Improved Data Processing X Band Radar Leuven

i
Improved DataProcessing
for a Low-Cost Portable XBand Radar in Leuven Area
Promotor:
Prof. P. Willems
Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Water Resources Engineering
by: Carlos Muoz Lpez
September 2014
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my promoter Prof. dr. ir. Patrick Willems for valuable
suggestions and guidance in this thesis and during the whole academic year.
I would also like to thank my advisor ir. Lipen Wang for his permanent availability and valuable comments
and advises during the development of this Master thesis.
My sincere gratitude and admiration for each of my classmates. I have learned from them and I have
always received good advises and encouragement during all this time.
Remember all the staff of IUPWARE Master Programme, for this special academic year spent in Belgium.
Besides, I would like to thank the Flemish Aquafin Water Company for providing the radar and rain gauge
series.
Special thanks to Amelia and Joffre, thanks for your support and invaluable help. And one last personal
comment, I will always be deeply thankful to all my family members to bring me up in humility values.
Carlos Muoz, September 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Problem Definition ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Main Objectives........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3
Thesis Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3
RAINFALL MEASUREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 3

2.1
Types of Precipitation ............................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Tipping Bucket Rain Gauges ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1
Working principle of the tipping bucket rain gauge ........................................................... 5
2.2.2
Uncertainties in rain gauge measurements. ...................................................................... 5
2.3
2.3.1
Working principle.............................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2
Radar equation ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.3
Types of radar ................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.4
Spatial and temporal resolution in weather radars. ......................................................... 11
2.4
3
Weather Radars........................................................................................................................ 6
LAWR X-Band Radar................................................................................................................ 11
LEUVEN CASE STUDY ...................................................................................................................... 15

3.1
Weather in Leuven ................................................................................................................. 15
3.2
Location ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.3
LAWR Leuven City Radar ......................................................................................................... 17
3.4
Leuven Rain Gauges................................................................................................................ 18
REVIEW OF DIFFERENT CALIBRATION METHODS ............................................................................ 19

4.1
Calibration Methods ............................................................................................................... 19
4.2
LAWR Improved Preprocessed Data (dBZ outputs).................................................................. 21
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 23
5.1
Data Preparation .................................................................................................................... 23
5.2
Quality Analysis. ..................................................................................................................... 24
5.3
Calibration Methods ............................................................................................................... 24
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................................ 26
iii
6.1
Quality Analysis Results And Discussions................................................................................. 26
6.2
Linear Regression Method Results and Discussions ................................................................. 30
6.3
Marshall Palmer Paramenters Calibration Method................................................................ 32
6.4
K- Calibration Method Results And Discussion. ..................................................................... 33
6.4.1
Spatial resolution influence. ............................................................................................ 39
6.4.2
Clutter influence ............................................................................................................. 40
6.4.3
Covered area influence ................................................................................................... 43
6.4.4
Maximum intensities , total amount of rainfall and duration influence ........................... 43
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 46

7.1
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 46
7.2
Recommendations And Future Work ...................................................................................... 48
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 49
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 2.1
Describes the formation process of convective and stratiform events. ................................. 4
Fig 2.2
Working principl Working principle of a TBRG ...................................................................... 5
Fig 2.3
Working principle of a weather Radar .................................................................................. 7
Fig 2.4
Scanned volume by a weather radar ..................................................................................... 8
Fig 2.5
Beam filling volume correction .......................................................................................... 13
Fig. 3.1.
Climatological information of Leuven based on monthly averages .................................... 15
Fig 3.2
a) Leuven location in Belgium ,b) Provincieus building ,c) LAWR radar ............................... 16
Fig 4.1
Standard calibration method example ............................................................................... 19
Fig 6.1(a) Radar snapshots for the event took place on 9th june.Resol.125 m ...................................... 26
Fig 6.1(b) Radar snapshots for the event took place on 9th june.Resol.250 m..................................... 26
Fig 6.2
Accumulation of the raw radar data of the whole events of 4th and 9th June ...................... 27
Fig 6.3
Higuest reflectivities map for the whole events of 4th and 9th of June. ............................... 27
Fig 6.4
Two clutter dry period snapshots of 27th and 29th June are shown. .................................... 28
Fig 6.5
Accumulation of the raw radar data for the entire month of June in a logarithmic scale .... 29
Fig 6.6
Linear regression method for 3 of the rain gauges. ............................................................. 30
Fig 6.7
Range dependent curve for the Calibration Factor to be applied to radar correction. .......... 31
Fig 6.8
Radar and rain gauge rain rates time series for WZ Gauge for the event of 6th June.............. 31
iv
Fig 6.9
Accumulation radar and gauge rainfall curves after applying correction K 9th June ............. 35
Fig. 6.10 Accumulation radar and gauge rainfall curves after applying correction K 10th June .......... 36
Fig 6.11 Radar and gauge rain rates time series K and linear regression method 9th June ................. 37
Fig 6.12 Radar and gauge rain rates time series for 3 of the gauges during the event of 10th June .... 38
Fig 6.13 Effect of applying the filter algortihm in the accumulated map of June ................................ 42
Fig 6.14 Snapshot of the 9th event of June .Attenuation issue ............................................................. 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
dBZ scale for weather radar.. ............................................................................................ 9
Table 2.2
Weather radar types ...................................................................................................... 10
Table 2.3
LAWR city radar technical characteristics. ........................................................................ 12
Table 3.1
Characteristics of Leuven rain gauges. . ........................................................................... 18
Table 5.1
Events during June 2014 and mean characteristics . ......................................................... 23
Table 6.1
a values after applying calibration method during the events of June 2014. .................. 32
Table 6.2
b values after applying calibration method during the events of June 2014. .................. 33
Table 6.3 K values during the events of June 2014 for an spatial resolution of 125 meters. ............ 34
Table 6.4
Coefficient of determination values during the events of June 2014 . 34
Table 6.5
K values for an spatial resolution of 250 m during the events of June 2014 ..................... 40
Table 6.6
K values after applying clutter filter during the events of June 2014. ............................... 42
Table 6.7
Total average area covered during the event, % respect the total covered by the radar.. 43
Table 6.8 Maximum intensities at every gauge during each of the events . ..................................... 44
Table 6.9 Total rainfall accumulation at every gauge during each of the events ............................ 44
Abstract
Rainfall estimation is a driving force in the field of hydrology in general and urban hydrology in particular.
Rain observations are used in hydrological applications as main inputs in the hydrologic-hydraulic models
used for decision making in urban water management. Therefore, in order to tackle important issues such
as urban flooding, sewer system designs, or forecasting, accuracy of rainfall estimations should be as good
as possible, both in temporal and spatial resolution.
Space and temporal requirements for the input data of the hydrologic models are still in discussion.
However, it is clear that current rain gauges distribution in most cases does not adequately describe the
spatial variability of rainfall within the urban catchment. It is here where the radar comes into play, since
the economic costs associated to an installation of a denser network of rain gauges capable to describe
the spatial variability becomes unaffordable.
Radars allow a good description of the spatial and temporal variability of the rainfall. Nevertheless, the
accuracy is inadequate and for this reason it is needed to calibrate them with the measurements obtained
by the rain gauge network, which are able to provide accurate point estimations.
The radar used in this study is the LAWR City radar whose main advantages are the affordable costs of its
installation, the adequate range for urban hydrology applications, and a high spatio-temporal resolution.
Therefore, this study addresses how the LAWR City radar of Leuven performs by making use of different
correction methods to the radar outputs on the basis of the rain gauges network estimations.
The main novelty in this study is that, unlike previous investigations, the radar was able to provide
reflectivity values, giving a new approach to urban hydrology. The standard linear regression method was
used, as well as a static calibration method based on the correction of the radar reflectivity when radar
and rain gauge estimations are fitted for each of the events. Eight events belong to June of 2014 were used
as a data set in this investigation.
vi
The results of the static calibration method showed a large variability in the parameters involved and no
tendency was found on them. Factor that might influence on the results obtained were analyzed and some
recommendation were given in order to faces the challenges of the LAWR radar for the Leuven case study
in future works.
Keywords urban hydrology, radar, rainfall spatial variability, radar-raingauge calibration , spatial and
temporal resolution.
vii
List of Symbols
AQUAFIN Flemish Aquafin Water Company
CF
Coefficient factor lineal calibration method
DMI
Danish Meteorological Institute
DRO
Digital Outputs Radar
DS
Diestestraat Rain Gauge
DSD
Drop Size Distribution
EH
EgenHovestraat Rain Gauge
GLUE
Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation methodology for LAWR data calibration
HG
Hogeebeek Rain Gauge
IUPWARE Inter-University Program in Water Resource Engineering

K
Constant of K calibration method
KL
Keulenstraat Rain Gauge
LAWR
Local area weather radar
LAWR CR LAWR City Radar

MSE
Mean Square Error
OH
OudHevstraat Rain Gauge
TBRGs Tipping Bucket Rain Gauges

WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WS
Warostraat Rain Gauge
WZ
RWZIL- Leuven WWTP Rain Gauge
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Definition
Rainfall measurements is one of the most important topics in the field of urban hydrology. It is a very
dynamic variable and therefore, knowledge of its spatio-temporal variability is a key factor when
hydrological models are applied for supporting decision-making in urban water management. Historically,
rainfall has always been measured with rain gauges which represents in a proper way what happens at
that specific point.
The influence of simplifications on the spatio-temporal variability of rainfall on the simulation results has
been addressed widely in literature. In the case of urban hydrology models, Schilling & Fuchs (1986), Lei &
Schilling (1994), Willems & Berlamont (1999), and Van Mameren & Clemens (1997) came to the conclusion
that the rainfall inputs are one of the most important sources of uncertainty, affecting significantly the
outputs of the models in terms of volumes, peaks, and hydrograph shapes ( Faures et al. ,1995; Luyckx et
al. 1998, Morena et al. 2002 , Willems & Berlamont (2002), Giulianelli et al. ,2006).
Thus, it is clear that errors coming from the estimation of the rainfall are transferred to the model, which,
of course, can compensate them by calibrating the parameters involved in the model structure. Although
good results can be obtained, it obviously leads to a non-realistic estimation of the parameters of the
model. Thereby, it seems more appropriate to correct errors in the source. Therefore, appropriate
temporal space knowledge of rain is necessary, and as a result, time and space resolutions requirements
for urban models need to be defined.
There has been an extensive research these last years about the spatial and temporal requirements in
urban hydrology. Several authors have investigated and recommended temporal and spatial resolution
based on comparisons between the output provided by the models and reality.
These recommendations vary between different studies (Nielsen Phd thesis, 2013). Spatial values may
vary from less than 100 meters (Einfalt Mau- Ktter ,2002) up to 1 km, depending on size of catchment of
the study (Berne et al., 2004), while temporal scales range from 1 to 5 minutes. Therefore, it is still a
subject under discussion (Ochoa Rodriguez, 2014). What is clear is that rainfall measurements with high
spatial and temporal resolutions are needed in urban hydrology field.
As it has been stated before, rain gauges have been used over the years and can certainly meet with the
temporal requirements but not with the spatial requirements unless a dense rain gauge network is
available, which can lead to unaffordable economic and maintenance costs.
It is here where the radar comes into play, and although it cannot replace the accuracy provided by a rain
gauge, it is considered as a good complement to know better the spatial and temporal variations on rainfall
events and improve the data input used in modelling. (Einfalt et al 2004).
In this study, a specific X-Band radar, LAWR Local City radar placed in the Provincieus building of Leuven
has been used. This radar is able to provide high-resolution data with reasonable costs and with a limited
but enough range for urban applications. The accuracy obtained from the raw radar outputs is insufficient,
so a network of eight rain gauges were used and considered as the true measurements at ground level in
order to make use of them to correct the radar estimations.
The performance of this specific radar has been studied by several authors Jensen (2002), Jensen and
Pedersen (2005), Pedersen et al., 2008 and Pedersen et al., 2010, Rollenbeck and Bendix (2006), Einfalt et
al. (2005), Borup et al. (2009), and Thorndahl and Rasmussen (2012). Nonetheless, further investigations
need to be done.
In the Leuven case study, previous researches conducted by Goormans, Willems (2011) and Laurens
Decloedt Cas. Willems (2012) have been done. The main difference in this dissertation lies in the fact that,
unlike those previous studies, after its last upgrade, this radar is able nowadays to provide reflectivity
values, and consequently, the Marshall-Palmer relation can be used in the correction process of the radar
outputs.
Main Objectives
1.2
To perform a quality analysis of the improved data processed of the Leuven LAWR radar.
To correct or calibrate the radar data with a net of rain gauges placed in the study area.
To analyzed all the result and come into conclusions about the actual performance of the radar
and give some recommendation that might be useful for future works.
1.3
Thesis Summary
2. Rainfall measurements: Gives some theoretical background about rainfall estimation, working principle
of weather radars and main differences between them, giving also the main characteristic of the LAWR
radar.
3. Leuven case study: Describes the case study under study.
4. Review of different calibration methods: Covers a review of different calibration method related with
the methodology used in this study.
5. Methodology: Describes the methodology used and explains the calibration methods for the radar data
correction.
6. Results and discussion: Discusses the results obtained.
7 .Conclusions and recommendations: Conclusions about the different approaches are given as well as
some recommendations for future work for this particular case study.
8. References
RAINFALL MEASUREMENTS
Rainfall is one of the main processes in the hydrological cycle and a driving force in urban hydrology field.
It is crucial thus, to estimate it as accurate as possible when urban models are used for different
applications such as sewer system designs or flood prevention structures.
Rainfall can be measured in different ways being time and space accuracy difficult to achieve. In this section
two main measuring instrument are discussed (the tipping bucket rain gauge and the weather radar) along
with its possible uncertainties and challenges.
2.1
Types of Precipitation
Precipitation is an atmospheric phenomenon that starts with the condensation of steam contained in
clouds. It can fall in liquid (rain and drizzle) or solid phase (hail, snow, ice needles, graupel and sleet).
Precipitation can be classified as orographic, convective or stratiform.
Orographic precipitation is caused when a moist mass of air find an orographic obstacle, and ascend
upwards in such a way that the air expands and cools forming clouds that eventually can produce rain
events.
Unlike orographic events, convective precipitations typically happen in flat or not high topographically
developed areas. They occur when moist air rises by temperature differences due to local heating. Thus,
the warm air becomes less dense starting to rise and forming vertical clouds (cumulonimbus) when it
reaches condensation levels, leading to rain and thunderstorms.
Stratiform precipitation are produced when two masses of air which have different characteristics (density,
moisture and temperature) contact each other (front) in such a way that one layer of air it is forced over
the other. If the warm and moist layer is moving towards the cold air, the moist air rises over the cold air
creating clouds which might release rain. This phenomenon is called warm front and precipitation occurs
close to the front. Alternatively, it can happen that the cold mass moves towards the warm air (cold front)
pushing it up and causing heavy rain and thunderstorm.
Fig.2.1 Describes the formation process of convective (Strahler and Strahler, 2002) and stratiform rainfall
events .Source (www.ucar.edu).
It is worth noting that convective precipitations are generally more intense than stratiform but shorter in
time and with a high variability of intensities during the event (Houze, 1993, pp. 197-199). Generally
convective events are predominant during warm months and stratiform more dominant during cold
months, nevertheless is not a straightforward relation cause both events can occur at the same period of
time (Houze, 1997).
2.2
2.2.1
Tipping Bucket Rain Gauges

Working principle of the tipping bucket rain gauge
The most used technique for measuring rainfall is the rain gauge and specially the tipping bucket (TBRGs)
rain gauge type due to its easy working principle.
As can be seen in the figure 2.2 the TBRG consist in a funnel that leads the collected water to a small
triangular double bucket (metal or plastic) with a hinge at its midpoint. It is a system balance which varies
with the amount of water in the buckets. The rotation is produced when the bucket reaches a certain
amount of water, generally 0.2 mm emptying the full bucket, while the other begins to fill. This movement
is recorded and therefore precipitation intensities can be computed.
There are TBRGs that can make the measurement even in case of snow events since the funnel is equipped
with a thermal resistance, which turn the snow into water.
Fig. 2.2 Working principle of a TBRG (Wheatershack.com)

As it was mentioned above, the volume of water needed to tip it is generally 2 mm and this is denoted as
the resolution of the rain gauge. The way of registering the tips will influence on the rainfall rate
measurements leading to a certain advantages and disadvantages which will be discuss in the section 2.2.2.
2.2.2
Uncertainties in rain gauge measurements.
Measurements on rain gauges are subjected to uncertainties originated from errors during the
registrations. These uncertainties can come either from the environmental conditions or the device itself.
Regarding the environmental conditions and according to WMO, losses might be produced by , the effect
of the wind which can lead to underestimations up to 2% -10 % , by evaporation from the container (0%-
4%) , by wetting on internal parts of the device and by splash-out and splash-in (1-2%) (WMO, 2008, I.35). Other sources might be related to the maintenance, to the position and how sheltered the gauge is.
Concerning the factors related to the device itself, errors can be originated first, by an incorrect value of
the resolution , showing a systematic bias that can lead to an over/underestimation of the rain intensities
if a proper calibration is not carried out (Goorsman, 2011); second , by the tipping mechanism, which can
lead to underestimation in the estimations due to losses during the movement of the buckets, especially
when high intensities occurs, being necessary to perform an appropriate correction (Luyckx & Berlamont
,2001); and finally, by the recording procedure of the tipping movements that can be done in two ways;
either by recording the number of tips in a fixed interval of time , i.g.1 minute or 5 minutes, or by recording
the time for each tipping.
Both processes described above lead to errors. On the one hand, when the time step is fixed, the maximum
error is related to the resolution and it occurs when the event is finished and the bucket remain almost
full, being more important for event of shorter duration and lower intensities (Goorsman, 2011). On the
other hand, when the time of every tip is registered, an error in the estimation of intensities in between
dry periods might be taken into account. This may occur if no correction by making use of a threshold value
is applied (Frankhauser, R. (1998)), since a high underestimation of the first intensity recorded in the next
event can be included in the data set.
2.3
2.3.1
Weather Radars
Working principle
Radar technology (Radio Detection And Ranging) was improved during the II World War with the purpose
of detecting airplanes. It was realized that the images contained echoes from rainfall, circumstance that
was used by scientific meteorological purposes.
The working principle of weather radar consist on an emission of pulses of electromagnetic waves through
an antenna. The pulse duration has an order of magnitude of milliseconds and a wavelength of centimeters
since the desired targets are the raindrops.
When the electromagnetic wave from the radar is intercepted by a target, part of it is scattered in all
directions in a manner that a fraction is reflected back toward the radar and captured by the receiver,
which is normally located in the same antenna. The distance to the target is calculated by recording the
elapsed time between the emission and the reception, taking into account that electromagnetic waves are
transmitted at the speed of light. The working principle is shown in the figure 2.3.
Fig. 2.3 Working principle of a weather Radar (Cain, 2002)
Radar equation
2.3.2
What the antenna records is actually the energy reflected back in the direction of the radar by the droplets
located within a certain volume (see figure 2.4). That energy, which is measured in the form of power, can
be expressed as:
.| | .
Where:
Pr
= received power (W)
= radar constant
|K|2 = refraction index.(depend on the type of precipitation)

r
= distance from the radar to the target (m)
= radar reflectivity value (mm6/m3)
(2.1)
Fig. 2.4 Scanned volume by a weather radar

The reflectivity Z is defined as the sum of the diameters of the droplets to the power of six contained within
a volume, i.e.
=
(2.2)
Di is the diameter of the raindrop in the volume V. The reflectivity is an indirect measure of the rain rate.
Supported by experimental data it was found that the relationship between the two variables usually
responds to the following potential function:
= .
(2.3)
where R accounts for the rain rate. The values of a and b depend on drop size distribution (DSD) and
consequently on the type of storm that befalls. Therefore the local conditions of the place where the radar
is working will lead to different values of the parameters. The relationship between R and Z was first
established by Marshall and Palmer in 1948 with a = 200 and b = 1.6, which in the following years it has
been the most used relation in this field for stratiform precipitation. Probert-Jones (1962) stated that the
initial values given by Marshall and Palmer provide a suitable average value for the Z-R relationship.
However years later (Battan,1973) gave a list of different values for a and b depending on the kind of
storm, i.g. a = 500 and b = 1.5 for thunderstorms or a = 140 and b = 1.5 for drizzle.
Uijlenhoet (2001) analyzed the different relations mentioned by Battan (1973) and concluded that in the
orographic rainfall events, values of the parameter a tend to be smaller, while the values for the exponent
b are larger. This arises as a consequence of the smaller average size of the raindrop in combination with
a larger concentration in space. Meanwhile, for the case of thunderstorm the opposite occurs since the
raindrops are bigger in average but with smaller concentrations.
Several authors defend that in places where rainfall events are often a mixture of all types of rain, the
initial relation of Palmer and Marshall is the most appropriate. (Milan lek et al, 2004).
Therefore, it seems that an accurate estimation of the precipitation with radar needs the use of a dynamic
relation in the Marshall and Palmer equation. However, in reality it is more common to use a fixed Z-R
relationship for all situations.
Since the reflectivity value Z range covers six orders of magnitude, a logarithmic transformation is applied:
= 10.
(2.4)
In the equation dBZ represents decibels relatives to the reflectivity Z, and Z0 is a relative value (1 mm6/m3).
The dBZ values range is between 0 and 75, which covers rainfall rates from 0.07 mm/h to 421 mm/h. For
example, for a dBZ value of 55 and making use of the Marshall and Palmer relationship the rain intensity
would be 100 mm / h, which is consider a very heavy intensity. Next table shows a dBZ scale classification.
Table 2.1 dBZ scale for weather radar.
dBZ
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
2.3.3
R (mm/h)
0.07
0.15
0.3
0.6
1.3
2.7
5.6
11.53
23.7
48.6
100
205
421
Intensity
Hardly Noticeable
Light Mist
Mist
Very Light
Light
Light to Moderate
Moderate Rain
Moderate Rain
Moderate to Heavy
Heavy
Very Heavy / Small Hail
Extreme / Moderate Hail
Extreme / Large Hail
Types of radar
There are different types of radars operating at different wavelength and frequency .The most commonly
used radar to estimate rainfall events are shown in the following table:
10
Table 2.2 Weather radar types.

