the long term soil productivity and it exposes subsoil,
which has often poor qualities for crop establishment and growth.
Water soil erosion is a process of detachment and transport of soil
particles due to rainfall and runoff and it is one the main causes of
landform modelling on earth's surface. At the plot and field scale, when
interrill erosion occurs, runoff is a factor affecting the transportability
of soil material detached by raindrop impact while runoff is able to
cause both detachment and transport when rill erosion takes place.
Rainfall erosivity is the main property affecting erosion processes in-
volving both detachment of soil particles and the subsequent transport
of the detached particles away from the site of detachment (Ferro et al.,
1991; Mannaerts and Gabriels, 2000; Salles and Poesen, 2000).
According to Wischmeier and Smith (1978), rainfall erosivity is
commonly expressed as the product of two factors, the rainfall energy E
and the maximum continuous 30-min intensity I30 during the individual
storm (Nearing et al., 2017). Wischmeier (1959), analyzing approxi-
mately 8000 plot-years of rainfall, runoff and soil loss data, confirmed
the suitability of EI30 index for fallow and continuous row crop plots.
The suitability was also positively tested at different temporal scales
(seasonal and yearly variation) (Yin et al., 2017). The quantitative ex-
pression of energy per unit of rainfall developed by Wischmeier and
Smith (1978) was based on the work of Laws and Parsons (1943) and
Gunn and Kinzer (1949).
The rainfall erosivity factor R, proposed in the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) and in its Revised (RUSLE) version, is recognized as
one of the best indicators for modelling the erosive potential of a
rainstorm (Renard et al., 1991). Regional erosivity maps are used to
identify areas with high potential rainfall erosivity, thus with high risk
of severe soil erosion (Ferro et al., 1991; Aronica and Ferro, 1997; Ferro
et al., 1999; Bonilla and Vidal, 2011; Klik and Konecny, 2013; Panagos
et al., 2015a,b, 2016a).
At the plot and field scales soil loss by water erosion can be related
to rainfall by different precipitation properties, i.e. rainfall intensity, I
(mm/h), rainfall momentum, M (N/m2), and rainfall kinetic energy per
unit time and area, named kinetic power, Pn (J/m2 h) (Van Dijk et al.,
2002; Carollo and Ferro, 2015; Carollo et al., 2016, 2017, 2018). The
rainfall momentum, M, represents the pressure or force per unit area,
provoking the mechanical stress, and thus might be expected to be re-
lated to the breakdown of soil aggregates (Rose, 1960). In other words
when the raindrop reaches soil, exerts a knock on the ground area, due
to the charge of momentum amount. This phenomenon provokes the
split of the bonds between soil particles, making them available to be

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vito.ferro@unipa.it (V. Ferro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.06.040
Received 6 February 2019; Received in revised form 3 June 2019; Accepted 14 June 2019
Available online 15 June 2019
0022-1694/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.A. Serio, et al.
transport by overland flow (Carollo et al., 2018).
During years several researchers (Rose, 1960; Hudson, 1971; Abd
Elbasit et al., 2010; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2015) have
investigated to understand if the raindrop impact is more dependent on
M than Pn, or if these two variables are correlated with each other. Rose
(1960) stated that rainfall momentum is a slightly better predictor for
soil detachment than kinetic power. For natural rainfall, Hudson (1971)
demonstrated that momentum and kinetic power present a very similar
relationship with rainfall intensity and the only question is which
variable can be more easily and accurately measured (Van Dijk et al.,
2002). Other studies (Brodie and Rosewell, 2007; Abd Elbasit et al.,
2010; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2012), using rainfall simulators, showed
that both kinetic energy and rainfall momentum can be used to predict
soil splash. In particular Brodie and Rosewell (2007), carrying out an
analysis on rainfall intensity- erosive indices relationships, found that
the rainfall momentum and Pn could be interchangeable with each
other for the estimation of the rainfall erosivity in soil erosion processes
(Abd Elbasit et al., 2010; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2012). Using mea-
surements of rainfall Drop Size Distribution (DSD) and raindrop term-
inal velocity carried out by a laser optical disdrometer (Parsivel), Lim
et al. (2015) stated that the rainfall momentum is the best predictor of
rainfall erosivity in Korea. Carollo et al. (2018) using measurements of
DSDs carried out by an optical disdrometer installed in two different
Mediterranean sites (Palermo- Italy, El Telauret-Spain) suggested that
M and Pn referred to the unit volume of rainfall are related each other
and thus both indices can be used to express the erosive power of the
precipitation.
The rainfall kinetic power results from the kinetic power of single
raindrops that constitute precipitation and varies with the size, velocity
and impact frequency of the raindrops impacting an area in unit time.
The rainfall kinetic power is determined by relating drop size dis-
tribution (DSD) to raindrop terminal velocity and rainfall intensity
(Assouline, 2009).
The force applied to soil by raindrop impact is related to drop size,
in fact a very small raindrop striking the soil at a low impact velocity
exerts very low force on the soil and causes very little erosion regardless
of rainfall intensity (Toy et al., 2002).
The measured rainfall DSD at the ground level is the result of a
series of physical phenomena (i.e. raindrop collision, coalescence, break
up) that influence raindrop formation and its evolution during its
falling process (Assouline and Mualem, 1989). Depending on the cli-
mate, specific location, season, the dominant microphysical rainfall
processes may be different and then lead to different DSDs (Hachani
et al., 2017). The rain formation is typically classified microphysically
how warm or cold process. Warm rain formation involves the growth of
droplets via collision and different models (List et al., 1987; Hu and
Srivastava, 1995) showed that collision-coalescence and breakup pro-
cesses result in an equilibrium shape to DSD regardless of overall
raindrop concentration (Munchak et al., 2012). Cold rain formation
occurs with the melting frozen hydrometeors such as snow or hail.
These frozen particles are larger than the raindrops out of which warm
rain forms and melt into correspondingly larger rain drops. Falling
larger raindrops breakup reducing their size, although this process
depends on the depth of the above-freezing layer and the initial DSD.
Munchak et al. (2012) highlighted also that besides formation and in-
ternal processes, external processes such as evaporation and size sorting
can also influence the DSD. Evaporation preferentially acts on small
drops, thereby increasing the median volume diameter of the dis-
tribution, i.e. the diameter that divides the distribution in two parts of
equal volume. In addiction, the influence of size sorting by wind shear
and turbulence on the DSD depends on the particular situation and may
act to increase or decrease the median volume drop size (Munchak
et al., 2012).
Wiesner (1895) was a pioneer in measuring the DSD of natural
rainfall arriving at the earth’s surface, using a piece of absorbent paper
dusted with a water-soluble dye (Van Dijk et al., 2002). However
211
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
during the years several methods (stain method, flour pellet method; oil
immersion method; photographic method; raindrop spectrograph,
acoustic disdrometer; optical disdrometer; micro rain radar) have been
developed for measuring the drop size distribution of the precipitation
at the ground and for assessing and monitoring the rainfall erosivity
(Wiesner, 1895; Bentley, 1904; Lenard, 1904; Mache, 1904; Defant,
1905; Fuchs and Petrjanoff, 1937; Laws, 1941; Laws and Parsons, 1943;
Gucker, 1949; Bowen and Davidson, 1951; Blanchard, 1952; Courshee
and Byass, 1953; Mason and Ramanadham, 1953; Mikirov, 1957;
Hudson, 1963; Joss and Waldvogel, 1967; Mutchler, 1967; Hall, 1970;
Mutchler and Hansen, 1970; Nawaby, 1970; Mutchler, 1971; Mutchler
and Larson, 1971; Kohl, 1974; Carter et al., 1974; Asseline and
Valentine, 1978; Donnadieu, 1980; Quinn, 1981; Roels, 1981; Lowe,
1982; McCooll, 1982; Eigel and Moore, 1983; Hauser et al., 1984;
Illingworth and Stevens, 1987; Navas et al., 1990; Kincaid et al., 1996;
Tokay and Short, 1996; Grossklaus et al., 1998; Campos, 1999; Salles
and Poesen, 1999; Löffler-Mang and Joss, 2000; Nešpor et al., 2000;
Nystuen, 2001; Reddy and Kozu, 2003; Herngren, 2005; Lanzinger
et al., 2006; Arnaez et al., 2007; Egodawatta, 2007; Schönhuber et al.,
2007; Salvador et al., 2009; Pérez-Latorre et al., 2010; Asante, 2011;
Maahn and Kollias, 2012; Parsakhoo et al., 2012; Friedrich et al., 2013;
Carollo and Ferro, 2015; Kathiravelu et al., 2016; Carollo et al., 2016).
During the years several analytical forms of the raindrop size
parameterization have been proposed as lognormal (LN) (Feingold and
Levin, 1986), Weibull (W) (Weibull, 1951), exponential (MP) (Marshall
and Palmer, 1948) and gamma (U) (Ulbrich, 1983) distribution. How-
ever, at the best of our knowledge, for meteorological and soil erosion
purposes, the most widely applied analytical form is the gamma dis-
tribution (Khrgian et al., 1952; Levin, 1961; Sulakvelidze, 1969;
Sulakvelidze and Dadali, 1971; Uijlenhoet and Stricker, 1999, Carollo
et al., 2016).
The knowledge of the DSD allows (i) to understand how the rainfall
is made up, (ii) to calculate the rainfall kinetic power, Pn, and so (iii) to
characterize energetically the precipitation which plays a fundamental
role in soil erosion (Assouline and Mualem, 1989).
The storm kinetic energy is the total value of the kinetic energy
possessed by all raindrops reaching a unit area of the earth's surface
during the rainfall event. Devices that can measure storm kinetic energy
are not as commonly used as devices that measure rainfall intensity.
This circumstance favored the use of empirical relationships between
rainfall intensity and rainfall kinetic power to estimate the storm ki-
netic energies needed in the prediction of soil loss by empirical soil
erosion models. To date many researchers proposed empirical re-
lationships, having different mathematical forms (polynomial, ex-
ponential, logarithmical, and power type) for estimating kinetic power
by rainfall intensity (Table 1). Van Dijk et al. (2002) critically reviewed
published studies of rainfall intensity- kinetic power relationships,
evaluating their applicability for predictive purposes.
Since the rainfall kinetic power can be calculated by DSD mea-
surements combined with measured fall velocity or empirical laws
linking terminal fall velocity and drop diameter (Salles et al., 2002),
this paper firstly deals with the raindrop terminal velocity estimate.
Then the most widely used DSD models are reviewed, highlighting also
the difference between the raindrop size distribution per unit volume of
air and the DSD per unit area and time. A review of the reliability of the
most commonly used relationships to estimate rainfall kinetic power in
several part of the world is also presented and discussed. Finally, the
influence of seasonality on DSD and energy characteristics of the pre-
cipitation is also investigated using raindrops size distributions mea-
sured by an optical disdrometer at Palermo experimental site.
2. Raindrop terminal velocity
The raindrop impact velocity depends on both the falling height of
each raindrop, H, and its diameter, D (Davies, 1942; Spilhaus, 1948;
Gunn and Kinzer, 1949; Best, 1950; Kessler and Wilks, 1968; Lui and
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Table 1
Pn-I relationships available in literature.
Reference Site Pn-I Relationship Range of rainfall intensity (mm/h)

Hudson (1965) Zimbabwe 29.86 (I-4.29) n.a

Carter et al. (1974) USA 11.32 I + 0.5546 I2- 0.5009 × 10-2 × I-3 + 0.126 × 10-4 I4 1–250
McGregor and Mutchler (1976) USA [27.3 + 21.68 exp(-0.048I)-41.26 exp(-0.072I)]I n.a.
Wischmeier and Smith (1978) USA (11.87 + 8.73 log I)I 0.25–151.8
Kinnell (1981) Zimbabwe 29.2[1–0.89 exp(-0.048I)]I 19–229
Kinnell (1981) Zimbabwe (9.705 + 9.258 log I)I 19–229
Kinnell (1981) Zimbabwe 29.863(I-4.287) 19–229
Park et al. (1980) USA 21.1 I1.156 n.a.
Zanchi and Torri (1980) Italy (9.81 + 11.25 log I)I n.a.
Kinnell (1981) Florida 29.3[1–0.28 exp(-0.018I)]I 1.9–309
Kinnell (1981) Florida (17.124 + 5.229 log I)I 1.9–309
Kinnell (1981) Florida 30.132(I-5.484) 1.9–309
Bollinne et al. (1984) Belgium 12.32 × I + 0.56 × I2 0.27–38.6
Tracy et al. (1984) Arizona 2.1 exp[0.0766 I0.175-2.118 I n.a.
Rosewell (1986) Australia 29[1–0.59 exp(-0.04 I)]I 1–145.9
Rosewell (1986) Australia 26.4[1–0.67 exp(-0.035 I)]I 1–161.2
Rosewell (1986) Australia 24.48 (I-1.253) n.a.
Rosewell (1986) Australia 24.8 (I-1.292) n.a.
Brown and Foster (1987) USA 29[1–0.72exp(-0.05I)]I 0–250
Onaga et al. (1988) Japan (9.81 + 10.6 log I)I n.a.
Brandt (1990) USA (8.95 + 8.44 log I)I n.a
Renard et al. (1991) USA 29[1–0.72 exp(-0.05 I)]I n.a.
Sempere-Torres et al., 1992 France 34 I-190 20–100
Smith and De Veaux, 1992 USA 13 I1.21 n.a.
Coutinho and Tomás, 1995 Portugal 35.9[1–0.56 exp(-0.034I)]I 0.8–103
Cerro et al., 1998 Spain 38.4[1–0.54 exp(-0.029I)]I 1–150
Jayawardena and Rezaur, 2000 China 36.8[1–0.69 exp(-0.038I)]I 0–150
Steiner and Smith, 2000 USA 11 I1.25 n.a.
Usòn and Ramos, 2001 Spain 23.4 I-18 < 20
Van Dijk et al., 2002 Universal 28.3[1–0.52 exp(-0.042 I)]I n.a.
Fornis et al., 2005 Philippines 30.8[1–0.05 exp(-0.03 I)]I 2.8–142
Petan et al., 2010 Slovenia (Koseze) 29.8[1–0.60 exp(-0.07 I)]I 0.1–288
Petan et al., 2010 Slovenia (Kozjane) 31.9[1–0.60 exp(-0.055 I)]I 0.1–220
Sanchez-Moreno et al. (2012) Cape Verde 35[1–0.79 exp(-0.03 I)]I 0–157
Sanchez-Moreno et al. (2012) Cape Verde 8.4 I0.30 0–157
Sanchez-Moreno et al. (2012) Cape Verde (10.09 + 12 log I)I 0–157
Lim et al. (2015) Korea 25.75[1–0.54 exp(-0.05 I)]I 0.1–142

