1 / 17

REU sponsor: Dr. Baxter Vieux Dr. Fekadu Moreda Gary Brickley

Analysis of the Number of Rain Gages Required to Calibrate Radar Rainfall for the Illinois River Basin. Jodi Eshleman. REU sponsor: Dr. Baxter Vieux Dr. Fekadu Moreda Gary Brickley. Introduction.

eman
Download Presentation

REU sponsor: Dr. Baxter Vieux Dr. Fekadu Moreda Gary Brickley

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analysis of the Number of Rain Gages Required to Calibrate Radar Rainfall for the Illinois River Basin Jodi Eshleman REU sponsor: Dr. Baxter Vieux Dr. Fekadu Moreda Gary Brickley Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  2. Introduction • Radar rainfall estimates are an important supplement to rain gage accumulations for modeling river basins. • Radar estimates can be biased or in error and must be corrected. Questions: • How many rain gages are necessary to correct the radar? • What degree of accuracy can be achieved? • How do different correction methods compare? Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  3. Background • Are 10 gages adequate to calibrate the radar for the Illinois River Basin? • Radar error in estimating rainfall • overshoot cloud tops • Z/R relationship transforms reflectance to rain rate • Correction of radar by applying some correction based on rain gage accumulation • Correcting radar estimates provides more accurate spatial estimates of rainfall for river basin simulation. Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  4. 2.5° 1.5° 0.5° WSR-88D or NEXRAD • Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler • Prototyped in Norman at NSSL • Scans Every 5 or 6 minutes during precipitation • 150+ installed in US and abroad Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  5. Location of Gages Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  6. Presentation Outline • Test 4 different correction factors • Mean field bias • Probability density function • <1mm • Weighted • Gage density study • Size and time progression analysis Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  7. Correction Factor Comparison • Adjustment to rain gage mean • Average difference after correction • Simulated discharge volume Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  8. PDF is closest to Mesonet Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  9. Volume Comparison Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  10. Presentation Outline • Test 4 different correction factors • Mean field bias • Probability density function • <1mm • Weighted • Gage density study • Size and time progression analysis Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  11. Gage Density Statistically estimating the mean with prescribed accuracy Where: n=number of gages required s2=Variance d=Allowable margin of error (5-30% mean) =% Confidence (60-90%) Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  12. Calibration Comparison Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  13. Standard Error Approach Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  14. Presentation Outline • Test 4 different correction factors • Mean field bias • Probability density function • <1mm • Weighted • Gage density study • Size and time progression analysis Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  15. Mean Total Accumulation Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  16. Time Progression Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

  17. Conclusions • PDF correction factor is most effective • Mean adjustment is closer to Mesonet • Average difference is less than MFB • Weighted PDF – • Weighting gages close to the basin improve discharge volume simulations • Gage density study • 10 gages are sufficient for 30% of the mean and 90% confidence • Due to large variance, smallest storms are negligible • little consideration for flooding Distributed Hydrologic Modeling--Jodi Eshelman

More Related