C-Band X-Band S-Band
Wavelength(cm) 4 -8
2.5 - 5 8 - 15
Frequency(GHz) 4-8
8 - 12
2-4
As main concept, radars with higher wave lengths and low frequencies produce stronger signals, having a
larger measurement range capacity but requiring bigger and expensive antennas. S-Band radars can be
used in many different ranges up to 240 km. They are not affected by attenuation, which is the source of
energy losses of the electromagnetic radiation beam when it goes through the physical media during its
outward journey. Naturally, the main drawback is the bigger and costly antennas needed. C-band radars
are used for ranges up to 120 km, they are affected by attenuation and they are more economical and
portable than S-Band radars. X-Band radars cover smaller areas so they are used mostly for urban
application or smaller catchment within its range. The attenuation is a key factor to keep in mind when
using this type of radar cause is the radar which is more affected by this phenomena. The main
characteristics as well as its advantages and disadvantages will be discussed in section 2.4.
There exist other types of radars, such as Doppler and Dual Polarization radars, with different
characteristics that are able to measure other important factors improving the way the rainfall is estimated
and opening new possibilities in this field.
The Doppler radar has the capability of measuring information about the radial velocity of the object
detected by taking into account the Doppler effect. It measures the variation on the phase wave of the
object in motion. The ability to measure the radial velocity of the raindrops can be related to the wind
speed, an important factor in the development of the storm events. More information on Doppler radars
can be found in Intech (2012) and Doviak (2006).
With Dual Polarization radars the idea is to emit a vertical and horizontal polarized electromagnetic wave.
Consequently, the targeted hydrometers will return the energy in different ways according to their shape
and physical characteristics, which allows to gather more information about the type of precipitation.
Additional information of these radars can be found in Testik (2013).
11
2.3.4
Spatial and temporal resolution in weather radars.
In order to obtain better estimates of rainfall, the radar must provide an adequate spatio-temporal
resolution for the purposes of the specific study. The spatio-temporal resolution is not determined by the
wavelength but by the pulse length, the scanning strategy and the beam width. A short pulse yields finer
spatial resolution but a very short pulse might distort the sensitivity of the radar and therefore affecting
the estimations. A narrower beam, which depends on the physical characteristics of the antenna, provides
finer spatial resolution. The scanning strategy influences both the temporal and spatial resolution. There
are different strategies depending on the type of radar and the desired applications, for example, it is
possible to obtain detailed three dimensional images in order to describe the vertical profile of a storm.
More information on different scanning strategies can be found in Meischner (2003) and Geer (2005).
Briefly, a faster rotation speed of the antenna will lead to higher temporal resolution but less accurate
results, while a strategy of scanning that covers more elevation levels will yield to better spatial resolution
but lower temporal resolution.
Normally, S and C band radars, due to its high costs, are used for very large ranges and coarser spatiotemporal scales, even though they can be technically adjusted to finer scales. Here is where the X-band
radars play its role, since they are used for covering smaller areas close to the installation of the radar,
making use of a finer spatio-temporal scale which does not translate in higher accuracy. The latter, will be
discussed in next section (2.4)
2.4
LAWR X-Band Radar
The local area weather radar is an X-band radar which is based on marine radar technology .The X-band
radar provides images of localized precipitation and rainfall prediction with a range of 60 km every 1 or 5
minutes. However, the quality of the estimation starts to decrease after 15 km range (Thorndhal et al.,
2009). Therefore, for a LAWR radar, 15 -20 km is the maximum range for a quantitative estimation of a
precipitation, (Pedersen et al., 2010). Although it is only able to emit a peak power ten times smaller than
conventional weather radars, these radars have the advantage that they are capable of penetrating high
intensity rainfall events in a range of 60 km. This is possible because of the gain of the antenna, the wave
length used and the volume scanned, which is larger than other radars due to its wider vertical opening
angle. There are two model of LAWR radar; LAWR (1525/2127) model and the City-LAWR Radar (1834
12
model) (LAWR CR), (DHI,2010). The model used in the study area is the LAWR CR, whose technical
specifications are shown in the next table.
Table 2.3 LAWR City Radar technical characteristics.
Parameter
Peak Power
Band
Frequency
Wave Lenght
Pulse Lenght
Bin Lenght
Antenna
Receiver
Vertical openning angle
Horizontal openning angle
Samples per rotation
Range
Spatial resolution
Temporal Resolution
Scanning strategy
City-LAWR
4 KW
X-Band
9.41 GHz +/- 300 MHz
3.2 cm
0.8 sg
120 m
0.4 m randome
Logarithmic receiver
(+/-) 10
4
450
30/15 km
250 x 250 m (30 km range)
125x125 m (15 km range)
150x150 m
(7.5 km range)
50 x 50 m (7.5 km range)
1 or 5 minutes
Single layer and continous scanning
The radar is installed in the Provincieus building of Leuven, which belong to the provincial government of
Flemish Brabant. The criteria for the choice of the radar location can be seen in the T. Goorsmans doctoral
dissertation (2011), and are mainly based on the distance to the sewer system aim to study and on the
clutter influence.
The hardware associated to the radar consist of two computers which are responsible for the processing
and storing of the data once the analog signal is digitized by a A/D converter. The processing of the data is
done by one of the computers which first digitize the voltage signal as a reflectivity values. During the
signal processing a number of corrections are applied.
The noise is removed by applying two thresholds. The first one, applied during a dry period image, is able
to reduce it approximately by 65 percent. The second one, called Cut-Off Min, should be able to get rid of
the remaining 35 percent. The thresholds are stablished by trial and error, by reloading the radar and
checking the interface images until the noise removal is optimized. The volume correction is related to the
13
fact that the wide opening angle of the beam results in an increase of the volume targeted, which in turn,
depends on the range. This leads, for instance, to the fact that a relative small amount of rain drops can
be observed at a close range, while the same amount at further ranges, might escape to the observation
of the radar since this value would be averaged in a larger volume where no rain is present, leading thus
to values that might be below the cut-off threshold. This process is better described in the following figure.
The equation used for volume correction (eq. 2.5) shows and exponential decrease with the distance:
Fig. 2.5 Beam filling volume correction (DHI LAWR Manual ,2010)

! ( . # )
(2.5)
where:
Zrv
= Volume corrected reflectivity at range r .
Zr
= Adjusted reflectivity at range r from.
R = range C2, C3: Empirical constants that are location dependent. Initial value guess: 1 and -0.03.
The attenuation, already defined in the section 2.3.3. , depends on the frequency, the wavelength and the
characteristic of the medium. The equation used for the attenuation correction (DHI LAWR Manual ,2010)
is the following:
=
%,
'1 + )
where:
Zr
Zg,r
= Adjusted reflectivity value at range r

= Uncorrected reflectivity at range r
-./
,
,0
89
/ 12345672
(2.6)
14
nsamples = Number of samples in a single scan line, typical value is 8000

, C1
= Empirical constants (1.5 and 200, respectively)
Clutter is defined as echoes in the radar not originated from precipitation. It is important in this case, to
keep in mind the opening of the radar beam, which deflects towards the ground, producing therefore a
fake signal called ground clutter. In this the Leuven case, the wall of the building where the radar is placed,
plays the role of a fence, in such a way that the lower part of the emission is cut-off. The LAWR- CR is
provided with three schemes to remove the clutter but not always the three are applied (DHI, 2010). The
primary clutter removal is performed during a dry period. The variance based clutter removal is used to
remove artefacts, and it is based on the fact that the variance changes drastically in areas where it starts
raining in comparison with others where it is not. The last step is similar to the first but this time it is
performed in the map with Cartesian coordinates.
Once all the corrections have been carried out, a polar image is created. Each pixel contains the average
of several values, since the antenna performs several shots at the same location during a time step. This
polar image is conveyed to the other computer where it is stored in Cartesian format at a different
resolutions as shown table 2.3.
These spatial resolutions are achieved because the LAWR radar works in lower ranks as compared to other
radars, as the size of a pixel in a Cartesian grid is determined by the maximum scanning volume, i.e., the
volume at maximum range, which depends on both, the pulse and the horizontal opening angle.
These finer resolutions, in comparison with C-Band radars (with spatial resolution with even orders of
magnitude of kilometers (Lengfeld K et al. 2014)), along with a higher temporal resolution, would be in
theory an advantage for LAWR radars in hydraulic and hydrologic applications. Nevertheless, in terms of
accuracy of the rainfall estimates, the LAWR Radar presents deficiencies when compared to other radars.
Nielsen et. al (2014 b) performed a study comparing C-Band with LAWR reflectivity values by making use
of a set of disdrometers, which are instruments capable of measure drop size distribution by making use
of microwaves or laser technologies. Disdrometers provide a more accurate measure of reflectivity
(Loffler-Mang et. al, 1999). It was found that when comparing the reflectivity of the two radars with the
15
reflectivity given by the disdrometers, the C-band was able to represent the values of reflectivity in a more
accurate way than LAWR radar affecting thus negatively to the rain rates estimation as also Nielsen shows
when compares rain rates of both radars after applying a range dependent correction.
According to Nielsen (Phd Thesis, 2013 ), the specific reason for this lower accuracy it is not clarified yet,
but might be related to the lower energy emitted, the pulse strategy, the wider opening beam, the
attenuation factor and the internal adjustment of the radar. It is worth noting that the LAWR radar was
born with marine purposes, so it might be expected a worse performance than a radar built specifically for
meteorological use.
3
3.1
LEUVEN CASE STUDY

Weather in Leuven
According to the world weather information service of the WMO the warmest month on average is August,
the coldest is January, the wettest month is July; being May the driest one as can be seen in the figure 3.1
Fig. 3.1
Climatological information based on monthly averages for the 30-years period 19712000.Averaged min and max T, and averaged precipitation.
Belgium is characterized by varied weather conditions and patterns, which might be repeated in different
months. As it is shown in the figure above, there is a clear distinction between warm and wet seasons.
Seasonality and storm type are also factors to take into account when analyzing the data obtained in a
16
calibration. As a general rule, in this study area, the precipitations can be classified as convective or
stratiform. During the summer convective storms predominates, while the stratiform type, usually occurs
more in winter, although the contrary is not as unusual. It might also happen that both types of events
may simultaneously occur in time (Steiner ,1995).
3.2
Location
The chosen location for the radar installation (Provincieus building, fig. 3.2) and the reasons are specified
in the above section 2.4.
Fig. 3.2 a) Leuven location in Belgium , b) Provincieus building ,c) LAWR radar (Decloedt,2012)
Despite the low output power emitted, the radar is not allowed to broadcast electromagnetic waves
towards the airport direction upon the government authorities recommendation. The figure 3.3 illustrates
the situation.
Fig. 3.3 Rain gauges locations, and airport blocked beam area .Circles radius (5, 10 km) LAWR
Leuven city radar.
17
3.3
LAWR Leuven City Radar
As previously mentioned, the radar original intent was for marine application, this fact brings limitations
to its performance in meteorological cases. For example, in the beginning, the outputs given by the system
did not provide reflectivity values as other types of weather radar.
Therefore, for the outputs given by the radar, the so called Digital Outputs Radar (DRO) the Marshall Palmer relation could not be used (eq. 2.3). Thus, the rainfall estimations were calculated based on purely
empirical relations between rainfall ground registration and DRO. Some of the different calibration
methods data are explained in the next section (Section 4).
Based on a series of progress and the studies carried out by DHI (Section 4), the relation DRO-dBZ has been
implemented, and as a result, this radar model is nowadays capable of providing directly reflectivity values
in form of dBZ.
These improvements were tested by Nielsen et al. (2012), who compared the performance of two LAWR
radars placed at the same location, one of which incorporated the new preprocessed data. The study was
carried out by making use of a set of disdrometers which were considered as the true estimation at its
location.
The results indicated that the new configuration of LAWR estimates much more accurately the temporal
dynamics of the rainfall but still insufficient, meanwhile the former version tended to overestimate low
rate rainfall intensities and overestimate the peak intensities within the event.
For this case study, the LAWR Leuven radar is provided with the new upgrades. Therefore the radar outputs
are obtained as dBZ values. Although the data provided by AQUAFIN comprised a period of time between
December 2013 and June 2014, due to an internal error in the radar only the events that took place during
June were used in this study.
Among the resolutions provided by the radar outputs, it was decided to make use of the 125x125 meters
and 250 x250 meters resolutions with a range of 15 to 30 km respectively. The reason to work with two
resolutions with a significant difference is first, to check how it affects in the first quality approximation
analysis of radar outputs, and second, to find out whether or not the different resolutions influences in
the calibration processes.
18
3.4
Leuven Rain Gauges
Concerning the rain gauges involved in this study, it has been used a set of eight gauges belonging to
AQUAFIN. The set of rain gauges are described in the table (3.1) where the temporal resolution t, and
tipping depth resolution (concepts already explained in (section RG)) are shown along with the distance to
the radar.
Table 3.1 Characteristics of Leuven rain gauges.