Orville, 1969; Sekhon and Srivastava, 1971; Atlas and Ulbrich, 1977;
Uplinger, 1981; Leone and Pica, 1993; Grosh, 1996; Ferro, 2001). For a
drop having a diameter equal to D, the falling raindrop velocity grows
with H until a threshold value equal to 20 m, after which becomes
constant and it is named rainfall terminal velocity, V(D), expressed in m
s−1. In particular the terminal velocity is reached when there is an
equilibrium between the gravitational force and the raindrop aero-
dynamic resistance.
Actually, few terminal velocity measurements of natural raindrops
are available in literature (Beard, 1976; Jayawardena and Rezaur,
2000) and the relationships between terminal velocity-raindrop dia-
meter were based on measurements of simulated single raindrops that
fall in stagnant air (Lenard, 1904; Schmidt, 1909; Laws, 1941; Gunn
and Kinzer, 1949; Blanchard, 1950; Beard, 1976; Epema and Riezebos,
1983; Jayawardena and Rezaur, 2000).
Theoretically the terminal velocity of a rigid and not deformed
sphere having a given diameter and density, that falls freely through a
medium, i.e. air, having an own density, can be calculated setting the
gravitational force contribution equal to aerodynamic drag one that the
particle meets during its motion of fall (Best, 1950; Park et al., 1983). A
large amount of work has been done in wind tunnels for determining
the drag coefficient for rigid and not deformed spheres. However,
considering natural rainfall a water droplet, falling freely through the
air is deformed by the aerodynamic forces and has been observed to
vibrate strongly and spin, thus producing definite departures from
spherical symmetry. For large drops, vibrations and deformations fre-
quently break up the droplet if it falls sufficiently far. This turbulence
together with the inevitable deformations of a not rigid sphere make the
applicability of the theoretical calculation of the terminal velocity with
measured values of the drag coefficient rather questionable (Gunn and
Kinzer, 1949; Ferro, 2001).
At date the relationship between drop size and terminal velocity is
usually described by an exponential or power equation. Moreover all
these relationships are calibrated by laboratory data collected for free
falling water drops in still air.
Using data from Gunn and Kinzer (1949), Atlas and Ulbrich (1977)
proposed the following power law equation to estimate raindrop
terminal velocity:
V (D) = a0 D a1 (1)
in which D is expressed in cm and V in m s−1, and a0, a1 are coefficients
equal to 17.67 and 0.67 respectively. Atlas and Ulbrich (1977) also
demonstrated that a power law provides a close fit to the data of Gunn
and Kinzer (1949) in the range 0.05 ≤ D ≤ 0.50 cm. The power law
proposed by Sekhon and Srivastava (1971), substituting in Eq. (1) the
values of a0 = 14.2 and a1 = 0.5, allows to have a reasonable accuracy
of terminal velocity estimate for drops in the range 0.1–0.3 cm, but
overestimates the fall velocity of drop > 0.3 cm and smaller than
0.1 cm (Van Boxel, 1998). The power law relations, proposed by several
authors (Spilhaus, 1948; Kessler and Wilks, 1968; Lui and Orville, 1969;
Sekhon and Srivastava, 1971; Atlas and Ulbrich, 1977; Grosh, 1996) are
widely applied, even if according to Van Boxel (1998) can be “mostly
inaccurate”.
For describing the variation of the terminal velocity with drop
diameter, Best (1950) used measurements of terminal velocities carried
out by Davies (1942) and proposed the following exponential re-
lationship:

212
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Π1 = g α D β ρ ε V (D) (6)
in which α, β, and ε are constant parameters. Substituting in the Eq. (6)
the measurement units of g, D and ρ, the following relationship is ob-
tained:
0 = mα s−2α mβkg ε s−2β m−4ε m s−1 (7)
The α, β, and ε values can be determined solving the following
system of equations:
α + β − 4ε + 1 = 0 (8a)

− 2α + 2ε − 1 = 0 (8b)

ε=0 (8c)
The solution of the system (α = 1/2, β = 1/2, ε = 0) allows to de-
duce the following dimensionless group:
V (D)
Π1 =
gD (9)
Using a similar procedure, the other dimensionless groups are de-
duced:
Fig. 1. Relationship between Π1, Π2 groupings using measurements carried out
H
by Laws (1941) (modified by Ferro, 2001) (D = drop diameter, V = falling Π2 =
D (10)
velocity, H = fall height).
νc
Π3 =
1.147 g1/2D3/2 (11)
D
V (D) = 9.43 ⎧1 − exp ⎡−⎛ ⎞ ⎤⎫
⎨ ⎢
⎣ ⎝ 17.7 ⎠ ⎥
⎦⎬ (2) Va
⎩ ⎭ Π4 =
−1 g1/2D1/2 (12)
where V(D) is the terminal velocity in m s , D is the drop diameter
expressed in cm. Eq. (2) adequately represents Davies’s experimental Considering the Eqs. (11) and (12) the following relationship can be
data for diameters ranging from 0.069 to 0.595 cm (Best, 1950). deduced:
Other researchers (Uplinger, 1981; Leone and Pica, 1993) proposed
Π4 V g1/2 D3/2 V D
the following exponential relationship relating terminal velocity- rain- = 1/2 a 1/2 = a
Π3 g D νc νc (13)
drop diameter:
in which νc is the cinematic viscosity. Finally the Eq. (5) can be
V (D) = α′ D exp(−β′ D) (3)
expressed as follows:
in which the constants α'and β', are equal to 48.74 and 1.95 (Uplinger,
V (D) H VD
1981). Leone and Pica (1993) using raindrop terminal velocity mea- =f⎛ , a ⎞
⎜ ⎟

surements carried out in laboratory by Beard (1976), Laws (1941) and
Gunn and Kinzer (1949) estimated α' = 49 and β' = 2.
Taking into account that for D < 0.10 cm the drop has a slow
terminal velocity and small mass producing a negligible kinetic power
and for D > 0.55 cm the raindrops are unstable and tend to break up
before reaching their terminal velocity (Pruppacher and Pitter, 1971),
Leone and Pica (1993) considered only raindrops having a diameter
varying in the range 0.10–0.55 cm.
Cerro et al. (1998) used Eq. (3) with the coefficients proposed by
Uplinger (1981) to terminal velocity estimates in Spain, and found that
the measured values of raindrop terminal velocity were lower than
those predicted by Uplinger’s Eq. (3).
Ferro (2001) suggested that for a raindrop having diameter D and
falling with a velocity, V(D), from a fall height, H, through a medium
with density ρ and viscosity, νc, and having a velocity Va, this phe-
nomenon can be expressed by the following functional relationship:
F (V (D), D , H , g , νc , ρ , Va) = 0
where F is the functional symbol and g is the acceleration due to
gravity. Since Eq. (4) describes a physical phenomenon that is in-
dependent on the choice of the measurement units of the considered
variables, the Π-theorem of dimensional analysis can be applied for
expressing Eq. (4) by four dimensionless groups Π1, Π2, Π3, Π4:
Φ (Π1, Π2 , Π3 , Π 4) = 0
where Φ is a functional symbol. Choosing as independent variables
from dimensional point of view, g, D and ρ, the Π1 grouping assumes the
following form:
gD ⎝ D νc ⎠ (14)
In stagnant air condition (Va = 0) Eq. (14) can be expressed using
the Π1 and Π2 groups. Fig. 1 shows the experimental rainfall velocity
and raindrop measurements carried out by Laws (1941), in the plot
H / D , V (D)/ g D . This figure highlights a clear similitude relation for
all measurements carried out using H ≤ 8 m. However, despite the
condition of the perfect similitude between the relationships Π1 = f(Π2)
for H ≤ 8 m, this relationship cannot be applied for the estimation of
the natural raindrop terminal velocity, for which H must be almost
equal to 20 m.
Ferro (2001), considering that the terminal velocity increases for
D < 0.56 cm until which becomes constant, used the measurement
carried out by many researchers (Laws, 1941; Gunn and Kinzer, 1949;
Blanchard, 1950; Beard, 1976; Epema and Riezebos, 1983;
Jayawardena and Rezaur, 2000) for deducing the following relation-
ship (Fig. 2):
(4) V (D) = Vmax [1 − exp(−an D)] (15)
−1
in which Vmax (m s ) and an (cm) parameters vary with H (m)
(Table 2). For calculating raindrop terminal velocity (H = 20 m) Vmax
and an, respectively equal to 9.5 m s−1 and 6 cm, have to be applied.
This equation was used by Carollo and Ferro (2015), Carollo et al.
(2016) and Serio (2017) for estimating the kinetic power by raindrop
size distribution (DSD) in Italy.
(5)
Based on the investigations of Beard and Pruppacher (1969) and
Beard (1976), Van Dijk et al. (2002) used a cubic polynomial function
to describe raindrop terminal velocity, V (m s−1) as function of D (mm),
for drop size of 0.1–7.0 mm:

213
M.A. Serio, et al.
Fig. 2. Comparison between the measurements of terminal velocity and drop
diameter and Eq. (15) (modified by Ferro, 2001).
Table 2
Vmax and an parameter values of Eq. (15) versus rain falling height,
H.
H [m] Vmax
0.5 3.1
0.75 3.75
1 4.31
1.5 5.2
2 5.9
2.5 6.46
3 6.94
4 7.69
5 8.2
6 8.55
8 9.01
20 9.55
V (D) = 0.0000561 D3 − 0.00912 D 2 + 0.503 D − 0.254
Angulo-Martínez et al. (2016) using raindrop terminal velocity
measurements carried out in Spain by an Optical Spectro Pluviometer,
found that Eq. (16) “provided a better fit for smaller drop
(0.01 < D < 0.07 cm), whereas” Eq. (1), “provided a better fit for mid-
size drops (0.1 < D < 0.3 cm). The Uplinger (1981) equation performed
similarly to” Eq. (16), “but it overestimated the raindrop terminal velocity
values for the smallest drops”.
In conclusion, Eq. (15) is capable to reproduce the physical
boundary condition for D ≥ 0.55 cm (the raindrops are unstable and
tend to break up) and the agreement with the available measurements
(Fig. 2) states its best effectiveness in describing the drop velocity to
drop size relationship.
3. Rain drop size distributions
3.1. Types of DSD
The raindrop size distribution (DSD) is an interesting rainfall
property for its scientific implication as well as its engineering aspect
(Assouline and Mualem, 1989). The DSD formation is not fully under-
stood because of the random and complex nature of the physical phe-
nomena that govern the aggregation and disaggregation of the rain-
drops. However the knowledge of DSD is essential to test theoretical
models and for estimating the rainfall kinetic energy which plays a
fundamental role in soil sealing and erosion (Assouline and Mualem,
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
1989).
The raindrop size distribution (DSD) is defined as the function
stating the expected number of drops with diameters between D and
D + dD. The study of the DSD formation and evolution allowed to
distinguish two different raindrop size distributions referred to unitary
volume of air or to unit area and time.
The distribution Nv(D)dD represents the number of raindrops with
diameters between D and D + dD (cm) per unit volume of air (m3), in
which D is expressed in cm and volume in m3 and the units of Nv(D)
become cm−1 m−3. According to this definition, the DSD refers to the
spatial distribution of raindrops in the air (which governs the raindrop
concentration) and to the probability distribution of raindrop sizes in
the air.
The second form of the raindrop size distribution, N(D)dD, re-
presents the expected number of raindrops with diameters between D
and D + dD (cm) arriving at a surface per unit area (m2) and per unit
time (s). Where D is expressed in cm, area in m2 and time in s, and so
the units N(D) become cm−1 m−2 s−1.
For meteorological studies, the size distribution of raindrops com-
monly refers to the number of drops present in unit volume of air, Nv(D)
dD while for hydrological studies, the DSD usually refers to the number
of droplets N(D)dD, that reaches a unit horizontal area during a unit
time.
Uijlenhoet and Stricker (1999) suggest that Nv(D) yields to know the
static properties of the raindrop population, i.e. the spatial size dis-
tribution of the raindrops in a volume of air (which governs the rain-
an drop concentration) and the probability distribution of their sizes. In
addition to these static properties, N(D) involves the dynamic proper-
14
13
ties of the raindrop population as well its velocity distribution.
12 It should be noted that since the study of the DSD has for the most
10 part been the work of the meteorologists, they considered the number
9 of drops present in unit volume of air, Nv(D)dD, even though N(D)dD is
8
the distribution which is actually measured in most cases (Uijlenhoet
8
7 and Stricker, 1999).
7 Considering a raindrop, constituted by drops that fall freely in air,
7 i.e. neglecting the effects of wind, turbulence and raindrop interaction,
7 the two size distributions are related by the following relationship
6
(Austin, 1987; Hall and Calder, 1993; Uijlenhoet and Stricker, 1999;
Carollo and Ferro, 2015):
(16) N (D) dD = V (D) Nv (D) dD (17)
in which V(D) is the terminal velocity of the drop having a diameter D.
For studying accurately, the energetic characteristics of raindrops
that reach the ground area, the number, N(D)dD, of raindrops with
diameters between D and D + dD arriving at a unit area per unit time
has to be determined.
Measurements of raindrop size distributions at the ground carried
out with different techniques (i.e. photographic method, acoustic, im-
pact and optical disdrometer, micro rain radar) suggested that averaged
raindrop size distributions can generally be parameterized as unimodal,
positively skewed distributions characterized by few parameters
(Uijlenhoet and Stricker, 1999).
The most widely applied analytical forms of the raindrop size
parameterization are lognormal (LN), Weibull (W), exponential (MP)
and gamma (U) distribution.
3.2. The lognormal distribution (LN)
Several authors (Mueller and Sims, 1966, 1967; Levin, 1971;
Bradley and Stow, 1974; Markowitz, 1976; Bezdek and Solomon, 1983;
Feingold and Levin, 1986; Ochou et al., 2007) proposed a lognormal
distribution (LN) for describing the rain drop size distribution Nv(D) in
an unit volume of air in different climatic conditions:
Nv (D) 1
p (D) = = exp[−ln2 (D / Dm)/2ln2 σ(D) ]
NT 2π ln σ(D) D (18)
214
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

