[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (19)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = radar-rain gauge merging

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
16 pages, 6978 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of Radar Precipitation Products and Assessment of the Gauge-Radar Merging Methods in Southeast Texas for Extreme Precipitation Events
by Wenzhao Li, Han Jiang, Dongfeng Li, Philip B. Bedient and Zheng N. Fang
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(8), 2033; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15082033 - 12 Apr 2023
Viewed by 1730
Abstract
Many radar-gauge merging methods have been developed to produce improved rainfall data by leveraging the advantages of gauge and radar observations. Two popular merging methods, Regression Kriging and Bayesian Regression Kriging were utilized and compared in this study to produce hourly rainfall data [...] Read more.
Many radar-gauge merging methods have been developed to produce improved rainfall data by leveraging the advantages of gauge and radar observations. Two popular merging methods, Regression Kriging and Bayesian Regression Kriging were utilized and compared in this study to produce hourly rainfall data from gauge networks and multi-source radar datasets. The authors collected, processed, and modeled the gauge and radar rainfall data (Stage IV, MRMS and RTMA radar data) of the two extreme storm events (i.e., Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019) occurring in the coastal area in Southeast Texas with devastating flooding. The analysis of the modeled data on consideration of statistical metrics, physical rationality, and computational expenses, implies that while both methods can effectively improve the radar rainfall data, the Regression Kriging model demonstrates its superior performance over that of the Bayesian Regression Kriging model since the latter is found to be prone to overfitting issues due to the clustered gauge distributions. Moreover, the spatial resolution of rainfall data is found to affect the merging results significantly, where the Bayesian Regression Kriging model works unskillfully when radar rainfall data with a coarser resolution is used. The study recommends the use of high-quality radar data with properly spatial-interpolated gauge data to improve the radar-gauge merging methods. The authors believe that the findings of the study are critical for assisting hazard mitigation and future design improvement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hydrometeorological Hazards in the USA and Europe)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area including the watersheds and the total rain gauges assessed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Rain gauges within/near the study area for (<b>a</b>) Hurricane Harvey (2017) and (<b>b</b>) Tropical Storm Imelda (2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart of the methodology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Original Stage IV of Hurricane Harvey, (<b>b</b>) Original MRMS of Hurricane Harvey, (<b>c</b>) Original RTMA of Hurricane Harvey, (<b>d</b>) Original Stage IV of Tropical Storm Imelda, (<b>e</b>) Original MRMS of Tropical Storm Imelda and (<b>f</b>) Original RTMA of Tropical Storm Imelda.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatterplots of original radar data and calibration gauge data from (<b>a</b>) Stage IV of Hurricane Harvey, (<b>b</b>) MRMS of Hurricane Harvey, (<b>c</b>) RTMA of Hurricane Harvey, and (<b>d</b>) Stage IV of Tropical Storm Imelda, (<b>e</b>) MRMS of Tropical Storm Imelda, (<b>f</b>) RTMA of Tropical Storm Imelda.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Precipitation maps from merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, (<b>f</b>) RTMA using RK method during Hurricane Harvey.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Precipitation maps from merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, (<b>f</b>) RTMA using RK method during Tropical Storm Imelda.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatter plots of calibration gauge data and merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using the BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, and (<b>f</b>) RTMA using the RK method during Hurricane Harvey.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatter plots of validation gauge data and merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, and (<b>f</b>) RTMA using RK method during Hurricane Harvey.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Scatter plots of calibration gauge data and merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using the BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, and (<b>f</b>) RTMA using the RK method during Tropical Storm Imelda.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Scatter plots of validation gauge data and merged radar-gauge data of (<b>a</b>) Stage IV, (<b>b</b>) MRMS, (<b>c</b>) RTMA using the BRK method, (<b>d</b>) Stage IV, (<b>e</b>) MRMS, and (<b>f</b>) RTMA using the RK method during Tropical Storm Imelda.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 10976 KiB  
Article
A GIS-Based Methodology to Combine Rain Gauge and Radar Rainfall Estimates of Precipitation Using the Conditional Merging Technique for High-Resolution Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts in Țibleș and Rodnei Mountains
by István Kocsis, Ioan-Aurel Irimuș, Cristian Patriche, Ștefan Bilașco, Narcis Maier, Sanda Roșca, Dănuț Petrea and Blanka Bartók
Atmosphere 2022, 13(7), 1106; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13071106 - 14 Jul 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2748
Abstract
Rain gauges provide accurate rainfall amount data; however, the interpolation of their data is difficult, especially because of the high spatial and temporal variability. On the other hand, a high-resolution type of information is highly required in hydrological modeling for discharge calculations in [...] Read more.
Rain gauges provide accurate rainfall amount data; however, the interpolation of their data is difficult, especially because of the high spatial and temporal variability. On the other hand, a high-resolution type of information is highly required in hydrological modeling for discharge calculations in small catchments. This problem is partially solved by meteorological radars, which provide precipitation data with high spatial and temporal distributions over large areas. The purpose of this study is to validate a conditional merging technique (CMT) for 15 rainfall events that occurred on the southern slope of the Tibleș and Rodnei Mountains (Northern Romania). A Geographic Information System (GIS) methodology, based on three interpolation techniques—simple kriging, ordinary kriging, and cokriging—were utilized to derive continuous precipitation fields based on discrete rain gauge precipitation data and to derive interpolated radar data at rain gauge locations, and spatial analysis tools were developed to extract and analyze the optimal information content from both radar data and measurements. The dataset contains rainfall events that occurred in the period of 2015–2018, having 24 h temporal resolution. The model performance accuracy was carried out by using three validation metrics: mean bias error (MBE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error (RMSE). The validation stage showed that our model, based on conditional merging technique, performed very well in 11 out of 15 rainfall events (approximate 78%), with an MAE under 0.4 mm and RMSE under 0.7 mm. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Climatology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area and position of Bobohalma radar.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The scheme of the methodological workflow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p><b>Left</b>—24 h rain intensity radar image. <b>Right</b>—radar image reproduced in ArcMap, an event from 13 June 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Conditional merging process: (<b>a</b>) rainfall estimated by radar; (<b>b</b>) rainfall measured by rain gauges and kriged at the resolution of the radar pixel; (<b>c</b>) rainfall estimated by the radar at the rain gauge locations and kriged; (<b>d</b>) final rainfall field estimated by the conditional merging technique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Merged rainfall estimates for the 15 studied events.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Frontal system comparative rainfall amounts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Convective cells comparative rainfall amounts.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 10556 KiB  
Article
Mosaicking Weather Radar Retrievals from an Operational Heterogeneous Network at C and X Band for Precipitation Monitoring in Italian Central Apennines
by Stefano Barbieri, Saverio Di Fabio, Raffaele Lidori, Francesco L. Rossi, Frank S. Marzano and Errico Picciotti
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(2), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14020248 - 6 Jan 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2695
Abstract
Meteorological radar networks are suited to remotely provide atmospheric precipitation retrieval over a wide geographic area for severe weather monitoring and near-real-time nowcasting. However, blockage due to buildings, hills, and mountains can hamper the potential of an operational weather radar system. The Abruzzo [...] Read more.