Code
WZ
KL
HG
WS
DS
EH
OH
WB
Location
RWZIL- Leuven WWTP
Keulenstraat
Hogeebeek
Warostraat
Diestestraat
EgenHovestraat
OudHevstraat
RWZIB - Kobeek Lo
t (min)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R (mm)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Distance (m)
2519
5855
5734
5740
3262
5273
4249
2423
It can be seen that all rain gauges are within a range between 2.4 and 5.8 km. The specific location of the
rain gauges within the study area is shown in the figure 3.3 above.
As mentioned in the section 2.2.2, several uncertainties exist when rainfall is estimated with tipping gauges
and therefore, they must be calibrated and corrected. The data obtained by Aquafin were already
calibrated, corrected for local effects of wind and validated. More information about the methodology
used for this procedure can be obtained in the Phd dissertation of Toon Goorsmans (2011).
As a first approach, in principle no strange measurements were appreciated in the rain gauges with the
exception of the Keulenstraat gauge, which from 27th June on, did not record any rainfall during periods
in which rainfall events actually occurred. Of course further appreciations on the measurements might
appear when comparing measurements among different rain gauges and with the radar estimations.
Regarding the methodology used for the event selection, the criteria followed is based on the Toon
Goorsman dissertation (2011) who performed the different calibration methods using different time
intervals when separate events. His best results were obtained for an interval of 60 minutes, which is the
same value obtained by Pedersen et al. (2010) as a criteria to select events.
19
Therefore, tipping recordings by a rain gauge belong to the same event if they are separated in time by
less than 60 minutes. In addition, a threshold of 1 mm of total accumulated precipitation for the whole
event is established as a minimum to consider it as an event in the study.
REVIEW OF DIFFERENT CALIBRATION METHODS
LAWR radar technology applied to hydrological purposes is relatively recent. An evidence of this is that the
earliest studies date back to 2002.
Among all methods present in literature, it will be described here just those which were used as a reference
for the methods applied later on in this study.
4.1
Calibration Methods
The calibration method most commonly used is the so called standard LAWR calibration method,
(Thorndahl and Rasmussen,2012) which comes from the Sum Calibration Method developed by Pedersen
(2004). It consists in relating by a linear regression, the total accumulated rainfall registered by a rain gauge
for each of the events with its respective accumulated RDO obtained by the radar. The slope of the
resulting fitting line is then considered as the final calibration factor to be applied when transforming RDO
to rain rate estimations (eq. 4.0):
= :;.
<
(4.0)
An example of this method is shown in the following figure.
Fig 4.1 Standard calibration method example. Source (Thorndal and Rasmussen, 2012)
20
Thorndal and Rasmussen came to the conclusion that this method is good for estimating total volumes,
but systematically underestimates high rain intensities as well as overestimates rain rates during low rain
intensity intervals.
They also found that the obtained calibration parameters were range dependent due to the fact that the
volume radar parameters were neutrally selected. Therefore, the volume correction was implicit in the
range dependent fitting curve for the calibration factor of the gauges at different distances to the radar.
In this case the fitting curve was found to be exponential.
This standard calibration method has been widely used and tested, and other factors such as seasonality,
event duration, type of storm, or the total amount of rainfall were included in the calibration process.
Some authors, as Decloedt (2012) or Thorndahl et al. (2011), defend the possibility of a certain influence
of the type of storm or seasonality in the calibration parameters, but further investigation must be carried
out in this direction.
It is also needed to highlight the work of Rollenbeck and Bendix (2005), in which they found a threshold
within their data set explained by the saturation at the receiver next to the radar. This problem was solved
for the next versions of the radar. Moreover, the studies conducted by Pedersen (2009, 2010) and
Thorndahl and Rasmussen (2012), confirmed how the radar LAWR showed a clear tendency to
underestimate the peaks. Actually, this fact motivated a dynamic approach study by Borup et al. (2009)
where it was shown that the static calibration factor always performed worse than the dynamic approach,
except for some minor events where the dynamic method did not have enough time to adjust properly.
Borup concluded, that the quality of the data provided by a dynamic adjustment of the radar is comparable
to that coming from the rain gauges present in the study.
Similar approaches as those mentioned above were conducted by Nielsen et al. (2014a), which ended up
in the application of the so called Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation methodology in both
static and dynamic approaches, confirming that the static strategy was still providing insufficient results,
underestimating again the peak intensity values.
The results were improved in the case of the dynamic approach, although large uncertainties were
obtained. These results seem logical since the parameters from the immediately preceding time intervals
are used in this approximation. Nielsen, also included in his studies how the length of the preceding time
21
interval affects the results, showing that, regardless the time length, the results were always improved.
However, it was found that short time scales gave better results.
4.2
LAWR Improved Preprocessed Data (dBZ outputs)
As mentioned in section 3.3 , the new version of the LAWR radar provides outputs in dBZ format, therefore
new possibilities in calibration comes into play since the Marshall-Palmer Z-R relation is now applicable.
The transformation of the output in dBZ comes from the studies conducted by Nielsen (2013 a) in which
the author, based on a set of disdrometers, performed a calibration of the RDO outputs from the LAWR
radar with the radar reflectivity values provided by the disdrometers.
As already pointed out in the table 2.3, the radar receiver LAWR is logarithmic, consequently the signal
derived for DRO can be related to the power received in its logarithmic domain (eq. 4.1)
=
DRO
C0
Pr
=
=
=
=
<+:
(4.1)
Scaling constant.
LAWR output.
Offset constant.
Received power in logarithmic domain.
Furthermore, the general radar equation (eq. 2.1), which expresses the relation between the received
power and the reflectivity of the targets by which the electromagnetic waves pass through, can be
rewritten as follows (eq. 4.2)
= = > ?@
Z
pr
C1
(4.2)
= Reflectivity
= Received power in linear domain..
= Radar constant.
The DRO and Pr are in principle corrected for attenuation by the internal preprocessing of the LAWR radar.
If the reflectivity transformation reflectivity is applied (see eq. 2.4) is applied, the expression becomes:
= :@
dBZ
r
= Transformed reflectivity
= Range in kilometers
+ 20 log (?)
(4.3)
22
When equation 4.3 and 4.1 are combined the following relation is obtained:
= :E +
C3
< + 20 log (?)
(4.4)
Constants C0 and C2 combined.
The way to set the calibration coefficients was done by making use of the previous equation 4.4 in in such
a way that a linear regression could be fitted between DRO and Z-20log(r) for each of the disdrometers.
The constant are selected by combining the results of all the regression lines obtained. Thus, the constant
C3 is therefore the y-intercept, while the slope is the coefficient.
According to Nielsen (2013a) , in principle, this method is universal, although relations between DRO and
Z should vary for each particular case and therefore the constant adjustment must vary for each specific
location. Besides, the disdrometer can be used to periodically check the values a and b of the Marshall Palmer relation, accounting thus, for the seasonal variations.
Taking into account all these changes and applying a new method of calibration, Nielsen (2012a ) compared
two radar placed at the same location. One, with the RDO old output configuration and the other with the
new dBZ-output configuration. As a result, a better temporal response of the radar data was found with
the new configuration, applying a new method of calibration and making use of Marshall Palmer relation,
as compared to using traditional methods with the outputs coming from the old preprocessed version.
Despite considerable improvements in the results a challenge came up from this analysis and according to
the author, the dBZ output of LAWR were not fully correct, and a modification had still to be made.
This correction was performed by Nielsen himself (2014,b) where the reflectivity values were corrected
according to the following equation
FG
:H I (
Zcor
= Transformed reflectivity.
= Uncorrected reflectivity.
= Range in kilometers.
Ca , Cb
= empirical correction parameters.
J)
(eq. 4.5)
23
The coefficients were established in basis of comparing the data with the disdrometers rainfall estimates.
Consequently, it was again done a comparison between results from the old data processed configuration
and the new one. In the former, the calibration factor of the linear regression was used to obtain rain
rate accumulation for every event, while in the later the Marshall-Palmer relation was applied directly in
the dBZ values and thus rain rate were obtained. Q-Q plot of radar and disdrometer estimates
accumulation (mm) were compared. The results confirmed again the improvements in the new version,
since the Q-Q plot were less scattered.
5
5.1
METHODOLOGY
Data Preparation
As mentioned in section 3.3, due to problems with the outputs on the radar until May 27th of 2014, only
data from the month of June 2014 has been taken into account. Therefore, the data set obtained contains
only eight events whose characteristics are shown in table 5.1. The criterion for considering an event as
such is explained in section 3.4. Accordingly, at least 1 mm of cumulative rainfall and a period of time
between tipping registration never exceeding 60 min were the main conditions to pick the events.
Although, other criteria like the number of rain gauges able to register precipitation were also taken into
account.
Table 5.1 Events during June 2014 and mean characteristics.
Acc.Rain(mm)
Max Acc.(mm)
3-Jun
Storm
duration (min)
40
2.3
Max
intensity(mm/min)
0.63
4-Jun
25
1.52
2.4
0.41
1.46
Date
34
10.3
16.2
10-Jun
32
9.8
13.4
2.19
10-Jun
17
2.11
3.4
0.81
27-Jun
24
2.9
6.4
4.08
27-Jun
45
2.94
4.2
0.2
95
5.11
4.4
0.608
9-Jun
29-Jun
Regarding the radar, it was initially just used the data for a spatial resolution of 125 x 125 m with a range
of 15 km. However, later on, a resolution of 250 x 250 m was used, the reason will be specified in the
24
results and discussion section .The raw data provided by the radar are four times the value of dBZ (DHI,
2010).
5.2
Quality Analysis.
As a first step, and prior to the calibration procedure, a study of the quality of the data provided by the
radar was carried out. The data output was extracted by making use of the Matlab algorithm created by
Toon Groosmans in his dissertation thesis. Once it was checked that the extraction was working properly,
a quality analysis of the radar data was performed by creating different maps and animated GIFS, in such
a way that accumulation rainfall maps for the entire month of June were produced, along with peak
intensities spatial distribution for each of the events. Thus, effects such as attenuation, volume correction,
clutter effect and storm evolutions patterns were analyzed to obtain a deep insight of how the radar was
performing for each of the events, in order to keep in mind all this factor for the calibration processes.
5.3
Calibration Methods
Despite the few events presented in the data set, the first method applied was the standard calibration
method, with the difference that the data provided now consists of dBZ values and thus, the Marshal Palmer relation with the standard values a = 200 and b = 1.6 were applied in such a way that accumulated
rain rates coming from the radar and rain gauge were confronted in the linear regression.
After applying the linear regression, the next step was to proceed with a method related to the
methodology used by Nielsen(2014 b)and described in section 4.2, with the difference that in this study,
instead of calibrating the range coefficients based on disdrometers, cause no disdrometers are presented,
a correction constant was added to the dBZ values in order to adjust the rain accumulation curves for
each of the events.
The equation used, results from the combination of equations 1.3 and 1.4 as follows:
= 10.
+K
= .
LMNOP./ QRS (3)
/ J
= 10
(5.1)
25
Where :
a , b = Standard coefficients for the Marshall-Palmer relation (200,1.6).
R
= Rain rate (mm/h).
In fact it is possible to appreciate the similarity with the correction reflectivity equation applied by Nielsen
(eq. 4.5) when applying the logarithmic transformation in the following way:
FG
:H I (
= 10T
= 10T
FG
J)
+ 10 T
:H + 4.34 ? :
= 10. T
+K
(5.2)
Thus, it is seen that in a way, the dBZ reflectivity is corrected by a term which depends on the range, while
the method used in this study only a constant is used, and therefore a range dependency on this constant
is expected.
The way of obtaining the K value was by minimizing the MSE between accumulated data from rain gauge,
and accumulated data from radar for each of the 8 events of the data set.
Besides, the coefficient of determination of the accumulated series values were computed in order to
check how well the data fit.
The second method used is a modification of the above K correcting factor, but this time, instead of
correcting the value of the reflectivity, the calibration was performed by changing the coefficients of the
Marshall-Palmer on the equation (5.2) without correcting the reflectivity. This method aimed to draw
conclusions about how the selection of different a and b values affects the results and thus might establish
a bridge with the physical characteristics of the event involved.
26
6
6.1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.

