atmosphere

Article
Characteristics of Raindrop Size Distribution on the
Eastern Slope of the Tibetan Plateau in Summer
Yingjue Wang, Jiafeng Zheng * , Zhigang Cheng and Bingyun Wang
School of Atmospheric Sciences, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu 610225, China;
2017011201@cuit.edu.cn (Y.W.); chengzg@cuit.edu.cn (Z.C.); bywang@cuit.edu.cn (B.W.)
* Correspondence: zjf1988@cuit.edu.cn




Received: 6 April 2020; Accepted: 27 May 2020; Published: 28 May 2020


Abstract: Precipitation microphysics over the Tibetan Plateau (TP) remain insufficiently understood,
due to the lack of observations and studies. This paper presents a comprehensive investigation
of the raindrop size distribution (DSD) for rainfall that happened on the eastern slope of TP in
summer. DSD differences between different rain types and under different rain rates are investigated.
Confidential empirical relationships between the gamma shape and slope parameters, and between
reflectivity and rain rate are proposed. DSD properties in this area are also compared with those in
other areas. The results indicate that the stratiform and convective rains contribute to different rain
duration and amount, with diverse rainfall macro- and microphysical properties. The rain spectra of
two rain types can become broader with higher concentrations as the rain rate increases. DSDs in this
area are different to those in other areas. The stratiform DSD is narrower than that in the non-plateau
area. The two rain types of this area both have higher number concentrations for 0.437–1.625 mm
raindrops than those of the mid-TP. The relationships of shape–slope parameters and reflectivity–rain
rate in this area are also different from those in other areas. The rain spectra in this area can produce a
larger slope parameter under the same shape parameter than in the mid-TP. The convective rain can
produce a smaller rain rate under the same reflectivity. The accuracy proposed reflectivity–rain rate
relationship in application to quantitative rainfall estimation is also discussed. The results show that
the relationship has an excellent performance when the rain rate exceeds 1 mm h−1 .

Keywords: raindrop size distribution; stratiform and convective rains; empirical relationships;
the eastern slope of Tibetan Plateau

1. Introduction
The Tibetan Plateau (TP) is the largest and highest plateau on the planet. It plays a vital role in the
Asian climate and weather, owing to its powerful dynamic and thermal effects on the tropospheric
atmosphere [1,2]. In summer, rainfall events over the TP are frequent, however, the reliability of
numerical simulations over the TP is much lower than that in other plain areas, due to the lack
of observations and insufficient knowledge of the microphysical processes and mechanisms of the
precipitation. Thus, further observing and studying the microphysical characteristics of precipitation
over the TP is of great importance.
As a vital aspect of precipitation microphysics, the raindrop size distribution (DSD) can reflect the
number concentration of raindrops as a function of the diameter. The DSD can be directly measured by
filter paper or disdrometer on the ground. Although the ground measurements cannot be the perfect
representation of the real situation of the precipitation up in the air, the long-period DSD dataset,
to some extent, can reveal the microphysical properties of different kinds of precipitation in different
geographical locations [3–16]. Previous findings showed that different rain types possess different
DSDs, and the convective rain commonly has wider raindrop spectra than the stratiform rain, with a

Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562; doi:10.3390/atmos11060562 www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 2 of 20

larger mean diameter and a higher total number concentration [17–19]. The maritime-like convection
also generally possesses larger diameters and smaller number concentrations than the continental-like
convection [4]. DSDs vary in space and time and over a range of scales, they can be apparently different,
even in the same synoptic system, as a result of diverse water vapor and dynamic conditions [20–22].
Additionally, the observed DSD can be used to formulate the raindrop spectrum. In recent years, the
most widely used mathematical formulation of DSDs is the three-parameter gamma model proposed
by Ulbrich (1983) [7]. Fitting the gamma parameters and investigating their relationships in specific
climatic regions can be useful to optimize the microphysical parameterization schemes of the regional
numerical models [23–25]. A conventional technique for single-polarization weather radar to estimate
the precipitation typically relies on the power law relationship between reflectivity (Z, mm6 m−3 )
and rain rate (R, mm h−1 ) [26,27]. The Z and R are proportional to the sixth and third power of the
raindrop diameter. Thus, investigating the DSD properties and deriving accurate coefficients of the
Z-R relationship is also crucial for improving radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE).
For the DSD study over the TP, limited works have been conducted because of the lack of
observational data. Until 2013, an integrated observational experiment called the Third Tibetan
Plateau Atmospheric Scientific Experiment (TIPEX-III) was launched by the China Meteorological
Administration and other institutions [2]. One of the specific scientific goals of the TIPEX-III was to
achieve a better understanding of microphysical processes of the cloud and precipitation over the
TP [2,28]. The TIPEX-III deployed ground-based laser disdrometers for continuously observing rainfall
properties and DSDs in the mid-TP (Nagqu, 29.04◦ N, 100.30◦ E, 4,507 m asl) from July to August in
2013, 2014 and 2015. Based on the measurement collected from this experiment, rainfall properties
have been studied by Chang et al. (2016), Chen et al. (2017) and Wu et al. (2017) [19,29,30]. The results
concluded that raindrop spectra over the TP can be wider than those in basin areas, the widest spectra
occur during 1700–1800 LST, due to the strong convection. The DSD exhibits a significant day/night
variation; the daytime convection has broader DSDs with fewer small drops but more large drops than
the nighttime case. The raindrop number concentration of stratiform rains in the mid-TP also has a
more significant decrease with the increased diameter than that in South China, but convective rains
can be the opposite. For precipitation physical processes over the mid-TP, Porcù et al. (2014) found
that collisional breakup takes place for relatively lower rain rates than those at low altitudes [31].
Several abovementioned works have preliminarily revealed the DSD characteristics of rainfalls
in the mid-TP. However, those findings cannot represent the whole situation on the TP, because the
plateau has very complex geography and land features, which can lead to different rainfall properties in
different areas. For example, compared to the mid-TP, the terrain and climate features of a transitional
region of interest in this study, which locates between the plateau and the downstream basin at the
eastern slope of TP, are quite different. Except for the rainfall events caused by similar synoptic systems
as in the mid-TP, many precipitations can also be produced by local special synoptic systems, such as
southwest vortex. More importantly, the rainfall microphysical properties over the eastern slope of TP
have not been well investigated. In this paper, we attempt to present a comprehensive study of the DSD
for rainfall that happened in this area in summer. In detail, the observation experiment, instrument
and measurements, followed by methods of data quality control (QC) and rain type classification,
are described in Section 2. The DSD characteristics for different rain rates and types are studied in
Section 3. Relationships between three gamma parameters and between DSD integral quantities are
also proposed. In Section 4, the results are compared with other studies and the uncertainties of the
used methods are discussed. The conclusions are summarized in Section 5.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Experiment, Instrument, and Measurements

To enhance the observation of cloud and precipitation over the eastern slope of TP, an observation
experiment was performed by the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences at Daocheng (29.04◦ N,
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 3 of 20

Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

100.30◦ E–, 3800 m asl), China from 10 July to 31 August in 2016, as a continuation of the TIPEX-III. A key
Daocheng (29.04° N, 100.30° E–, 3800 m asl), China from 10 July to 31 August in 2016, as a continuation
precipitation observation instrument deployed on the site is a ground-based disdrometer. Figure 1
of the TIPEX-Ⅲ. A key precipitation observation instrument deployed on the site is a ground-based
shows the experiment location and the appearance of the disdrometer.
disdrometer. Figure 1 shows the experiment location and the appearance of the disdrometer.
45N
(a) 7.0 (b)
6.5
6.0
40N 5.5
5.0
Latitude (°)

ASL (km)
4.5
the Daocheng site 4.0
35N 3.5
3.0
2.5
30N 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
25N
85E 90E 95E 100E 105E 110E 115E
Longitude (°)

Figure 1. Location of the observation site (29.04◦ N, 100.30◦ E, 3800 m asl) (a) and the appearance of
Figure 1. Location of the observation site (29.04° N, 100.30° E, 3800 m asl) (a) and the appearance of
the disdrometer (b).
the disdrometer (b).
The disdrometer is a second-generation particle size and velocity (Parsivel) disdrometer,
The disdrometer is a second-generation particle size and velocity (Parsivel) disdrometer,
manufactured by OTT HydroMet, Germany. It is a laser-based disdrometer that can simultaneously
manufactured by OTT HydroMet, Germany. It is a laser-based disdrometer that can simultaneously
detect the size and falling velocity of precipitation particles. The Parsivel transmits a parallel horizontal
detect the size and falling velocity of2 precipitation particles. The Parsivel transmits a parallel
laser beam with a sampling area of 54 cm (18-cm long, 3-cm wide), and a sampling time interval of 60 s.
horizontal laser beam with a sampling area of 54 cm2 (18-cm long, 3-cm wide), and a sampling time
When particles pass through the laser beam, the received signals are attenuated and used to estimate the
interval of 60 s. When particles pass through the laser beam, the received signals are attenuated and
particle diameter; the duration can be utilized to detect the falling velocity. Raindrops larger than 1 mm
used to estimate the particle diameter; the duration can be utilized to detect the falling velocity.
are not spherical in Earth’s atmosphere, so the estimation of the diameter is based on different axis ratio
Raindrops larger than 1 mm are not spherical in Earth’s atmosphere, so the estimation of the diameter
relationships. Specifically, for raindrops smaller than 1 mm and greater than 5 mm, the axis ratios are
is based on different axis ratio relationships. Specifically, for raindrops smaller than 1 mm and greater
set to 1 and 0.7, respectively, and for raindrops between 1 and 5 mm, the axis ratio linearly varies from
than 5 mm, the axis ratios are set to 1 and 0.7, respectively, and for raindrops between 1 and 5 mm,
1 to 0.7 [32,33]. After the diameter and falling velocity are measured, the raindrops are subdivided into
the axis ratio linearly varies from 1 to 0.7 [32,33]. After the diameter and falling velocity are measured,
32 non-equidistant diameter classes, ranging from 0.062 to 24.5 mm and 32 non-equidistant velocity
the raindrops are subdivided into 32 non-equidistant diameter classes, ranging from 0.062 to 24.5 mm
classes ranging from 0.05 to 20.8 m s−1 . Detailed information about each diameter and velocity class
and 32 non-equidistant velocity classes ranging from 0.05 to 20.8 m s−1. Detailed information about
can be seen in Yuter et al. (2006) [34].
each diameter and velocity class can be seen in Yuter et al. (2006) [34].
The Parsivel has been widely used in measuring raindrop spectra during the last decade [18,19,34–48].
The Parsivel has been widely used in measuring raindrop spectra during the last decade
However, several shortcomings of the instrument also should be noticed. First, the raw measurements of
[18,19,34–48]. However, several shortcomings of the instrument also should be noticed. First, the raw
drop size observed by Parsivel (as well as some other disdrometers, such as Joss-Waldvogel disdrometer,
measurements of drop size observed by Parsivel (as well as some other disdrometers, such as Joss-
Precipitation Occurrence Sensor System, Precipitation Occurrence Sensor System, Thies disdrometer,
Waldvogel disdrometer, Precipitation Occurrence Sensor System, Precipitation Occurrence Sensor
Optical Spectro-pluviometer, etc.) are binned into fixed intervals based on the sensor accuracy [49–52].
System, Thies disdrometer, Optical Spectro-pluviometer, etc.) are binned into fixed intervals based
This size binning can cause slight instabilities of the observed DSD and produce biases on its integral
on the sensor accuracy [49–52]. This size binning can cause slight instabilities of the observed DSD
parameters and gamma parameters, moreover, the biases also closely related to the estimation methods [49].
and produce biases on its integral parameters and gamma parameters, moreover, the biases also
Second, disdrometers typically use a short integration time (generally, the time does not exceed 1 min)
closely related to the estimation methods [49]. Second, disdrometers typically use a short integration
to reduce the problems of DSD variability, whereas the short integration time will also cause sampling
time (generally, the time does not exceed 1 min) to reduce the problems of DSD variability, whereas
errors to measurements, which can become increasingly significant when the raindrop samples are
the short integration time will also cause sampling errors to measurements, which can become
reduced [53–55]. Third, studies confirmed that the Parsivel can underestimate/overestimate the number
increasingly significant when the raindrop samples are reduced [53–55]. Third, studies confirmed
concentration of small/large raindrops [54,56–59]. Wen et al. (2017) found that this truncation problem
that the Parsivel can underestimate/overestimate the number concentration of small/large raindrops
has significantly solved for the second-generation Parsivel [56].
[54,56–59]. Wen et al. (2017) found that this truncation problem has significantly solved for the
second-generation Parsivel
2.2. Data QC and Rainfall [56]. Quantity Calculation
Physical
Apart
2.2. Data QCfromand biases
Rainfallcaused byQuantity
Physical the inherent limitations of Parsivel, several problematic data can be
Calculation
improved using the following QC technologies.
Apart from
First, the biases
data caused
in the by the
first two inherent
diameter limitations
classes of Parsivel,due
were abandoned, several problematic
to their data can
poor reliability of
be improved using the following QC technologies.
low signal-to-noise ratios, namely, the minimum detectable diameter of the raindrop was limited
First, the data in the first two diameter classes were abandoned, due to their poor reliability of
low signal-to-noise ratios, namely, the minimum detectable diameter of the raindrop was limited to
approximately 0.312 mm [33]. Second, any raindrop with a diameter larger than 8 mm was also
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 4 of 20
Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