Meteorological radar networks are suited to remotely provide atmospheric precipitation retrieval over a wide geographic area for severe weather monitoring and near-real-time nowcasting. However, blockage due to buildings, hills, and mountains can hamper the potential of an operational weather radar system. The Abruzzo region in central Italy’s Apennines, whose hydro-geological risks are further enhanced by its complex orography, is monitored by a heterogeneous system of three microwave radars at the C and X bands with different features. This work shows a systematic intercomparison of operational radar mosaicking methods, based on bi-dimensional rainfall products and dealing with both C and X bands as well as single- and dual-polarization systems. The considered mosaicking methods can take into account spatial radar-gauge adjustment as well as different spatial combination approaches. A data set of 16 precipitation events during the years 2018–2020 in the central Apennines is collected (with a total number of 32,750 samples) to show the potentials and limitations of the considered operational mosaicking approaches, using a geospatially-interpolated dense network of regional rain gauges as a benchmark. Results show that the radar-network pattern mosaicking, based on the anisotropic radar-gauge adjustment and spatial averaging of composite data, is better than the conventional maximum-value merging approach. The overall analysis confirms that heterogeneous weather radar mosaicking can overcome the issues of single-frequency fixed radars in mountainous areas, guaranteeing a better spatial coverage and a more uniform rainfall estimation accuracy over the area of interest. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Locations and pictures of the weather radars at the C and X bands, installed within the Abruzzo region in central Italy (blue dots) and the location of the 98 quality-controlled rain gauges in the Abruzzo region (red dots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>Top</b>) RAMP chain scheme and (<b>bottom</b>) an example of RAMP application to the Mt. Midia (MM), Tortoreto (TO) and Cepagatti (CE) radars: VMI product before (<b>left</b>) and after (<b>center</b>) data correction as well as the total quality index (TQI) is also shown (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Geospatial correction map applied to the Mt. Midia weather radar, derived from two years of data (2018–2019). (<b>a</b>) Isotropic range adjustment (IRBA) method, (<b>b</b>) anisotropic spatial adjustment (ASBA) method. Red dots indicate the available rain gauge stations not only in Abruzzo but also for central Italy regions covered by the Mt. Midia radar range of 120 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Overview of the CRAMS chain flowchart: all data are collected every 10 min and synchronized, and the related composite products are generated in real time as output maps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>Left panel</b>) The Abruzzo network composite domain with the maximum coverage area chosen for each radar system (120 km for C-band MM, 80 km for X-band CE, and 60 km for X-band TO). (<b>Right panel</b>) Map of the minimum LDB (lowest detectable bin) height, mosaicked from the corresponding maps of the three weather radars represented by the operational maximum range (see the <b>left panel</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>24-h rainfall accumulated during the event occurring during 8 June, 2018: (<b>a</b>) radar composite domain and a (<b>b</b>) rain-gauge network within the Abruzzo region (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>24-h rainfall accumulated during the event occurring during 4 February, 2020: (<b>a</b>) radar composite domain and the (<b>b</b>) rain-gauge network within the Abruzzo region (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>24-h rainfall accumulated during the event occurring on 7 October, 2020: (<b>a</b>) radar composite domain and the (<b>b</b>) rain-gauge network within the Abruzzo region (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Composite radar products generated by CRAMS for the event occurring on 10 July, 2019: (<b>a</b>) VMI, (<b>b</b>) SRI, (<b>c</b>) VIL, (<b>d</b>) POH (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Time series of rainfall temporal accumulation (see Equation (7)), based on rain-gauge data (C<sub>RG</sub>) and weather radar mosaic data (C<sub>WRNet</sub>) with different mosaicking techniques, for the event occurring on 8 June, 2018. For comparison, the rainfall temporal accumulation from MM single-radar (with and without anisotropic correction) is also shown. See <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a> for the label legend meaning. (<b>b</b>) Scatterplot of radar mosaic hourly rain rate estimates <span class="html-italic">R<sub>WRNet</sub></span> (see Equation (6)) and rain-gauge hourly rain rate <span class="html-italic">R<sub>RG</sub></span> during the same event. The hourly rain rate <span class="html-italic">R<sub>WRNet</sub></span> (see Equation (5)) from the weather radar mosaic is obtained by means of the average method (label 2b in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a>, but for the event occurring on 4 February 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a>, but for the event occurring on 7 October 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) Scatterplot of M. Midia radar and rain-gauge hourly rain rates during all events listed in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a>; (<b>b</b>) scatterplot of the hourly rain rates between radar mosaic estimates, <span class="html-italic">R<sub>WRNet</sub></span>, obtained using the average method (2b in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a>), and rain-gauge estimates, <span class="html-italic">R<sub>RG</sub></span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Overall error indices of both the tested merging methods and the single radar. (<b>a</b>) ID 1-1ab, (<b>b</b>) ID 2-2ab, (<b>c</b>) ID 3-3ab, (<b>d</b>) ID 4-4ab (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a>), tested in the composite domain using the whole dataset listed in <a href="#remotesensing-14-00248-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 11794 KiB  
Article
Assessment of a Gauge-Radar-Satellite Merged Hourly Precipitation Product for Accurately Monitoring the Characteristics of the Super-Strong Meiyu Precipitation over the Yangtze River Basin in 2020
by Zihao Pang, Chunxiang Shi, Junxia Gu, Yang Pan and Bin Xu
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(19), 3850; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193850 - 26 Sep 2021
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2397
Abstract
The recently developed gauge-radar-satellite merged hourly precipitation dataset (CMPAS-NRT) offers broad applications in scientific research and operations, such as intelligent grid forecasting, meteorological disaster monitoring and warning, and numerical model testing and evaluation. In this paper, we take a super-long Meiyu precipitation process [...] Read more.
The recently developed gauge-radar-satellite merged hourly precipitation dataset (CMPAS-NRT) offers broad applications in scientific research and operations, such as intelligent grid forecasting, meteorological disaster monitoring and warning, and numerical model testing and evaluation. In this paper, we take a super-long Meiyu precipitation process experienced in the Yangtze River basin in the summer of 2020 as the research object, and evaluate the monitoring capability of the CMPAS-NRT for the process from multiple perspectives, such as error indicators, precipitation characteristics, and daily variability in different rainfall areas, using dense surface rain-gauge observation data as a reference. The results show that the error indicators for CMPAS-NRT are in good agreement with the gauge observations. The CMPAS-NRT can accurately reflect the evolution of precipitation during the whole rainy season, and can accurately capture the spatial distribution of rainbands, but there is an underestimation of extreme precipitation. At the same time, the CMPAS-NRT product features the phenomenon of overestimation of precipitation at the level of light rain. In terms of daily variation of precipitation, the precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity are basically consistent with the observations, except that there is a lag in the peak frequency of precipitation, and the frequency of precipitation at night is less than observed, and the intensity of precipitation is higher than observed. Overall, the CMPAS-NRT product can successfully reflect the precipitation characteristics of this super-heavy Meiyu precipitation event, and has a high potential hydrological utilization value. However, further improvement of the precipitation algorithm is needed to solve the problems of overestimation of light rainfall and underestimation of extreme precipitation in order to provide more accurate hourly precipitation monitoring dataset. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The Köppen-Geiger climate map. The area circled in red is the Meiyu monitoring area of this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of surface rainfall observation stations in the Meiyu monitoring area (28°–34°N, 110°–122.5°E) and topographic features, in which the red dots denote the rain gauges of automatic weather stations and the filled parts indicate the topographic height (blue line is the main river). (<b>b</b>) Time-latitude profile of daily precipitation averaged along 110°–122.5°E during the 2020 Meiyu precipitation period (1 June–31 July), in which the red dashed line represents the north-south boundary of the Meiyu monitoring area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of four sub-regions within the Meiyu monitoring area. (<b>b</b>) Comparison of the differences in the average accumulated precipitation of the four sub-regions during the Meiyu precipitation period in 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparative boxplots of the CMPAS–NRT product for different assessment metrics (including each sub–region and the whole region) in the rain monitoring area during the 2020 Meiyu period, in which the red line in the box indicates the median, the plus sign indicates the mean, and the horizontal lines in each boxplot sub–table indicate the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of that assessment metric. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) respectively represent the ME, rBIAS, RMSE, CORR, POD, FAR, FBI, and TS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distributions of different assessment metrics of the CMPAS-NRT product in the Meiyu monitoring area during the 2020 Meiyu period. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) respectively represent the ME, rBIAS, RMSE, CORR, POD, FAR, FBI, and TS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distributions of KGE metric of the CMPAS-NRT product in the Meiyu monitoring area during the 2020 Meiyu period. (<b>b</b>) Boxplots of the CMPAS-NRT product for KGE metric in the rain monitoring area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatterplot of cumulative rainfall observed by surface rain gauges compared to the CMPAS-NRT product in the Meiyu monitoring area during the 2020 Meiyu precipitation period, and their linear regression distribution fits (red straight lines).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Spatial distribution of accumulated precipitation in the RMSE during the rainy season of 2020 (<b>a</b>), hourly time series of average precipitation in the area of rain-gauge observations (red) and CMPAS-NRT products (blue) in the RMSE (<b>b</b>), and hourly time series of precipitation for selected grid cells (<b>c1</b>–<b>c5</b>), where (<b>c1</b>–<b>c3</b>) are three grid points with RMSE greater than 2.5 mm/h, (<b>c4</b>) is the grid point with the largest cumulative precipitation, and (<b>c5</b>) is the grid point with the largest hourly precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Analysis of empirical orthogonal function (EOF) modalities of daily precipitation between rain-gauge observations and CMPAS-NRT products in the Meiyu monitoring area during the 2020 Meiyu precipitation period, where (<b>a1</b>–<b>a3</b>) are the first, second, and third normalized spatial modes obtained from rain-gauge observations, respectively, the percentages (%) on the plots are the variance contributions of each mode, and (<b>a4</b>) shows the time coefficients corresponding to each of their modes (blue line is the main river). Panels (<b>b1</b>–<b>b4</b>) are the results obtained by CMPAS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Statistics of the evaluation results of the CMPAS–NRT product under different hourly precipitation threshold intervals (including each sub–region and the whole region) in the Meiyu monitoring area during the 2020 rainy season. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) respectively represent the ME, rBIAS, RMSE, CORR, POD, FAR, FBI, and TS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relative contribution of precipitation occurrence times recorded by surface rain-gauge observations (red) and CMPAS-NRT products (blue) to the total precipitation occurrence times (including each sub-region and the whole region) during the whole rainy period in 2020 at different hourly precipitation threshold intervals. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) respectively represent hourly precipitation thresholds of 0, 0.1–2 mm/h, 2–5 mm/h, 5–10 mm/h, 10–20 mm/h, and &gt;20 mm/h.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Relative contribution of precipitation occurring in different hourly precipitation threshold intervals to the total precipitation (including each subregion and the whole region) for the whole rainy period in 2020 from surface rain-gauge observations (red) and CMPAS-NRT products (blue). Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>) respectively represent the hourly precipitation thresholds of 0.1–2 mm/h, 2–5 mm/h, 5–10 mm/h, 10–20 mm/h, and &gt;20 mm/h.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Comparative analysis of the daily variation of different assessment metrics of the CMPAS-NRT product in the Meiyu monitoring area (including each sub-region and the whole area) during the Meiyu period in 2020. The gray shaded area is at night (20:00–08:00 BJT). Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) respectively represent the rBIAS, RMSE, CORR, POD, FAR, and TS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Comparative analysis of the daily variation in precipitation (mm/h), precipitation frequency (%), and precipitation intensity (mm/h) between surface rain-gauge observations (Gauge, red) and the CMPAS-NRT product (blue) in the rainfall monitoring area (including each sub-region and the whole area) during the 2020 Meiyu period, with the gray shaded area at night (20:00–08:00 Beijing time). Panels (<b>a1</b>–<b>a5</b>) are the precipitation amounts, (<b>b1</b>–<b>b5</b>) are the precipitation frequencies, and (<b>c1</b>–<b>c5</b>) are the precipitation intensities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Comparative analysis of the daily variation of the joint probability density function (JPDF) between surface rain-gauge observations (Gauge, (<b>a1</b>–<b>a5</b>)) and CMPAS-NRT products ((<b>b1</b>–<b>b5</b>)) by rain intensity class during the 2020 monsoon period, and their difference (Diff = CMPAS − Gauge; (<b>c1</b>–<b>c5</b>)).</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 3311 KiB  
Article
A Deep Learning Multimodal Method for Precipitation Estimation
by Arthur Moraux, Steven Dewitte, Bruno Cornelis and Adrian Munteanu
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(16), 3278; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163278 - 19 Aug 2021
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 4406
Abstract
To improve precipitation estimation accuracy, new methods, which are able to merge different precipitation measurement modalities, are necessary. In this study, we propose a deep learning method to merge rain gauge measurements with a ground-based radar composite and thermal infrared satellite imagery. The [...] Read more.
To improve precipitation estimation accuracy, new methods, which are able to merge different precipitation measurement modalities, are necessary. In this study, we propose a deep learning method to merge rain gauge measurements with a ground-based radar composite and thermal infrared satellite imagery. The proposed convolutional neural network, composed of an encoder–decoder architecture, performs a multiscale analysis of the three input modalities to estimate simultaneously the rainfall probability and the precipitation rate value with a spatial resolution of 2 km. The training of our model and its performance evaluation are carried out on a dataset spanning 5 years from 2015 to 2019 and covering Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and the North Sea. Our results for instantaneous precipitation detection, instantaneous precipitation rate estimation, and for daily rainfall accumulation estimation show that the best accuracy is obtained for the model combining all three modalities. The ablation study, done to compare every possible combination of the three modalities, shows that the combination of rain gauges measurements with radar data allows for a considerable increase in the accuracy of the precipitation estimation, and the addition of satellite imagery provides precipitation estimates where rain gauge and radar coverage are lacking. We also show that our multi-modal model significantly improves performance compared to the European radar composite product provided by OPERA and the quasi gauge-adjusted radar product RADOLAN provided by the DWD for precipitation rate estimation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Artificial Intelligence for Weather and Climate)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Visualization of the three modalities of data source used as input, and also target for the rain gauges (<b>a</b>). The OPERA rain rate composite (<b>b</b>) and the SEVIRI 24-h cloud microphysics RGB (<b>c</b>) images are from 29 September 2019 12:55:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The architecture of our multiscale convolutional model. Each block defines the type of layer and number of filters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Map of the average ME (<b>a</b>), and the standard deviation of the ME (<b>b</b>), for the estimation of the satellite model trained on the DWD network. The map is interpolated from the ME mean and standard deviation values of every rain gauge used in our study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Map of the average ME for the satellite model trained on the DWD network, using our bias correction method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Map of the average ME, for the model using the three modalities of data (satellite, radar and rain gauges), using our bias correction method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The estimation map made by our model with each different combinations of the three modalities, and the rain rate map of OPERA with a minimum rain rate value thresholding, and the RADOLAN YW product, for 31 May 2016 17:40.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The estimation map made by our model with each different combinations of the three modalities, and the rain rate map of OPERA with a minimum rain rate value thresholding, and the RADOLAN YW product, for 27 October 2019 17:25.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 10245 KiB  
Article
Utilization of Weather Radar Data for the Flash Flood Indicator Application in the Czech Republic
by Petr Novák, Hana Kyznarová, Martin Pecha, Petr Šercl, Vojtěch Svoboda and Ondřej Ledvinka
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(16), 3184; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163184 - 11 Aug 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2414
Abstract
In the past few years, demands on flash flood forecasting have grown. The Flash Flood Indicator (FFI) is a system used at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute for the evaluation of the risk of possible occurrence of flash floods over the whole Czech Republic. [...] Read more.