Quality Analysis Results and Discussions.
The first approach was to display the improved preprocessed output provided by the radar. Therefore
events were visualized by creating a moving GIF based videos in order to analyze the characteristics and
evolution of the events involved in this study. In the following figures three snap shots belong to the 9th
June event are shown for two different resolutions.
Fig 6.1 (a) Snapshots for the event took place on 9th june .The pixel spatial resolution is 125 m and the circle
represent 5 and 10 km range. The colour palet goes from 0 dBZ to 60 dBZ .Gauges locations are also
displayed.
Fig 6.1 (b) Snapshots for the event took place on 9th june. The pixel spatial resolution is 250 m and the
circle represent 5 , 10 and 20 km range. The colour palet goes from 0 dBZ to 60 dBZ. Gauges locations
are also displayed.
27
Afterwards, accumulation maps for each of the events were created in order to find patterns and keep
obtaining deeper understanding of the events befallen. An example is given in the figure 6.2. Maps of
maximum intensities were also produced , as shown in figure 6.3, in such a way that for each pixel ,all the
intensities of the event were sorted , being the final value of the pixel the average of the five highest
intensities.
Fig 6.2 The colour palet goes from 6 to 9.6 and indicates the accumulation of the raw radar data during
events of 4th (left image) and 9th (right image ) of June in a logarithmic scale. The pixel spatial resolution is
125 m and the circles represent 5 and 10 km range.
28
Fig 6.3 The colour palet goes from 0 dBZ to 60 dBZ and indicates the averaged of the five highest
reflectivities in every location during the events of 4th (left image) and 9th (right image) of June. The pixel
spatial resolution is 125 m and the circles represent 5 and 10 km range.
Observing the results it was clear the presence of what it seems a residual clutter not removed by the
clutter internal filtering schemes of the radar describes in the section 2.4. It should be note the clear
influence especially in the OH rain gauge. As a consequence of this, radar snapshots were displayed during
dry periods in order to find out the behavior of this residual clutter in time (see fig.6.4).
Finally the entire month of June was accumulated as indicated in figure 6.5.It is clearly noticeable the
effects of attenuation since accumulation decrease as long as the distance to radar increases. When radar
outputs are accumulated a certain homogeneity is expected, however due to the short period of time used
it doesnt allow to come to definitive conclusions, nonetheless, it can be appreciated a certain
homogeneity in the DS rain gauge area as well as the KL HG area that meet the fact that the location radar
was selected to have good results in this last area (Goorsmans, 2011).
Fig.6.4. The colour palet goes from 0 dBZ to 60 dBZ .Two dry period clutter snapshots of 27th and 29th
June are shown.
29
Fig. 6.5 The colour palet goes from 7 to 13 and indicates the accumulation of the raw radar data for the
entire month of June in a logarithmic scale. The pixel spatial resolution is 125 m (left image ) and 250
m(right image).The circles represent 5 and 10 km range(left image) and 5, 10, 20 km range (right image).
After analyzing all the maps and moving GIFs created some conclusions came up. First, the presence of
residual clutter up to a range of 10 km is clearly affecting the images and therefore will be something to
keep in mind in the calibration process, second, the fact that no waves are emitted towards the airport
was also confirmed affecting the radar data for the location of the WS rain gauge, thus WS will be not
considered in the following steps of this study. A clear obstruction of the radar beam towards east direction
is also noticeable but in this case doesnt affect any of the rain gauges involved in the calibration process.
Other important fact is that for weak events the radar is not able to see rainfall further than 20 km since
the attenuation and the beam filling issue explained in section 2.4 comes into play, leading to reflectivity
values that might be below the cut-off threshold and consequently dont appear in the images.
Thus, a deeper insight about temporal and spatial distribution and evolution of the different events was
gained by making use of the moving GIF videos, the accumulation and intensities maps. Besides, a better
understanding about how the radar behaves and the key factors involved in its way to measure the rainfall
were achieved. Therefore, concepts such as storm time duration, total amount of rainfall, intensity
distributions, clutter or attenuation will be kept in mind during the calibration processes.
30
6.2 Linear Regression Method Results and Discussions

The linear regression method was applied for all the rain gauges but WS and OH which were not considered
because of the influence of the airport and the cluttering problems respectively. The next figure (6.6)
describes the procedure.
WZ Rain Gauge
Total gauge accum. volume
per event (mm)
16
Observations
1 Stdev conf. interv. of regression line
1 Stdev conf. Interv. -Total uncertainty
Linear (Observations)
14
12
10
y = 0.5168x
R = 0.9364
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
Total radar accum. volume per event(mm)
25
30
Total gauge accum. volume per

event (mm)
DS Rain Gauge
14
Observations
12
10
8
6
y = 0.6721x
R = 0.8497
4
2
0
0
4 radar accum.
6
8 per event(mm)
10
12
Total
volume
14
16
HG Rain Gauge
20
Total gauge accum. volume
per event (mm)
Observations
15

10
y = 1.2351x
R = 0.7648
5
0
0
Total radar accum. volume per event(mm)
10
12
Fig 6.6 Linear regression method for 3 of the rain gauges. Each dot represents an event, the blue line
represents the fitted regression line which slope is the CF, the red line represent 1 standard deviation conf.
interval of the regression line and the green line 1 standard deviation conf. interval of the total uncertainties
31
Thus a range dependent curve was fitted in such way a coefficient factor is found at every distance to the
radar, as shown in figure 6.7.
CF -Range curve
1.6
CF = 0.2103* Dist
R = 0.987
1.4
1.2
1
CF
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
Distance to radar (km)
Fig. 6.7 Range dependent curve for the Calibration Factor to be applied to radar correction. The error
bars represent 1 std. dev. Conf. interval. of the uncertainties of the regression line.
When applying the CF to the radar rainfall time series confronted with gauge time series were obtained.
Rain Intensity (mm/min)
An example of this is shown in the next figure.
WZ Gauge Distance to radar 2520 m
1.6
Radar
1.2
Gauge observations
0.8
0.4
0
6/10/14 1:39 6/10/14 1:44 6/10/14 1:50 6/10/14 1:56 6/10/14 2:02 6/10/14 2:07
Time
Fig 6.8. Radar and rain gauge rain rates time series for WZ Gauge for the event of 6th June
The analysis of the different times series at each rain gauge for all the events showed, a lack in accuracy in
the performance of the radar, even without taking into account the uncertainties coming just from the
linear regression line. Anyhow, it should be considered that a very small set of events was used and
therefore the linear calibration factors are subject to a high uncertainty . Thus, a larger number of events
32
would be appropriate in order to draw further conclusions, and therefore, to obtain more insight about
how the radar describes the peaks and temporal variations of rainfall by making use of this method, since,
for this set of events, it performs insufficiently.
6.3
Marshall Palmer Parameters Calibration Method
Before applying the K method , it was attempted to correct the radar by changing the coefficients a, b
involved in the Marshall Palmer Relation with the aim of minimize the MSE between the accumulated
rainfall values observed in the gauge and the observed by the radar using equation 5.1 , without
correcting the reflectivity, i.e, by setting a value of K = 0.
First a method without any restriction on the values of a and b was carried out , with the following results.
Table 6.1 a values after applying calibration method during the events of June 2014. (*)No rain registered
Gauges
WZ
KL
HG
DS
EH
OH
WB
Distance
to
radar(m)
2520
5855
5734
3262
5273
4249
2423
46
348
388
19
400
*
*
*
a values
200
7
6
500
1
*
135
1
12
12
26
341
8
97
53
2
81
189
2
141
7
2
69
400
1
6
5
17
12
5
6
4
3
4
393
177
233
3
27
6
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
2
27
9
303
34
394
17
2
33
Table 6.2 b values after applying calibration method during the events of June 2014. (*)No rain registered.
Gauges
WZ
KL
HG
DS
EH
OH
WB
Distance
to
radar(m)
2520
5855
5734
3262
5273
4249
2423
4.01
1.02
1.32
2.2
4.2
*
*
*
b values
1.6
3.21
2.58
1.49
2.46
*
2.26
3.89
4.01
3.1
2.68
1.52
3.11
2.38
2.7
4.01
1.01
1.12
2.59
1.71
3.99
3.9
3.14
1.33
2.12
3.64
1.02
0.92
1.03
1.02
1.71
3.86
3.91
3.85
1.72
1.94
1.95
2.96
4.01
3.81
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
3.88
2.9
2.09
1.78
2.75
2.88
3.21
4.01
It can be seen that the values obtained do not have any physical meaning and show great variability. This
responds to a pure mathematically approach when minimising the MSE .Actually i it has been found that
there were many combinations of a and b that led to insignifficant differences when the accumulation
curves were fitted. In addition, it was decided to first set the value a=200, and calibrate b and vice versa.
From the results obtained it was observed a high sensitivity in the parameter b, and still a big variability
in the a and b values obtained. Taking into account all this it does not seem easy to calibrate the radar by
changing a and b .
Since these parameters depend on the DSD and therefore the type of precipitation that befalls , seems
feasible to set parameters that in average represent better the dominant types of precipitation and try to
look for other ways of calibrating the radar estimates as it has actually done in the K calibration method.
6.4 K- Calibration Method Results and Discussion.
As explained in section 5.3, a calibration method was applied in order to obtain the different values for
the parameter K which correct the reflectivity values of the radar by minimizing the MSE between
accumulated data from radar and rain gauge. The extraction of the radar data was done for a spatial
resolution of 125 meter and time resolution of 1 minute. For this purpose a Matlab code was set up in
order to obtain K values for every events for each of the rain gauges but WS which was not considered for
the reasons above mentioned in section 6.1.
34
Besides, graphs indicating the coefficient of determination, R2 , between final radar
and gauge
accumulation data, were also produced as well as time series where gauge and radar rates were compared
during the different events. The different k and R2 obtained are shown in the following tables. Afterwards,
an example of the accumulation graphs for three of the rain gauges during two different events are shown.
Table 6.3 K values for each of the gauges during the events of June 2014 for a spatial resolution of 125
meters. (*)No rain registered.
Gauges
Distance
to radar(m)
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
WZ
KL
HG
DS
EH
OH
WB
2520
5855
5734
3262
5273
4249
2423
-6.86
4.44
-2.43
-3.96
-2.35
-11.94
-1.29
2.23
-8.44
-4.88
1.45
2.41
-7.5
(*)
(*)
(*)
K values
0.95
4.07
1.6
-3.2
7.5
(*)
-2.32
3.27
Res.125 m
4.51
-3
-5.94
-1
-3.3
-7.69
-1.2
0.7
9.61
1.55
3.99
-0.66
-5.23
-10.29
-3.33
0.87
12.35
9.74
22.46
19.66
17.5
29.4
9.33
8.02
6.56
-8.92
-6.85
-5.18
-6.78
-0.2
-3.7
1.68
Table 6.4 Coefficient of determination values for each of the gauges during the events of June 2014 (*)No
rain registered.
Gauges
Distance
to
radar(m)
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
WZ
KL
HG
DS
EH
OH
WB
2520
5855
5734
3262
5273
4249
2423
0.17
0.65
0.98
0.98
0.88
0.89
0.93
0.59
Coef. Determination
0.42
0.83
0.66
0.88
0.66
0
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.9
0.91
0.94
0.59
0.66
(*)
(*)
0.97
(*)
0.11
0.94
(*)
0.93
0.71
0.75
0.94
0.97
0.89
0.85
0.73
0.96
0.75
0.98
0.83
0.68
0.75
0.85
0.8
0.96
0.98
0.85
0.52
0.97
0.99
0.97
0.58
0.96
0.72
35
WZ Resolution 125 m x 125 m
K = -2.43 Distance to radar = 2520 m.
8.00
mm
6.00
Radar accum
Rain gauge Accum
Original radar Acc.
4.00
2.00
0.00
6/9/14 9:37
6/9/14 9:43
6/9/14 9:48
6/9/14 9:54
Accumulated gauge (mm)
10.00
6/9/14 10:00
Coefficient of determination
Resolution 125 m x 125 m
Linear (Accumulated rainfall)
4
2
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Time
Radar accum
Rain gauge Accum
Original radar Acc.
10.00
5.00
0.00
6/9/14 9:37 6/9/14 9:40 6/9/14 9:43 6/9/14 9:46 6/9/14 9:48 6/9/14 9:51 6/9/14 9:54
mm
15.00
EH Rain Gauge Resolution 125 m x 125 m