eliminated,
to since 0.312
approximately it can mm
mostly[33].break up in
Second, anytheraindrop
low level of Earth’s
with atmosphere.
a diameter larger thanThird,
8 mm considering
was also
the realistic instrument sensitivity, samples with a total drop number less
eliminated, since it can mostly break up in the low level of Earth’s atmosphere. Third, consideringthan 10 or a rain ratethe
smaller than 0.002 mm h −1 were also removed [19]; otherwise, they were regarded as valid rain
realistic instrument sensitivity, samples with a total drop number less than 10 or a rain rate smaller
samples.
than 0.002Fourth,
mm h−1aswereproposed by Yuter[19];
also removed et al.otherwise,
(2006) andthey Friedrich et al. (2013),
were regarded any rain
as valid raindrop that
samples.
Fourth, as proposed by Yuter et al. (2006) and Friedrich et al. (2013), any raindrop that possessed or
possessed a normal falling velocity (or diameter) but with an unmatched (excessively larger a
smaller) diameter (or falling velocity) was treated as unrealistic data. It can be produced
normal falling velocity (or diameter) but with an unmatched (excessively larger or smaller) diameter when a large
raindrop
(or falling partially
velocity) passes through
was treated or multipledata.
as unrealistic raindrops
It can parallelly
be produced pass through
when theraindrop
a large laser beam; it can
partially
also bethrough
passes inducedorby a strongraindrops
multiple wind shear near the
parallelly ground
pass throughor splashing of raindrops
the laser beam; on the
it can also instrument
be induced by
surface during heavy rainfalls [34,38]. This kind of problematic data was
a strong wind shear near the ground or splashing of raindrops on the instrument surface during recognized by comparing
heavy
the Parsivel-measured
rainfalls [34,38]. This kind result with the theoretical
of problematic diameter/falling
data was recognized velocity the
by comparing relationship shown in
Parsivel-measured
Equations
result with (1)
theand (2) [60]. diameter/falling
theoretical Therefore, any measured raindrop with
velocity relationship a diameter
shown greater (1)
in Equations thanand1 mm was
(2) [60].
removed when it was ±60% outside of the theoretical value.
Therefore, any measured raindrop with a diameter greater than 1 mm was removed when it was ±60%
1 10.3
outside of the theoretical value. 𝐷= × 𝑙𝑛
0.6
1 9.65 − 𝑉𝑡 /𝛿(ℎ)
10.3
D= × ln (1)
(1)
0.6 9.65 − Vt /δ(h)

𝛿(ℎ)δ=
(h)1 = 1 + 3.68
+ 3.68 10ℎ−5
× 10×−5 + 1.71
+h1.71 × 10
−9 2
−9 2h .
× 10ℎ . (2)
(2)
where D (mm) and Vt (m s−1 ) are the particle diameter and terminal falling velocity, respectively; h (m)
iswhere
the sampling and 𝑉𝑡above
D (mm) height (m s−1sea
) are the particle
level; and δ(h)diameter and terminal
is a correction factor. falling velocity, respectively; h
(m) is the sampling height above sea level; and 𝛿(ℎ) is a correction
The raindrop numbers in different diameter and velocity classes before factor.and after QC for the entire
The raindrop numbers in different diameter and velocity
data were counted and compared, as shown in Figure 2, to illustrate the QC classes before and
effect. after QC
A small partfor the
of the
entire datathat
raindrops were countedan
possessed and compared,
abnormal as shown
diameter in Figure
(velocity), and2,some
to illustrate
that werethescattered
QC effect. orAexcessively
small part
of the raindrops that possessed an abnormal diameter (velocity), and some that
large were removed. These unrealistic data accounted for only 1.76% of all raindrops, but they can were scattered or
excessively large were removed. These unrealistic data accounted for only 1.76%
occupy prominent proportions in the large-diameter and small-velocity classes. For the raindrops in of all raindrops, but
they can
classes occupy
with prominent
diameters from 2.75proportions
to 7.5 mm,inthetheproblematic
large-diameter and small-velocity
data accounted for 10.3%classes.
to 68%; For the
for the
raindrops in classes with diameters from 2.75 to 7.5 mm,−1 the problematic data accounted
raindrops in classes with velocities from 0.15 to 2.6 m s , the problematic data accounted for 34.87% for 10.3% to
68%;
to for the raindrops in classes with velocities from 0.15 to 2.6 m s , the problematic data accounted
94.59%.
−1

for 34.87% to 94.59%.

20 20
18 (a) 18 (b)
16 16
)

)
-1

-1

1og10 (number of drops)

Falling velocity (m s

Falling velocity (m s

14 14 5
12 12 4
10 10 3
8 8 2
6 6 1
4 4 0
2 2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm)

Figure2.2. Raindrop
Figure Raindrop numbers
numbers in
in the
the different
differentdiameter
diameterandandfalling-velocity
falling-velocityclasses
classesbefore
before(a)
(a)and
andafter
after
(b) quality control (QC) for the entire dataset. The solid line represents the theoretical diameter/falling
(b) quality control (QC) for the entire dataset. The solid line represents the theoretical diameter/falling
velocity
velocityrelationship,
relationship,asasshown
shownin inEquations
Equations(1)
(1)and
and(2).
(2).The
Thedashed
dashedline
lineindicates the±60%
indicatesthe ±60% range
rangeof
of
the
therelationship.
relationship.

After
AfterQC,
QC,the
theDSD
DSD and
and its
its integral
integral rainfall
rainfall physical
physical quantities,
quantities, namely,
namely,including
includingraindrop
raindroptotal
total
−3 −1 −3
number concentration N𝑁T𝑇 (m
number concentration (m−3),), rain rate R𝑅 (mm
rain rate (mmhh−1), ), rainwater content W
rainwater content 𝑊 (g reflectivity Z𝑍
(gmm−3),), reflectivity
(mm 6 −3 mass-weight mean diameter D (mm) and generalized intercept parameter N (m−3 mm−1 ),
(mm6 mm−3),),mass-weight mean diameter 𝐷𝑚 m (mm) and generalized intercept parameter 𝑁 w
𝑤 (m mm ),
−3 −1
can be further calculated as
can be further calculated as 32
X nij
N (Di ) = 32 (3)
A ·∆t·V 𝑛𝑖𝑗j ·∆Di
𝑁(𝐷𝑖 ) = ∑ j=1 i (3)
𝐴𝑖 ∙ ∆𝑡 ∙ 𝑉𝑗 ∙ ∆𝐷𝑖
𝑗=1
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 5 of 20

32
32 X
X nij
NT = (4)
Ai ·∆t·V j
i=1 j=1

32 32
6π X X 3 nij
R= D (5)
104 i=1 j=1 i Ai ·∆t

32
32 X
π X nij
W= ·ρw · D3i (6)
6000 Ai ·∆t·V j
i=1 j=1

32
32 X
X nij
Z= D6i (7)
Ai ·∆t·V j
i=1 j=1
P32
i=1 N (Di )Di ∆Di
4
Dm = P32 (8)
i=1 N (Di )Di ∆Di
3

44 103 W
!
Nw = (9)
πρw D4m
where i and j are the orders of the diameter and velocity classes, respectively; ∆Di (mm) is the interval
of the diameter class; nij is the raindrop number within the diameter class i and velocity class j;
V j (mm s−1 ) is the falling velocity of class j; ∆t (60 s) is the sampling time interval; Ai is the effective
sampling area for ith diameter class; and ρw (1 g cm−3 ) is the water density. N (Di ) (m−3 mm−1 ) is the
number concentration of raindrops per unit volume per millimeter. Note that the Ai of the Parsivel is
associated with the raindrop size and can be estimated as 180 mm × (30 mm − 0.5Di ) [32,33].
The commonly used gamma distribution proposed by Ulbrich (1983) was implemented to fit the
measured DSD, which can be expressed as follows [7],

N (D) = N0 Dµ exp(−ΛD) (10)

where N0 (m−3 mm−1−µ ) is the intercept parameter related to the total number of raindrops. µ is the
shape parameter; a positive (negative) µ indicates that the raindrop spectrum curve bends upwards
(downwards). Λ (mm−1 ) is the slope parameter; a small (large) Λ can correspond to a flat (steep)
spectrum. Several methods, such as the moment method (MM), the truncated moment method (TMM),
the least square method (LS) and the maximum likelihood method (ML), have been used to estimate
the DSD gamma parameters. Studies reported that the maximum likelihood method generally has a
better performance than the others, and can be less sensitive to the DSD truncation problem and the
short integration time of instrument [9,49,53,61–63]. Therefore, in this study, the maximum likelihood
method was implemented to estimate the N0 , µ, and Λ.

2.3. Rain Type Classification

To study the DSD characteristics for the different rain types, the total dataset was further classified
into two subsets, namely, stratiform and convective rains, based on the time series of the rain
rate. Several classification schemes based on disdrometer measurements have been reported for the
separation of convective versus stratiform rains, such as those of Tokay et al. (1996), Testud et al. (2001),
Bringi et al. (2003) and Chen et al. (2013) [4,12,64,65]. In the current study, Bringi’s scheme was used
to separate the two rain types. Specifically, set a moving window containing 11 rain samples in the
time series. The standard deviation σR of rain rate of samples was calculated. If the σR was no more
than 1.5 mm h−1 , the rain type of the center was determined as stratiform; otherwise, it was treated
as convective. According to this classification principle, the window center was moved to the next
sample every time until all samples in time series were identified. Note that the first five and last five
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 6 of 20
Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

samples, which cannot

last five samples, whichbecannot
set to the window
be set to thecenters,
windowwere judged
centers, as the
were sameasrain
judged thetype
sameasrain
the type
nearest
as
window centers.
the nearest window centers.

3. Results
3. Results
In
In the
the following
following subsections, the DSD
subsections, the DSD characteristics
characteristics for
for different
different rain
rain rates
rates and
and types were
types were
investigated in detail. Subsequently, empirical relationships between gamma parameters and
investigated in detail. Subsequently, empirical relationships between gamma parameters and rainfallrainfall
physical
physical quantities
quantities for
for precipitation
precipitation occurring
occurring on
on the
the eastern
eastern slope
slope of
of the
the TP
TP are
are proposed.
proposed.
3.1. DSD Characteristics for Different Rain Rates
3.1. DSD Characteristics for Different Rain Rates
DSD properties can vary largely under different rain rates [19,66]. Therefore, in this work, the total
DSD properties can vary largely under different rain rates [19,66]. Therefore, in this work, the
dataset was stratified into five rain-rate regimes, namely, R < 0.1 mm h−1 (R1), 0.1 −1 ≤ R < 1 mm h
−1
total dataset was stratified
−1 −1 regimes, namely, 𝑅 <
into five rain-rate −10.1 𝑚𝑚 ℎ (R1), 0.1 ≤ 𝑅 <
(R2), 1 ≤−1R < 5 mm h (R3), 5 ≤ R−1< 10 mm h (R4) and R >−1 10 mm h (R5), to investigate the DSD
1 𝑚𝑚 ℎ (R2), 1 ≤ 𝑅 < 5 𝑚𝑚 ℎ (R3), 5 ≤ 𝑅 < 10 𝑚𝑚 ℎ (R4) and 𝑅 > 10 𝑚𝑚 ℎ−1 (R5), to
characteristics for different rain rates. Figure 3 presents the accumulated rain amounts and durations
investigate the DSD characteristics for different rain rates. Figure 3 presents the accumulated rain
for the five regimes. The results show that the ground rainfalls are dominated by light precipitation
amounts and durations for the five regimes. The results show that the ground rainfalls are dominated
more than half of the time, with 65.15% of the total duration being produced by R1 and R2, whereas
by light precipitation more than half of the time, with 65.15% of the total duration being produced by
they account for only 12.51% of the total rain amount. The largest contributor to the total rain amount
R1 and R2, whereas they account for only 12.51% of the total rain amount. The largest contributor to
is R3, which accounts for 49.67% of the total rain amount and 31.14% of the total duration. For rainfalls
the total rain amount is R3, which accounts for 49.67% of the total rain amount and 31.14% of the total
with larger rain rates, R3 and R4 contribute only 3.71% of the total duration; nevertheless, they can
duration. For rainfalls with larger rain rates, R3 and R4 contribute only 3.71% of the total duration;
produce 37.82% of the total rain amount.
nevertheless, they can produce 37.82% of the total rain amount.
4000 100
Accumulated rain duration (min)

Accumulated rain amount (mm)

3600 49.67% 90
3200 80
38.41%
2800 70
31.14%
2400 60
26.74%
2000 27.09% 50
1600 40
1200 30
11.66% 10.73%
800 20
400 2.23% 1.48% 10
0.85%
0 0
R1 (0, 0.1] R2 (0.1, 1] R3 (1, 5] R4 (5, 10] R5 (10,~]
Rain rate (mm h-1)

Figure 3. Accumulated durations (blue) and rain amounts (red) for the five rain-rate regimes. The percentages
Figure 3. Accumulated durations (blue) and rain amounts (red) for the five rain-rate regimes. The
indicate the contributions of each rain-rate regime to the total duration and total rain amount.
percentages indicate the contributions of each rain-rate regime to the total duration and total rain
amount.
The DSDs for the five rain-rate regimes were shown in Figure 4, in which the boxplots illustrate the
raindrop number concentration in the different diameter classes. The results reveal that raindrop spectra
The DSDs for the five rain-rate regimes were shown in Figure 4, in which the boxplots illustrate
can evidently change with the rain rates. Specifically, the raindrop spectra gradually become wider and
the raindrop number concentration in the different diameter classes. The results reveal that raindrop
flatter as the rain rate increases, owing to the contribution of large raindrops; the maximum measured
spectra can evidently change with the rain rates. Specifically, the raindrop spectra gradually become
diameters for R1 to R5 are 1.375, 2.75, 3.75, 4.25 and 7.5 mm. The raindrop number concentration
wider and flatter as the rain rate increases, owing to the contribution of large raindrops; the maximum
in each diameter class also increases with the rain rate. The spectrum shapes for the five rain-rate
measured diameters for R1 to R5 are 1.375, 2.75, 3.75, 4.25 and 7.5 mm. The raindrop number
regimes are both unimodal and generally obey the gamma distribution. The peaks of the medians both
concentration in each diameter class also increases with the rain rate. The spectrum shapes for the
appear in the fifth diameter class, with a mean diameter of 0.562 mm. The number concentration of the
five rain-rate regimes are both unimodal and generally obey the gamma distribution. The peaks of
raindrops in each diameter class can vary within three or more orders of magnitude, while raindrops
the medians both appear in the fifth diameter class, with a mean diameter of 0.562 mm. The number
between the 25th and 75th percentiles basically concentrate within one order of magnitude.
concentration of the raindrops in each diameter class can vary within three or more orders of
For a convenient comparison of the DSD characteristics under different rain rates, average raindrop
magnitude, while raindrops between the 25th and 75th percentiles basically concentrate within one
spectra for R1 to R5 are superimposed on the same graph in Figure 5. The corresponding integral
order of magnitude.
rainfall physical quantities derived from the average spectra and the fitted gamma parameters are listed
in Table 1. The comparison shows that the total number concentration NT , reflectivity Z, rainwater
content W and mass-weighted mean diameter Dm increase with the rain rate. The largest generalized
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 7 of 20

intercept parameter NW is found in R3. For the gamma parameters, N0 , µ and Λ decrease with an
Atmosphere.
increased rain 2020,
rate,12,corresponding
x FOR PEER REVIEW
to the widening and flattening of the raindrop spectra. 7 of 21

104
(a) the entire dataset (b) R1 (0, 0.1]
103
N(D) (mm-1 m-3)

102

101

100

10-1
104
(c) R2 (0.1, 1] (d) R3 (1, 5]
103
N(D) (mm-1 m-3)

102

101

100

10-1
104
(e) R4 (5, 10] (f) R5 (10, ~)
103
N(D) (mm-1 m-3)

102

101

100

10-1

D (mm) D (mm)

Figure 4. Boxplots of the raindrop size distributions (DSDs) for all datasets (a) and sub-datasets of
Figure 4. Boxplots of the raindrop size distributions (DSDs) for all datasets (a) and sub-datasets of
five rain-rate regimes (b–f). D and N(D) are the raindrop diameter class and number concentration,
five rain-rate regimes (b–f). D and N(D) are the raindrop diameter class and number concentration,
respectively. For each boxplot, the bottom and top edges of the blue box indicate the 25th and 75th
respectively. For each boxplot, the bottom and top edges of the blue box indicate the 25th and 75th
percentiles, respectively; thethe
percentiles, respectively; redred
central crossbar
central crossbarrepresents the median.
represents the median.The
The black
black dashed
dashed whiskers
whiskers
extend to
extend
Atmosphere.
the maximum
to the
2020,
and
12, xmaximum
minimum of the data points, respectively, and the outliers are plotted
and minimum of the data points, respectively, and the outliers are plotted
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
individually usingusing
individually the “+” symbol.
the “+” symbol.
4
10
For a convenient comparison of the DSD characteristics under different rain rates, average
R1 (0,0.1]
raindrop spectra for R1 to R5 are3 superimposed on the same graph in Figure 5. The corresponding
R2 (0.1,1]
10
integral rainfall physical quantities derived from the average spectra and the fitted gamma
R3 (1,5]
2
parameters are listed in Table10 1. The comparison shows thatR4 total number concentration 𝑁𝑇 ,
the(5,10]
N(D) (m-3 mm-1)

reflectivity Z, rainwater content W and mass-weighted mean R5 (10,~) 𝐷 increase with the rain
diameter
1 𝑚
10
rate. The largest generalized intercept parameter 𝑁𝑊 is found in R3. For the gamma parameters, 𝑁0 ,
𝜇 and Λ decrease with an increased
10
0 rain rate, corresponding to the widening and flattening of the
raindrop spectra. -1
10
-2
10
-3
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D(mm)

Figure 5. Averaged DSDs for the five indicated rainfall rates (R1–R5). The integral rainfall parameters
Figure 5. Averaged DSDs for the five indicated rainfall rates (R1–R5). The integral rainfall parameters
derived from these averaged spectra are presented in Table 1. The circles represent the center of the
derived from these averaged spectra are presented in Table 1. The circles represent the center of the
Parsivel diameter
Parsivel classes.
diameter classes.

Table 1. Integral rainfall physical quantities derived from the averaged DSDs and the fitted gamma
distribution parameters for the five rain-rate regimes.

Class
𝑵𝑻 𝒁 𝑾 𝑫𝒎 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎 (𝑵𝑾 ) 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎 (𝑵𝟎 ) 𝚲
(mm – 𝝁
(𝒎−𝟑 ) (𝒅𝑩𝒁) (𝒈 𝒎−𝟑 ) (𝒎𝒎) (𝒎−𝟑 𝒎𝒎−𝟏 ) (𝒎−𝟑 𝒎𝒎−𝟏−𝝁 ) (𝒎𝒎−𝟏 )
1)

Total 175.24 30.18 0.0617 1.415 4.399 6.529 6.454 10.141

Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 8 of 20

Table 1. Integral rainfall physical quantities derived from the averaged DSDs and the fitted gamma
distribution parameters for the five rain-rate regimes.

Class NT Z W Dm log10 (NW ) log10 (N0 ) Λ

µ
(mm−1 ) (m−3 ) (dBZ) (g m−3 ) (mm) (m−3 mm−1 ) (m−3 mm−1−µ ) (mm−1 )
Total 175.24 30.18 0.0617 1.415 4.399 6.529 6.454 10.141
R1 (0, 0.1] 30.12 5.25 0.0038 0.723 4.009 11.088 12.951 24.364
R2 (0.1, 1] 127.84 17.24 0.0252 0.906 4.630 8.928 9.791 16.589
R3 (1, 5] 311.95 27.40 0.1086 1.177 4.868 6.858 6.817 10.203
R4 (5, 10] 436.34 35.26 0.2662 1.552 4.803 5.445 4.704 6.447
R5 (10, ~) 758.18 47.10 0.7594 2.541 4.472 4.541 2.526 3.995

3.2. DSD Characteristics for Different Rain Types

In this subsection, the DSD characteristics for stratiform and convective rains are analyzed and
compared. During the observation period, there were 98 rainfall events, and 4599 DSD samples were
obtained, of which 4217 (91.69%) were stratiform samples and 382 (8.31%) were convective samples,
respectively. The accumulated rain amounts for the stratiform and convective samples are 66.37 and
47.45 mm, with mean rain rates of 0.94 and 7.45 mm h−1 , respectively. Indicating that the rainfalls
that happened
Atmosphere. in xthe
2020, 12, FOR Daocheng
PEER REVIEW site are light stratiform rains most of the time. Meanwhile, although 9 of 21
relatively sparse and short-lived, heavier convective rains can also produce a comparable rain amount.
of the
Theraindrop spectra
statistical DSDsbetween the low-rain-rate
for the stratiform regime and
and convective rainsthe high-rain-rate
are regime,
shown in Figure 6. Aas concluded
comparison
in the
of Subsection
two sets 3.1.
of raindrop boxplots demonstrates that the convective rain has wider and flatter spectra
Figure
than the 7 presents
stratiform the
rain, asprobability distributions
a result of the contributionof values of DSD-derived
of larger Z, W, 𝑁𝑇 ,raindrop
raindrops; theR,maximum 𝐷𝑚 , 𝑁𝑊 ,
𝑁0 , 𝜇 andfor
diameters Λ tothe
discern the differences
convective in the
and stratiform rainfall
rains physical
are 5.5 and 3.75quantities and gamma
mm, respectively. Theparameters
peaks of the of
two rain for
medians types.
twoTheir
rain corresponding
types are both in 5th,
the25th,
fifth75th, 95th percentiles,
diameter class, with amedians and averages
mean diameter aremm.
of 0.562 also
summarized
These in Table
comparison 2. It can
features of be
thefound that,types
two rain generally, the stratiform
are quite similar to rain has smaller values
the comparison resultsofofR,the
Z,
W, 𝑁𝑇 and
raindrop 𝐷𝑚 , but
spectra largerthe
between values of 𝑁0 , 𝜇 regime
low-rain-rate and Λ than thehigh-rain-rate
and the convective rain. The 𝑁
regime, as𝑊 𝑠concluded
of two rainin
types are
Section 3.1.very close.

104 (a) Stra. (b) Con.

103
N(D) (mm-1 m-3)

102

101

100

10-1

D (mm) D (mm)

Figure 6. Boxplots of the DSDs for the stratiform (a) and convective (b) samples. D and N(D) are
Figure
the 6. Boxplots
raindrop of the
diameter DSDs
class andfor the stratiform
number (a) andrespectively.
concentration, convective (b) samples.
The meaningD and N(D)
of the are the
boxplot is
described
raindrop in the caption
diameter classofand
Figure 4.
number concentration, respectively. The meaning of the boxplot is
described in the caption of Figure 4.
Figure 7 presents the probability distributions of values of DSD-derived R, Z, W, NT , Dm , NW ,
N0 , µ and
90
Λ to discern the differences
20
in the rainfall physical quantities
75
and gamma parameters of
two rain types. Stra.
Their corresponding 5th,(b) Stra.
25th, 75th, 95th percentiles, medians and averagesStra.
are also
75 (a) Con. 16 Con. 60 (c) Con.
summarized in Table 2. It can be found that, generally, the stratiform rain has smaller values of R, Z, W,
Probability %

60
NT and Dm , but larger values of N0 , µ12 and Λ than the convective rain.45 The NW s of two rain types are
45
very close. 8 30
30
15 4 15

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R (mm h-1) Z (dBZ) W (g m-3)
30 25
Stra. 40 Stra. Stra.
25 (d) Con. (e) Con. 20 (f) Con.
y%

20 30
 D (mm) D (mm)

Figure 6. Boxplots of the DSDs for the stratiform (a) and convective (b) samples. D and N(D) are the
raindrop diameter class and number concentration, respectively. The meaning of the boxplot is
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 9 of 20
described in the caption of Figure 4.

90 20 75
Stra. Stra. Stra.
75 (a) Con. 16 (b) Con. 60 (c) Con.
Probability %

60
12 45
45
8 30
30
15 4 15

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R (mm h-1) Z (dBZ) W (g m-3)
30 25
Stra. 40 Stra. Stra.
25 (d) Con. (e) Con. 20 (f) Con.
Probability %

20 30
15
15
20 10
10
10 5
5
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6
log 10(NT) (m-3) Dm (mm) log 10 (Nw) (m-3 mm-1)
40 35 35
Stra. Stra. Stra.
(g) Con.
30 (h) Con.
30 (i) Con.
30
Probability %

25 25
20 20
20
15 15
10 10 10
5 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
log 10(N0) (m-3 mm-1- )  -1
 (mm )

Figure 7. Probability distributions of the integral rainfall physical quantities and gamma distribution
parameters. (a–i) are the rain rate (R), reflectivity (Z), rainwater content (W), total number concentration
(NT ), mass-weighted mean diameter (Dm ), generalized intercept parameter (NW ), gamma intercept
parameter (N0 ), gamma shape parameter (µ) and gamma slope parameter (Λ).

Table 2. The 5th, 25th, 75th, 95th percentiles, medians and averages of integral rainfall physical
quantities and gamma distribution parameters for two rain types.

Rainfall Quantities
Rain
and Gamma 5th 25th Median Average 75th 95th
Types
Parameters
Stra. 0.026 0.121 0.454 0.944 1.432 3.261
R (mm h−1 )
Con. 0.168 1.314 3.818 7.453 7.706 23.437
Stra. 0.002 0.008 0.028 0.049 0.074 0.159
W (g m−3 )
Con. 0.009 0.066 0.154 0.265 0.311 0.786
Stra. 0.286 9.246 16.559 16.115 23.804 29.281
Z (dBZ)
Con. 12.005 23.767 30.767 29.585 35.916 43.002
Stra. 0.575 0.734 0.899 0.932 1.099 1.377
Dm (mm)
Con. 0.803 1.073 1.379 1.496 1.812 2.666
  Stra. 1.201 1.664 2.081 2.023 2.407 2.656
log10 NT m−3
Con. 1.408 2.062 2.446 2.356 2.683 2.992
Stra. 2.717 3.193 3.498 3.467 3.774 4.111
log10 Nw (m−3 mm−1 )
Con. 2.481 3.097 3.494 3.437 3.874 4.131
Stra. 5.301 6.671 8.146 9.236 10.878 16.844
log10 N0 (m−3 mm−1−µ )
Con. 3.184 4.572 5.663 6.123 7.084 10.859
µ Stra. 5.055 7.009 9.164 10.646 12.959 21.147
Con. 1.999 3.429 5.271 6.009 7.775 12.837
Stra. 7.173 10.132 13.847 16.453 20.692 34.061
Λ (mm−1 )
Con. 2.663 4.805 7.027 8.581 11.018 20.015
 Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 10 of 20

The average DSDs and gamma distribution curves fitted by the ML for two rain types are further
presented in Figure 8. Table 3 lists the corresponding rainfall physical quantities and gamma parameters
for the average spectra. The results show that the average DSD of convective rain is broader and
flatter than that of the stratiform rain. The former also possess higher number concentrations than
the latter at each diameter class. For comparison, fitted results using the MM are also superimposed
on the figure. Comparisons indicate that the MM significantly underestimates the raindrop number
concentration of small raindrops, and the biases of ML are much smaller. On the contrary, for medium
raindrops, the ML overestimates the results, and the MM can perform better. The correlation coefficients
between the observed and fitted DSDs of the stratiform rain for the ML and MM are 0.9426 and 0.9575,
respectively, and the counterparts of the convective rain are 0.9132 and 0.9574, respectively. We also use
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to verify the fitting methods. The results show that two methods
both can pass the verification. The KS p-values of ML and MM for the stratiform rain are both 0.9123,
and they are 0.3841 and 0.9123, respectively, for the convective rain. Overall, the gamma distribution
can adequately describe the observed rain spectra, and the fitted results for the average DSDs of two
rain types can be expressed as

N (D) = 5.582 × 105 D5.282 exp(−8.167D), strati f orm rain (11)

Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER = 1.872 × 104 D2.622 exp(−3.947),

N(D)REVIEW convective rain (12)
11 of 21

350 600
(a) Stra. observed (b) Con. observed
300 Stra. MM-fitted Con. MM-fitted
500
Stra. ML-fitted Con. ML-fitted
N(D) (m -3 mm-1)

N(D) (m -3 mm-1)

250
400
200
300
150
200
100

50 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
D (mm) D (mm)
Figure 8. Average DSDs for the stratiform (a) and convective (b) rains, and fitted results using the
Figure
maximum 8. Average DSDs
likelihood for the
method stratiform
(ML) (a) and
and moment convective
method (MM).(b) rains, and fitted results using the
maximum likelihood method (ML) and moment method (MM).
Table 3. Integral rainfall physical quantities and gamma parameters derived from the averaged DSDs
for the3.stratiform
Table and convective
Integral rainfall physical rains, usingand
quantities thegamma
maximum likelihood
parameters method.
derived from the averaged DSDs
for the stratiform and convective rains, using the maximum likelihood method.
Rain R NT Z W Dm log10 (NW ) log10 (N0 ) Λ
µ
Types (mm h−1 ) (m−3 ) (dBZ) (g m−3 ) (mm) −3 −1 (m−3 mm−1−µ (mm−1 )
Rain 𝑵𝑻 R 𝒁 𝑾 𝑫𝒎 𝟏𝟎 𝑾 𝒍𝒐𝒈 mm
(m (𝑵 )) 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎 (𝑵 ) )
𝟎 𝚲
𝝁
(𝒎𝒎 𝒉−𝟏
Types Stra. ) (𝒎−𝟑
0.85 ) (𝒅𝑩𝒁)
172.73 22.98 (𝒈 𝒎 −𝟑
) (𝒎𝒎)
0.0490 1.094 (𝒎−𝟑4.649
𝒎𝒎−𝟏 ) (𝒎−𝟑 𝒎𝒎−𝟏−𝝁 )5.282 8.167(𝒎𝒎−𝟏 )
5.746
Con. 6.21 390.07 39.01 0.2573 1.911 4.475 4.272 2.622 3.947
Stra. 0.85 172.73 22.98 0.0490 1.094 4.649 5.746 5.282 8.167
Con. 6.21 390.07 39.01 0.2573 1.911 4.475 4.272 2.622 3.947
3.3. Relationship of µ − Λ
3.3. Relationship 𝜇−𝛬
The gammaofparameters are not mutually independent. The relations between µ and N0 /Λ can
provide
The gamma parameters are not the
useful information reflecting behavior
mutually of the rain spectra,
independent. and facilitate
The relations between their application
𝜇 and in
𝑁0 /Λ can
other areas.
provide Empirical
useful relationships
information between
reflecting the gamma
the behavior of thedistribution parameters
rain spectra, havetheir
and facilitate beenapplication
presented
by researchers. Ulbrich and Atlas (1998) found that the µ − N
in other areas. Empirical relationships between the gamma0 distribution parameters have by
relationship can be expressed an
been
exponential equation [67]. Brandes et al. (2003) proposed a second-order polynomial
presented by researchers. Ulbrich and Atlas (1998) found that the 𝜇 − 𝑁0 relationship can be µ − Λ relationship,
which can by
expressed be an
written as [68] equation [67]. Brandes et al. (2003) proposed a second-order polynomial
exponential 2
Λ = 0.0365µ
𝜇 − Λ relationship, which can be written as [68] + 0.735µ + 1.935 (13)

Λ = 0.0365𝜇2 + 0.735𝜇 + 1.935 (13)

Many other scientists have reported similar equations, but their studies showed different
coefficients; such variation can be directly related to the studied geographical locations and
climatological regimes [5,9,11,12,19,35,41]. Some criteria are used before data fitting to obtain more
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 11 of 20

Many other scientists have reported similar equations, but their studies showed different
coefficients; such variation can be directly related to the studied geographical locations and climatological
regimes [5,9,11,12,19,35,41]. Some criteria are used before data fitting to obtain more reliable relations of
µ − N0 and µ − Λ; for example, in the works of Zhang et al. (2003), Chen et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2019)
and Huo et al. (2019), a threshold of raindrop total number was set to 1000 for selecting fitted samples.
They considered that the fitted gamma parameters of DSDs with drop counts less than this threshold may
be less representative, because of the limitation of fitting approaches [3,19,35,41]. Chen et al. (2017) set the
threshold to 300 since the raindrop number concentration over the TP is relatively lower [19].
The relationships of µ − N0 and µ − Λ are also fitted in this study. The results show that there is
a good correlation between the µ and Λ with a certain quadratic relationship, however, the relation
between µ and N0 is unapparent. Figure 9 shows the scatterplots of the µ and Λ. The gray plots
represent the entire data, and the black plots are samples after selection by a threshold of total raindrop
number proposed by Chen et al. (2017). The black plots can distribute more concentratedly samples,
Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
and have higher representativeness than the entire data. The fitting result of the black plots exhibits a
confidential µ − Λ relationship. The correlation coefficient between the observed and fitted Λ is 0.9522,
and the fitted result can pass the KS-test with a 2high
Λ = 0.0302𝜇 + 1.139𝜇 of 0.9911. The µ − Λ relationship can
+ 0.724
p-value (14)be
expresses as
The relationship of 𝜇 − Λ for DSDs observed in the mid-TP that were proposed by Chen et al.
Λ = 0.0302µ2 + 1.139µ + 0.724 (14)
(2017) is compared (the blue solid line). Our relationship is quite consistent with Chen’s result, but
our formula can produce a larger Λ under the same 𝜇.
50
2
 =0.0302  +1.139 +0.724
2
 =0.0217  +1.09 +1.706 (Chen et al. 2017)
40

30


20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-1
 (mm )

Figure 9. Scatterplots
Figure 9. Scatterplotsofofthe
thegamma
gammaparameters
parameters Λ and
of of µ. The
Λ and graygray
𝜇. The and and
blackblack
points are from
points are the entire
from the
data and the filtered data with drop counts greater than 300, respectively. The red
entire data and the filtered data with drop counts greater than 300, respectively. The red line line represents our
relationship,
represents ourtherelationship,
blue line is thethe
relationship forthe
blue line is rainfalls in the mid-TP
relationship proposed
for rainfalls by Chen
in the mid-TPet al. (2017) [19].
proposed by
Chen et al. (2017) [19].
The relationship of µ − Λ for DSDs observed in the mid-TP that were proposed by Chen et al.
(2017) is compared of (the
𝐷𝑚 −blue solid𝑁line).
𝑅 and Our relationship is quite consistent with Chen’s result, but our
3.4. Relationships 𝑤−𝑅
formula can produce a larger Λ under the same µ.
The 𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑤 are independent quantities that can synthetically represent the size and
3.4. Relationships
number of Dm −
concentration ofRthe
andrain
Nw − R
spectrum. Tables 1 and 3 preliminarily indicate that 𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑤
can remarkably change with the rain
The Dm and Nw are independent quantitiesrate R that
and can
show differencesrepresent
synthetically with respect toand
the size rainnumber
types.
Therefore, relationships between 𝐷𝑚 (𝑁𝑤1)and
concentration of the rain spectrum. Tables
and3 preliminarily
R are furtherindicate
discussed in this subsection. In many
that Dm and Nw can remarkably
𝐵
studies, a power-law equation, namely, 𝐷𝑚
change with the rain rate R and show differences
/𝑁 = 𝐴𝑅 , was used to formulize the 𝐷𝑚 −relationships
𝑊 with respect to rain types. Therefore, 𝑅 and 𝑁𝑤 −
𝑅 relationships, but with different coefficients of A and B, due to the different geographical locations
between Dm (Nw ) and R are further discussed in this subsection. In many studies, a power-law equation,
[19,35,69,70]. In this study, we also use the power-law formula to fit the relationships of 𝐷𝑚 − 𝑅 and
namely, Dm /NW = ARB , was used to formulize the Dm − R and Nw − R relationships, but with different
𝑁𝑤 − 𝑅.
coefficients of A and B, due to the different geographical locations [19,35,69,70]. In this study, we also
Figure 10 presents the scatterplots of R versus 𝐷𝑚 / 𝑁𝑤 and fitted curves for two rain types. The
use the power-law formula to fit the relationships of D m − R and Nw − R.
𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑤 for samples can both increase along with R, while they exhibit different incremental
features for two rain types. Specifically, the stratiform rain has larger increments of 𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑤 at
small R values. As R increases, the 𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑤 of can more easily tend to be stable than those of the
convective rain. This difference can imply that the raindrop formation and growth can be efficient
under a small rain rate for the stratiform rain. In contrast, as the rain rate increase, physical processes
can gradually tend to an equilibrium to yield raindrop spectra with small increments in both size and
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 12 of 20

Figure 10 presents the scatterplots of R versus Dm / Nw and fitted curves for two rain types. The Dm
and Nw for samples can both increase along with R, while they exhibit different incremental features
for two rain types. Specifically, the stratiform rain has larger increments of Dm and Nw at small R
values. As R increases, the Dm and Nw of can more easily tend to be stable than those of the convective
rain. This difference can imply that the raindrop formation and growth can be efficient under a small
rain rate for the stratiform rain. In contrast, as the rain rate increase, physical processes can gradually
tend to an equilibrium to yield raindrop spectra with small increments in both size and concentration.
The convective rain can continually produce larger raindrops, along with an increase in the rain rate,
indicating that the raindrop growth process can remain efficient, as a result of abundant water vapor
and strong2020,
Atmosphere. updrafts.
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

4 4
(a) Dm=1.038R 0.1389 (b) Dm=1.133R 0.2098

3 3
Dm (mm)

Dm (mm)
2 2

1 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
R (mm h-1) R (mm h-1)
6 6
(c) (d)
5 5
log 10 (NW) (m-3 mm-1)

log 10 (NW) (m-3 mm-1)

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
R (mm h-1) R (mm h-1)

10. Scatterplots
Figure 10. Scatterplots of ofthe
themass-weight
mass-weightmean meandiameter
diameter Dm𝐷𝑚 andand
generalized intercept
generalized parameter
intercept Nw
parameter
versus the rain rate R. (a)
𝑁𝑤 versus the rain rate R. (a) D versus R for the stratiform rain, (b)
m 𝐷𝑚 versus R for the stratiform rain, (b) D versus R for the convective
m 𝐷𝑚 versus R for the convective rain,
(c) Nw(c)
rain, versus R for the
𝑁𝑤 versus stratiform
R for the stratiform Nw versus
rain, (d)rain, (d) 𝑁𝑤 Rversus
for theRconvective rain. Therain.
for the convective blue The
and blue
red lines
and
are
red the results
lines for results
are the the stratiform
for the and convective
stratiform rains fitted using
and convective the linear
rains fitted least
using thesquares method.
linear least squares
method.
We use the KS test to verify the fitted relationships of Dm − R and Nw − R. The results show that
the fitting of Dm of
3.5. Relationship −R 𝑍 relationship
−𝑅 is basically confidential, while the correlation between Nw and R for
both two rain types is unapparent. The fitted Dm − R relationships for two rain types are given as
The relationship between Z and R has a substantial significance for improving radar QPE. Many
𝑏
studies have investigated the power-law relationship
Dm = 1.038R 0.1389 of 𝑍f orm
, strati = 𝐴𝑅rain for stratiform and convective rains(15)
using disdrometers, and proposed specific coefficients of A and b for different geographical locations
[30,41,65,71–76]. Typically, the relationship
Dm = 1.133R of0.2098
𝑍 =, 300𝑅 1.4
convectiveforrain
convective rains that was proposed (16)
by Fulton et al. (1998) is used in the Next-Generation Weather Radar of the United States [73]. The
3.5. Relationship
relationship of of
𝑍Z R 1.6 presented by Marshall and Palmer (1963) has also been commonly
= −200𝑅
appliedTheto mid-latitude
relationship areas for
between stratiform
Z and R has a rains [72]. Herein,
substantial we also
significance investigate radar
for improving the relationships
QPE. Many
studies have investigated the power-law relationship of Z = AR for stratiform and results
for the different rain types on the eastern slope of the TP. Figure 11 shows
b the statistical of Z
convective
versususing
rains R anddisdrometers,
the fitted relationships.
and proposedThe specific
scatterplots of the samples
coefficients of A and indicate
b for that Z andgeographical
different R well obey
locations [30,41,65,71–76]. Typically, the relationship of Z = 300R for convective rainsfitted
the power-law relationships for both rains. The correlation coefficients
1.4 between the and
that was
observed results for stratiform and convective rains are 0.8729 and 0.968. The fitted relationships of
𝑍 − 𝑅 can pass the KS test, and they can be expressed as
𝑍 = 149 R1.489 , 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
(17)

1.79
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 13 of 20

proposed by Fulton et al. (1998) is used in the Next-Generation Weather Radar of the United States [73].
The relationship of Z = 200R1.6 presented by Marshall and Palmer (1963) has also been commonly
applied to mid-latitude areas for stratiform rains [72]. Herein, we also investigate the relationships for
the different rain types on the eastern slope of the TP. Figure 11 shows the statistical results of Z versus
R and the fitted relationships. The scatterplots of the samples indicate that Z and R well obey the
power-law relationships for both rains. The correlation coefficients between the fitted and observed
results for stratiform and convective rains are 0.8729 and 0.968. The fitted relationships of Z − R can
pass the KS test, and they can be expressed as

Z = 149R1.489 , strati f orm rain (17)

Z = 107.7R1.79 , convective rain (18)

Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

6 6
(a) (b)
5 5
log 10 (Z) (mm6 m-3)

4 log 10 (Z) (mm6 m-3) 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
Z=149R 1.489 Z=107.7R 1.79
0 Wu et al. 0 Wu et al.
、 、
Porcu et al. Porcu et al.
-1 -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
R (mm h-1) R (mm h-1)
Figure
Figure 11. Scatterplots of
11. Scatterplots of Z
Z versus
versus R
R for
for the
the stratiform
stratiform (a)
(a) and
and convective
convective (b)
(b) rains.
rains. The
The blue
blue and
and red
red
lines are the fitted relationships. The green lines are the results from Wu et al. (2017) [30] and Porcù
lines are the fitted relationships. The green lines are the results from Wu et al. (2017) [30] and Porcù et al.
(2014) [31] for[31]
et al. (2014) thefor
mid-
theand
mid-southern TP.
and southern TP.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
In this section, we compare our results regarding DSD characteristics with those obtained in other
In this section, we compare our results regarding DSD characteristics with those obtained in
areas of China. Biases of the ML method and the proposed Z − R relationship are also discussed.
other areas of China. Biases of the ML method and the proposed 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationship are also
discussed.
4.1. Comparison of DSD Characteristics
(1) AverageofDSDs:
4.1. Comparison average DSDs of the stratiform and convective rains observed in our area are
DSD Characteristics
compared with results obtained in the mid-TP, East China and South China. Figure 12 shows that both
DSDs(1) ofAverage
two rainDSDs: average
types on DSDs slope
the eastern of the of
stratiform and convective
TP are different rains
from those inobserved
the other in our area
areas. are
For the
compared with results obtained in the mid-TP, East China and South China. Figure
stratiform rain, spectrum in our area is narrower than that in other areas. The number concentrations 12 shows that
both
of DSDs
small of two rain
raindrops (<1.4types
mm) onarethe eastern
closest slopeinofSouth
to those TP areChina,
different from those
followed by Eastin China,
the other
andareas.
they For
are
the stratiform rain, spectrum in our area is narrower than that in other areas.
apparently higher than those in the mid-TP. However, for larger raindrops, their number concentrations The number
concentrations
in of smallthan
our area are smaller raindrops
those in(<1.4 mm) are
the other threeclosest to those
regions. For thein convective
South China, followed
rain, the DSDby inEast
our
area is closest to that in the mid-TP. Their differences are also significant. Convective DSDs in our their
China, and they are apparently higher than those in the mid-TP. However, for larger raindrops, area
number concentrations
generally produce higher innumber
our areaconcentrations
are smaller than of those
smallin themedium
and other three regions.
raindrops Formm)
(<2 the convective
than those
in the mid-TP. On the contrary, the number concentrations of larger raindrops of the formersignificant.
rain, the DSD in our area is closest to that in the mid-TP. Their differences are also are lower
Convective DSDs in
than those of the latter.our area generally produce higher number concentrations of small and medium
raindrops (<2 mm) than those in the mid-TP. On the contrary, the number concentrations of larger
raindrops of the former are lower than those of the latter.

Our (the eastern slope of TP) 4 Our (the eastern slope of TP)
10
3 (a) Stra. 10 (b) Con.
Chen et al. (the mid-TP) Chen et al. (the mid-TP)
3
10
2 Jin et al. (East China) 10 Jin et al. (East China)
Huo et al. (South China) Huo et al. (South China)
N(D) (m -3 mm-1)

N(D) (m -3 mm-1)

2
1 10
10
1
0 10
10 0
-1
10
10 -1
10
-2
10 10
-2
China, and they are apparently higher than those in the mid-TP. However, for larger raindrops, their
number concentrations in our area are smaller than those in the other three regions. For the convective
rain, the DSD in our area is closest to that in the mid-TP. Their differences are also significant.
Convective DSDs in our area generally produce higher number concentrations of small and medium
Atmosphere (<211,
raindrops2020, mm)562 than those in the mid-TP. On the contrary, the number concentrations of 14 of 20
larger
raindrops of the former are lower than those of the latter.

Our (the eastern slope of TP) 4 Our (the eastern slope of TP)
10
3 (a) Stra. 10 (b) Con.
Chen et al. (the mid-TP) Chen et al. (the mid-TP)
3
10
2 Jin et al. (East China) 10 Jin et al. (East China)
Huo et al. (South China) Huo et al. (South China)
N(D) (m -3 mm-1)

N(D) (m -3 mm-1)
2
1 10
10
1
0 10
10 0
-1
10
10 -1
10
-2
10 10
-2

-3 -3
10 10
-4 -4
10 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D (mm) D (mm)

Figure
Figure 12. Average DSDs
12. Average DSDs of
of the
the stratiform
stratiform (a)
(a) and
and convective
convective (b)
(b) rains
rains observed
observed inin our
our area
area and
and other
other
areas
areas of
of China
China (the
(the mid-TP:
mid-TP:Chen
Chenet etal.
al. 2017
2017 [19];
[19]; East
EastChina:
China: Jin
Jin et
et al.
al. 2015
2015 [70];
[70]; South
South China:
China: Huo
Huo et
et
al.
al. 2019
2019 [35]).
[35]).

(2) D2020,
− log10 ((𝑁 )) domain:
NwPEER REVIEWFigure 13 shows the scatterplots of Dm versus log10 (Nw ) for 15 two
(2) 𝐷m − 12,
Atmosphere. 𝑙𝑜𝑔x FOR
𝑚 domain: Figure 13 10 𝑤 shows the scatterplots of 𝐷𝑚 versus 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑁𝑤 ) for of
two21
rain types observed in our area. The gray points represent all samples. The red crosses represent
rain types observed in our area. The gray points represent all samples. The red crosses represent the
the averages
averages of 𝐷of𝑚−Dm 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (𝑁10𝑤().NThe
log
−10 w ). results
The results
showshow thatconvective
that the the convectiverain has raina larger
has a larger
mean mean𝐷𝑚 and Dma
and a comparable
comparable Nw compared
𝑁𝑤 compared with thosewith ofthose of the stratiform
the stratiform rain. The rain. The averages
averages of 𝐷𝑚 −of 𝑙𝑜𝑔D10
m(𝑁− 𝑤log
) 10
for(Nthe
w)
for the stratiform
stratiform and convective
and convective rains are rains are 0.932–3.468
0.932–3.468 and 1.5–3.437,
and 1.5–3.437, respectively.
respectively. The black
The black stars, stars,
blue
blue squares,
squares, greengreen
circlescircles
and andpurple purple
plusespluses
are are averages
averages observed
observed in other
in other fourfour climatic
climatic regimes
regimes in
in China.
China. Comparisons
Comparisons of of
thethe five
five pairs
pairs ofof averages
averages indicates
indicates thatthe
that the𝐷D 𝑚m𝑠 s−−𝑙𝑜𝑔
log10 (N𝑤w𝑠)
10(𝑁 s) for two rainrain
types observed in our area are are both
both different
different from
from those
those observed
observed in in other
other areas.
areas. For
For the
the stratiform
stratiform
rain, the mean D of our area is the same as
𝐷m𝑚 of our area is the same as that of that of the mid-TP, but smaller than
mid-TP, but smaller than those those of non-plateau
areas.
areas. The meanN𝑁w𝑤ofofour
The mean our areaareacan be be
can larger than
larger thatthat
than of North China,
of North but smaller
China, than those
but smaller of other
than those of
three
otherareas.
three For theFor
areas. convective rain, the rain,
the convective meantheDmmeanof our𝐷area
𝑚 is
of slightly
our area larger
is than
slightly that of
larger North
than China
that of
but smaller
North Chinathan
but other
smallerareas.
thanThe othermean convective
areas. The mean Nw of our area𝑁𝑤
convective is larger
of our thanarea that of North
is larger than China,
that of
but smaller
North than
China, butthose of other
smaller areas.of other areas.
than those
6 6
Our (the eastern slope of TP) Our (the eastern slope of TP)
5.5 (a) Ji et al. (North China) 5.5 (b) Ji et al. (North China)
Wen et al. (Asian monsoon) Wen et al. (Asian monsoon)
log 10 (NW) (m-3 mm-1)

log 10 (NW) (m-3 mm-1)

5 Huo et al.(South China) 5 Huo et al.(South China)

Chen et al. (the mid-TP) Chen et al. (the mid-TP)
4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Dm (mm) Dm (mm)

Figure
Figure 13. ScatterplotsofofD𝐷
13. Scatterplots m versus log10 (Nw ) for the stratiform (a) and convective (b) rains. The gray
𝑚 versus 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑁𝑤 ) for the stratiform (a) and convective (b) rains. The
points represent all samples. The red cross
redrepresents the average Dm − log𝐷10 (N w ) obtained in our area.
gray points represent all samples. The cross represents the average 𝑚 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑁𝑤 ) obtained in
The
our black stars,black
area. The blue stars,
squares,
bluegreen circles
squares, and circles
green purpleand
pluses are the
purple results
pluses are obtained in obtained
the results other areas
in
of China (the mid-TP: Chen et al. 2017 [19]; North China: Ji et al. 2020 [76]; South
other areas of China (the mid-TP: Chen et al. 2017 [19]; North China: Ji et al. 2020 [76]; South China: Huo et al.
China:
2019 [35]; Asian summer monsoon: Wen et al 2016 [14]).
Huo et al. 2019 [35]; Asian summer monsoon: Wen et al 2016 [14]).
(3) Z − R relationship: for comparison, the Z − R relationships for two rain types in the mid-
(3) 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationship: for comparison, the 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationships for two rain types in the mid-
and southern TP proposed by Wu et al. (2017) and Porcù et al. (2014) are also drawn in Figure 11.
and southern TP proposed by Wu et al. (2017) and Porcù et al. (2014) are also drawn in Figure 11.
Comparisons show that the stratiform Z − R relationship of our area is very close to the other results.
Comparisons show that the −3stratiform 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationship of our area is very close to the other results.
For a 30-dBZ (1033 mm66 m−3 ) Z, R values for our area, the mid-TP, and the southern TP are 3.38, 3.59
For a 30-dBZ (10 mm m ) Z, R values for our area, the mid-TP, and the southern TP are 3.38, 3.59
and 3.85 mm h−1. For the convective rain, the relationship of our area is different from those of the
other two areas, but relatively closer to that of the mid-TP. For a 40-dBZ (104 mm6 m−3) Z, R values for
our area, the mid-TP, and the southern TP are 12.57, 15.07 and 21.65 mm h−1. Overall, the 𝑍 − 𝑅
relationship of convective rain has a smaller A, but a larger b than the stratiform rain.
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 15 of 20

and 3.85 mm h−1 . For the convective rain, the relationship of our area is different from those of the
other two areas, but relatively closer to that of the mid-TP. For a 40-dBZ (104 mm6 m−3 ) Z, R values
for our area, the mid-TP, and the southern TP are 12.57, 15.07 and 21.65 mm h−1 . Overall, the Z − R
relationship of convective rain has a smaller A, but a larger b than the stratiform rain.

4.2. Biases of ML Method and Z − R Relationship

To evaluate the performance of ML method in application to DSD fitting, the relative error (RE)
of the gamma-fitted compared to the observed DSDs, and the derived integral rainfall quantities
are further calculated. Figure 14a,b shows boxplots of REs of the raindrop number concentration
in different diameter classes for two rain types. The RE of NT , Z, Dm , R, W, and Nw are depicted in
Figure 14c,d, respectively. The results show that most of the gamma-fitted DSDs overestimate the
number concentration of small raindrops at 0.312 mm diameter class for both of the two rain types;
whereas, the biases for raindrops at larger diameter classes rapidly decrease. For the stratiform rain,
the REs ranging
Atmosphere. 2020, 12, from
x FOR 0.437- to 1.375 mm are relatively smaller than other classes; their 25th–75th
PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
percentiles and averages of REs are both within 50%; for the larger raindrops at 1.625- to 3.25 mm
Forthe
classes, theunderestimation
six DSD-derivedbecomesquantities, gamma-fitted
remarkable. For DSDs underestimate
the convective rain, the 𝑍, 𝐷𝑚 , 𝑅 and 𝑊,
the overestimation at
but overestimate the 𝑁 and 𝑁 for both rain types. The REs
0.312 mm class is smaller 𝑇compared𝑤 to the stratiform rain; the 25th–75th andof 𝑁 are larger than the other
𝑤 averages of REs of a wider
quantities,
scope indicating
of diameter that(0.437
classes the gamma
to 2.375function fittedare
mm classes) bywithin
ML method
50%. can produce steeper raindrop
spectra than the reality.
250 250
200 (a) Stra. 200 (b) Con.
150 150
RE (%)

RE (%)

100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100

D (mm) D (mm)
50 50
40 30.73% 40 (d) Con.
(c) Stra.
30 30
20 20 -7.91% -1.83%
RE (%)

RE (%)

2.58% -5.56% -5.27% -1.93% -4.4% -8.28%

10 -9.35% 10 38.81%
0 0
-10 -10 10.27%
-20 -20
-30 -30
NT Z Dm R W NW NT Z Dm R W NW
DSD integral quantities DSD integral quantities

Figure 14. Relative errors (REs) of the gamma-fitted results. (a) and (b) are RE boxplots of raindrop
Figure 14. Relative errors (REs) of the gamma-fitted results. (a) and (b) are RE boxplots of raindrop
number concentration in different diameter classes for two rain types. (c) and (d) are RE boxplots
number concentration in different diameter classes for two rain types. (c) and (d) are RE boxplots of
of the DSD-derived rainfall quantities [raindrop total number concentration NT (m−3 ), reflectivity Z
the DSD-derived rainfall quantities [raindrop total number concentration 𝑁𝑇 (m−3), reflectivity 𝑍
(dBZ), mass-weighted mean diameter Dm (mm), rain rate R (mm h−1 ), rainwater content W (g m−3 ),
(dBZ), mass-weighted mean diameter 𝐷 (mm), rain rate 𝑅 (mm h ), rainwater content 𝑊 (g m ),
−1 −3
generalized intercept parameter log10 (Nw𝑚) (m−3 mm−1 )] for two rain types. The black lines with circles
generalized intercept parameter log10 (𝑁𝑤 ) (m−3 mm−1)] for two rain types. The black lines with circles
in subgraphs represent the averages.
in subgraphs represent the averages.
For the six DSD-derived quantities, gamma-fitted DSDs underestimate the Z, Dm , R and W,
The RE of relationship-derived
but overestimate the NT and Nw for both compared to the
rain types. Theobserved
REs of Nrain rates (Rs) are also calculated, to
w are larger than the other quantities,
estimate the
indicating thatbiases of the function
the gamma proposed 𝑍 −by
fitted 𝑅 ML
relationship
method can in the application
produce steepertoraindrop
rainfall spectra
quantitative
than
estimation.
the reality. Figure 15 shows the boxplots of RE of the rain rate in different regimes for two rain types.
NoteThethatRE
theofR regimes for two rain types
relationship-derived are assigned
compared to be different
to the observed rain because of their
rates (Rs) different
are also value
calculated,
ranges.
to estimateObviously, with
the biases of the
the increase
proposed of Z
R,−the REs of both two
R relationship rain
in the types are decreased.
application to rainfall The biases in
quantitative
the first two R regimes (R≤1 mm h–1) are much smaller than those in the posterior R regimes. For the
estimation. Figure 15 shows the boxplots of RE of the rain rate in different regimes for two rain types.
rainfalls
Note thatwith
the Rrain rates for
regimes greater
two than 1 mmare
rain types h-1,assigned
the boxplots
to beofdifferent
RE of stratiform rain
because of possess
their 25th‒75th
different value
percentiles and averages within -27%‒18%, while -45%‒30% can be found for the convective rain type.
Overall, the proposed 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationship can produce smaller biases for the stratiform rain than that
for the convective rain, and it is more accurate for the rainfalls with a rain rate greater than 1mm h–1.
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 16 of 20

ranges. Obviously, with the increase of R, the REs of both two rain types are decreased. The biases in
the first two R regimes (R ≤ 1 mm h−1 ) are much smaller than those in the posterior R regimes. For the
rainfalls with rain rates greater than 1 mm h−1 , the boxplots of RE of stratiform rain possess 25th–75th
percentiles and averages within −27%–18%, while −45%–30% can be found for the convective rain type.
Overall, the proposed Z − R relationship can produce smaller biases for the stratiform rain than that
for the convective
Atmosphere. 2020, 12, x rain, and REVIEW
FOR PEER it is more accurate for the rainfalls with a rain rate greater than 1mm of−1
17 h 21.

100
80 (a) Stra.
60 38.41%
40 11.24%
RE (%)

20 -0.03% -3.1% -4.44% 3.95% -2.08%

0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0<R≤0.1 0.1<R≤1 1<R≤2 2<R≤3 3<R≤4 4<R≤5 R>5
Rain rate (R) regimes (mm h-1)
210
180 163.49% (b) Con.
150
120
RE (%)

90 79.66%
60 15.43%
30 -4.33% -3.25%
0.46% -23.29%
0
-30
-60
0<R≤0.1 0.1<R≤1 1<R≤5 5<R≤10 10<R≤20 20<R≤30 R>30
Rain rate (R) regimes (mm h-1)

Figure 15. Relative errors (REs) of the relationship-derived compared to the observed rain rates (Rs) in
Figure 15. Relative errors (REs) of the relationship-derived compared to the observed rain rates (Rs)
different regimes for stratiform (a) and convective (b) rains. The black lines with circles and black-font
in different regimes for stratiform (a) and convective (b) rains. The black lines with circles and black-
values both represent the averages.
font values both represent the averages.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The precipitation microphysics in different regions of the TP can be significantly different, because
of theThe precipitation
enormous microphysics
and complex terrains andin different
differentregions
climates.ofHowever,
the TP can onlybelimited
significantly different,
observations and
becausehave
studies of the enormous
reported and microphysics
the rainfall complex terrains in the andmid-TP. different climates.
In this paper, However,
we present only limited
a comprehensive
observations
study and studiesofhave
of characteristics DSDsreported the rainfall
for rainfalls microphysics
that happened on the in eastern
the mid-TP.slopeIn of this
TP. paper,
The main we
present a comprehensive study
findings can be summarized as follows. of characteristics of DSDs for rainfalls that happened on the eastern
slope(1)ofAs
TP.many
The main
studiesfindings can DSD
revealed, be summarized
differences as follows.
between the stratiform and convective rains and
under(1) As many
different studies revealed,
R regimes DSD differences
are also apparent on the eastern between slopetheofstratiform and convective
TP. The stratiform rains and
rain contributes
under different R regimes are also apparent on the eastern slope of TP.
to more rain duration and amount compared with the convective rain. Whereas, it has much smaller The stratiform rain contributes
to Z,
R, moreW, rain duration
Dm and andlarger
NT , but amount µ and Λ, and
N0 ,compared withproduces
the convectivenarrower rain.andWhereas,
steeper it has
rainmuch
spectrasmaller
than
R, Z,
the W, 𝐷𝑚 and
convective 𝑁𝑇 ,As
rain. butRlarger 𝑁0 , both
increase, 𝜇 and Λ, and
DSDs produces
of two narrower
rain types become and wider,
steepercorresponding
rain spectra than to
the convective rain. As R increase, both DSDs
occurrences of larger raindrops and higher concentrations. of two rain types become wider, corresponding to
occurrences of larger
(2) The DSD raindrops and
characteristics on thehigher concentrations.
eastern slope of TP can be different from those in other areas.
(2) The DSD characteristics on the eastern
The stratiform DSD in this area is narrower than in non-plateauslope of TP can regions,
be different fromofthose
because in otherrainfall
the smaller areas.
The stratiform
intensity. DSD in this
The convective DSDarea is area
in this narrower
also can than in non-plateau
be narrower than that regions, because
in East China, butofbroader
the smaller
than
rainfall
that intensity.
in South China.TheThe convective
differencesDSD in this
of rain areabetween
spectra also canthis beareanarrower
and the than that are
mid-TP in East
also China, but
significant.
broader than that in South China. The differences of rain spectra between
For stratiform spectra in this area, number concentrations of raindrops (within 0.437–1.625 mm) are this area and the mid-TP
are alsothan
higher significant.
those inFor thestratiform
mid-TP. On spectra in this area,
the contrary, number concentrations
for raindrops smaller than 0.437 of raindrops
mm and(within
larger
than 1.635 mm, the former has lower number concentrations than the latter. The differences ofthan
0.437–1.625 mm) are higher than those in the mid-TP. On the contrary, for raindrops smaller the
0.437 mm and
convective larger
spectra than 1.635
between twomm,
areasthe areformer
similarhas lowerof
to those number concentrations
the stratiform spectra.than the latter. The
differences
(3) The of the convective
confidential relationships of µ − Λ and
spectra between two Z areas
− R forarerainfalls
similar to in those of the
this area arestratiform
proposed with spectra.
KS
(3) The confidential relationships of 𝜇 − Λ and 𝑍 − 𝑅 for rainfalls in
test. Comparisons of these relationships with the counterparts in other areas indicate that, rain spectra this area are proposed
with KS test. Comparisons of these relationships with the counterparts in other areas indicate that,
rain spectra in this area can produce a lager Λ under the same 𝜇 than rain spectra in the mid-TP.
The 𝑍 − 𝑅 relationship of stratiform rain is very close to that in the mid-TP, whereas, the counterpart
of convective rain can produce a smaller R under the same Z.
(4) Comparisons of the 𝐷𝑚 and 𝑁𝑊 observed in this area with those obtained in other areas
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 17 of 20

in this area can produce a lager Λ under the same µ than rain spectra in the mid-TP. The Z − R
relationship of stratiform rain is very close to that in the mid-TP, whereas, the counterpart of convective
rain can produce a smaller R under the same Z.
(4) Comparisons of the Dm and NW observed in this area with those obtained in other areas (North
China, South China, Asian summer monsoon area and the mid-TP) show that the Dm and NW of this
area are closest to those in the area of the mid-TP. However, the former NW of the stratiform rain is
slightly smaller than the latter with the same Dm . The former Dm and NW of the convective rain are
both smaller than those of the latter.
(5) Estimation of the gamma fitting using ML method indicated that the gamma fitted DSDs could
overestimate (underestimate) the number concentration of small (large) raindrops. The bias of Z − R
relationship in application to QPE can decrease with the increase of R. Overall, for both of the two rain
types, their relationships can possess acceptable accuracy when R exceeds 1 mm h−1 .

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Z.; methodology, J.Z.; software, Y.W.; validation, Z.C., B.W.; formal
analysis, J.Z.; investigation, Y.W.; resources, J.Z.; data curation, J.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Z.;
writing—review and editing, J.Z.; visualization, Y.W.; supervision, Z.C.; project administration, B.W.; funding
acquisition, Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the science project of “Research on Forecast and Early Warning of Icing on
Overhead Transmission Lines in Micro-topographic Areas” (Grant no. 521999180006).
Acknowledgments: We want to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and
comments for improving this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wu, G.; Zhang, Y. Tibetan plateau forcing and the timing of the monsoon onset over South Asia and the
South China Sea. Mon. Weather Rev. 1998, 126, 913–927. [CrossRef]
2. Zhao, P.; Xu, X.D.; Chen, F.; Guo, X.L.; Zheng, X.D.; Liu, L.P.; Hong, Y.; Li, Y.Q.; La, Z.; Peng, H.; et al.
The third atmospheric scientific experiment for understanding the earth-atmosphere coupled system over
the tibetan plateau and its effects. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 99, 757–776. [CrossRef]
3. Zhang, G.; Vivekanandan, J.; Brandes, E.A.; Meneghini, R.; Kozu, T. The shape–slope relation in observed
gamma raindrop size distributions: Statistical error or useful information? J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2003, 20,
1106–1119. [CrossRef]
4. Bringi, V.N.; Chandrasekar, V.; Hubbert, J.; Gorgucci, E.; Randeu, W.L.; Schoenhuber, M. Raindrop size
distribution in different climatic regimes from disdrometer and dual-polarized radar analysis. J. Atmos. Sci.
2003, 60, 354–365. [CrossRef]
5. Cao, Q.; Zhang, G.; Brandes, E.; Schuur, T.; Ryzhkov, A.; Ikeda, K. Analysis of video disdrometer and
polarimetric radar data to characterize rain microphysics in Oklahoma. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2008, 47,
2238–2255. [CrossRef]
6. Rosenfeld, D.; Ulbrich, C.W. Cloud microphysical properties, processes, and rain fall estimation opportunities.
Meteorol. Monogr. 2003, 30, 237–258. [CrossRef]
7. Ulbrich, C.W. Natural variations in the analytical form of the raindrop size distribution. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol.
1983, 22, 1764–1775. [CrossRef]
8. Ulbrich, C.W.; Atlas, D. Microphysics of raindrop size spectra: Tropical continental and maritime storms.
J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2007, 46, 1777–1791. [CrossRef]
9. Brawn, D.; Upton, G. Estimation of an atmospheric gamma drop size distribution using disdrometer data.
Atmos. Res. 2008, 87, 66–79. [CrossRef]
10. Thurai, M.; Bringi, V.N.; May, P.T. CPOL radar-derived drop size distribution statistics of stratiform and
convective rain for two regimes in Darwin, Australia. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2010, 27, 932–942. [CrossRef]
11. Kumar, L.S.; Lee, Y.H.; Ong, J.T. Two-parameter gamma drop size distribution models for Singapore.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2011, 49, 3371–3380. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, B.; Yang, J.; Pu, J. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution in the Meiyu season observed
in eastern China. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2013, 91, 215–227. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 18 of 20

13. Friedrich, K.; Kalina, E.A.; Masters, F.J.; Lopez, C.R. Drop-size distributions in thunderstorms measured by
optical disdrometers during VORTEX2. Mon. Weather Rev. 2013, 141, 1182–1203. [CrossRef]
14. Wen, L.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, G.; Xue, M.; Zhou, B.; Liu, S.; Chen, X. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size
distributions observed in East China during the Asian summer monsoon season using 2-D video disdrometer
and micro rain radar data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2016, 121, 2265–2282. [CrossRef]
15. Uijlenhoet, R.; Smith, J.A.; Steiner, M. The microphysical structure of extreme precipitation as inferred from
ground-based raindrop spectra. J. Atmos. Sci. 2003, 60, 1220–1238. [CrossRef]
16. Barthes, L.; Mallet, C. Vertical evolution of raindrop size distribution: Impact on the shape of the DSD.
Atmos. Res. 2013, 119, 13–22. [CrossRef]
17. Kirankumar, N.V.P.; Narayana, R.T.; Radhakrishna, B.; Rao, D.N. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size
distribution in southwest monsoon season. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2008, 47, 576–590. [CrossRef]
18. Niu, S.; Jia, X.; Sang, J.; Liu, X.; Lu, C.; Liu, Y. Distributions of raindrop sizes and fall velocities in a semiarid
plateau climate: Convective versus stratiform rains. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2010, 49, 632–645. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, B.; Hu, Z.; Liu, L.; Zhang, G. Raindrop size distribution measurements at 4,500 m on the Tibetan
Plateau during TIPEX-III. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2017, 122, 11092–11106. [CrossRef]
20. Geoffroy, O.; Siebesma, A.P.; Burnet, F. Characteristics of the raindrop distributions in RICO shallow cumulus.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 10897–10909. [CrossRef]
21. Li, H.; Yin, Y.; Shan, Y.P.; Jin, Q. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution for stratiform and
convective precipitation at different altitudes in Mt. Huangshan. Chin. J. Atmos. Sci. 2018, 42, 268–280. [CrossRef]
22. Bao, X.; Wu, L.; Tang, B.; Ma, L.; Wu, D.; Tang, J.; Chen, H.; Wu, L. Variable Raindrop Size Distributions in
Different Rainbands Associated with Typhoon Fitow (2013). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2019. [CrossRef]
23. Stoelinga, M.T.; Hobbs, P.V.; Mass, C.F.; Locatelli, J.D.; Colle, B.A.; Houze, R.A., Jr.; Rangno, A.L.; Bond, N.A.;
Smull, B.F.; Rasmussen, R.M.; et al. Improvement of microphysical parameterization through observational
verification experiment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2003, 84, 1807–1826. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, G.; Sun, J.; Brandes, E.A. Improving Parameterization of Rain Microphysics with Disdrometer and
Radar Observations. J. Atmos. Sci. 2006, 63, 1273–1290. [CrossRef]
25. Shan, Y.; Wilcox, E.M.; Gao, L.; Lin, L.; Mitchell, D.L.; Yin, Y.; Zhao, T.; Zhang, L.; Shi, H.; Gao, M. Evaluating
Errors in Gamma-Function Representations of the Raindrop Size Distribution: A Method for Determining
the Optimal Parameter Set for Use in Bulk Microphysics Schemes. J. Atmos. Sci. 2020, 77, 513–529. [CrossRef]
26. Chandrasekar, V.; Meneghini, R.; Zawadzki, I. Global and local precipitation measurements by radar.
Meteorol. Monogr. 2003, 52, 215–236. [CrossRef]
27. Ryzhkov, A.V.; Giangrande, S.E.; Schuur, T.J. Rainfall Estimation with a Polarimetric Prototype of WSR-88D.
J. Appl. Meteorol. 2005, 44, 502–515. [CrossRef]
28. Liu, L.P.; Zheng, J.F.; Ruan, Z.; Cui, Z.H.; Hu, Z.Q.; Wu, S.H.; Dai, G.Y.; Wu, Y.H. Comprehensive radar
observations of clouds and precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau and preliminary analysis of cloud properties.
J. Meteorol. Res. 2015, 29, 546–561. [CrossRef]
29. Chang, Y.; Guo, X. Characteristics of convective cloud and precipitation during summer time at Naqu over
Tibetan Plateau (in Chinese). Chin. Sci. Bull. 2016, 61, 1706–1720. [CrossRef]
30. Wu, Y.H.; Liu, L.P. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution in the Tibetan Plateau and southern
China. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2017, 34, 727–736. [CrossRef]
31. Porcù, F.; D’Adderio, L.P.; Prodi, F.; Caracciolo, C. Rain drop size distribution over the Tibetan Plateau.
Atmos. Res. 2014, 150, 21–30. [CrossRef]
32. Jaffrain, J.; Berne, A. Experimental quantification of the sampling uncertainty associated with measurements
from PARSIVEL disdrometers. J. Hydrometeorol. 2011, 12, 352–370. [CrossRef]
33. Battaglia, A.; Rustemeier, E.; Tokay, A.; Blahak, U.; Simmer, C. PARSIVEL snow observations: A critical
assessment. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2010, 27, 333–344. [CrossRef]
34. Yuter, S.E.; Kingsmill, D.E.; Nance, L.B.; Löffler-Mang, M. Observations of precipitation size and fall speed
characteristics within coexisting rain and wet snow. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2006, 45, 1450–1464. [CrossRef]
35. Huo, Z.; Ruan, Z.; Wei, M.; Ge, R.; Li, F.; Ruan, Y. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution in
south China summer based on the vertical structure derived from VPR-CFMCW. Atmos. Res. 2019, 222, 47–61.
[CrossRef]
36. Tapiador, F.J.; Checa, R.; de Castro, M. An experiment to measure the spatial variability of rain drop size
distribution using sixteen laser disdrometers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L16803. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 19 of 20

37. Jaffrain, J.; Berne, A. Quantification of the small-scale spatial structure of the raindrop size distribution from
a network of disdrometers. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2012, 51, 941–953. [CrossRef]
38. Friedrich, K.; Higgins, S.; Masters, F.J.; Lopez, C.R. Articulating and stationary PARSIVEL disdrometer
measurements in conditions with strong winds and heavy rainfall. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2013, 30,
2063–2080. [CrossRef]
39. Kalina, E.A.; Friedrich, K.; Ellis, S.M.; Burgess, D.W. Comparison of disdrometer and X-band mobile radar
observations in convective precipitation. Mon. Weather Rev. 2014, 142, 2414–2435. [CrossRef]
40. Konwar, M.; Das, S.K.; Deshpande, S.M.; Chakravarty, K.; Goswami, B.N. Microphysics of clouds and rain
over the Western Ghat. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 6140–6159. [CrossRef]
41. Zhang, A.; Hu, J.; Chen, S.; Hu, D.; Liang, Z.; Huang, C.; Xiao, L.; Min, C.; Li, H. Statistical Characteristics of
Raindrop Size Distribution in the Monsoon Season Observed in Southern China. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 432.
[CrossRef]
42. Lee, M.; Lin, P.; Chang, W.; Seela, B.K.; Janapati, J. Microphysical characteristics and types of precipitation
for different seasons over north Taiwan. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2019, 97, 841–865. [CrossRef]
43. Luo, L.; Xiao, H.; Yang, H.; Chen, H.; Guo, J.; Sun, Y.; Feng, L. Raindrop size distribution and microphysical
characteristics of a great rainstorm in 2016 in Beijing, China. Atmos. Res. 2020, 239. [CrossRef]
44. Hopper, L.J.; Schumacher, C.; Humes, K.; Funk, A. Drop-size distribution variations associated with different
storm types in southeast Texas. Atmosphere 2019, 11, 8. [CrossRef]
45. Serio, M.A.; Carollo, F.G.; Ferro, V. Raindrop size distribution and terminal velocity for rainfall erosivity
studies. A review. J. Hydrol. 2019, 576, 210–228. [CrossRef]
46. Ma, Y.; Ni, G.; Chandra, C.V.; Tian, F.; Chen, H. Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution during
rainy seasons in the Beijing urban area and implications for radar rainfall estimation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2019, 23, 4153–4170. [CrossRef]
47. Villalobospuma, E.; Martinezcastro, D.; Floresrojas, J.L.; Saavedrahuanca, M.; Silvavidal, Y. Diurnal cycle of
raindrops size distribution in a valley of the Peruvian Central Andes. Atmosphere 2019, 11, 38. [CrossRef]
48. Zeng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Lei, H.; Xie, Y.; Gao, T.; Zhang, L.; Wang, C.; Huang, Y. Microphysical characteristics of
precipitation during pre-monsoon, monsoon, and post-monsoon periods over the South China Sea. Adv.
Atmos. Sci. 2019, 36, 1103–1120. [CrossRef]
49. Checa-Garcia, R.; Tokay, A.; Tapiador, F. Binning effects on in-situ raindrop size distribution measurements.
Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2014, 7, 2339–2379. [CrossRef]
50. Campos, E.; Zawadzki, I. Instrumental uncertainties in Z-R Relations. J. Appl. Meteorol. 1969, 39, 1088–1102.
[CrossRef]
51. Löffler-Mang, M.; Joss, J. An optical disdrometer for measuring size and velocity of hydrometeors. J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 2000, 17, 130–139. [CrossRef]
52. Sheppard, B.; Joe, P. Comparison of raindrop size distribution measurements by a Joss-Waldvogel disdrometer,
a PMS 2DG spectrometer, and a POSS doppler radar. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1994, 11, 874–887. [CrossRef]
53. Mallet, C.; Barthes, L. Estimation of gamma raindrop size distribution parameters: Statistical fluctuations
and estimation errors. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2009, 26, 1572–1584. [CrossRef]
54. Tokay, A.; Petersen, W.A.; Gatlin, P.; Wingo, M. Comparison of raindrop size distribution measurements by
collocated disdrometers. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2013, 30, 1672–1690. [CrossRef]
55. De Moraes Frasson, R.P.; da Cunha, L.K.; Krajewski, W.F. Assessment of the Thies optical disdrometer
performance. Atmos. Res. 2011, 101, 237–255. [CrossRef]
56. Wen, L.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, G.; Liu, S.; Chen, G. Impacts of instrument limitations on estimated raindrop
size distribution, radar parameters, and model microphysics during Mei-Yu season in East China. J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 2017, 34, 1021–1037. [CrossRef]
57. Krajewski, W.F.; Kruger, A.; Caracciolo, C.; Golé, P.; Barthes, L.; Creutin, J.-D.; Delahaye, J.-Y.; Nikolopoulos, E.I.;
Ogden, F.; Vinson, J.-P. DEVEX-disdrometer evaluation experiment: Basic results and implications for hydrologic
studies. Adv. Water Resour. 2006, 29, 311–325. [CrossRef]
58. Thurai, M.; Gatlin, P.; Bringi, V.N.; Petersen, W.; Kennedy, P.; Notaroš, B.; Carey, L. Toward completing the
raindrop size spectrum: Case studies involving 2D-video disdrometer, droplet spectrometer, and polarimetric
radar measurements. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2017, 56, 877–896. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2020, 11, 562 20 of 20

59. Guyot, A.; Pudashine, J.; Protat, A.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Pauwels, V.R.N.; Seed, A.; Walker, J.P. Effect of disdrometer
type on rain drop size distribution characterisation: A new dataset for south-eastern Australia. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2019, 23, 4737–4761. [CrossRef]
60. Atlas, D.; Srivastava, R.C.; Sekhon, R.S. Doppler radar characteristics of precipitation at vertical incidence.
Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 1973, 11, 1–35. [CrossRef]
61. Johnson, R.W.; Kliche, D.V.; Smith, P.L. Comparison of estimators for parameters of gamma distributions
with left-truncated samples. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2011, 50, 296–310. [CrossRef]
62. Johnson, R.W.; Kliche, D.V.; Smith, P.L. Maximum likelihood estimation of gamma parameters for coarsely
binned and truncated raindrop size data. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2013, 140, 1245–1256. [CrossRef]
63. Smith, P.L.; Kliche, D.V. The bias in moment estimators for parameters of drop-size distribution functions:
Sampling from exponential distributions. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2005, 44, 1195–1205. [CrossRef]
64. Tokay, A.; Short, D.A. Evidence from tropical raindrop spectra of the origin of rain from stratiform versus
convective clouds. J. Appl. Meteorol. 1996, 35, 355–371. [CrossRef]
65. Testud, J.; Oury, S.; Amayenc, P.; Black, R.A. The concept of “normalized” distributions to describe raindrop
spectra: A tool for cloud physics and cloud remote sensing. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2001, 40, 1118–1140. [CrossRef]
66. Nzeukou, A.; Sauvageot, H.; Ochou, A.D.; Kebe, C.M.F. Raindrop size distribution and radar parameters at
Cape Verde. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2004, 43, 90–105. [CrossRef]
67. Ulbrich, C.W.; Atlas, D. Rainfall microphysics and radar properties: Analysis methods for drop size spectra.
J. Appl. Meteorol. 1998, 37, 912–923. [CrossRef]
68. Brandes, E.A.; Zhang, G.; Vivekanandan, J. An evaluation of a drop distribution–based rainfall estimator.
J. Appl. Meteorol. 2003, 42, 652–660. [CrossRef]
69. Sharma, S.; Konwar, M.; Sarma, D.K.; Kalapureddy, M.C.R.; Jain, A.R. Characteristics of rain integral
parameters during tropical convective, transition, and stratiform rain at gadanki and its application in rain
retrieval. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2009, 48, 1245–1266. [CrossRef]
70. Jin, Q.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, H.J.; Shi, C.E.; Li, J.B. Analysis of microphysical characteristics of the raindrop spectrum
over the area between the Yangtze River and the Huaihe River during summer. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 2015, 73,
778–788. [CrossRef]
71. Marshall, J.S.; Palmer, W.M.K. The distribution of raindrops with size. J. Meteorol. 1948, 5, 165–166. [CrossRef]
72. Fulton, R.A.; Breidenbach, J.P.; Seo, D.-J.; Miller, D.A. The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm. Weather Forecast 1998,
13, 377–395. [CrossRef]
73. Maki, M.; Keenan, T.D.; Sasaki, Y. Characteristics of the raindrop size distribution in tropical continental
squall lines observed in Darwin, Austrialia. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2001, 40, 1393–1412. [CrossRef]
74. Moumouni, S.; Gosset, M.; Houngninou, E. Main features of rain drop size distributions observed in Benin,
West Africa, with optical disdrometers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L23807. [CrossRef]
75. Chen, B.; Hu, W.; Pu, J. Characteristics of the raindrop size distribution for freezing precipitation observed in
southern China. J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, D06201. [CrossRef]
76. Ji, L.; Chen, H.; Li, L.; Chen, B.; Xiao, X.; Chen, M.; Zhang, G. Raindrop size distributions and rain characteristics
observed by a PARSIVEL disdrometer in Beijing, Northern China. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1479. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).