In the past few years, demands on flash flood forecasting have grown. The Flash Flood Indicator (FFI) is a system used at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute for the evaluation of the risk of possible occurrence of flash floods over the whole Czech Republic. The FFI calculation is based on the current soil saturation, the physical-geographical characteristics of every considered area, and radar-based quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) and forecasts (QPFs). For higher reliability of the flash flood risk assessment, calculations of QPEs and QPFs are crucial, particularly when very high intensities of rainfall are reached or expected. QPEs and QPFs entering the FFI computations are the products of the Czech Weather Radar Network. The QPF is based on the COTREC extrapolation method. The radar-rain gauge-combining method MERGE2 is used to improve radar-only QPEs and QPFs. It generates a combined radar-rain gauge QPE based on the kriging with an external drift algorithm, and, also, an adjustment coefficient applicable to radar-only QPEs and QPFs. The adjustment coefficient is applied in situations when corresponding rain gauge measurements are not yet available. A new adjustment coefficient scheme was developed and tested to improve the performance of adjusted radar QPEs and QPFs in the FFI. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The Czech Weather Radar Network—locations of radars (crosses), maximum coverage of radars (circles) and coverage for precipitation estimation according to the recommendations of the project COST 73 (the lowest usable beam 1500 m above ground level) [<a href="#B19-remotesensing-13-03184" class="html-bibr">19</a>,<a href="#B20-remotesensing-13-03184" class="html-bibr">20</a>]. Locations of the gap-filling German and Slovak radars (i.e., used in case of unavailability of Czech radars) are depicted by a green color.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Difference between the old maximum reflectivity compositing (<b>a</b>) and the new quality-based compositing (<b>b</b>) of the PseudoCAPPI 2 km product. The difference is most apparent in the middle-left part of the composites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>An example of the comparison of 1 h radar-only QPEs calculated from the non-interpolated (<b>a</b>) and interpolated (<b>b</b>) PseudoCAPPI 2 km composites. A ‘stroboscopic’ effect is apparent in the QPE using the non-interpolated PseudoCAPPI 2 km composites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The outputs from the web map application ‘Flash Flood Indicator’, running on the ArcGIS Online platform. It depicts the soil saturation indicator (<b>top right</b> panel), 1 h QPE + 1 h QPF ≥ 10 mm/2 h and the actual general flash flood risk in MEPs (<b>bottom left</b> panel).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Distribution of radar-only QPEs vs. rain gauge under- or over-estimation. Comparison is based on 1 h rainfalls over the Czech Republic. Distribution calculated at individual times with a 10 min step during May–September 2018–2020 (<b>a</b>) and during selected significant FFI cases from 2018–2020 (<b>b</b>). Distributions are calculated only from pairs where areal sums of rain gauge measurements over the Czech Republic are ≥10.0 mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>An example of the radar under- or over-estimation variability over 6 days from 3 June 2019 to 9 June 2019 (<b>a</b>) and a detailed view of variability over the 18 h period from 6 June 2019 12:00 UTC to 7 June 2019 06:00 UTC (<b>b</b>). Figures depict one of the episodes with intense rainfall significant for the FFI. Intense rainfalls with FFI response were identified on 4 June 2019, 5 June 2019, and 6–7 June 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Locations of 11 virtual stations used for the computation of LB field are depicted by red circles. Circles of 75 km around each virtual station represent the surroundings from which the bias is computed for the given virtual station. Locations of the CHMI rain gauges are depicted by green circles. Locations of rain gauges of partner organizations are depicted by smaller blue circles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>An example of the LB adjustment field calculation result. The value of bias is written near the location of each virtual station represented by a triangle. The underlying field filling out the whole domain is the visualization of the LB adjustment field obtained using the linear RBF interpolation technique. The nine virtual stations added outside the territory of the Czech Republic ensure that too low or too high values are not present in LB in peripheral areas. Circles represent the real rain gauges; the size of the circle grows with the increasing precipitation sum measured at the rain gauge. The color of the circle corresponds with the radar-rain gauge bias at the grid point where the rain gauge is located.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Cumulative distribution of the bias of individual radar-based QPEs (radar-only QPE, radar QPE adjusted using the MFB coefficient and radar QPE adjusted using the LB field). Distributions were calculated for radar-rain gauge pairs where both the 1 h measured rainfall (rain gauge) and the 1 h radar-based QPE is higher or equal to 1 mm (<b>a</b>) and higher or equal to 10 mm (<b>b</b>). Pairs of 24 h rainfalls from selected significant FFI cases from 2018–2020 were used.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Performance diagram of radar-based QPEs (radar-only QPE, radar QPE adjusted using the MFB coefficient and radar QPE adjusted using the LB field) for selected significant FFI cases from 2018–2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Scatter plots of rainfall sums measured at rain gauges vs. radar-based QPEs for selected significant FFI cases from 2018–2020. An overview plot (<b>a</b>) shows all radar-rain gauge pairs with rainfall above or equal 1 mm, a detailed plot (<b>b</b>) shows only the &lt;1 mm; 80 mm&gt; rainfall interval with the majority of pairs. Solid lines represent the density contours Dotted lines show the sixth-order polynomial regression fits.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 8170 KiB  
Article
Performing Hydrological Monitoring at a National Scale by Exploiting Rain-Gauge and Radar Networks: The Italian Case
by Giulia Bruno, Flavio Pignone, Francesco Silvestro, Simone Gabellani, Federico Schiavi, Nicola Rebora, Pietro Giordano and Marco Falzacappa
Atmosphere 2021, 12(6), 771; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060771 - 15 Jun 2021
Cited by 21 | Viewed by 4176
Abstract
Hydrological monitoring systems relying on radar data and distributed hydrological models are now feasible at large-scale and represent effective early warning systems for flash floods. Here we describe a system that allows hydrological occurrences in terms of streamflow at a national scale to [...] Read more.
Hydrological monitoring systems relying on radar data and distributed hydrological models are now feasible at large-scale and represent effective early warning systems for flash floods. Here we describe a system that allows hydrological occurrences in terms of streamflow at a national scale to be monitored. We then evaluate its operational application in Italy, a country characterized by various climatic conditions and topographic features. The proposed system exploits a modified conditional merging (MCM) algorithm to generate rainfall estimates by blending data from national radar and rain-gauge networks. Then, we use the merged rainfall fields as input for the distributed and continuous hydrological model, Continuum, to obtain real-time streamflow predictions. We assess its performance in terms of rainfall estimates from MCM, using cross-validation and comparison with a conditional merging technique at an event-scale. We also assess its performance against rainfall fields from ground-based data at catchment-scale. We further evaluate the performance of the hydrological system in terms of streamflow against observed data (relative error on high flows less than 25% and Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency greater than 0.5 for 72% and 46% of the calibrated study sections, respectively). These results, therefore, confirm the suitability of such an approach, even at national scale, over a wide range of catchment types, climates, and hydrometeorological regimes, and for operational purposes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of study sections (markers with violet edge are sections with available observed streamflow data).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Italian rain-gauge network (<b>a</b>) and radar network (<b>b</b>). In (<b>b</b>), blue radar icons refer to C-band radars, while light blue ones to X-band radars.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>MCM workflow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Example of empirical 3D local structure evaluated from the radar observation. The values are between 0 (no correlation) and 1 (perfect correlation (located only on the rain-gauge location)).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Difference between MCM (<b>a</b>) and CM (<b>b</b>) regarding the covariance estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Ensemble of statistical moments varying with density. The subplots indicate (<b>a</b>) mean, (<b>b</b>) standard deviation, (<b>c</b>) skewness, and (<b>d</b>) kurtosis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Ensemble of power spectra slope mean along x directions of the interpolators (<b>a</b>) and NSE (<b>b</b>), varying with the density. The blue lines indicate MCM, while the black ones indicate CM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Ensemble of PBIAS (<b>a</b>) and RMSE (<b>b</b>), varying with densities. The blue lines indicate MCM, while the black ones indicate CM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Ensemble of the PDF of differences between run and original field. The subplots correspond to the different sampling percentage of gauge used: (<b>a</b>) 10%, (<b>b</b>) 25%, (<b>c</b>) 50%, and (<b>d</b>) 75%, while the numbers 1 and 2 are the MCM and CM simulations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Scatterplot between daily areal mean rainfall from MCM and daily areal mean rainfall from ground-based data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Maps of RMSE (<b>a</b>) and PBIAS (<b>b</b>) between daily areal mean rainfall from MCM and daily areal mean rainfall from ground-based data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Frequency histograms of RMSE (<b>a</b>) and PBIAS (<b>b</b>) between daily areal mean rainfall from MCM and daily areal mean rainfall from ground-based data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Frequency histograms of REHF (<b>a</b>) and Nash–Sutcliffe (<b>b</b>), considering all the study sections.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Frequency histograms of REHF (<b>a</b>) and Nash–Sutcliffe (<b>b</b>), considering only the calibrated sections.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Frequency histograms of REHF (<b>a</b>) and Nash–Sutcliffe (<b>b</b>), considering only the sections which observed discharge, is evaluated with a score greater than or equal to 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Comparison between observed and modelled hydrographs for a calibrated section.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Comparison between observed and modelled hydrographs for a section not calibrated but with reliable observed streamflow data.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Example of rain-gauge accumulation over the selected spatio-temporal domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Example of radar accumulation, over the same spatio-temporal domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Example of local window domain centered on the rain gauge location (<b>a</b>) and on the radar map (<b>b</b>). On this area, the correlation is evaluated and the best covariance kernel is identified.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Example of fit of covariance kernel on the empirical 1D correlation.</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Example of GRISO interpolation of the rain gauge observations.</p>
Full article ">Figure A6
<p>Example of GRISO interpolation of radar values sampled on rain gauge locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure A7
<p>Example of the difference between GRISO interpolation on radar and rainfall field. This map represents the small scale of the event.</p>
Full article ">Figure A8
<p>Example of the final product of MCM accumulation.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 5533 KiB  
Article
Quality-Based Combination of Multi-Source Precipitation Data
by Anna Jurczyk, Jan Szturc, Irena Otop, Katarzyna Ośródka and Piotr Struzik
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(11), 1709; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111709 - 27 May 2020
Cited by 21 | Viewed by 3678
Abstract
A quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) provides basic information for the modelling of many kinds of hydro-meteorological processes, e.g., as input to rainfall-runoff models for flash flood forecasting. Weather radar observations are crucial in order to meet the requirements, because of their very high [...] Read more.
A quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) provides basic information for the modelling of many kinds of hydro-meteorological processes, e.g., as input to rainfall-runoff models for flash flood forecasting. Weather radar observations are crucial in order to meet the requirements, because of their very high temporal and spatial resolution. Other sources of precipitation data, such as telemetric rain gauges and satellite observations, are also included in the QPE. All of the used data are characterized by different temporal and spatial error structures. Therefore, a combination of the data should be based on quality information quantitatively determined for each input to take advantage of a particular source of precipitation measurement. The presented work on multi-source QPE, being implemented as the RainGRS system, has been carried out in the Polish national meteorological and hydrological service for new nowcasting and hydrological platforms in Poland. For each of the three data sources, different quality algorithms have been designed: (i) rain gauge data is quality controlled and, on this basis, spatial interpolation and estimation of quality field is performed, (ii) radar data are quality controlled by RADVOL-QC software that corrects errors identified in the data and characterizes its final quality, (iii) NWC SAF (Satellite Application Facility on support to Nowcasting and Very Short Range Forecasting) products for both visible and infrared channels are combined and the relevant quality field is determined from empirical relationships that are based on analyses of the product performance. Subsequently, the quality-based QPE is generated with a 1-km spatial resolution every 10 minutes (corresponding to radar data). The basis for the combination is a conditional merging technique that is enhanced by involving detailed quality information that is assigned to individual input data. The validation of the RainGRS estimates was performed taking account of season and kind of precipitation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Location of telemetric rain gauges in Poland.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Coverage by weather radar network POLRAD with 100-, 200-, and 250-km range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Example of precipitation accumulation estimated from Convective Rainfall Rate from Cloud Physical Properties (CRR-PH) and Precipitating Clouds from Cloud Physical Properties (PC-PH) products employing the daytime algorithm (17 May 2014, 08:00 UTC): (<b>a</b>) CRR-PH transformed into 10-min accumulation (in mm), (<b>b</b>) PC-PH (precipitation probability in %), and (<b>c</b>) 10-min precipitation accumulation <span class="html-italic">S<sub>day</sub></span> (in mm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Example of precipitation accumulation estimated from Convective Rainfall Rate (CRR) and Precipitating Clouds (PC) products employing the nighttime algorithm (16 May 2014, 00:00 UTC): (<b>a</b>) CRR transformed into 10-min accumulation (in mm), (<b>b</b>) PC (precipitation probability in %), and (<b>c</b>) 10-min precipitation accumulation <span class="html-italic">S<sub>night</sub></span> (in mm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Precipitation fields (as 10-min accumulations) for the area of Poland, 22 May 2019, 14:20 UTC: (<b>a</b>) precipitation fields: rain gauge (<span class="html-italic">G<sub>int</sub></span>), (<b>b</b>) weather radar (<span class="html-italic">R</span>), and (<b>c</b>) Meteosat satellite (<span class="html-italic">S</span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Quality fields assigned to the precipitation data from <a href="#remotesensing-12-01709-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>, 22 May 2019, 14:20 UTC: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">QI</span> fields for precipitation data: rain gauge (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>G</sub></span>), (<b>b</b>) weather radar (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>R</sub></span>), and (<b>c</b>) Meteosat satellite (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>S</sub></span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Result of RainGRS combination for the area of Poland, 22 May 2019, 14:20 UTC: (<b>a</b>) combined precipitation field <span class="html-italic">GRS</span>, (<b>b</b>) relevant quality field <span class="html-italic">QI<sub>GRS</sub></span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Networks of climatological and telemetric rain gauges in Poland.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Monthly values of quality metrics: (<b>a</b>) correlation coefficient (<span class="html-italic">CC</span>), (<b>b</b>) root relative square error (<span class="html-italic">RRSE</span>), for particular precipitation fields: interpolated rain gauges (<span class="html-italic">G<sub>int</sub></span>), raw radar (<span class="html-italic">R<sub>raw</sub></span>), unbiased radar (<span class="html-italic">R</span>), satellite (<span class="html-italic">S</span>), and merged (<span class="html-italic">GRS</span>). The values are obtained for three months from different seasons: winter (December 2018), mixed (April 2019), and summer (July 2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Impact of rain gauge and radar data qualities on reliability of merged <span class="html-italic">GRS</span> precipitation field: (<b>a</b>) correlation coefficient (<span class="html-italic">CC</span>), (<b>b</b>) root relative square error (<span class="html-italic">RRSE</span>). Data from three months: December 2018, April and July 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Diagrams of monthly values of correlation coefficient (<span class="html-italic">CC</span>) for particular precipitation fields: interpolated rain gauges (<span class="html-italic">G<sub>int</sub></span>), raw radar (<span class="html-italic">R<sub>raw</sub></span>), unbiased radar (<span class="html-italic">R</span>), and merged (<span class="html-italic">GRS</span>) depending on gauge data quality (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>G</sub></span>) at the top and radar data quality (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>R</sub></span>) at the bottom. The diagrams are obtained for winter (December 2018), mixed (April 2019), and summer (July 2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Diagrams of monthly values of root relative square error (<span class="html-italic">RRSE</span>) for particular precipitation fields: interpolated rain gauges (<span class="html-italic">G<sub>int</sub></span>), raw radar (<span class="html-italic">R<sub>raw</sub></span>), unbiased radar (<span class="html-italic">R</span>), and merged (<span class="html-italic">GRS</span>), depending on gauge data quality (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>G</sub></span>) at the top and radar data quality (<span class="html-italic">QI<sub>R</sub></span>) at the bottom. The diagrams are obtained for winter (December 2018), mixed (April 2019), and summer (July 2019).</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 4763 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of Radar-Gauge Merging Techniques to Be Used in Operational Flood Forecasting in Urban Watersheds
by Dayal Wijayarathne, Paulin Coulibaly, Sudesh Boodoo and David Sills
Water 2020, 12(5), 1494; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051494 - 23 May 2020
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 4249
Abstract
Demand for radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (QPEs) as precipitation forcing to hydrological models in operational flood forecasting has increased in the recent past. It is practically impossible to get error-free QPEs due to the intrinsic limitations of weather radar as a precipitation measurement [...] Read more.