K = 3.99 Distance to radar = 5273 m.
7.00
8.00
R = 0.9771
Linear (Acc. Rainfall)
4
2
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Accumulated radar (mm)

EH Coefficient of determination
Resolution 125m x 125m
20
Radar accum
Rain gauge Accum
Original radar Acc.
R = 0.9799
Rainfall Acc.
15
Linear (Rainfall Acc.)
10
10.00
5.00
0.00
6/9/14 9:31
6.00
Acc. Rainfall
6
mm
15.00
5.00
WB Coefficient of determination
Time
20.00
4.00
WB Rain Gauge Resolution 125 m x 125 m

20.00
R = 0.98
Accumulated rainfall
6
6/9/14 9:38
6/9/14 9:46
Time
6/9/14 9:53
6/9/14 10:00
6/9/14 10:07
5
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Fig 6.9 The green triangles represent the accumulated rainfall of the radar before calibration while the red dots the accumulation after applying the K constant.
Crosses shows the gauge accumulation registrations. R2 represents coefficient of determination between radar and gauge accumulation.
18.00
36
WZ Resolution 125 m x 125 m
Radar accum
Gauge Acc.
Original radar Acc.
mm
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
6/10/14 1:37
6/10/14 1:43
6/10/14 1:49
6/10/14 1:55
6/10/14 2:00
6/10/14 2:06
6/10/14 2:12
Time
10
Accum. Rainfall
6
4
2
0
0.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
6/10/14 1:36
6/10/14 1:43
6/10/14 1:50
6/10/14 1:58
6/10/14 2:05
4.00
EH Rain Gauge Resolution 125 m x 125 m

K =-0.66 Distance to radar = 5273 m.
Radar Accum.
Rain gauge Accum
mm
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
6/10/14 1:40
6/10/14 1:46
6/10/14 1:52
Time
12.00
10
R = 0.9915
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
0.00
6/10/14 1:35
10.00
Rainfall Acc.
6/10/14 2:12
6/10/14 1:58
6/10/14 2:03
Accumulated rain gauge (mm)
12.00
8.00
WB Coefficient of determination
Time
14.00
6.00
Accumulated gauge
(mm)
20.00
2.00
15
Radar accum
Rain gauge Accum
Original radar Acc.
25.00
R = 0.9804
Linear (Accum. Rainfall)
WB Rain Gauge Resolution 125 m x 125 m

30.00
mm
Coefficient of determination
Resolution 125 m x 125 m
12
20.00
EH Coefficient of determination
15
R = 0.89
Rainfall Acc.
10
5
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Fig. 6.10 The green triangles represent the accumulated rainfall of the radar before calibration while the red dots the accumulation after applying the K
constant. Crosses shows the gauge accumulation registrations. R2 represents coefficient of determination between radar and gauge accum.
12.00
37
Rain Intensity
(mm/min)
Radar K method
Gauge Observtions
Radar L. Regr. Method
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/9/14 9:43
Rain intensities
(mm/min)
6/9/14 9:37
6/9/14 9:49
6/9/14 9:55
Time
6/9/14 10:00
6/9/14 10:06
6/9/14 10:12
WB Gauge Distance to radar=2423 m
Radar K Method
Gauge Observations
Radar L. Regres. Method
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/9/14 9:37
6/9/14 9:41
6/9/14 9:45
6/9/14 9:49
6/9/14 9:54
Time
Rain intensity
(mm/min)
EH Gauge Distance to radar= 5273 m

Radar K Method
Gauge Observations
Radar L. Regr. Method
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/9/14 9:31
6/9/14 9:37
6/9/14 9:43
6/9/14 9:49
6/9/14 9:55
6/9/14 10:00
6/9/14 10:06
Time
Fig.6.11 Radar and gauge rain rate time series for 3 of the gauges during the event of 9th June. K method and Linear regression method are compared.
Rain Intensity
(mm/min)
38
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/10/14 1:39

Radar
Gauge observations
6/10/14 1:44
6/10/14 1:50
6/10/14 1:56
6/10/14 2:02
6/10/14 2:07
Rain Intensity
(mm/min)
Time
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/10/14 1:37
WB Gauge Distance to radar 2520 m

Rada K Method
Gauge observations
6/10/14 1:42
6/10/14 1:48
6/10/14 1:54
6/10/14 2:00
6/10/14 2:05
Rain intensity
(mm/min)
Time
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
6/10/14 1:36
EH Gauge Distance to radar=5273 m

Radar K method
Gauge Observations
Radar L. Regres. Method
6/10/14 1:41
6/10/14 1:47
Time 6/10/14 1:53
6/10/14 1:59
6/10/14 2:04
Fig. 6.12 Radar and gauge rain rate time series for 3 of the gauges during the event of 10th June. K method and linear regression method are compared.
39
Comparing the plots of the two methods it was realized that the application of the linear method
regression is based in fact on the same strategy that the K method because watching the equation
(5.1), one can appreciate that by multiplying each of the rain rates comig from the application of
Marshall-Palmer by CF , mathematically is the same that adding a constant to the dBZ as it was
done in method K. The difference lies in how the CF and constant K are obtained. The CF is obtained
from ratios between the total amount of accumulated radar and gauge, while for the case of K, from
minimizing the MSE of the accumulated rainfall curve for each particular event and gauge.
Consequentely, the rain rate time series have the same shapes but with the differece that with
the K calibration method , total volumes are obtained more accurately due to the nature of the
method itself . Nevertheless , at least for the data set analyzed, the K calbratiion method still hardly
describes the temporal dynamics of the rainfall.
Watching the results of the table 6.3, It can be observed a large variability in the values of the
constant K and hence a range dependent curve of the constant K was not possible to established.
These results also confirm the pressence an important presence of clutter in the OH rain gauge and
therefore , the reflectivity observed is sistematically very low in such a way that a considerble
amount of reflectivity has to be added in order to correct the radar estimation at that place.
Therefore these results, led to a searching for possible factors that could be affecting the
estimation of the K value and its variability , so, new approaches based on the same methodology
were tested for the purpose of finding a trend in the values of the constant k.
The inffluence of the spatial resolution selected , the averaged covered area of the event , the
maximum intensisties , total amount of rainfall and duration , and finally the clutter issue described
in the quality analsys, were analyzed in order to look for pattern that might be inffluencing the K
estimation.
6.4.1
Spatial resolution influence.
Taking into account Pedersen (2004) where it was found a not insignifficant spatial variablity in the
rainfall radar estimations within a pixel of 500 meters , a coarser spatial resolution was used in this
study in order to check its inffluence in the calibration. The coarsest spatial resolution for this radar
model is 250 meters , so radar values are expected to be more averaged with respect to the 125
meters resolution and therefore singularities in the specific pixels of the raingauge might be
40
corrected.The k values obtained after extracting the values and applying the same K calibration
method are shown in the next table.
Table 6.5 K values for spatial resol. of 250 m during the events of June 2014. (*)No rain registered
Gauges
Distance
to radar(m)
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
WZ
KL
HG
DS
EH
OH
RB
2520
5855
5734
3262
5273
4249
2423
-7.19
-6.23
1.59
1.94
-8.84
(*)
(*)
(*)
K values
Res.250 m
0.06
5.59
2.11
-2.5
0.5
-5.17
-2.69
-0.79
7.36
-2.85
(*) -5.93
-2.66
-0.95
2.95
2.09
9.49
1.13
3.21
-0.19
-6.5
-8.7
-3.64
-0.32
19.08
13.52
24.84
20.7
18.55
30
14.64
13.47
7.58
-10.7
-5.53
-5.07
-5.56
0.61
-2.4
3.47
-9.95
10.17
-3.46
-4.52
-2.47
-12.23
-2.05
0.88
Observing the results of the above table 6.5, it is clear that slight changes in the k values were
produced since reflectivity values were averaged in a larger space scale but the values still maintain
the same variability.
6.4.2
Clutter influence
After the qualility analysis, it was clear the influence of the clutter in the area of study, especially
within the 5 km range area, the urban area of Leuven.
Therefore, a clutter filter it was developed in order to check the impact on the results.
The first step was to use a dynamic filter where several conditions were applied for the purpose of
eliminating the random noise without affecting the accuracy. The conditions are established by trial
and error visualizing the results obtained for different radar shots. A pixel was considered a clutter
if any of the following conditions were met:
If dBZ > 35 and the average of the values of the surrounding 5x5 matrix is < 28
If more than 6 pixels on the 5x5 matrix around the cell are <Pixel value/3
If more than 5 of the surrounding 3x3 Matrix are considered as clutter by the prior
conditions.
41
The new value for a clutter pixel would be the median of the values within a 5x5 matrix around each
of the pixel.
As a result of applying the clutter filter it was found that it was useful but just for the dry period,
cause it was not able to get rid of the clutter effect during storm events where systematically low
reflectivity values in specific values, were found with respect to the neighboring pixels. The
explanation for this was found by comparing original images during dry period with images during
storm events .
During the dry period, the areas where reflectivity values were found (see figure 6.4), were
approximately the same ones found during the rain events. The reflectivity values were clearly lower
than the surroundings as shown in fig. 6.1 and fig 6.2. Therefore, it seems that the reflectivity coming
from the storm for the pixels affected by this phenomenon is averaged in the whole beam volume
with those lower values coming from clutter effects.
Thus, a new condition is added by means of comparing two arrays, one with the original reflectivity
values and another after applying a 5x5 median filter to the previous one, in such a way that for
this second matrix, each pixel contains the median value of its neighbors . After collecting a large
data set for different pixels affected by clutter at different times, the ratios between the value of
the same pixels for each of the two arrays were computed, and after adjusting a statistical
distribution for the whole set of ratios, that happened to be Log-Normal, it was found that (with a
95% of confidence) the pixels values affected by clutter were between 38% and 55% of the mean
value of its neighbors not affected by clutter. Another condition was to limit the algorithm, to pixels
with reflectivity lower than 25 dBZ, in order to keep out of the filter, the values never affected by
clutter .Thus, a pixel was considered a clutter:
If dBZ < 25 and if its values is between 38% and 55% of the mean value of 5 x 5 matrix
pixels around.
42
The way how the filter performed, can be seen in the next figure:
Fig 6.13 Effect of applying the filter algortihm in the accumulated map during the whole month of
June 2014.OH gauge still not corrected by the filter.
The k values obtained after applying the filter were the fllowing:
Table 6.6 K values after applying clutter filter during the events of June 2014. (*)No rain registered
Event
K values
3-Jun
-4.73
-10.74
2.26
3.50
8.75
11.35
4.41
4-Jun
2.79
-1.73
-5.12
1.23
6.90
5.12
-3.21
-6.82
1.37
4.94
8.94
20.74
-7.60
-8.39
9-Jun
10-Jun
-4.47
2.22
-3.62
-1.40
-0.94
17.10
-4.77
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
-2.09
-11.34
-11.25
*
6.00
*
-4.06
-6.92
-4.55
-6.38
28.00
32.28
-8.81
-0.13
-1.55
-2.23
-1.56
-3.60
6.25
-4.55
1.49
4.58
0.53
0.80
10.51
1.48
29-Jun
Observing the results of the above table 6.6, it is clear that applying the clutter filter did not solve
the variablity on the K values.
As can be seen in the table (6.6) and also in the figure 6.13 the filter was not able to improve OH
gauge estimations . A possible testing to evaluate the performance of the filter would have been
43
by checking the effects of the application of the filter in the regression line method but this approach
was not performed in this study.
6.4.3
Covered area influence
In order to check whether there was any relationship between the area covered and the K constant
which could explain the variabilty , the average area covered in each rain event during each event
was calculated and the the following data were obtained.
Table 6.7 Total average area covered during the event, and % respect the total area covered by the
radar.
Event
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
Average areal covered (Km2)