in which p(D) is the probability density function of the drop diameter, 3.3. The Weibull distribution (W)
D, NT is the total number of the drops per unit volume of air, Dm, and
σ(D), represent the geometric mean diameter (cm) and the standard Langmuir (1948) considered the raindrop formation as a chain re-
deviation of the raindrop diameter (cm) respectively. action process in which raindrops seem to grow up to a point where
According to Feingold and Levin (1986) the parameters of log- turbulence, raindrop collision or coalescence cause breakup into two or
normal distribution can be calculated by the following relationships: smaller drops, which in turn, repeat the same process.
∞ Weibull (1951) described this phenomenon assuming to have a
NT = ∫0 N (D) dD (19) chain consisting of n links, the chain as a whole fail if any one of its
links fails. Therefore, denoting as P(f) the probability of failure of the
ln Dm = ln¯D (20) chain, the nonfailure probability of the chain (1- P(f)) is equal to the
probability of the simultaneous nonfailure of all the links (Weibull,
ln2 σ(D) = (ln D −¯ ln Dm )2 (21) 1951), thus:

in which ln¯D is the arithmetic mean of the natural logarithm of the P (f ) = 1 − exp−n f (x ) (26)
diameter, D, and (ln D −¯ ln Dm )2 is the mean of the variable where f(x) is the function of any load, x, applied to a single link. The
(ln D − ln Dm )2 . analogy of the chain with raindrop is due to the break up mechanism. In
Notice that for large values of σ(D) and small values of Dm, the other words, the probability of break up of a chain constituted by n
lognormal function has the concave upward shape in much the same links is equal to the probability of raindrop break up into n parts of it.
way that the gamma distribution does when μ < 0 (Feingold and Sekine and Lind (1982) stated that, if in a unit volume of air a drop
Levin, 1986). breaks up and a series of chain reaction processes occur, the probability
The rainfall intensity can be estimated by the following equation P(D) that raindrop diameter is less than D can be written as:
(Feingold and Levin, 1986):
δ
D ⎡ D v⎤
I = 7.1 × 10−3 NT Dm3.67 exp (6.73 ln2 σ(D) ) (22) 1− ∫0 p (D) dD=1 − P (D) = exp ⎢−⎛ ⎞ ⎥
ω
⎜ ⎟

The median volume diameter, D0, that is the diameter that divides
the distribution in two parts of equal volume, is given by (Feingold and
Levin, 1986):
D0 = Dm exp (3 ln2 σ(D) ) (23)
which underlines that D0, is a scale and shape parameter, as it depends
on Dm and σ(D). Feingold and Levin (1986), using DSD measurements
carried out at Hadera in Israel by an optical disdrometer, found that:
(i) although the value of σ(D) varies considerably for low rain rate, for
I > 5 mm/h is quasi constant and equal to 1.43. This result implies
that the ratio D0/Dm = KD is constant and equal to 1.47. According
to Markowitz (1976), using Laws and Parsons data, for
2.5 < I < 152.4 mm/h the σ(D) parameter remains constant and
equal to 1.39;
(ii) NT increases with rainfall intensity as follows:
NT = 172 I 0.22 (24)
in agreement with Gagin (1980) that proposed an increase NT with I for
convective clouds in Israel;
⎣ ⎝ v⎠ ⎦ (27)
where p(D) is the probability density function of diameter D; δv is the
shape parameter responsible for the skew of the distribution and ωv
(mm) is the scale parameter.
The Weibull shape parameter, δv, is a pure number (i.e. di-
mensionless) and is also named Weibull slope. Different values of the
shape parameter can have marked effects on the behavior of the dis-
tribution. When δv = 1, the P(D) of the Weibull distribution reduces to
that of the exponential law proposed by Marshall and Palmer (1948).
When δv = 2, the P(D) of the Weibull distribution reduces to Rayleig
distribution (Cohen, 1965). Changing the scale parameter, ωv, it does
stretch out the existing shape. In particular with δv constant, the in-
crease of ωv yields to have the distribution stretched to the right in the
graph. Instead decreasing ωv results in the graph being shrunk to the
left (towards zero).
Applying logarithms to both members of Eq. (27), it follows:
ln{ −ln[1 − P (D))]} = δ v [ln(D) − ln(ω v )] (28)
Assuming Nv(D), that is the number of the raindrops in an unit
volume of air, equal to P(D) a linear equation is obtained to present the
parameters of the Weibull distribution:

(iii) Dm parameter increases with I according to the equation: X = ln(D) (29)

Dm = 0.75 I 0.21 (25)

Feingold and Levin (1986) found that lognormal distribution can be

{
Y = ln −ln ⎡1 −
⎣
∫0
D
Nv (D) dD⎤
⎦ } (30)
fitted to observed DSDs in Israel, better than gamma or exponential By differentiating Eq. (27) and considering the total number of the
distribution. They reported also that the lognormal distribution has the drops, NWv, the raindrop size distribution, Nv(D), is obtained (Sekine
advantage that the statistical parameters (Dm, σ(D) and NT) have a and Lind, 1982):
physical meaning. In particular the variations in the size parameter Dm
δv−1 δ
are indicative of the relative importance of coalescence and breakup δv ⎛ D ⎞ ⎡ D v⎤
Nv (D) = NWv ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢−⎛ ⎞ ⎥
⎜ ⎟

processes, and the parameter σ(D) reflects the effect that these processes ωv ⎝ ωv ⎠ ω
⎣ ⎝ v⎠ ⎦ (31)
have on the breadth of the spectrum.
Recently, Ochou et al. (2007) fitted the lognormal distribution to where NWv (m−3), δ v and ω v (mm) are the parameters of the dis-
DSDs detected at Abidjan (Ivory Coast), Dakar (Sénégal), Niamey tribution.
(Niger) and Boyélé (Congo) using JWD disdrometer. The authors sug- Sekine and Lind (1982), fitting Eq. (31) to the raindrop size dis-
gested that this distribution is preferred because its parameters have a tributions measured by Laws and Parsons (1943) in Washington, Sander
simple geometric interpretation and the moments can be written in the (1975) in Berlin and Wickerts (1982) in Stockholm, found that:
form of a product of three terms, each of them being a function of only
NWv = 1000 m−3 (32)
one of the three parameters.
At date, at the best of our knowledge, no relationship to estimate the while δ v and ω v parameters are dependent on I according to the fol-
rainfall kinetic power has been deduced for the lognormal distribution. lowing relationships:

215
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

δ v = 0.95 I 0.14 (33)
ω v = 0.26 I 0.44 (34)
Jiang et al. (1997), using raindrop size distributions detected by a
disdrometer installed in Tokyo, positively verified the reliability of the
Weibull distribution and suggested that this theoretical probability
distribution, as the Ulbrich one, presents a peak, that tends to shift
toward large raindrop diameter with increasing rainfall intensity. Jiang
et al. (1997), comparing the U, MP and W distributions with the ex-
perimental data, found that both U and W distribution give better fit to
data than MP one.
Assouline and Mualem (1989) suggested a new approach for
studying the mechanism of the forces that shape the DSDs through
coalescence and breakup of the falling drops along their pathway from
the cloud to the soil surface. The Authors hypothesized that the result of
coalescence and breakup processes is equivalent to a series of frag-
mentations that are random in nature. Considering the assumptions
that: (i) the probability for a drop break up is proportional to its vo-
lume; (ii) the probability that a break up of a drop of size w’ yields drops
of size V’ is independent of V’; (iii) V’ is uniquely related to raindrop
diameter, Assouline and Mualem (1989) proposed the following prob-
ability function:
n
F (d, I ) = 1 − exp−r D (35)
where n and r are the two parameters of the Weibull distribution, which
are estimated by the following equations:
DG = r −1/ n Γ(1 + 1/ n) (36)
σ 2 = r −2/ n [Γ(1 + 2/n) − Γ 2 (1 + 1/n)] (37)
where Γ is the Gamma function.
Using DG as the scaling factor, the following scaled diameter D* is
obtained:
D D
D∗ = = −1/ n
DG r Γ(1 + 1/ n) (38)
From Eq. (38) it follows:
Γn (1 + 1/ n) D ∗n = r Dn (39)
Substituting Eq. (39) into Eq. (35), with
γ = Γn (1 + 1/ n) (40)
the following dimensionless one-parameter distribution function is
obtained:
F (D ∗ ) = 1 − exp−γ D ∗ n (41)
The power n = 3 of the diameter D derives from the assumption that
fragmentation probability is related to drop volume. If the theoretical
power n = 3 is adopted in Eqs. (40) and (41), considering the basing
assumption which relates fragmentation probability to the volume of
the drop, Assouline and Mualem (1989) proposed the following rela-
tion:
F (D ∗ ) = 1 − exp−0.71 D∗ 3
(42)
which is a probability distribution function, F(D*), that is independent
of both intensity and site where precipitation occurs, named “universal
distribution” (Assouline and Mualem, 1989). In other words, the in-
troduction of a relative raindrop diameter (Eq. (38)) transformed the
theoretical DSD into a universal relationship (Eq. (42)). Assouline and
Mualem (1989), using raindrop size distributions measured by Hudson
(1965) in Rhodesia and by Carter et al. (1974) at Baton Rouge and
Holly Springs, observed that the measured distributions at each site are
overlapped to the universal distribution (Eq. (42)). This circumstance
confirms that the use of the scaled diameter D* involves that Eq. (42) is
not site-specific. Assouline (2009) using DSDs measurements carried
out at Princeton (New Jersey) by Smith et al. (2009), found that Eq.
(42) overestimates the probability function for small D* values
(D* < 2).
Jiang et al. (1997), using DSD measurements carried out in Tokyo,
suggested that for I = 1.88 mm/h, I = 14.32 mm/h, I = 46.40 mm/h
the Weibull distribution agrees with the experimental data better than
the (U) and (MP) ones. Instead the Marshall and Palmer distribution
gives a good fit to the experimental data only for the lowest rainfall
intensity value (I = 1.88 mm/h).
At date, at the best of our knowledge, no relationship to estimate the
rainfall kinetic power has been deduced for the Weibull distribution.
3.4. The Marshall and Palmer distribution (MP)
Marshall and Palmer (1948) proposed a simple negative exponential
parameterization (MP) for the raindrop size distribution as a fit to filter
paper measurements of the DSDs for rainfall intensities between 1 and
23 mm/h (Uijlenhoet and Stricker, 1999):
Nv (D) = N0, v exp (−Λv D) (43)
where Nv(D), expressed in m−3 cm−1, is equal to the number of rain-
drops per unit volume of air and per unit size interval having equivo-
lume spherical diameter D (cm). The parameters of the exponential
distribution N0,v (m−3 cm−1) and Λv (cm−1) represent the total number
of the raindrops and the scale parameter, respectively.
Marshall and Palmer (1948) suggested that N0,v has a constant value
equal to 8 × 104 m−3 cm−1 and Λv varies with the rainfall rate, I (mm
h−1), according to the following power law:
Λv = 4.1 I 0.21 (44)
Ulbrich (1983) carrying out an analysis of drop size spectra of Laws
and Parsons (1943) revealed that these data can be also represented by
the Marshall and Palmer distribution but N0,v varies with rainfall in-
tensity.
Many other researchers (Marshall and Palmer, 1948; Waldvogel,
1974; Carbone and Nelson, 1978; Joss and Gori, 1978) suggested that
the exponential distribution is a very good approximation to the rain-
drop size distribution referred to natural rainfall.
Several authors (Gunn and Marshall, 1955; Mueller, 1966;
Waldvogel, 1974; Joss and Gori, 1978; Sempere Torres et al., 1994) also
pointed out that the data analyzed by Marshall and Palmer (1948)
failed to include the smaller raindrops (< 1 mm) and in particular this
DSD tends to overestimate the number of both smallest drops (Gunn
and Marshall, 1955; Mueller, 1966; Waldvogel, 1974; Sempere Torres
et al., 1994) and largest ones (Joss and Gori, 1978; Sempere Torres
et al., 1994).
Ochou et al. (2007) carrying out an analysis about DSD types sug-
gested that the MP distribution is widely used for describing the mid-
latitude DSDs that are characterized by low to moderate intensity. In-
stead for tropical latitudes, where mean rainfall intensities is 6 to 7
times higher than at mid-latitudes (Sauvageot, 1994), Eq. (43) is not
able to give a good DSD characterization. It was also observed that for I
higher than 10–20 mm h−1 and for D larger than the modal value
(0.1–0.2 cm), the Λ parameter becomes almost constant (Pasqualucci,
1982; Sauvageot and Lacaux, 1995) in contrast with Eq. (44). The
constant slope observed in heavy tropical rain expresses the evolution
of the DSD towards an equilibrium form in which the shape of DSDs
does not change any more (Ochou et al., 2007).
3.5. The Ulbrich distribution (U)
The gamma distribution (U) proposed by Ulbrich (1983), which is a
generalization of the MP one, has been applied by several authors for
describing DSD measurements carried out using different measurement
techniques (filter paper, photoelectric spectrometer, drop camera,
doppler radar, optical disdrometer) (Blanchard, 1953; Dingle and
Hardy, 1962; Muller, 1965; Caton, 1966; Joss and Gori, 1978; Gori and

216
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Fig. 4. The product ΛD0 as a function of ΛDmax for a gamma raindrop size
distribution having the form N(D) = N0 Dμ exp(-ΛD) (0 ≤ D ≤ Dmax). Each
curve is labeled with the value of the exponent μ to which it corresponds
(modified by Ulbrich, 1983).