Demand for radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (QPEs) as precipitation forcing to hydrological models in operational flood forecasting has increased in the recent past. It is practically impossible to get error-free QPEs due to the intrinsic limitations of weather radar as a precipitation measurement tool. Adjusting radar QPEs with gauge observations by combining their advantages while minimizing their weaknesses increases the accuracy and reliability of radar QPEs. This study deploys several techniques to merge two dual-polarized King City radar (WKR) C-band and two KBUF Next-Generation Radar (NEXRAD) S-band operational radar QPEs with rain gauge data for the Humber River (semi-urban) and Don River (urban) watersheds in Ontario, Canada. The relative performances are assessed against an independent gauge network by comparing hourly rainfall events. The Cumulative Distribution Function Matching (CDFM) method performed best, followed by Kriging with Radar-based Error correction (KRE). Although both WKR and NEXRAD radar QPEs improved significantly, NEXRAD Level III Digital Precipitation Array (DPA) provided the best results. All methods performed better for low- to medium-intensity precipitation but deteriorated with the increasing rainfall intensities. All methods outperformed radar only QPEs for all events, but the agreement is best in the summer. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Humber River and Don River watersheds, and coverages of the nearest radar sites (WKR and KBUF).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flow chart showing an overview of the methods and evaluation process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>RMSE (mm), MAE (mm), BIAS (%), correlation (r), and RMSF of all radar-gauge merging methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Box plots showing the distribution of precipitation values after radar-gauge merging for Gauge (G), C1, N1, C2, and N2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatterplots of radar quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) hourly accumulations as a function of the hourly gauge accumulations before and after radar-gauge merging (Note: both horizontal and vertical axes are in log scale).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Average correlation (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and RMSE (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) between the hourly accumulation of merged radar QPEs and gauge measurements for each event. Note: Summer events: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13-17; Spring events: 2, 7, and 8; Fall events: 6, 11, 12, and 18.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison between the gauge (G), NEXRAD radar only QPEs (RO), and KRE merged QPE (KRE) precipitation field for event 3 (8 July 2013 1800 UTC to 9 July 2013 0200 UTC). The numbers represent observed precipitations at each gauge station in mm.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 4068 KiB  
Article
Geostatistical Based Models for the Spatial Adjustment of Radar Rainfall Data in Typhoon Events at a High-Elevation River Watershed
by Keh-Han Wang, Ted Chu, Ming-Der Yang and Ming-Cheng Chen
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(9), 1427; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091427 - 1 May 2020
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2584
Abstract
Geographical constraints limit the number and placement of gauges, especially in mountainous regions, so that rainfall values over the ungauged regions are generally estimated through spatial interpolation. However, spatial interpolation easily misses the representation of the overall rainfall distribution due to undersampling if [...] Read more.
Geographical constraints limit the number and placement of gauges, especially in mountainous regions, so that rainfall values over the ungauged regions are generally estimated through spatial interpolation. However, spatial interpolation easily misses the representation of the overall rainfall distribution due to undersampling if the number of stations is insufficient. In this study, two algorithms based on the multivariate regression-kriging (RK) and merging spatial interpolation techniques were developed to adjust rain fields from unreliable radar estimates using gauge observations as target values for the high-elevation Chenyulan River watershed in Taiwan. The developed geostatistical models were applied to the events of five moderate to high magnitude typhoons, namely Kalmaegi, Morakot, Fungwong, Sinlaku, and Fanapi, that struck Taiwan in the past 12 years, such that the QPESUMS’ (quantitative precipitation estimation and segregation using multiple sensors) radar rainfall data could be reasonably corrected with accuracy, especially when the sampling conditions were inadequate. The interpolated rainfall values by the RK and merging techniques were cross validated with the gauge measurements and compared to the interpolated results from the ordinary kriging (OK) method. The comparisons and performance evaluations were carried out and analyzed from three different aspects (error analysis, hyetographs, and data scattering plots along the 45-degree reference line). Based on the results, it was clearly shown that both of the RK and merging methods could effectively produce reliable rainfall data covering the study watershed. Both approaches could improve the event rainfall values, with the root-mean-square error (RMSE) reduced by up to roughly 30% to 40% at locations inside the watershed. The averaged coefficient of efficiency (CE) from the adjusted rainfall data could also be improved to the level of 0.84 or above. It was concluded that the original QPESUMS rainfall data through the process of RK or merging spatial interpolations could be corrected with better accuracy for most stations tested. According to the error analysis, relatively, the RK procedure, when applied to the five typhoon events, consistently made better adjustments on the original radar rainfall data than the merging method did for fitting to the gauge data. In addition, the RK and merging methods were demonstrated to outperform the univariate OK method for correcting the radar data, especially for the locations with the issues of having inadequate numbers of gauge stations around them or distant from each other. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensing in Geology, Geomorphology and Hydrology)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The Chenyulan river watershed and its riverine system in Taiwan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Locations of rain gauges in the Chenyulan river watershed and surrounding regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sample time slice of the unadjusted quantitative precipitation estimation and segregation using multiple sensors (QPESUMS) radar rainfall data from Typhoon Morakot in August 2009.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Sample plot showing a trend surface of the QPESUMS rainfall distribution, and (<b>b</b>) sample plot of the residual surface of rainfall variation, based on radar data from Typhoon Morakot in August 2009.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Sample semivariogram fitted with a spherical model based on data from Typhoon Morakot at 12:20 pm on August 9, 2009.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Hyetographs at station C1I060 showing the complete time variations in the rainfall data from RK (adjusted), merging (adjusted), QPESUMS (unadjusted), and gauges for the event of Typhoon Kalmaegi.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison plots between gauge measurements and rainfall data from RK, merging, and QPESUMS at (<b>a</b>) C1M440, (<b>b</b>) C1I060, and (<b>c</b>) C1I080 for the event of Typhoon Kalmaegi.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Hyetographs at station C1I060 showing the complete time variations in rainfall data from RK (adjusted), QPESUMS (unadjusted), and gauges for the event of Typhoon Morakot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison plots between the gauge measurements and rainfall data from RK, merging, and QPESUMS at (<b>a</b>) C1M440, (<b>b</b>) C1I060, and (<b>c</b>) C1I080 for the event of Typhoon Morakot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Hyetographs at station C1I060 showing the complete time variations in the rainfall data from RK (adjusted), merging (adjusted), QPESUMS (unadjusted), and gauges for the event of Typhoon Fungwong.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Hyetographs at station C1I060 showing the complete time variations in rainfall data from RK (adjusted), merging (adjusted), QPESUMS (unadjusted), and gauges for the event of Typhoon Sinlaku.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 27225 KiB  
Article
Cross-Examination of Similarity, Difference and Deficiency of Gauge, Radar and Satellite Precipitation Measuring Uncertainties for Extreme Events Using Conventional Metrics and Multiplicative Triple Collocation
by Zhi Li, Mengye Chen, Shang Gao, Zhen Hong, Guoqiang Tang, Yixin Wen, Jonathan J. Gourley and Yang Hong
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(8), 1258; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081258 - 16 Apr 2020
Cited by 39 | Viewed by 4374
Abstract
Quantifying uncertainties of precipitation estimation, especially in extreme events, could benefit early warning of water-related hazards like flash floods and landslides. Rain gauges, weather radars, and satellites are three mainstream data sources used in measuring precipitation but have their own inherent advantages and [...] Read more.