576
412
981
1094
853
429
1201
809
%
16.0
11.4
27.3
30.4
23.7
11.9
33.4
22.5
Comparing this tables with the tables 6.3 and 6.5 no pattern was found since when comparing the
area covered with the necessity of correcting more the reflectivity, no systematic behaviour was
found. It was also checked if more or less averaged area of each event, involved more or less
correction on the reflectivity, but no relation came up.
6.4.4
Maximum intensities , total amount of rainfall and duration influence
Maximun intensities , total amount of rainfall and duration of the events were considered with the
same purpose .The following data were used for this porpuse.
44
Table 6.8 Maximum intensities at every gauge during each of the events.
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
Max .Intensities(mm/min)
WZ
KL
HG
0.65
0.21
0.199
0.206
0.21
0.4015
0.63
1.3
0.81
1.76
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.21
0.81
0.416
*
*
0.206
*
0.19
0.201
*
0.19
DS
0.2
0.42
0.42
2.19
0.42
0.42
0.2
0.2
EH
0.38
0.19
1.39
1.82
0.19
0.57
0.89
0.89
OH
0.2
0.2
1.46
1.46
0.6
3.83
0.2
0.2
WB
0.19
0.19
1.45
1.67
0.61
1.67
0.19
0.19
Table 6.9. Total rainfall accumulation at every gauge during each of the events
3-Jun
4-Jun
9-Jun
10-Jun
10-Jun
27-Jun
27-Jun
29-Jun
1
2
1
2
WZ
4.14
0.82
6.89
9.76
1.44
1.86
4.12
5.15
KL
1.47
1.68
11.70
11.21
1.26
*
*
*
Total rainfall accumulation(mm)

HG
DS
EH
OH
1.39
0.83
4.95
2.40
2.00
0.62
2.47
1.60
11.91
5.81
16.63
12.29
3.41
11.97
10.43
9.21
2.81
1.86
1.71
2.21
*
4.14
4.21
4.57
2.19
2.69
2.28
3.00
4.38
4.34
4.55
4.80
WB
1.40
0.60
6.73
13.29
2.41
6.76
2.19
5.18
Such as it was done with the areal covered influence , a pattern was sought but again, no relation
was found .Nevertheless ,a better understanding of the dynamics of all the rainfall events was
obtained by making use of all the intensitiy and accumulation maps as well as the moving GIF files
produced. Concluding that this variability in the constants might be related to the dynamics and
spatial development of the storms. At this point , it was here , where the attenuation issue came to
scene.
Considering that this type of radar, unlike other weather radars, is particularly sensitive to the
attenuation and taking into account how the attenuation is corrected in the internal preprocesing
of the radar , it seem that a simple static range dependent equation (see eq. 2.6) might be
insufficient to account for attenuation when considerable temporal and spatial variation of the
rainfall distribution occurs . This motivated a first approach in order to check how this issue was
affecting the variability of the K values.
45
An indirect way of measure how the attenuation might be affecting the reflectivity values obtained
for an specific location, was by checking the reflectivities of the pixels located in the conecting
path from the radar to the desired location.
A first approach in this direction was made. Thus , what was happening during the 9th June was
investigated for the gauges WB and WZ since they are placed at the same distance and the same
amount of accumulated rainfall was recorded. With this conditions , similar K values would have
been expected , but as is shown in the table 6.3 , that was not the case. Therefore an averaged
value of the amount of reflectivity of all the pixels within the path from the radar to the gauge
was calculated, taking also into account the duration of the event at every gauge. In order to extract
the values belonged to the line, the Bresenham algortihm was used (Watt,2010).
The values obtained indicated that more averaged reflectivity was detected in the WB gauge path
to the radar ,31.25 dBZ/min , than in the WZ path , 25.25 dBZ/min , and that is the reason why the
K value is different and more correction had to be done for the WB gauge (See table 6.3). This is
possible to appreciate more graphically in the next figure.
Fig 6.14 . Snapshot of the 9th event of June in the moment the high intensity cell is passing trough
the area of interest.The colormap bar was change to apreciate more the contrasts.
46
So, it can be seen how the path to WZ gauge is affected by the presence of the high intensity cell
close to the radar in such a way the rest of the path is affected by attenuation and therefore in
average, the dBZ values are lower. On the contrary for the WB case, it can be seen how the high
intensity cell is placed just above the gauge and therefore the path is free of high intensity cells in
such a way the attenuation less, and the dBZ values in averaged larger since there is still considreavle
intensities rates in between.Thus, more correction had to be applied to reflectivity values in WB
than in WZ , fact that is is reflected in the K values.
This first approach was made by makinf use of the filtered image in order to have a more clean path
of pixels from the radar to the gauges.
Altough the attenuation is not effectively calculated , this approach suggests that further
investigations has to be done in order to account for the attenuation and its effects on the
calibrations processes.
7
7.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Rainfall estimation is a driving force in the field of hydrology, being a main input in the hydrologic
hydraulic models used for decision taking in urban water management.
In this work, unlike previous research in this case study, the preprocessed data provided by the XBand radar of Leuven is now given in terms of reflectivity. In order to evaluate the performance of
the new configuration of the Leuven X-Band radar several approaches have been made. Due to some
problems in the radar configuration only events belonging to June of 2014 were included in this
evaluation.
A first quality analysis of the data provided was done. Different maps and animated GIFs were
created in order to understand the spatial and temporal dynamic of the events included in the data
set. A clear presence of clutter within a range of 10 km was noticed, as well as an obstruction of the
radar beam towards east direction. The fact that no waves are emitted towards airport direction
was also confirmed.
Since reflectivity values are provided, new approaches can be made in the correction or calibration
processes of the radar estimations with the rain gauges registrations as the Marshall-Palmer relation
can now be used.
47
A variation of the classic linear regression method was performed. The method still hardly described
the temporal dynamics of the rainfall but a range dependent tendency was found when correcting
the radar measurements. A calibration method based on the fitting of accumulation radar and gauge
rainfall curves for each of the events by correcting the reflectivity was used. The main purpose was
to find any patterns in the correction of the reflectivity values, but a high variability in this direction
was found. Therefore several approaches were attempted in order to explain it. After having taken
into account several factors, such as the inffluence of the radar spatial resolution, the averaged
covered area, the maximum intensisties, the total amount of rainfall, the duration of the events,
and finally the clutter effect, it was not possible to establish an static pattern for this calibration
method. The time series provided by this method in comparison with the linear regression method
were improved in terms of volume, although the temporal dynamics were still described weakly.
Several factors might be affecting the results obtained. First, the internal radar settings about how
reflectivity values are provided were not reviewed in this study and its reliability was taken for
granted. Secondly, a small set of 8 events was used in this study and the conditions for selecting
these, were not very restrictive in order to have a sufficient number of data set. Finally, the
uncertainties associated to the way the radar estimates rainfall rates might be distorting the results.
Regarding this uncertainties, factors like, clutter, ambiguity in the parameters of Marshall-Palmer
relations used in the calibration, the spatial variability of the rainfall within a single pixel , both
vertical and horizontal, and the radar internal adjustment used to correct the filling volume factor
and especially the attenuation , in the opinion of the author, were found to be the most important
when dealing with this type of radar.
A special attention should be placed in the attenuation factor. Since this type of weather radar is
much more affected by attenuation than other weather radars, it seems that a simple static range
dependent equation correction to account for the attenuation issue is insufficient for taking into
account the dynamism associated to rainfall events.
48
7.2
Recommendations and Future Work
It seems that the K calibration method used in this study leads to a very dynamic values for the K
factor. It is worth noting that this conclusion has been taken based on a very small set of events,
therefore a bigger data set would be need in order to corroborate it.
Anyhow, the feeling of the author is that taking into account the physical characteristics of the
rainfall events and the way they develop, at least the events presented in this study, a dynamic
approach should be done when event calibration is performed in order to represent in a more
accurate way the variability in the rain fall rates time series.
Therefore, by applying a dynamic method in such a way that the short-term radar and gauges
estimation are continuously adjusted, it is expected to obtain better results. Since one of the main
applications in urban modelling is real time control management, it seems appropriate to perform
such approach in future works for this new preprocessed data provided by the radar.
Considering the attenuation issue, it seems logical to try in the future, the correction of the radar
measurements by using a method based on this factor. In this sense the clutter filter algorithm might
be useful when attenuation is computed.
Furthermore, since this study has been done based on event calibration, a long-term approach
would be also interesting when the data availability enable to tackle it. In this regard, a quantile
mapping calibration method would be appropriate, in such a way that the calibration is produced
on the basis of relating the statistics coming from the gauge and the radar estimations. If a long
term data set would be available, it would be good that factors like the type of precipitation, that
in this study has been implicitly treated, by considerering average areal coveraged , max. intensities
or total amount of rainfall, should be taken into account more deeply , considering its influence in
the parameters of Marshall- Palmer relation which is playing, after the new preprocessed radar
data , a new role when calibration method are applied for this type of radar.
Being aware of the difficulties involved, a final recommendation would be the installation of further
rain gauges which would be useful for the calibration processes of the radar, as well as a set of
disdrometers that might help in the seasonal changes in the Z-R Marshall-Palmer relation and would
be useful to check the dBZ internal conversion of the radar.
49
It also should be noted that new approaches in improving radar rainfall estimations by combining
the potentialities of the LAWR X-Band radar with the C-Band are being tested by different
researchers and might be interesting to apply them in this case study.
REFERENCES
Battan, L. J., 1960. Radar observation of the atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, 86: 292.
Berne, A., Delrieu, G, Creutin, J., and Obed, C. (2004). Temporal and spatial resolution of rainfall
measurements required for urban hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, 299, 166-179.
Bechand, J. and Chau, J.L. (Editors), 2012. Doppler Radar Observations Weather radars, Wind Profiler and
Advanced Applications. InTech, 482 pp.
Borup, M., Grum, M., Linde, J.J., and Mikkelsen, P.S., 2009. Application of high resolution x-band radar data
for urban runoff modelling: constant vs. dynamic calibration. In: Proc. 8th International Workshop on
Precipitation in Urban Areas, 1013 December 2009 at St. Moritz, Switzerland.
Cain, D., 2002. Doppler radar frequently asked questions. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Decloedt, L.C., Van Assel, J. and Willems, P., 2012. Improving the fine scale rainfall estimation of a local area
weather radar: case of an X-band radar at Leuven, Belgium. In: Proc the 7th European Conference on Radar in
Meteorology and Hydrology (ERAD), 24-29 June 2012 at Toulouse, France.
DHI, 2010: Local Area Weather Radar (LAWR) Documentation. Version 3.2, 1-49.
http://radar.dhigroup.com/publications/publications.html
Doviak, R.J. and Zrnic, D.S., 2006. Doppler Radar and Weather Observations. Dover Publications. Second
Edition, U.S.A., 592 pp.
Einfalt, T. and Maul-Kotter, B., 2002. Routine use of radar measurements in a hydrological service: what are
the users requirements? In: Strecker, E. W. and Huber, W. C. (Editors). In: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Urban
Drainage, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Einfalt, T., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Golz, C., Jensen, N.E., Quirmbach, M., Vaes, G. and Vieux, B., 2004. Towards a
roadmap for use of radar rainfall data in urban drainage. J. Hydrol., 299 (34): 186202.
50
Einfalt, T., Jessen, M. and Mehlig, B., 2005. Comparison of radar and raingauge measurements during heavy
rainfall. Water Sci. Technol., 51 (2): 95201.
Fankhauser, R., 1998. Influence of systematic errors from tipping bucket rain gauges on recorded rainfall data.
Water Science and Technology, 37: 121 129.
Faures, J.M., Goodrich, D., Woolhiser, D. A., and Sorooshian, S., 1995. Impact of small-scale spatial rainfall
variability on runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 173: 309326.
Geer C., 2005. Radar products and operational applications. WMO-TSMS. In: Proc Training course on weather
radar systems: Turkey radar training 1.0; 1216 September 2005, at Antalya, Turkey.
Giulianelli, M., Miserocchi, F., Napolitano, F., and Russo, F., 2006. Influence of space-time rainfall variability
on urban runoff. Proceedings of the 17th IASTED International Conference Modelling and Simulation, 24-26
May, 2006 at Montreal, QC, Canada.
Goormans, T., 2011. Analysis of local weather radar in support of sewer system modelling. Hydraulics
Laboratory - Department of Civil Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium (unpubl.), 212 pp.
Jensen, N.E. and Pedersen, L., 2005. Spatial variability of rainfall: variations within a single radar pixel. Atmos.
Res., 77 (14): 269277 (SPEC. ISS.).
Lei, J.H., and Schilling, W., 1994. Parameter uncertainty propagation analysis for urban rainfall runoff
modeling. Water Science and Technology, 29 (1-2): 145-154.
Lengfeld, K; Clemens, M; Mnster, H and Ament, F, 2014. Urban High-Resolution Precipitation Product:
Combining C-Band and Local X-Band Radar. In: Proc. 8th European Conference on Radar in Meteorology and
Hydrology (ERAD), 1-5 September 2014 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Lffler-Mang, M. and Jrg J., 1999. An Optical Disdrometer for Measuring Size and Velocity of Hydrometeors.
J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 17: 130139.
Luyckx, G., Willems, P., and Berlamont, J., 1998. Influence of the spatial variability of rainfall on sewer system
design. In Wheater, H. and Kirby, C. (Eds.), Hydrology in a changing environment, In: Proc. British Hydrological
Soc. Int. Conf., Exeter, UK.
Luyckx , G. and Berlamont, J., 2001. Simplified Method to Correct Rainfall Measurements from Tipping Bucket Rain
Gauges. In: Brashear, R. and Maksimovic, C. (Editors), Urban Drainage Modeling. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 767-776.
51
Marshall, J. and Palmer, W., 1948. The distribution of raindrops with size. Journal of Meteorology, 5: 165166.
Meischner, P. (Editor), 2003. Weather Radar: Principles and advanced Applications. Springer, Germany, 337
pp.
Morena, F., Andrieu, H., Rodriguez, F., and Creutin, J.-D., 2002. Effect of rainfall variability on the hydrological
behavior of urban basins: a simulation study based on weather radar data. In Strecker, E. W. and Huber, W. C.
(Eds.), Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Urban Drainage, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Nielsen, J.E., Thorndahl, S. and Rasmussen, M.R., 2012. Evaluering af ny processeringsmetode til LAWR. DCE
Technical Reports, 149: 40 p.
Nielsen, J.E., 2013. Combining C-band and X-band weather radars for accurate precipitation measurements
over urban areas. Phd Thesis Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg.
Nielsen, J.E., Jensen, N.E., Rasmussen, M.R., 2013a. Calibrating LAWR weather radar using laser disdrometers.
Atmospheric Research, 122: 165-173.
Nielsen, J.E., Bevenb, K., Thorndahl, S. and Rasmussen, M.R., 2014a. GLUE based marine X-band weather radar
data calibration and uncertainty estimation. Urban Water Journal.
Nielsen, J.E., Thorndahl, S. and Rasmussen, M.R, 2014b. Improving weather radar precipitation estimates by
combining two types of radars. Atmospheric Research, 139: 36-45.
Ochoa-Rodriguez, S., ten Veldhuis, M.C., Bruni, G., Gires, A., van Assel, J, Wang, L., Reinoso-Rodinel, R., Ichiba,
A., Kroll, S., Schertzer, D., Onof, C. and Willems, P., 2014. Multi-storm, multi-catchment investigation of rainfall
spatial resolution requirements for urban hydrological applications. In: Proc. European Geoscience Union
General Assembly, 27 April-2 May 2014 at Vienna, Austria.
Pedersen, L., 2004. Scaling properties of precipitation. Experimental study using weather radar and rain
gauges. Proceedings of a Masters thesis, Aalborg University.
Pedersen, L., Zawadzki, I., Jensen, N.E., and Madsen, H., 2008. Assessment of QPE results from 4 kW X-band
Local Area Weather Radar (LAWR) evaluated with S-band radar data. In: Proc. The Fifth European Conference
on Radar in Meteorology and Hydrology (ERAD), 30 June - 4 July 2008 at Helsinki, Finland.
52
Pedersen, L., Jensen, N. E., and Madsen, H., 2010. Calibration of Local Area Weather Radar. Identifying
significant factors affecting the calibration. Atmospheric Research, 97: 129143.
Probert-Jones, J., 1962. The radar equation in meteorology. Quarterly Journalof the Royal Meteorological
Society, 88 (378): 485495.
Robert, A and Houze, Jr., 1993. Cloud dynamics. Academic press Inc, California, 573 pp.
Robert, A. and Houze, Jr., 1997. Stratiform Precipitation in Regions of Convection: A Meteorological Paradox?.
American Meteorological Society, 78: 2179 -2196.
Rollenbeck, R. and Bendix, J., 2006. Experimental calibration of a cost-effective X-band weather radar for
climate ecological studies in southern Ecuador. Atmos. Res., 79 (34): 296316.
lek, M., Cheze, J-L., Handwerker, J., Delobbe, L. and Uijlenhoet, R., 2004. Radar techniques for identifying
Precipitation type and estimating quantity of precipitation .
Schilling, W. and Fuchs, L., 1986. Errors in Stormwater Modeling, A Quantitative Assessment. J. Hydraul. Eng.,
112 (2): 111123.
Steiner, M., Houze, R.A. and Yuter, S.E., 1995. Climatological characterization of three-dimensional storm
structure from operational radar and rain gauge data. Journal of applied meteorology, 34: 1978-2007.
Strahler, A. and Strahler, A., 2003. Introducing Physical Geography (3rd ed). WILEY. New York/ Great Britain,
684 pp.
Testik, F.Y. and Gebremichael, M., 2013. Dual-polarization Radar Rainfall Estimation. In: Testik, F. Y and
Gebremichael, M. (Editors), Rainfall: State of the Science. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C.
Thorndahl, S. L. and Rasmussen, M. R., 2009. Challenges in X-band weather radar data calibration. In: Proc.
8th International workshop on precipitation in urban areas. Rainfall in the Urban Context: Forecasting, Risk
and Climate Change, 10-13 December 2009, at Switzerland.
Thorndal, S., Rasmussen, M.R., 2012. Marine X-band weather radar data calibration. Atmospheric Research,
103: 3344.
53
Uijlenhoet, R., 2001. Raindrop size distributions and radar reflectivity-rain rate relationships for radar
hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 5(4): 615627.
Van Mameren, H., and Clemens, F., 1997. Guidelines for hydrodynamic calculations on urban drainage in the
Netherlands: overview and principles. Water Science and Technology, 36, (8-9): 247-252.
Watt, Alan (2000). Rasterizing edges. 3D Computer Graphics (3 edition). p. 184.
Willems, P., and Berlamont, J.,1999. Probabilistic modeling of sewer system overflow emissions, Water
Science and Technology, 39 (9): 47 54.
Willems, P. and Berlamont, J., 2002. Accounting for the spatial rainfall variability in urban modelling
applications. Water Science and Technology, 45 (2): 105112.
Willems P., 2005. Uncertainties in Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. In: Lehr, J.H. and Keeley, J. (Editors). Water
Encyclopedia, 5: 297-303.
WMO, 2008. Guide to Hydrological Practices. Vol. I, Hydrology-From measurements to hydrological
Information. Chairperson, Publications Board. Geneva, Switzerland. 168: 296 pp.

Improved Data Processing X Band Radar Leuven

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improved Data Processing X Band Radar Leuven

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

Carlos Muoz, September 2014

Problem Definition ................................................................................................................... 1

Thesis Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3

RAINFALL MEASUREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 3

Types of Precipitation ............................................................................................................... 3

Tipping Bucket Rain Gauges ...................................................................................................... 5

Working principle of the tipping bucket rain gauge ........................................................... 5

Uncertainties in rain gauge measurements. ...................................................................... 5

Radar equation ................................................................................................................. 7

Types of radar ................................................................................................................... 9

Spatial and temporal resolution in weather radars. ......................................................... 11

LAWR X-Band Radar................................................................................................................ 11

LEUVEN CASE STUDY ...................................................................................................................... 15

Weather in Leuven ................................................................................................................. 15

LAWR Leuven City Radar ......................................................................................................... 17

Leuven Rain Gauges................................................................................................................ 18

REVIEW OF DIFFERENT CALIBRATION METHODS ............................................................................ 19

Calibration Methods ............................................................................................................... 19

LAWR Improved Preprocessed Data (dBZ outputs).................................................................. 21

Data Preparation .................................................................................................................... 23

Quality Analysis. ..................................................................................................................... 24

Calibration Methods ............................................................................................................... 24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................................ 26

Quality Analysis Results And Discussions................................................................................. 26

Linear Regression Method Results and Discussions ................................................................. 30

Marshall Palmer Paramenters Calibration Method................................................................ 32

K- Calibration Method Results And Discussion. ..................................................................... 33

Spatial resolution influence. ............................................................................................ 39

Clutter influence ............................................................................................................. 40

Covered area influence ................................................................................................... 43

Maximum intensities , total amount of rainfall and duration influence ........................... 43

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 46

Recommendations And Future Work ...................................................................................... 48

Describes the formation process of convective and stratiform events. ................................. 4

Working principl Working principle of a TBRG ...................................................................... 5

Working principle of a weather Radar .................................................................................. 7

Scanned volume by a weather radar ..................................................................................... 8

Beam filling volume correction .......................................................................................... 13

Climatological information of Leuven based on monthly averages .................................... 15

Standard calibration method example ............................................................................... 19

Linear regression method for 3 of the rain gauges. ............................................................. 30

dBZ scale for weather radar.. ............................................................................................ 9

Weather radar types ...................................................................................................... 10

LAWR city radar technical characteristics. ........................................................................ 12

Characteristics of Leuven rain gauges. . ........................................................................... 18

Events during June 2014 and mean characteristics . ......................................................... 23

Coefficient of determination values during the events of June 2014 . 34

Coefficient factor lineal calibration method

Danish Meteorological Institute

Digital Outputs Radar

Diestestraat Rain Gauge

Drop Size Distribution

EgenHovestraat Rain Gauge

Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation methodology for LAWR data calibration

Hogeebeek Rain Gauge

IUPWARE Inter-University Program in Water Resource Engineering

Constant of K calibration method

Keulenstraat Rain Gauge

Local area weather radar

LAWR CR LAWR City Radar

Mean Square Error

OudHevstraat Rain Gauge