Fig. 3. Example of the gamma raindrop size distribution for μv = -2, 0 and 2
and with liquid water content W = 1 g m−3 and median volume diameter
D0 = 2 mm (modified by Ulbrich, 1983).
Geotis, 1981; Chandrasekar and Bringi, 1987; Tokay and Short, 1996;
Ulbrich and Atlas, 1998; Brawn and Upton, 2008; Carollo and Ferro,
2015; Carollo et al., 2016).
Ulbrich’s distribution is largely used because of its appropriate form
for characterizing the distribution of the droplets in clouds (Khrgian
et al., 1952), aerosols (Levin, 1961), and precipitation particles
(Sulakvelidze, 1969; Sulakvelidze and Dadali, 1971).
This theoretical distribution has the following expression:
Nv (D) dD = N0, v D μ v exp (−Λv D) dD (45)
in which μv, Λv and N0,v are the statistical parameters of the distribution.
In particular the exponent μv represents the shape parameter and it
can assume positive or negative values (Fig. 3). For positive values of μ v
the DSD is concave downward, has a narrow breadth and falls rapidly to
zero as D → 0. For negative values of μv the DSD is concave upward on
semi-logarithmic plot and has large breadth with increasing numbers of
drops at both small and large diameters (Ulbrich, 1983). The N0,v
parameter is expressed as m−3 cm−1-μ, and Λv is a scale parameter. For
μv equal to zero, Eq. (45) coincides with the Marshall-Palmer distribu-
tion. In agreement with Uijlenhoet and Stricker (1999), Carollo and
Ferro (2015) found that, combining Eq. (45), Eq. (17) and Eq. (1) the
following relationship can be obtained:
N (D) dD = 17.67 D 0.67N0, v D μ v exp(−Λv D) dD
(46)
Eq. (46) can be rewritten in the following form:
N (D) dD = N0 D μ exp(−Λ D) dD (47)
where N0 = 17.67 N0,v, μ = μv + 0.67, and Λ = Λv. Eq. (47) having the
same mathematical shape of Eq. (45), is also reliable for estimating
D0 D max
2 ∫0 D3 N (D) dD = ∫0 D3 N (D) dD (48)
This relationship can be rewritten as follows:
2 Γ(4 + μ, Λ D0) = Γ (4 + μ, Λ Dmax ) (49)
where Γ is the gamma function. Fig. 4 shows the relationship between
ΛD0 and ΛDmax as defined by Eq. (49) for values of −2 ≤ μ ≤ 3. It
highlights that the value of ΛDmax at which ΛD0 is close to its limiting
value depends on μ. Ulbrich (1983) found that ΛD0, according to Eq.
(49), can be assumed approximately equal to:
Λ D0 = 3.67 + μ (50)
which is accurate to within 0.5% for all μ > −3.
For Rhodesian precipitations, Hudson (1971) represented the re-
lationship between D0 and rainfall intensity by a curve that presents a
maximum point for I ≈ 80 mm/h even if D0 values are characterized by
a low variability (2.0 < D0 < 2.5 mm) in the explored range of I
(25 < I < 200 mm/h).
Carter et al. (1974) aggregated the DSDs relieved in Louisiana and
Mississippi for 13 intensity classes and found that D0 does not increase
for rainfall intensities greater than about 65 mm/h.
Many other researches (Laws and Parsons, 1943; Atlas, 1953;
Kelkar, 1959; Zanchi and Torri, 1980; Brandt, 1988; Jau-yau et al.,
2008) proposed a power law for describing the relationship D0-I im-
plying that D0 continues to increase indefinitely with I. This last result is
in contrast with other researches which stated that a maximum median
volume diameter value is reached at high rainfall intensities (usually
above 70–100 mm/h), after which the D0 becomes constant (Kinnell,
1981; Rosewell, 1986; Brown and Foster, 1987, Carollo et al., 2016) or
even decreases (Hudson, 1963; Baruah, 1973; Carter et al., 1974) (Van
Dijk et al., 2002).
When the parameters D0 and μ are known, Λ parameter can be es-
timated by the following equation:
Λ = (3.67 + μ)/ D0 (51)
−1
Rainfall intensity I (mm h ) can be calculated from the following
expression (Salles et al., 2002; Carollo and Ferro, 2015):
π ∞ π ∞

drop size distribution per unit area and unit time.

I = 3.6
6
∫0 D3N (D) dD = 3.6 N0
6
∫0 D3 + μ exp(−ΛD) dD
(52)
Ulbrich (1983) demonstrated that the median volume diameter, D0,
where D is expressed in cm and N(D)dD in m−2 s−1.
that is the diameter that divides the distribution in two part of equal
Taking into account that (Olver, 1997):
volume, can be expressed uniquely in term of Λ. For μ ≠ 0, the re-
lationship between Λ, D0 and Dmax, i.e. the maximum diameter of the ∞ Γ(4 + μ)
DSD, is determined by the analytical definition of D0, as:
∫0 D3 + μ exp(−ΛD) dD =
Λ4 + μ (53)

217
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Eq. (52) becomes: −0.85 to 76.9, is generally positive (23756 DSD of the 23,967 mea-
sured 160 ones) and assumes a median value of about 5 while para-
π Γ(4 + μ)
I = 3.6 N0 meter Λ ranges from 3.3 to 591.5. Both parameters slightly decrease as
6 Λ4 + μ (54)
rainfall intensity increases and, in agreement with results of other au-
Eq. (54) links the DSD parameters to rainfall intensity and allows to thors (Zhang et al., 2003; Brawn and Upton, 2008), are correlated.
calculate N0 parameter as function of I and of the other two DSD
parameters:
4. Rainfall kinetic power relationships
Λ4 + μ
N0 = π I
3.6 6 Γ(4 + μ) (55) 4.1. Rainfall kinetic power – intensity relationships

The median drop diameter, D50, and the median volume drop dia-
meter, D0, considering the Ulbrich’s distribution can be approximately
calculated by the following relationships (Ulbrich, 1983; Uijlenhoet and
Stricker, 1999, Carollo et al., 2016; Serio, 2017):
0.67 + μ
D50 =
Λ (56)
3.67 + μ
D0 =
Λ (57)
From Eqs. (56) and (57) the two Ulbrich’s parameters can be de-
duced:
μ = D0 Λ − 3.67 (58)
3 kinetic energy of the rainstorm per unit area, E (MJ ha−1), and I30
Λ=
D0 − D50 (59)
Carollo and Ferro (2015), using 23,967 DSDs measured in Sicily in
the period June 2006 – February 2012, verified the reliability of the
Ulbrich’s distribution in Sicilian environments estimating μ and Λ by
both maximum likelihood method (ML) and momentum method (MM),
imposing the coincidence between the mean and standard deviation of
the measured distribution with the theoretical statistical parameters
one. Fig. 5 shows, as an example for three rainfall intensity values (9.5,
52.5 and 124.5 mm h−1), the fitting of the gamma distribution (U) to
the DSDs detected in Sicily. This figure demonstrates the reliability of
the Ulbrich’s distribution in the Sicilian environment and its ability to
reproduce the presence of large raindrops corresponding to high P(D)
values. Carollo and Ferro (2015) found that the parameter μ varies from
Rainfall kinetic power, Pn (J/m2 h), can be calculated by adding the
contribution of each raindrop once its mass and terminal velocity are
known. Therefore, the energy characteristics of a rainfall event can be
indirectly measured if its DSD and the relationship between terminal
drop velocity and drop diameter are known.
At date many researchers proposed empirical relationships linking
kinetic power to rainfall intensity having different mathematical forms
(polynomial exponential, logarithmical and power type (Table 1). The
most commonly used relationship for estimating Pn as function of
rainfall intensity is that proposed by Wischmeier and Smith (1978) and
used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
According to Wischmeier and Smith (1978) the event rainfall-runoff
erosivity factor, EI30, is the result of the product of the total rainfall
(mm h−1), which is the maximum 30-min rainfall intensity. E is due to
the product of the rainfall kinetic energy per unit volume of rainfall, Pn/
I, (J m−2 mm−1), and the rainfall depth referred to each raining period.
For estimating Pn/I, Wischmeier and Smith (1978) proposed the fol-
lowing relationship, having a logarithmic form, based on the mea-
surements of drop size distribution and terminal velocity observed at
Washington, DC, by Laws and Parsons (1943):
Pn (11.9 + 8.73 log I ) for I ⩽ It
=⎧
⎨
I ⎩ (11.9 + 8.73 log It ) for I > It (60)
in which It is the intensity threshold value that according to Wischmeier
and Smith (1978) is equal to 76 mm h−1. According to Eq. (60) the ratio
Pn/I, increases for rainfall intensity value less than or equal to It and

Fig. 5. Comparison between Ulbrich’s distribution and DSDs detected at Palermo site (Sicily, South Italy).

218
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

then it becomes constant for rainfall intensity greater than It. by raindrop size distribution measured in Korea, suggested that as I
Wischmeier and Smith (1978) justified this threshold value suggesting increases, the Pn/I value also increases until I is equal to 60 mm/h, and
that the median volume diameter, D0, does not continue to increase then it becomes constant. The calibrated exponential relationship pro-
when rainfall intensities exceed 76 mm h−1. posed by Kinnell (1981) (Eq. (61), was able to predict the kinetic power
For describing the same trend, Kinnell (1981) proposed the fol- per unit volume of rainfall. In particular they stated that for
lowing relationship: I < 30 mm/h the exponential model fitted the observed data well, but
it heavily underestimated the Pn/I values for I > 60 mm/h.
Pn
= a (1 − b exp (−c I )) Lobo and Bonilla (2015), developing a sensitivity analysis of kinetic
I (61)
energy-intensity relationships on rainfall erosivity using rainfall in-
where a, b and c are parameters. According to Eq. (61) Pn/I has a finite tensity values measured in central Chile, suggested that: (i) Eq. (60)
positive value at zero intensity and approaches, as well as Eq. (60), to provides statistically equivalent erosivity values to those that are
an asymptotic value (Pn/I = a) at high intensities. computed by Eq. (61) with parameter values suggested by McGregor
Brown and Foster (1987), using data from Brisbane and Gunnedah and Mutchler (1976); (ii) Eq. (60) predicts larger erosivity estimates
(Australia), Holly Springs (Mississippi), Miami (Florida), Washington than Eq. (61) for I < 5.5 mm/h, which is the maximum measured
and Zimbabwe, estimated a = 29 J m−2 mm−1, b = 0.72 and rainfall intensity in central Chile. Finally, Authors concluded that Eq.
c = 0.05 h mm−1. The asymptotic value a is practically coincident with (60) and Eq. (61) are highly sensitive to change in its regression
the one (Pn/I = 28.3 J m−2 mm−1) obtained by Eq. (61) for parameters. Thus, these equations should be calibrated based on local
I > 76 mm/h. precipitation data to generate reliable erosivity estimates.
Eq. (61) with the parameter values proposed by Brown and Foster Ciaccioni et al. (2016) carried out an analysis on rainfall erosivity in
(1987) is used in Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Renard Slovenia using disdrometer data. In particular they concluded that: (i)
et al., 1997). In RUSLE2 Equation, Foster (2004) suggested Eq. (61) for at high values of I equations from Coutinho and Tomás (1995) and
estimating rainfall kinetic power, with the parameter a, b and c equal to Cerro et al. (1998) (Table 1) tend to slightly overestimate the measured
29 J m−2 mm−1, 0.72 and 0.082 h mm−1, respectively (McGregor kinetic power; (ii) the use of the equations suggested by Wischmeier
et al., 1995). and Smith (1978), Brandt (1990), Usòn and Ramos (2001) and Van Dijk
Kinnell (1987) reported that a parameter can be assumed equal to et al. (2002) (Table 1) tend to underestimate the rainfall kinetic power.
29 J m−2 mm−1 while b and c parameters are site-specific (Salles et al., Therefore Ciaccioni et al. (2016) concluded that, a general equation
2002). However, other researchers proposed different values of a, b and relating Pn and I is not suitable to estimate correctly the kinetic power
c parameters confirming their dependence on geographical location of the precipitation, but equations as Eq. (61) need to be calibrated
(Table 3). using at-site data.
McGregor et al. (1995) comparing Eqs. (60) and (61) verified that Angulo-Martínez et al. (2016) using DSDs detected in Spain found
for 1 mm/h < I < 35 mm/h, Pn/I values estimated by Eq. (61) with that the relationship between Pn/I and I is asymptotic and in particular
the coefficient values suggested by Brown and Foster (1987) are 12% Pn/I becomes nearly constant at an I value of about 65 mm/h. These
less than those predicted by Eq. (60). They concluded that the annual authors verified the reliability of Eq. (61) for Pn/I estimates using
erosivity predicted by Eq. (61) with parameter values suggested by parameter values proposed by Brown and Foster (1987). Angulo-
McGregor and Mutchler (1976) and Eq. (60) were almost identical, Martínez et al. (2016) concluded that none of these empirical expres-
whereas Pn/I values predicted by Eq. (61) with the parameter values sions can be used universally, since their applicability depends on the
proposed by Brown and Foster (1987) were about 8% lower (Yin et al., geographical and meteorological conditions of investigated sites.
2017). The underestimation of the Pn/I in the RUSLE model was also Carollo et al. (2017), using DSD detected at Palermo (Sicily) in the
reported in Australia (Yu, 1998a,b), Belgium (Verstraeten and Poesen, period June 2006-March 2014 and aggregated in intensity classes,
2006) and Peninsular Malaysia (Yin et al., 2017). found that the Wischmeier and Smith (1978) relationship is fully ap-
Fornis et al. (2005) using disdrometric measurements carried out in plicable for estimating the rainfall kinetic power in Sicilian environ-
Central Cebu, Philippine, calibrated both Eq. (60) and Eq. (61). They ment. In fact, Eq. (60) is able to reproduce the Pn/I values measured at
verified that the calibrated exponential relationship Eq. (61) Palermo experimental site for I < 40 mm/h even if it determines a
(a = 30.68, b = 0.05 and c = 0.03), is more reliable to predict the ki- slight overestimate for 2 < I < 15 mm h−1 and systematically over-
netic power per unit volume of rainfall than the equation proposed by estimates the kinetic power for I > 40 mm h−1. However this last
Wischmeier and Smith. overestimation can be avoid setting It in Eq. (60) equal to 40 mm/h. The
Lim et al. (2015), carrying out an analysis on rainfall kinetic power median volume diameter, D0, and Pn/I values measured at Palermo
show an increasing trend with rainfall intensity for I ≤ 40 mm/h after
Table 3 which does not more increase with I (Carollo et al., 2017). These results
Values of Eq. (61) parameters. represent a further confirmation of the applicability of the Wischmeier
Reference Site a b c
and Smith (1978) approach even if the threshold value of rainfall in-
tensity (It = 40 mm/h) resulted less than the one proposed by
Kinnell (1981) Zimbabwe 29.2 0.89 0.048 Wischmeier and Smith (1978) (It = 76 mm/h) (Carollo et al., 2017).
Kinnell (1981) Florida 29.3 0.28 0.018 Carollo et al. (2017) also tested the reliability of the Eq. (61) for
Rosewell (1986) Australia 29 0.59 0.04
estimating Pn/I at Palermo. In particular, they found that Eq. (61) with
Rosewell (1986) Australia 26.4 0.67 0.035
Brown and Foster (1987) USA 29 0.72 0.05 the parameters values proposed by Brown and Foster (1987), for
Renard et al. (1991) USA 29 0.72 0.05 I > 30 mm h−1, gives values slightly greater than the ones obtained by
Coutinho and Tomás (1995) Portugal 35.9 0.56 0.034 Eq. (60). Instead, Eq. (61) underestimates systematically Pn/I especially
Cerro et al. (1998) Spain 38.4 0.54 0.029
for the lowest values of I (I < 20 mm/h). However in the whole range
Jayawardena and Rezaur (2000) China 36.8 0.69 0.038
Van Dijk et al. (2002) Universal 28.3 0.52 0.042 of I, the shape of the curve corresponding to Eq. (61) describes the Pn/I
Fornis et al. (2005) Philippines 30.8 0.05 0.03 –I relationship better than Eq. (60) even if Eq. (61) needs to be cali-
Petan et al. (2010) Slovenia (Koseze) 29.8 0.6 0.07 brated.
Petan et al. (2010) Slovenia (Kozjane) 31.9 0.6 0.055 Other researchers (Park et al., 1980; Smith and De Veaux, 1992;
Sanchez-Moreno et al. (2012) Cape Verde 35 0.79 0.03
Uijlenhoet and Stricker, 1999; Steiner and Smith, 2000; Sanchez-
Lim et al. (2015) Korea 25.75 0.54 0.05
Angulo-Martínez et al. (2016) Spain 29 0.72 0.05 Moreno et al., 2012) verified the reliability of a power law relationship
for which the ratio Pn/I does not become constant for any value of I. In

219
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

other words, for high values of rainfall intensity, a power law re-
lationship implies a trend different from Eq. (60) and Eq. (61). Sanchez-
Moreno et al. (2012) suggested that the power law equation seems to
represent better than Eq. (60) and Eq. (61) the kinetic power of the
rainfall in Cape Verde, characterized by a sequence of extreme short
events with high intensities.
Salles et al. (2002), carrying out an overview of many empirical
relationships Pn-I showed that, for a fixed rainfall intensity, these re-
lationships yield to very different values of kinetic power.
Using measurements of rainfall intensity, drop size distribution and
drop size specific fall velocity carried out by optical laser disdrometers
in five experimental stations in Germany, Wilken et al. (2018) sug-
gested that the commonly used empirical Pn-I relationships (Table 1)
overestimate the measured rainfall kinetic power. Furthermore, in
agreement to Van Dijk et al. (2002) and Meshesha et al. (2014), Carollo
et al. (2018) stated that there is no a single empirical Pn-I equation that
can be recommended for any part of the world. According to Parsons
and Gadian (2000), Salles et al. (2002) concluded that a global para-
meter, as rainfall intensity I or median volume diameter D0, is not
sufficient to determine the rainfall erosivity since that kinetic power
measurements are also dependent on other parameters (rain type, al-
titude, climate and method of measurement).

4.2. Deducing rainfall kinetic power – intensity relationship by DSD

The kinetic power, Pn (J/m2 h), knowing both DSD and terminal
velocity, can be calculated as (Salles et al., 2002):
ρπ ∞
Pn = 10−6
12
∫0 [V (D)]2 D3N (D) dD
(62)
−3
where ρ is the water density (kg m ), V(D) is the terminal velocity of
the drop having a diameter D (m s−1) and N(D)dD is the number of
raindrops with diameters between D and D + dD arriving at a unit area
per unit time. The use of Eq. (62) requires the knowledge of the rain-
drop size distribution.
At date, at the best of our knowledge, no relationship to rainfall
kinetic power estimate has been deduced for the Weibull and
Lognormal distribution.
Applying the gamma distribution (Ulbrich, 1983), raindrop terminal
velocity estimated by Eq. (15) (Ferro, 2001), and using Eq. (62), Carollo Fig. 6. Comparison among all available pairs (I, Pn/I) (a), (I, D0) (b) and (D0,
and Ferro (2015) deduced theoretically the following expression: Pn/I) (c) measured in different geographical sites.

Pn 9. 52 4 + μ ⎡ 1 2 1 ⎤
= 10−6 ρΛ 4+μ
− + which clearly shows that the ratio Pn/I depends only on median volume
I 7.2 ⎢
⎣Λ (6 + Λ) 4 + μ (12 + Λ) 4 + μ ⎥
⎦ (63)
diameter. According to Eq. (64), if D0 assumes a constant value (when I
According to Eq. (63) the rainfall kinetic power can be determined if exceeded a threshold value), Pn/I becomes constant. In other words, Eq.
both the rainfall intensity and μ and Λ parameters of the DSD are (64) represents a theoretical confirmation of the Wischmeier and Smith
known. This circumstance allows to conclude that the ratio Pn/I de- (1978) hypothesis.
pends on the intrinsic characteristics of rain. Finally, Carollo et al. (2018) presented the comparison between the
Carollo and Ferro (2015), using approximately 24,000 DSDs de- pairs (I, Pn/I and I, D0) corresponding to Palermo dataset with the ones
tected by an optical disdrometer at Palermo (Sicily) in the period June obtained by different measurement techniques (drop camera, piezo-
2006 – February 2012, showed that: (i) Eq. (63) reproduces adequately electric force transducer, blotting paper) in other sites of the world
the kinetic power measurements specially using μ and Λ values obtained (Marshall Islands, New Jersey, Alaska, Indonesia, Oregon, Franklin,
by momentum method; (ii) Eq. (60) is fully applicable to rainfall re- Hong Kong, Ethiopia, Spain). They concluded that the relationships Pn/I
corded in Sicily and has to be preferred to a power relationship cali- - I and D0-I are site specific and therefore a single, like Eq. (60) or Eq.
brated on collected data that tends to overestimate the rainfall kinetic (61), is not reliable for estimating rainfall kinetic power at any site
power for high values of I; (iii) Eq. (61) yields appreciable under- (Fig. 6). On the contrary, the experimental pairs (D0, Pn/I) relative to all
estimates of Pn for low values of rainfall intensity. available datasets resulted near to a single increasing curve that can be
Carollo et al. (2016), taking into account that the Marshall and described by Eq. (64) (Fig. 6). This theoretically derived relationship
Palmer (1948) distribution per unit time and area can be assumed resulted fully applicable to all available datasets demonstrating that Pn/
formally identical to the Ulbrich (1983) one, by combining Eq. (57) and I – D0 relationship is free from at-site effects and useful to adequately
Eq. (63) with μ = 0.67, obtained the following theoretical relationship: characterize the rainfall erosivity (Serio, 2017).
In other words, for a given rainfall intensity, kinetic power depends
on the raindrop size distribution reaching soil surface, and the median
Pn 9. 52 ⎡ 2 1 ⎤
= 10−6 ρ ⎢1 − 4.67
+ 4.67
⎥ volume diameter is an useful characteristic diameter able to synthesize
I 7.2 ⎢
⎣
D
(
6 4.340 + 1 ) ( D
6 2.170 +1 ) ⎥
⎦ (64) whole DSD information.

220
M.A. Serio, et al.
Fig. 7. View of the experimental installation and cross section of the optical disdrometer.
5. Seasonal effects on precipitation
The predicted soil loss is affected by the interaction between the
erosive power of rainfall and the soil protection action of vegetative
canopy. Crop canopy, which is the aboveground part of vegetation that
intercepts rainfall, varies during the year with natural growth pro-
cesses. Maximum erosion control is obtained using a crop having the
maximum canopy during periods of high rainfall erosivity (Toy et al.,
2002). Soil loss is greatest when the peak period of rainfall erosivity
corresponds to the period when the soil is most exposed to raindrop
impact.
At date very few studies have been carried out in order to under-
stand how the seasonality could influence the raindrop formation
(Alonge and Afullo, 2012; Hachani et al., 2017) and evolution during its
221
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
fall.
5.1. Influence of seasonality on DSD in literature
Alonge and Afullo (2012), carrying out a seasonal analysis using
DSD measured at Durban (South Africa), suggested that seasonality
influences raindrop formation. In particular this analysis highlighted
that for rainfall intensity, I, up to 10 mm/h the shape of the raindrop
size probability density function in Durban (South Africa) may be si-
milar for summer, autumn and spring seasons. However, for
I > 10 mm/h winter season presents a raindrop size probability den-
sity function different from the other seasons, having larger raindrop
size. Alonge and Afullo (2012) verified also the reliability of the LN, W
and U statistical models establishing that a different probabilistic model
M.A. Serio, et al.
Table 4
Characteristic data of the erosive events in each season.
Season N. of erosive events Total number of disaggregated DSD
Spring 72 3609
Summer 38 2689
Autumn 101 6672
Winter 313 29,293
should be used for each season. In particular the Lognormal distribution
best fits the summer and autumn; the Ulbrich distribution fits winter
and Weibull distribution fits spring season. The analysis also shows that
the highest number of the rain drops per unit area and time occurs in
summer, while the winter is characterized by the lowest number of
raindrops. The Authors also highlighted the existence of seasonality
respect to Dm, and σ(D).
For the Weibull model, referred to raindrop size distribution per
unit area and time, the values of the shape parameter, δ, resulted si-
milar for the seasons of summer, autumn and spring. In addition, the
scale parameter, ω, for the seasons of autumn and spring are also found
to be close, instead winter season has ω values higher than summer
season.
For the Ulbrich distribution all seasons are observed to take dif-
ferent values of the scaling parameter, N0. However, the values of the Λ
parameter estimated for summer and autumn are the closest (Alonge
and Afullo, 2012).
Hachani et al. (2017) used DSDs detected at the Cévennes-Vivarais
region (France) by six OTT Parsivel optical disdrometers to investigate
the seasonal influence on rain drop size distributions. At first the Ul-
brich raindrop size distribution was fitted to measured DSDs. The
analysis highlighted that the shape parameter is almost identical in
spring and autumn. The number of drops was most similar in autumn
and winter. The spring and autumn seasons present hybrid character-
istics between those of winter and summer.
The intra-annual variability of rainfall erosivity can be high
(Panagos et al., 2016a) and this information can be useful for identi-
fying the high risk periods in which soil exposure to rainfall coincides
with occurring high erosive events.
To date, no study has been carried out to know if the seasonality of
drop size distribution could have any influence on rainfall erosivity, i.e.
on the energetic characteristics of rainfall that reaches soil surface.
5.2. New findings: Seasonality on DSDs detected at Palermo experimental
area
In this section an analysis of the seasonality effects on character-
istics of DSDs that reach an unit area in an unit time and on erosive
power of the precipitation at Palermo (Italy) is presented.
Measurements of drop size distributions were carried out using an
optical disdrometer placed at the experimental area equipped near the
Department of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Sciences of the
University of Palermo (Fig. 7).
This disdrometer (model ODM 470 made by Eigenbrodt) measures
drop diameters in the range 0.05–0.6 cm. Each drop is separately
measured and registered into classes of about 0.005 cm width. Drop
diameter is measured by registering light damping due to the passage of
the drop in the control volume between two diodes (Fig. 7). More de-
tails about construction and functioning features of disdrometer are
reported in Grossklaus et al. (1998) and Carollo and Ferro (2015).
The disdrometer registered 524 rainfall events in the period June 2,
2006 – March 10, 2014. For each rainfall event, only the DSDs for
which the rainfall intensity was > 0.5 mm/h and measured diameter
classes were at least 20 were considered. This choice excluded both
rainfalls having low erosive power and DSDs having a small sample
size. This procedure provided 42,264 DSDs with a sampling time of
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
Total number of aggregated DSD Total number of raindrop I range [mm/h]
27 826,918 0.76–53.19
62 803,952 0.80–113.56
79 2,096,357 0.78–203.33
74 8,320,775 0.78–166.65
1 min.
In order to better focus the influence of seasonality and rainfall
intensity on both DSD and rainfall energetic characteristics (Laws and
Parsons, 1943; Carter et al., 1974; Sauvageot and Lacaux, 1995;
Jayawardena and Rezaur, 2000), the 42,264 DSDs (named in-
stantaneous DSDs) were firstly distinguished in spring (April, May,
June), summer (July, August, September), autumn (October, No-
vember) and winter (December, January, February, March) and then
aggregated in intensity classes having width equal to 1 mm/h.
The rainfall distribution during the year is characterized by the
highest values of monthly rainfall in autumn and winter (wet period)
and the lowest values in spring and summer (dry period). In particular,
the mean annual value of the rainfall depth at Palermo site is equal to
410 mm in the winter period while in autumn, spring and summer,
220 mm, 120 mm and 100 mm occur, respectively.
For each class, the rainfall intensity was calculated as average of the
intensities of the instantaneous DSDs falling into the class. This proce-
dure allows to have number of aggregated DSDs (named DSDs) equal to
27 DSDs for spring, 62 for summer, 79 for autumn and 74 for winter.
Table 4 reports some characteristic data of the erosive events referred to
each season.
Fig. 8 shows the number of raindrops falling in each intensity class
versus mean rainfall intensity referred to each class. In general, for each
season the number of the raindrops increases for very low values of I
(I < 5 mm/h) (Fig. 8a), while for 5 < I < 40 mm/h (Fig. 8a) the
number of the raindrops decreases as rainfall intensity increases. For
winter and autumn seasons the number of the raindrops becomes
constant for I > 100 mm/h (Fig. 8b).
The Ulbrich’s distribution was fitted to each DSDs, using the max-
imum likelihood method to estimate μ and Λ parameters. The frequency
distribution of μ and Λ parameters referred to each season datasets are
calculated and reported in Fig. 9. In particular the frequency distribu-
tions of the shape parameter (μ) are found to be closer for summer,
spring and autumn rains than the winter one. In fact in agreement to
Hachani et al. (2017), the values of statistical indices (mean, median,
standard deviation and coefficient of variation) (Table 5) are closest
and suggest that a similarity in DSD shape in these seasons exists.
Fig. 9b shows the frequency distributions of the DSD slope parameter,
Λ, referred to each season. In winter the DSDs are characterized by the
highest values of Λ parameter. In addiction from spring to winter the
raindrop size distributions present an increasing slope parameter value.
Each DSD is characterized by a pair (μ, Λ), thus the possible influ-
ence of the seasonality on the μ and Λ relationship has to be in-
vestigated. Fig. 10 shows the pairs (μ, Λ) relative to precipitations oc-
curred in each season. A single relationship between μ and Λ
parameters can be observed for spring, summer and autumn seasons,
which are also characterized by the nearest values of the total rainfall
depth. While in winter season, the precipitations characterized by
I > 40 mm/h present a μ − Λ relationship different from those with
I < 40 mm/h (Fig. 10). In addition, the pairs (μ, Λ) relative to winter
precipitations with I < 40 mm/h are quasi overlapped to spring,
summer and autumn ones, suggesting that a DSD similarity exists.
Therefore, these results suggest that for I > 40 mm/h winter DSDs are
different from the other season ones, and within winter season DSDs
characterized by I < 40 mm/h are different from those with
I > 40 mm/h.
222
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Fig. 8. Number of the raindrops falling in each intensity class versus mean rainfall intensity referred to each class for I < 40 mm/h (a) and for I > 40 mm/h (b).

For each DSDs the median volume diameter value was also de-
termined. Fig. 11 shows the pairs (I; D0) referred to each season. The
measurements suggest that for all rainfall intensity classes, the pairs (I,
D0) are overlapped and thus the relationship between D0 and I is not
seasonally dependent (Fig. 11). For I < 40 mm/h the median volume
diameter shows an increasing trend with I, and a single power law can
be fitted (Fig. 11a). Instead for I > 40 mm/h D0 does not depend on
rainfall intensity and can be considered quasi constant and equal to
0.25 cm (Fig. 11b).
For each season the kinetic power per unit volume of rainfall, Pn/I,
by DSDs was also determined by associating each diameter with the
terminal velocity estimated by Eq. (15) with Vmax and an, respectively
equal to 9.5 m s−1 and 6 cm. Fig. 12 shows the comparison between Pn/
I values versus rainfall intensity of aggregated DSDs for I < 40 mm/h
(a) and for I > 40 mm/h (b) in different seasons. The pairs (I, Pn/I) are
overlapped highlighting that no season dependence of the relationship
between Pn/I and I exists for the precipitation registered at Palermo.
The Pn/I values measured at Palermo show an increasing trend with

Fig. 9. Frequency distributions of μ and Λ parameters in different seasons.

223
M.A. Serio, et al. Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228

Table 5
Statistic indices of frequency distributions of μ and Λ parameters of Ulbrich distribution in different seasons.
μ Λ

Season Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Mean 0.99 1.08 1.35 2.32 24.59 24.82 27.71 30.48

Median 0.79 0.97 1.11 2.09 20.01 21.51 23.49 25.88
Standard deviation 1.12 0.99 1.00 1.73 14.87 11.81 13.02 14.17
Coefficient of Variation 1.13 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.48 0.47 0.46

Fig. 10. Comparison between μ and Λ parameter relationship in different sea-
sons.
rainfall intensity for I ≤ 40 mm/h (Fig. 12a) after which becomes
constant (Pn/I = 26 J/m2 mm) (Fig. 12b). This performance is similar
to D0-I one. These results represent a further confirmation of the ap-
plicability of the Wischmeier and Smith (1978) approach, even if the
threshold value of rainfall intensity (It = 40 mm/h) resulted less than
the one proposed by Wischmeier and Smith (1978) (It = 76 mm/h)
(Carollo et al., 2017).
6. Conclusive remarks and research needs
The rainfall kinetic power can be calculated by Drop Size
Distribution (DSD) measurements combined with fall velocity values
measured or estimated by empirical relationship linking terminal fall
velocity and drop diameter. This paper presented the most commonly
used relationship for raindrop terminal velocity estimate, highlighting
that the rainfall terminal velocity depends only on rainfall diameter and
fall height.
The most widely used theoretical DSDs were also reviewed, high-
lighting the need to distinguish the raindrop size distribution per unit
volume of air, from that per unit area and time. The raindrop size
distribution per unit volume of air yields to know the static properties
of the raindrop population, i.e. the spatial size distribution of the
raindrops in a volume of air (which governs the raindrop concentra-
tion) and the probability distribution of their sizes. In addition to these
static properties, the raindrop size distribution per unit area and time
involves the dynamic properties of the raindrop population as well its
velocity distribution. However, if the effects of wind, turbulence and
raindrop interaction are neglected, the two size distributions are re-
lated. To date, at the best of our knowledge, no relationship to rainfall
kinetic power estimate has been deduced for the Weibull and
Lognormal distribution.
The reliability of the most commonly used relationships to estimate
rainfall kinetic power in several part of the world, was also reviewed,
highlighting that a single relationship Pn/I - I is not applicable at any
site. Furthermore, a relationship relating Pn/I and I as those proposed
by Wischmeier and Smith and by Kinnell, needs to be calibrated on
data. The theoretically derived relationship between Pn/I – D0, from the
Marshall and Palmer distribution per unit time and area, suggested by
Carollo et al. resulted fully applicable to all available datasets. This
result demonstrates that Pn/I – D0 relationship is free from at-site effects
and useful to adequately characterize the rainfall erosivity. This cir-
cumstance represents a theoretical confirmation of Wischmeier and
Smith hypothesis, which established that the trend of Pn/I depends
strictly on the D0 one; in other words, the global parameter D0 is suf-
ficient to determine the ratio Pn/I and it is a variable free from at site
effects and useful to characterized rainfall erosivity.
Finally, an analysis on influence of seasonality in DSD and rainfall
energetic characteristics at Palermo experimental area was also carried

Fig. 11. Comparison between D0 values versus rainfall intensity of aggregated DSDs in different seasons for I < 40 mm/h (a) and for I > 40 mm/h (b).

224
M.A. Serio, et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison between Pn/I values versus rainfall intensity of aggregated DSDs for I < 40 mm/h (a) and for I > 40 mm/h (b) in different seasons.
out. This investigation yields to conclude that the seasonality influences
the raindrop formation only in winter season. However, the relation-
ship between Pn/I and I is not season dependent as D0 and I too. In other
words, at the best of our knowledge, the erosive power of the pre-
cipitation does not depend on the season when the rainfall occurs.
Therefore, this paper highlights that future works on rainfall ero-
sivity should be addressed:
• to establish techniques able to give measurements of the raindrop
terminal velocity;
• to carry out contemporaneous measurements of drop size and
terminal velocity by laser disdrometers;
• to deduce relationships to estimate rainfall kinetic power by Weibull
and Lognormal distributions;
• to verify the reliability of the probability distribution function, F
(D*), proposed by Assouline and Mualem;
• to verify the theoretically derived relationship between P /I – D n 0
suggested by Carollo et al. in different site of the world;
• to find new models or techniques able to provide good estimates or
measurements of the median volume diameter of the distribution;
• to investigate the influence of the seasonality on both rain drop size
distribution per unit area and time, and rainfall erosivity in other
site of the world;
• to relate the seasonality of drop size distribution with the rain
forming systems;
•
to investigate the effect of high-resolution precipitation data on the
calculation of the rinfall erosivity factor.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
All authors set up the research, analyzed and interpreted the results
and contributed to write the paper.
References
Abd Elbasit, M.A.M., Yasuda, H., Salmi, A., Anyoji, H., 2010. Characterization of rainfall
generated by dripper-type rainfall simulator using piezoelectric transducers and its
impact on splash soil erosion. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms. 35, 466–475.
Alonge, A.A., Afullo, T.J., 2012. Seasonal analysis and prediction of rainfall effects in
eastern South Africa at microwave frequencies. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 40, 279–303.
Angulo-Martínez, M., Beguería, S., Kyselý, J., 2016. Use of disdrometer data to evaluate
the relationship of rainfall kinetic energy and intensity (KE-I). Sci. Total Environ.
568, 83–94.
Arnaez, J., Lasanta, T., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Ortigosa, L., 2007. Factors affecting runoff and
225
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
erosion under simulated rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 93,
324–334.
Aronica, G., Ferro, V., 1997. Rainfall erosivity over Calabrian region. J. Hydrol. Sci. 42,
35–48.
Asante, E.A., 2011. Effect of Mulch Type, Mulch Rate and Slope on Soil Loss, Runoff and
Infiltration Under Simulated Rainfall for Two Agricultural Soils in Ghana. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Asseline, J., Valentine, C., 1978. Construction et mise au point d’ un infiltrometre a as-
persion. Chaiers ORSTOM. Serie Hidrologie 15, 321–349.
Assouline, S., 2009. Drop size distributions and kinetic energy rates in variable intensity
rainfall. Water Resour. Res. 45, 1–7.
Assouline, S., Mualem, Y., 1989. Similarity of regional rainfall. A dimensionless model of
drop size distribution. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32, 1216–1222.
Atlas, D., 1953. Optical extinction by rainfall. J. Meteorol. 10, 486–488.
Atlas, D., Ulbrich, C.W., 1977. Path- and area-integrated rainfall measurement by mi-
crowave attenuation in the 1–3 cm band. J. Appl. Meteorol. 16, 1322–1331.
Austin, P.M., 1987. Relation between measured radar reflectivity and surface rainfall.
Mon. Weather Rev. 115, 1053–1070.
Baruah, P.C., 1973. An investigation of drop size distribution of rainfall in Thailand. PhD
Dissertation. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Beard, K.V., 1976. Terminal velocity of cloud and precipitation drops aloft. J. Atmos. Sci.
33, 851–864.
Beard, K.V., Pruppacher, H.R., 1969. A determination of the terminal velocity and drag of
small water drops by means of a wind tunnel. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 1066–1072.
Bentley, W.A., 1904. Studies of raindrops and raindrop phenomena. Mon. Weather Rev.
32, 450–456.
Best, A.C., 1950. The size distribution of raindrops. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 76, 1636.
Bezdek, J., Solomon, K., 1983. upper limit lognormal distribution for drop size data. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1 (72), 72–88.
Blanchard, D.C., 1950. Behavior of water drops at terminal velocity. Trans. Am. Geoph.
Union. 31, 836–842.
Blanchard, D.C., 1952. Raindrop Size Distribution and Associated Phenomena in
Hawaiian Rains. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA No,
pp. R52.
Blanchard, D.C., 1953. Raindrop size-distribution in Hawaiian rains. J. Meteorol. 10,
457–473.
Bollinne, A., Florins, P., Hecq, P., Homerin, D., Renard, V., Wolfs, J.L., 1984. Etude de
l’énergie des pluies en climat tempéré océanique d’Europe Atlantique. Z.
Geomorphol. 27–35.
Bonilla, C.A., Vidal, K.L., 2011. Rainfall erosivity in Central Chile. J. Hydrol. 410,
126–133.
Bowen, E.G., Davidson, K.A., 1951. A raindrop spectrograph. Quart. J. R. Meteorol Soc.
77, 445–449.
Bradley, S.G., Stow, C.D., 1974. The measurement of charge and size of raindrops, Part II.
Results and analysis at ground level. J. Appl. Meteorol. 13, 131–147.
Brandt, C.J., 1988. The transformation of the rainfall energy by a tropical rain forest
canopy in relation to soil erosion. J. Biogeogr. 15, 41–48.
Brandt, C.J., 1990. Simulation of the size distribution and erosivity of raindrops and
through fall drops. Earth Surf. Process. 15, 687–698.
Brawn, D., Upton, G., 2008. On the measurement of atmospheric gamma drop-size dis-
tributions. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 9, 245–247.
Brodie, I., Rosewell, C., 2007. Theoretical relationships between rainfall intensity and
kinetic energy variants associated with stormwater particle washoff. J. Hydrol. 340,
40–47.
Brown, L.C., Foster, G.R., 1987. Storm erosivity using idealized intensity distribution.
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 30, 379–386.
Campos, E.F., 1999. On measurements of drop size distributions. Top. Meteorol.
Oceanogr. 6, 24–30.
Carbone, R., Nelson, L.D., 1978. The evolution of raindrop spectra in warm-based con-
vective storms as observed and numerically modeled. J. Atmos. Sci. 35, 2302–2314.
M.A. Serio, et al.
Carollo, F., Ferro, V., 2015. Modeling rainfall erosivity by measured drop-size distribu-
tions. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20 C4014006-1-7.
Carollo, F., Ferro, V., Serio, M.A., 2016. Estimating rainfall erosivity by aggregated drop
size distributions. Hydrol. Process. 30, 2119–2128.
Carollo, F., Ferro, V., Serio, M.A., 2017. Reliability of rainfall kinetic power- intensity
relationships. Hydrol. Process. 31, 1293–1300.
Carollo, F., Ferro, V., Serio, M.A., 2018. Predicting rainfall erosivity by momentum and
kinetic energy in Mediterranean environment. J. Hydrol. 560, 173–183.
Carter, C.E., Greer, J.D., Braud, H.J., Floyd, J.M., 1974. Raindrop characteristics in South
Central United States. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 17, 1033–1037.
Caton, P.G.F., 1966. A study of raindrop size distributions in the free atmosphere. Quart.
J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 15–30.
Cerro, C., Bech, J., Codina, B., Lorente, J., 1998. Modeling rain erosivity using disdro-
metric techniques. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 731–735.
Chandrasekar, V., Bringi, V.N., 1987. Simulation of radar re-flectivity and surface mea-
surements of rainfall. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 4, 464–478.
Ciaccioni, A., Bezak, N., Rusjan, S., 2016. Analysis of rainfall erosivity using disdrometer
data at two stations in central Slovenia. Acta Hydrotech. 29, 89–102.
Cohen, A.C., 1965. Maximum likelihood estimation in the Weibull distribution based on
complete and on censored sample. Technometrics 7, 579–588.
Courshee, R.J., Byass, J.B., 1953. Study of the Methods of Measuring Small Spray Drops.
National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bedford, UK.
Coutinho, M.A., Tomás, P.P., 1995. Characterization of raindrop size distributions ay the
vale formoso experimental erosion Center. Catena 25, 187–197.
Davies, C.N., 1942. Unpublished Ministry of Supply reports quoted by Sutton in Air
Ministry report, M.R.P. 40.
Defant, A., 1905. Gesetzmässigkeiten in der Verteilung der Verschiedenen
Tropfenggrössen bei Regenfällen Wiener Sitzungsber.
MathematischWissenschaftliche Klasse 114, 585–646.
Dingle, A.N., Hardy, K.R., 1962. The description of rain by means of sequential rain drop
size distributions. Quar. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 88, 301–314.
Donnadieu, G., 1980. Comparison of results obtained with the VIDIAZ spectro-pluvi-
ometer and the Joss-Waldvogel rainfall disdrometer in a “rain of a thundery type. J.
Appl. Meteorol. 19, 593–597.
Egodawatta, P.K., 2007. Translation of Small-plot Scale Pollutant Build-up and Wash-off
Measurements to Urban Catchment Scale. Ph.D. Thesis. Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Eigel, J.D., Moore, I.D., 1983. A simplified technique for measuring raindrop size and
distribution. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 24 (4), 1079–1083.
Epema, G.F., Riezebos, H.Th., 1983. Fall velocity of water drops at different heights as a
factor influencing erosivity of simulated rain. Rainfall simulation, runoff and soil
erosion. In: DePloy, J. (Ed.), Catena Supplement. pp. 1–18.
Feingold, G., Levin, Z., 1986. The lognormal fit to raindrop spectra from convective
clouds in Israel. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol. 25, 1346–1363.
Ferro, V., Giordano, G., Iovino, M., 1991. Isoerosivity and erosion risk map for Sicily. J.
Hydrol. Sci. 36, 549–564.
Ferro, V., Porto, P., Yu, B., 1999. A comparative study of rainfall erosivity estimation for
southern Italy and southeastern Australia. J. Hydrol. Sci. 44, 3–24.
Ferro, V., 2001. Tecniche di misura e monitoraggio dei processi erosivi. Quaderni di
Idronomia Montana 21/2, 63-128 (in Italian).
Fornis, R.I., Vermeulen, H.R., Nieuwenhuis, J.D., 2005. Kinetic energy-rainfall intensity
relationship for Central Cebu, Philippines for soil erosion studies. J. Hydrol. 300,
20–32.
Foster, G.R., 2004. User’s reference guide, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE2). Report USDA.
Friedrich, K., Higgins, S., Masters, F.J., Lopez, C.R., 2013. Articulating and stationary
PARSIVEL disdrometer measurements in conditions with strong winds and heavy
rainfall. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 30, 2063–2080.
Fuchs, N., Petrjanoff, I., 1937. Microscopic examination of fog, cloud and rain droplets.
Nature 139, 111–112.
Gagin, A., 1980. The relationship between the depth of cumuliform clouds and their
raindrop characteristics. J. Rech. Atmos. 14, 409–422.
Gori, E.G., Geotis, S.G., 1981. Comparison of the raindrop size distributions observed in
New England and Switzerland. Preprint 20th Conf. on radar meteorology. Boston.
Am. Meteorol. Soc, 282–286.
Grosh, R.C., 1996. Weighted fall speed parameters. In: 26th Conference on Radar
Meteorology. Ma. Meteor. Soc. Boston, pp. 607–610.
Grossklaus, M., Uhlig, K., Hasse, L., 1998. An optical disdrometer for use in high wind
speeds. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 15, 1051–1059.
Gucker Jr., F.T., 1949. Determination of concentration and size of particulate matter by
light scattering and sonic techniques. In: Proceedings of First National Air Pollution
Symposium, 10–11 November. Stanford Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp.
14–25.
Gunn, R., Kinzer, G.D., 1949. The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant
air. J. Meteorol. 6, 243–248.
Gunn, K.L.S., Marshall, J.S., 1955. The effect of wind shear on falling precipitation. J.
Meteorol. 12, 339–349.
Hachani, S., Boudevillain, B., Delrieu, G., Bargaoui, Z., 2017. Drop size distribution cli-
matology in Cévennes-Vivarais Region, France. Atmosphere 8.
Hall, M.J., 1970. Use of the stain method in determining the drop-size distributions of
coarse liquid sprays. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Trans. 13, 33–37.
Hall, R.L., Calder, I.R., 1993. Drop size modification by forest canopies, measurements
using a disdrometer. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 465–470.
Hauser, D., Amayenc, P., Nutten, B., Waldteufe, l.P., 1984. A new optical instrument for
simultaneous measurement of raindrop diameter and fall speed distributions. J.
Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1, 256–269.
226
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
Herngren, L., 2005. Build-up and wash-off process kinetics of PAHs and heavy metals on
paved surfaces using simulated rainfall. Ph.D. Thesis. Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Hu, Z., Srivastava, R., 1995. Evolution of the raindrop size distribution by coalescence,
breakup, and evaporation: theory and observations. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 1761–1783.
Hudson, N.W., 1963. Raindrop size distribution in high intensity rain. Rhod. J. Agric. Res.
1, 6–11.
Hudson, N.W., 1971. In: Soil Conservation. Batsford Ltd,, London, pp. 338.
Hudson, N.W., 1965. The influence of rainfall mechanics on soil erosion. MSc Thesi, Cape
Town.
Illingworth, A.J., Stevens, C.J., 1987. An optical disdrometer for the measurement of
raindrop size spectra in windy conditions. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 4, 411–421.
Jau-yau, Lu., Chih-Chiang, Su., Tain-Fang, Lu., Maa, Ming-Ming, 2008. Number and vo-
lume raindrop size distributions in Taiwan. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2148–2158.
Jayawardena, A.W., Rezaur, R.B., 2000. Drop size distribution and kinetic energy load of
rainstorms in Hong Kong. Hydrol. Process. 14, 1069–1082.
Jiang, H., Sano, M., Sekine, M., 1997. Weibull raindrop-size distribution and its appli-
cation to rain attenuation. IEE Proc. Microw. Antennas Propag. 144 (3), 197–200.
Joss, J., Gori, E.G., 1978. Shapes of raindrop size distributions. J. Appl. Meteorol. 17,
1054–1061.
Joss, J., Waldvogel, A., 1967. A spectrograph for raindrops with automatic interpretation.
Pure Appl. Geophys. 68, 240–246.
Kathiravelu, G., Lucke, T., Nichols, P., 2016. rain drop measurement techniques, a review.
Water 8, 1–20.
Kelkar, V.N., 1959. Size distribution of raindrops- Part II. Indian J. Meteorol. Geoph. 4,
323–330.
Kessler, E., Wilks, K.E., 1968. Radar measurements of precipitation for hydrologic pur-
poses. Reports on WMO/IHD projects. Report No 5, 46.
Khrgian, A.K.A., Mazin, I.P., Cao, V., 1952. Distribution of drops according to size in
cloud. Tr. Tsent. Aerol. Observ. 7, 56.
Kincaid, D.C., Solomon, K.H., Oliphant, J.C., 1996. Drop size distributions for irrigation
sprinklers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 39, 839–845.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1981. Rainfall intensity-kinetic energy relationship for soil loss prediction.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 45, 153–155.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1987. Rainfall energy in Eastern Australia, intensity-kinetic energy re-
lationships for Canberra, A.C.T. Aust. J. Soil Res. 25, 547–553.
Klik, A., Konecny, F., 2013. Rainfall erosivity in northeastern Austria. Trans. ASABE 56,
719–725.
Kohl, R.A., 1974. Drop size distributions from medium-sized agricultural sprinklers. Am.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Trans. 17, 690–693.
Langmuir, I., 1948. The production of rain by a chain reaction in cumulus clouds at
temperatures above freezing. J. Meteor. 5, 175–192.
Lanzinger, E., Theel, M., Windolph, H., 2006. Rainfall Amount and Intensity Measured by
the Thies Laser Precipitation Monitor. TECO-2006, Geneva, Switzerland.
Laws, J.O., 1941. Measurements of the fall-velocity of water-drops and raindrops. Am.
Geophys. Union Trans. 22, 709–721.
Laws, J.O., Parsons, D.A., 1943. The relation of raindrop size to intensity. Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 24, 452–460.
Lenard, P., 1904. Uber regen. Meteor. Z. 21, 248–262 [for English translation see. Quart.
J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 31, 62–73.
Leone, A., Pica, M., 1993. Caratteristiche dinamiche e simulazione delle piogge. Parte
prima, Fondamenti teorici. Rivista di Ingegneria Agraria 3, 167–175.
Levin, L.M., 1961. Studies in the physics of coarsely dispersed aerosols. Izv. Akad. Nauk.
SSSR (in Russian).
Levin, L.M., 1971. Charge separation by slashing of naturally falling raindrops. J. Atmos.
Sci. 28, 543–548.
Lim, Y.S., Kim, J.K., Kim, J.W., Park, B.I., Kim, M.S., 2015. Analysis of the relationship
between the kinetic energy and intensity of rainfall in Daejeon, Korea. Quat. Int. 384,
107–117.
List, R., Low, T.B., Donaldson, N., Freire, E., Gillespie, J.R., 1987. Temporal evolution of
drop spectra to collisional equilibrium in steady and pulsating rain. J. Atmos. Sci. 44,
362–372.
Lobo, G.P., Bonilla, C.A., 2015. Sensitivity analysis of kinetic energy-intensity relation-
ships and maximum rainfall intensities on rainfall erosivity using a long-term pre-
cipitation dataset. J. Hydrol. 527, 788–793.
Löffler-Mang, M., Joss, J., 2000. An optical disdrometer for measuring size and velocity of
hydrometeors. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 17, 130–139.
Lowe, E.J., 1982. Rain drops. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 18, 242–245.
Lui, J.Y., Orville, H.D., 1969. Numerical modelling of precipitation and shadow effects on
mountain-induced cumuli. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 1286.
Maahn, M., Kollias, P., 2012. Improved Micro Rain Radar snow measurements using
Doppler spectra post-processing. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 5 (11), 2661–2673.
Mache, H., 1904. Ueber die Geschwindigkeit un Grosse der Regentrpfen. Meteorol. Z. 39,
278.
Mannaerts, C.M., Gabriels, D., 2000. Rainfall erosivity in Cape Verde. Soil Tillage Res. 55,
207–212.
Markowitz, A.H., 1976. Raindrop size distribution expressions. J. Appl. Meteorol. 15,
1029–1031.
Marshall, J.S., Palmer, W.M., 1948. The distribution of raindrops with size. J. Meteorol. 5,
165–166.
Mason, B.J., Ramanadham, R., 1953. A photoelectric raindrop spectrometer. Q. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc. 79, 490–495.
McCooll, D.K., 1982. Personal Communication. USDA-ARS, Agricultural Engineering
Department, Washington State Univ, Pullman.
McGregor, K.C., Mutchler, C.K., 1976. Status of the R factor in northern Mississippi, soil
erosion, prediction and control. S.C. S.A. pp. 135-142.
M.A. Serio, et al.
McGregor, K.C., Bingner, R.L., Bowie, A.J., Foster, G.R., 1995. Erosivity index values for
northern Mississippi. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 38, 1039–1047.
Meshesha, D.T., Tsunekawa, A., Tsubo, M., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., 2014. Drop size
distribution and kinetic energy load of rainfall events in the highlands of the Central
Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 59 (12), 2203–2215. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02626667.2013.865030.
Mikirov, A.E., 1957. A photoelectric method of investigating the distribution of particle
size precipitation. Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 1, 104.
Mueller, E.A., 1966. Rader cross sections from drop size spectra. PhD dissertation.
University of Illinois, pp. 89.
Mueller, EA., Sims, A.L., 1966. Radar cross sections from drop size spectra. Tech. rep.
ECOM-00032-F, Contract DA-28-043 AMC-00032(E), Illinois State Water Survey,
Urbana. 110. [AD-645218].
Mueller, EA., Sims, A.L., 1967. Raindrop Distributions at Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands.
Research and development technical report (United States. Army Electronics
Command), ECOM-02071-RR1. Fort Monmouth, N.J.
Muller, E., 1965. Radar rainfall studies. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois.
Munchak, S.J., Kummerow, C.D., Elsaesser, G., 2012. Relationships between the raindrop
size distribution and properties of the environment and clouds inferred from TRMM.
J. Clim. 25, 2963–2977.
Mutchler, C.K., 1967. Parameters for describing raindrop splash. J. Soil Water Conserv.
22, 91–94.
Mutchler, C.K., 1971. Splash droplet production by waterdrop impact. Water Resour. Res.
7 (4), 1024–1030.
Mutchler, C.K., Hansen, L.M., 1970. Splash of a waterdrop at terminal velocity. Science
169 (3952), 1311–1312.
Mutchler, C.K., Larson, C.L., 1971. Splash amounts from water drop impact on a smooth
surface. Water Resour. Res. 7, 195–200.
Navas, A., Alberto, F., Machín, J., Galán, A., 1990. Design and operation of a rainfall
simulator for field studies of runoff and soil erosion. Soil Technol. 3, 385–397.
Nawaby, A.S., 1970. A method of direct measurement of spray droplets in an oil bath. J.
Agric. Res. 15, 182–184.
Nearing, M.A., Yin, S., Borrelli, P., Polyakov, V.O., 2017. Rainfall erosivity: a historical
review. Catena 157, 357–362.
Nešpor, V., Krajewski, W.F., Kruger, A., 2000. Wind-induced error of raindrop size dis-
tribution measurement using a two-dimensional video disdrometer. J. Atmos. Ocean.
Technol. 17, 1483–1492.
Nystuen, J.A., 2001. Listening to raindrops from underwater, an acoustic disdrometer. J.
Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 18, 1640–1657.
Ochou, A.D., Nzeukou, A., Sauvageot, H., 2007. Parameterization of drop size distribution
with rain rate. Atmos. Res. 84, 58–66.
Olver, F.W.J., 1997. Asymptotic and Special Functions. A. K. Peters, Wellesley, MA.
Onaga, K., Shirai, K., Yoshinaga, A., 1988. Rainfall erosion and how to control its effects
on farmland in Okinawa. Land Conservation for Future Generation. Department of
Land development, Bangkok, pp. 627–639.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K.,
Montanarella, L., Alewell, C., 2015b. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion
in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 438–447.
Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Klik, A., Rousseva, S., Perčec Tadić,
M., Michaelidis, S., Hrabalíková, M., Olsen, P., Aalto, J., Lakatos, M., Rymszewicz, A.,
Dumitrescu, A., Beguería, S., Alewell, C., 2015a. Rainfall erosivity in Europe. Sci.
Total Environ. 511, 801–814.
Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., 2016a. Spatio-temporal analysis of
rainfall erosivity and erosivity density in Greece. Catena 137, 161–172.
Park, S.W., Mitchell, J.K., Bubenzer, G.D., 1980. An analysis of slash erosion mechanics.
In: ASAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, USA, pp. 2502.
Park, S.W., Mitchell, J.K., Bubenzer, G.D., 1983. Rainfall characteristics and their relation
to splash erosion. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26 (3), 795–804.
Parsakhoo, A., Lotfalian, M., Kavian, A., Hoseini, S.A., Demir, M., 2012. Calibration of a
portable single nozzle rainfall simulator for soil erodibility study in hyrcanian forests.
Afr. J. Agric. Res. 7, 3957–3963.
Parsons, D.A., Gadian, A.M., 2000. Uncertainty in modelling the detachment of soil by
rainfall. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 25, 723–728.
Pasqualucci, F., 1982. The variation of drop size distribution in convective storms, a
comparison between theory and measurement. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 839–841.
Pérez-Latorre, F.J., Castro, L., Delgado, A., 2010. A comparison of two variable intensity
rainfall simulators for runoff studies. Soil Tillage Res. 107, 11–16.
Petan, S., Rusjan, S., Vidmar, A., Mikos, M., 2010. The rainfall kinetic energy– intensity
relationship for rainfall erosivity estimation in the mediterranean part of Slovenia. J.
Hydrol. 391, 314–321.
Pruppacher, H.R., Pitter, R.L., 1971. A semi-empirical determination of the shape of cloud
and rain drops. J. Atmos. Sci. 28, 86–94.
Quinn, N.W.T., 1981. Properties of Transformed Simulated Rainfall under a Corn Canopy
at Different GrowthStages and RowWidths. Masters Thesis. Iowa State University,
Ames, IA, USA.
Reddy, K.K., Kozu, T., 2003. Measurements of raindrop size distribution over Gadanki
during south-west and north-east monsoon. Indian J. Radio Space 32, 286–295.
Renard, K.G., Foste, r.G.R., Weesies, G.A., Porter, J.P., 1991. RUSLE: revised universal soil
loss equation. J. Water Soil Conserv. 46, 30–33.
Renard, K.G., Foste, r.G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting
Soil Erosion by Water, A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA, pp. 404.
Roels, J.M., 1981. Personal communication. Laboratory of Physical Geography,
Geographical Institute, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.
Rose, C.W., 1960. Soil detachment caused by rainfall. Soil Sci. 89, 28–35.
Rosewell, C.J., 1986. Rainfall kinetic energy in eastern Australia. J. Appl. Meteorol.
227
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
Climatol. 25, 1695–1701.
Salles, C., Poesen, J., 1999. Performance of an optical spectro-pluviometer in measuring
basic rain erosivity characteristics. J. Hydrol. 218, 142–156.
Salles, C., Poesen, J., 2000. Rain properties controlling soil splash detachment. Hydrol.
Process. 14, 271–282.
Salles, C., Poesen, J., Sempere-Torres, D., 2002. Kinetic energy of rain and its functional
relationship with intensity. J. Hydrol. 257, 256–270.
Salvador, R., Bautista-Capetillo, C., Burguete, J., Zapata, N., Serreta, A., Playán, E., 2009.
A photographic method for drop characterization in agricultural sprinklers. Irrig. Sci.
27, 307–317.
Sanchez-Moreno, J.F., Mannaerts, C.M., Jetten, V., Löffler-Mang, M., 2012. Rainfall ki-
netic energy-intensity and rainfall momentum-intensity relationships for Cape Verde.
J. Hydrol. 454–455, 131–140.
Sander, J., 1975. Rain attenuation of millimeter waves at L=5.77, 3.3 and 2 mm. IEEE
Trans. 23, 213–220.
Sauvageot, H., 1994. Rainfall measurement by radar, a review. Atmos. Res. 35, 27–54.
Sauvageot, H., Lacaux, J.P., 1995. The shape of averaged drop size distributions. J.
Atmos. Sci. 52, 1070–1083.
Schmidt, W., 1909. Eine unmittelbare Bestimmung der Fallgeschwindigkeit von
Regenropfen. Sitz. Akas. Wiss. Wien. Mathem.-naturw. Klasse. 118 (2A), 71–84.
Schönhuber, M., Lammer, G., Randeu, W.L., 2007. One decade of imaging precipitation
measurement by2D-video-distrometer. Adv. Geosci. 10, 85–90.
Sekhon, R.S., Srivastava, R.C., 1971. Doppler radar observations of drop-size distributions
in a thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci. 28, 983–994.
Sekine, M., Lind, G., 1982. Rain attenuation of centimeter, millimeter and submillimeter
radio waves. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Microwave conference, Helsinki,
Finland, pp. 586–589.
Sempere Torres, D., Porra‘, J.M., Creutin, J.D., 1994. A general formulation for raindrop
size distribution. J. Appl. Meteorol. 33, 1494–1502.
Sempere-Torres, D., Salle, S.C., Creutin, J.D., Delrieu, G., 1992. Quantification of soil
detachment by raindrop impact, performances of classical formulae of kinetic energy
in Mediterranean storms. In: Bogen, J., Walling, D.E., Day, T. (Eds.), Erosion and
Sediment Transport Monitoring Programs in River Basins. International Association
of Hydrological Sciences, Oslo, pp. 115–124.
Serio, M.A., 2017. Estimating Rainfall Erosivity by Drop Size Distribution. University of
Palermo Ph.D dissertation.
Smith, J.A., De Veaux, R.D., 1992. The temporal and spatial variability of rainfall power.
Environmetrics 3, 29–53.
Smith, J.A., Hui, E., Steiner, M., Baeck, M.L., Krajewski, W.F., Ntelekos, A.A., 2009.
Variability of rainfall rate and raindrop size distributions in heavy rain. Water
Resour. Res. 45, 12.
Spilhaus, A., 1948. Raindrop size and falling speed. J. Meteorol. 5, 108–110.
Steiner, M., Smith, J.A., 2000. Reflectivity, rain rate, and kinetic energy flux relationships
based on raindrop spectra. J. Appl. Meteorol. 39, 1923–1940.
Sulakvelidze, G. K., Dadali, Yu. A., 1971. Multiwave length radar measurements of pre-
cipitation intensity. Radar meteorology, Proc. Third All- Union Conf. (translated from
Russian) Israel Program for Scientific Translations. 32-45. (available from NTIS).
Sulakvelidze, G. K., 1969. Rainstorms and Hail. Translated from Russian by Israel
Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
Tokay, A., Short, D.A., 1996. Evidence from tropical raindrop spectra of the origin of rain
from stratiform versus convective clouds. J. Appl. Meteorol. 35, 355–371.
Toy, T.J., Foster, G.R., Renard, K.G., 2002. Soil Erosion: Processes, Prediction,
Measurement and Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 338.
Tracy, F.C., Renard, K.G., Fogel, M., 1984. Rainfall energy characteristics for southeastern
Arizona. In: Water-Today and Tomorrow, Proc. of Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Irrig. and
Drain. Div. Specialty Conference, July 24-26. Flagstaff, Arizona, pp. 559–566.
Uijlenhoet, R., Stricker, J.N.M., 1999. Dependence of rainfall interception on drop size-a
comment. J. Hydrol. 217, 157–163.
Ulbrich, C.W., 1983. Natural variations in the analytical form of the raindrop size dis-
tribution. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol. 22, 1764–1775.
Ulbrich, C.W., Atlas, D., 1998. Rainfall microphysics and radar properties, analysis
methods for drop size spectra. J. Appl. Meteorol. 37, 912–923.
Uplinger, W.G., 1981. A new formula for raindrop terminal velocity. In: Proceedings of
the 20th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 30 Nov–3 Dec 1981. Amer. Meteorol.
Soc. Boston, Mass, USA, pp. 389–391.
Usòn, A., Ramos, M.C., 2001. An improved rainfall erosivity index obtained from ex-
perimental interrill soil losses in soils with Mediterranean climate. Catena 43,
293–305.
Van Boxel, J.H., 1998. Numerical model for the fall speed of rain drops in a rain fall
simulator. In: Gabriels, D., Cornelis, W.M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Technical Aspects and Use of Wind Tunnels for Wind-Erosion Control,
Combined Effects of Wind and Water Erosion on Processes, November 17–18 1997,
Ghent, Belgium ICE Spec. Rep. 1998/1. 77–85, Int. Cent. for Eremol. Univ. of Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium.
Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Rosewell, C.J., 2002. Rainfall intensity-kinetic energy
relationships, a critical literature appraisal-Review. J. Hydrol. 261, 1–23.
Verstraeten, G., Poesen, J., 2006. Long-term (105 years) variability in rain erosivity as
derived from 10-min rainfall depth data for Ukkel (Brussels, Belgium): implications
for assessing soil erosion rates. J. Geophys. Res. 111.
Waldvogel, A., 1974. The N0 jump of raindrop spectra. J. Atmos. Sci. 31, 1067–1078.
Weibull, W., 1951. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J. Appl. Mech.
293–297.
Wickerts, S., 1982. Drop size distribution in rain. FOA Report, C20438-E1(E2).
Wiesner, J., 1895. Beitragezur Kenntnis des troischenregens (About Contributions to the
knowledge of the tropical rain). Atmos. Electr. 104, 1397–1434.
Wilken, F., Baur, M., Sommer, M., Deumlich, D., Bens, O., 2018. Uncertainties in rainfall
M.A. Serio, et al.
kinetic energy-intensity relations for soil erosion. Catena 171, 234–244.
Wischmeier, W.H., 1959. A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil loss equation. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23, 246–249.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses-a guide to con-
servation planning. In: Agriculture Handbook. United States Department of
Agricolture, Washingtin, DC, pp. 537.
Yin, S., Nearing, M.A., Borrelli, P., Xue, X., 2017. Rainfall erosivity: an overview of
methodologies and applications. Vadose Zone J. 16, 12.
Yu, B., 1998b. A comparison of the R-factor in the Universal Soil Loss Equation and
228
Journal of Hydrology 576 (2019) 210–228
revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Trans.ASAE 42, 1615–1620.
Yu, B., 1998a. Rainfall erosivity and its estimation for Australia’s tropics. Aust. J. Soil Res.
36, 143–165.
Zanchi, C., Torri, D., 1980. Evaluation of rainfall energy in central Italy. In: De Boodt, M.,
Gabriels, D. (Eds.), Assessment of Erosion. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp.
133–142.
Zhang, G., Vivekanandan, J., Brandes, E., Meneghini, R., Kozu, T., 2003. The shape-slope
relation in observed gamma raindrop size distribution, statistical error or useful in-
formation? J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 20, 1106–1119.