Quantifying uncertainties of precipitation estimation, especially in extreme events, could benefit early warning of water-related hazards like flash floods and landslides. Rain gauges, weather radars, and satellites are three mainstream data sources used in measuring precipitation but have their own inherent advantages and deficiencies. With a focus on extremes, the overarching goal of this study is to cross-examine the similarities and differences of three state-of-the-art independent products (Muti-Radar Muti-Sensor Quantitative Precipitation Estimates, MRMS; National Center for Environmental Prediction gridded gauge-only hourly precipitation product, NCEP; Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM, IMERG), with both traditional metrics and the Multiplicative Triple Collection (MTC) method during Hurricane Harvey and multiple Tropical Cyclones. The results reveal that: (a) the consistency of cross-examination results against traditional metrics approves the applicability of MTC in extreme events; (b) the consistency of cross-events of MTC evaluation results also suggests its robustness across individual storms; (c) all products demonstrate their capacity of capturing the spatial and temporal variability of the storm structures while also magnifying respective inherent deficiencies; (d) NCEP and IMERG likely underestimate while MRMS overestimates the storm total accumulation, especially for the 500-year return Hurricane Harvey; (e) both NCEP and IMERG underestimate extreme rainrates (>= 90 mm/h) likely due to device insensitivity or saturation while MRMS maintains robust across the rainrate range; (g) all three show inherent deficiencies in capturing the storm core of Harvey possibly due to device malfunctions with the NCEP gauges, relative low spatiotemporal resolution of IMERG, and the unusual “hot” MRMS radar signals. Given the unknown ground reference assumption of MTC, this study suggests that MRMS has the best overall performance. The similarities, differences, advantages, and deficiencies revealed in this study could guide the users for emergency response and motivate the community not only to improve the respective sensor/algorithm but also innovate multidata merging methods for one best possible product, specifically suitable for extreme storm events. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precipitation and Water Cycle Measurements Using Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Accumulative rainfall for four events combined is measured by Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) radar data. Four cyclone tracks are illustrated with lines. Red dots (numbers from 1 to 4) in the bottom right panel are selected representative pixels in the Harvey core region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Accumulative rainfall observed in three cases. Inside each axes, the inset corresponds to the histogram of accumulative rainfall.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial plot of Multiplicative Triple Collection (MTC) results (<b>a</b>) Correlation Coefficient (CC); (<b>b</b>) Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) for three cases (concatenated all events, Harvey-only and non-Harvey) in each row, and each column represents each product. The small panel inside each axis is the violin plot for the metric, and the white bar is where the median value is located. Two marked circles emphasize where the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) is highly uncertain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Boxplot for conventional metrics and MTC results in Hurricane Harvey. (<b>a</b>) Continuous indices and MTC results; (<b>b</b>) categorical indices.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Boxplot of MTC measured CC, RMSE (from top down) in Hurricane Harvey at each accumulative rain bins for a 50 mm interval based on MRMS data. The lines connected the median value of each box for the corresponding product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Boxplot of MTC measured CCs and RMSEs for three products grouped by whole, core, and non-core regions in Hurricane Harvey. Extreme values, i.e., outliers (outside of 1st/3rd quartile ∓ inter-quartile), are ignored to visualize the difference. The notch represents the median value for the samples in the region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Histogram of accumulative rainfall binned at 50 mm interval from 400 (core) to 1400 mm in Hurricane Harvey. Vertical axis indicates the density.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Boxplot of metrics conditioned at 50, 75, and 95 percentiles in the core region: (<b>a</b>) Continuous indices; (<b>b</b>) Categorical indices.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Core separated plot with selected pixel-wise time series. The black thick line in the left panel is the 400 mm accumulated rainfall contour line to separate the Harvey core regions. The windows in the right pane highlight special characteristics, with black corresponding to the NCEP observation, red for MRMS, and blue for Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG).</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 2955 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of the Radar QPE and Rain Gauge Data Merging Methods in Northern China
by Qingtai Qiu, Jia Liu, Jiyang Tian, Yufei Jiao, Chuanzhe Li, Wei Wang and Fuliang Yu
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(3), 363; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030363 - 22 Jan 2020
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 4378
Abstract
Radar-rain gauge merging methods have been widely used to produce high-quality precipitation with fine spatial resolution by combing the advantages of the rain gauge observation and the radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). Different merging methods imply a specific choice on the treatment of [...] Read more.
Radar-rain gauge merging methods have been widely used to produce high-quality precipitation with fine spatial resolution by combing the advantages of the rain gauge observation and the radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). Different merging methods imply a specific choice on the treatment of radar and rain gauge data. In order to improve their applicability, significant studies have focused on evaluating the performances of the merging methods. In this study, a categorization of the radar-rain gauge merging methods was proposed as: (1) Radar bias adjustment category, (2) radar-rain gauge integration category, and (3) rain gauge interpolation category for a total of six commonly used merging methods, i.e., mean field bias (MFB), regression inverse distance weighting (RIDW), collocated co-kriging (CCok), fast Bayesian regression kriging (FBRK), regression kriging (RK), and kriging with external drift (KED). Eight different storm events were chosen from semi-humid and semi-arid areas of Northern China to test the performance of the six methods. Based on the leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV), conclusions were obtained that the integration category always performs the best, the bias adjustment category performs the worst, and the interpolation category ranks between them. The quality of the merging products can be a function of the merging method that is affected by both the quality of radar QPE and the ability of the rain gauge to capture small-scale rainfall features. In order to further evaluate the applicability of the merging products, they were then used as the input to a rainfall-runoff model, the Hybrid-Hebei model, for flood forecasting. It is revealed that a higher quality of the merging products indicates a better agreement between the observed and the simulated runoff. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Structure of the Hybrid-Hebei model in each grid cell.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The information of the Zijingguan and Fuping catchments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Boxplots of the indicators BIAS, root mean square error (RMSE), and mean-root-transformed error (MRTE) of the chosen two basins. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from the box. Note that only the hourly rainfall values in the domain &gt;0.1 mm are provided in this figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Boxplot for the radar only and six merging methods values of three indicators in four events. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from the box. Note that only the hourly rainfall values in the domain &gt;0.1 mm are provided in this figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatterplots of data between the rain gauge observations and the radar-rain gauge merged products (the mean field bias (MFB), regression inverse distance weighting (RIDW), collocated co-kriging (CCok), fast Bayesian regression kriging (FBRK), regression kriging (RK), and kriging with external drift (KED)) of the Zijingguan basin. Continuous 1/1 slope lines are shown for the purpose of visualization when comparing different merging methods. In this figure, (<b>a</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z1 event; (<b>b</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z2 event; (<b>c</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z3 event; (<b>d</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z4 event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Scatterplots of data between the rain gauge observations and the radar-rain gauge merged products (the mean field bias (MFB), regression inverse distance weighting (RIDW), collocated co-kriging (CCok), fast Bayesian regression kriging (FBRK), regression kriging (RK), and kriging with external drift (KED)) of the Zijingguan basin. Continuous 1/1 slope lines are shown for the purpose of visualization when comparing different merging methods. In this figure, (<b>a</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z1 event; (<b>b</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z2 event; (<b>c</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z3 event; (<b>d</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z4 event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Boxplot for the radar only and six merging methods values of three indicators in four events. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from the box. Note that only the hourly rainfall values in the domain &gt;0.1 mm are shown in this figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatterplots of data between the rain gauge observations and the radar-rain gauge merged products (the MFB, RIDW, CCoK, FBRK, RK, and KED) of the Fuping basin. Continuous 1/1 slope lines are shown for the purpose of visualization when comparing different merging methods. In this figure, (<b>a</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F1 event; (<b>b</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F2 event; (<b>c</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F3 event; (<b>d</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F4 event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Scatterplots of data between the rain gauge observations and the radar-rain gauge merged products (the MFB, RIDW, CCoK, FBRK, RK, and KED) of the Fuping basin. Continuous 1/1 slope lines are shown for the purpose of visualization when comparing different merging methods. In this figure, (<b>a</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F1 event; (<b>b</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F2 event; (<b>c</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F3 event; (<b>d</b>) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods in F4 event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Twenty-four-hour accumulated rainfall based on different merging methods (mm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Hydrographs showing simulated stream discharge at the discharge station in Zijingguan.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 2258 KiB  
Article
Geostatistical Merging of a Single-Polarized X-Band Weather Radar and a Sparse Rain Gauge Network over an Urban Catchment
by Ibrahim Seck and Joël Van Baelen
Atmosphere 2018, 9(12), 496; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9120496 - 14 Dec 2018
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3585
Abstract
Optimal Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) of rainfall is crucial to the accuracy of hydrological models, especially over urban catchments. Small-to-medium size towns are often equipped with sparse rain gauge networks that struggle to capture the variability in rainfall over high spatiotemporal resolutions. X-band [...] Read more.
Optimal Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) of rainfall is crucial to the accuracy of hydrological models, especially over urban catchments. Small-to-medium size towns are often equipped with sparse rain gauge networks that struggle to capture the variability in rainfall over high spatiotemporal resolutions. X-band Local Area Weather Radars (LAWRs) provide a cost-effective solution to meet this challenge. The Clermont Auvergne metropolis monitors precipitation through a network of 13 rain gauges with a temporal resolution of 5 min. 5 additional rain gauges with a 6-minute temporal resolution are available in the region, and are operated by the national weather service Météo-France. The LaMP (Laboratoire de Météorologie Physique) laboratory’s X-band single-polarized weather radar monitors precipitation as well in the region. In this study, three geostatistical interpolation techniques—Ordinary kriging (OK), which was applied to rain gauge data with a variogram inferred from radar data, conditional merging (CM), and kriging with an external drift (KED)—are evaluated and compared through cross-validation. The performance of the inverse distance weighting interpolation technique (IDW), which was applied to rain gauge data only, was investigated as well, in order to evaluate the effect of incorporating radar data on the QPE’s quality. The dataset is comprised of rainfall events that occurred during the seasons of summer 2013 and winter 2015, and is exploited at three temporal resolutions: 5, 30, and 60 min. The investigation of the interpolation techniques performances is carried out for both seasons and for the three temporal resolutions using raw radar data, radar data corrected from attenuation, and the mean field bias, successively. The superiority of the geostatistical techniques compared to the inverse distance weighting method was verified with an average relative improvement of 54% and 31% in terms of bias reduction for kriging with an external drift and conditional merging, respectively (cross-validation). KED and OK performed similarly well, while CM lagged behind in terms of point measurement QPE accuracy, but was the best method in terms of preserving the observations’ variance. The correction schemes had mixed effects on the multivariate geostatistical methods. Indeed, while the attenuation correction improved KED across the board, the mean field bias correction effects were marginal. Both radar data correction schemes resulted in a decrease of the ability of CM to preserve the observations variance, while slightly improving its point measurement QPE accuracy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Meteorology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Urban centers (yellow) in the study area. LaMP, Laboratoire de Météorologie Physique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>A digital elevation map of the study area with the location of the Clermont Auvergne and Météo-France rain gauges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Precipitation rate histograms with a normal curve fitted for each season.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Maps of temporal bias in radar data by season and temporal resolution in mm/h.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Density distributions of spatial bias in radar data by season and temporal resolution (in mm/h).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Selected experimental (points) and theoretical variograms (blue line) for the three temporal resolutions and both seasons.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3268 KiB  
Article
Considering Rain Gauge Uncertainty Using Kriging for Uncertain Data
by Francesca Cecinati, Antonio M. Moreno-Ródenas, Miguel A. Rico-Ramirez, Marie-claire Ten Veldhuis and Jeroen G. Langeveld
Atmosphere 2018, 9(11), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110446 - 14 Nov 2018
Cited by 24 | Viewed by 5116
Abstract
In urban hydrological models, rainfall is the main input and one of the main sources of uncertainty. To reach sufficient spatial coverage and resolution, the integration of several rainfall data sources, including rain gauges and weather radars, is often necessary. The uncertainty associated [...] Read more.
In urban hydrological models, rainfall is the main input and one of the main sources of uncertainty. To reach sufficient spatial coverage and resolution, the integration of several rainfall data sources, including rain gauges and weather radars, is often necessary. The uncertainty associated with rain gauge measurements is dependent on rainfall intensity and on the characteristics of the devices. Common spatial interpolation methods do not account for rain gauge uncertainty variability. Kriging for Uncertain Data (KUD) allows the handling of the uncertainty of each rain gauge independently, modelling space- and time-variant errors. The applications of KUD to rain gauge interpolation and radar-gauge rainfall merging are studied and compared. First, the methodology is studied with synthetic experiments, to evaluate its performance varying rain gauge density, accuracy and rainfall field characteristics. Subsequently, the method is applied to a case study in the Dommel catchment, the Netherlands, where high-quality automatic gauges are complemented by lower-quality tipping-bucket gauges and radar composites. The case study and the synthetic experiments show that considering measurement uncertainty in rain gauge interpolation usually improves rainfall estimations, given a sufficient rain gauge density. Considering measurement uncertainty in radar-gauge merging consistently improved the estimates in the tested cases, thanks to the additional spatial information of radar rainfall data but should still be used cautiously for convective events and low-density rain gauge networks. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Applications of Weather Radar Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The Figure shows the position of the rain gauges and of the Dommel catchment inside the study area on the left; the position of the radars and of the study area (black rectangle) relatively to the Netherlands on the right.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>For each experiment, two plots are reported; the ones on the left show the mean, the 10% and 90% quantiles of the β values. The plots on the right show how many times OKUD outperforms OK (positive β) and how many times instead OK outperforms OKUD (negative β). For the Synthetic Test 3, only the number of accurate points is reported on the horizontal axis. Please note that the figure is from [<a href="#B41-atmosphere-09-00446" class="html-bibr">41</a>] as a shorter version of the work was presented at the EWRA conference 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Example of a synthetic field generated during the third experiment. 15 accurate rain gauges (bordered in black) and 15 less accurate rain gauges (bordered in grey) are used to sample the field and the values are superimposed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Rank histograms relative to the four studied rainfall products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Kriging prediction and kriging variance for each of the four rainfall products. Rain gauge rainfall intensities and rain gauge estimated nuggets are superimposed to the kriging predictions and to the kriging variance, respectively, using the same colour scales. The top-left panel shows the radar rainfall estimation used for KED and KEDUD.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 2929 KiB  
Article
The Significance of the Spatial Variability of Rainfall on the Numerical Simulation of Urban Floods
by Laurent Guillaume Courty, Miguel Ángel Rico-Ramirez and Adrián Pedrozo-Acuña
Water 2018, 10(2), 207; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020207 - 15 Feb 2018
Cited by 24 | Viewed by 5951
Abstract
The growth of urban population, combined with an increase of extreme events due to climate change call for a better understanding and representation of urban floods. The uncertainty in rainfall distribution is one of the most important factors that affects the watershed response [...] Read more.
The growth of urban population, combined with an increase of extreme events due to climate change call for a better understanding and representation of urban floods. The uncertainty in rainfall distribution is one of the most important factors that affects the watershed response to a given precipitation event. However, most of the investigations on this topic have considered theoretical scenarios, with little reference to case studies in the real world. This paper incorporates the use of spatially-variable precipitation data from a long-range radar in the simulation of the severe floods that impacted the city of Hull, U.K., in June 2007. This radar-based rainfall field is merged with rain gauge data using a Kriging with External Drift interpolation technique. The utility of this spatially-variable information is investigated through the comparison of computed flooded areas (uniform and radar) against those registered by public authorities. Both results show similar skills at reproducing the real event, but differences in the total precipitated volumes, water depths and flooded areas are illustrated. It is envisaged that in urban areas and with the advent of higher resolution radars, these differences will be more important and call for further investigation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the Hull study area within Great Britain (satellite imagery Copernicus Sentinel 2016) [<a href="#B2-water-10-00207" class="html-bibr">2</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Digital elevation model of the study area. Contour lines are every 5 <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics> </math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Identified flooded areas. Light blue: EA only. Dark blue: HCC only. Green: intersection of both administrations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Land cover classes from Global Land Cover in the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Accumulated rainfall obtained from Kriging with External Drift on 25 June 2007. The circles represent the rain gauges used. The triangles are the weather radars. The study site is represented by a black polygon. Please note that during this event, only the Hameldon Hill radar (located in the west of the image) was operating.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Evolution of rainfall intensity above the study area obtained with Kriging with External Drift. Event of 25 June 2007. (<b>a</b>) 00:00–01:00; (<b>b</b>) 03:00–04:00; (<b>c</b>) 06:00–07:00; (<b>d</b>) 09:00–10:00; (<b>e</b>) 12:00–13:00; (<b>f</b>) 15:00–16:00; (<b>g</b>) 18:00–19:00; (<b>h</b>) 21:00–22:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Evolution of rainfall intensity above the study area obtained with Kriging with External Drift. Event of 25 June 2007. (<b>a</b>) 00:00–01:00; (<b>b</b>) 03:00–04:00; (<b>c</b>) 06:00–07:00; (<b>d</b>) 09:00–10:00; (<b>e</b>) 12:00–13:00; (<b>f</b>) 15:00–16:00; (<b>g</b>) 18:00–19:00; (<b>h</b>) 21:00–22:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>KED performance using LOOCV for the event of 25 June 2007.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Hyetographs of the two considered rainfalls above the study area on 25 June 2007.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Values of Critical Success Index obtained during the calibration process. They are calculated using the maximal water depth maps obtained with uniform rainfall and a combination of infiltration values, water depth thresholds and observed extents.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison between observed extents and maximal computed water depths. (<b>a</b>) Uniform rainfall; (<b>b</b>) Kriging with External Drift.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Differences in maximal water depths between the results using uniform rainfall and those using Kriging with External Drift.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Evolution in time of the flood volume, flooded surface and Critical Success Index. The flooded surface and CSI are calculated for water depths above 20 cm.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop