i

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 dr. 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 IPW!R" Master Programme# for this special academic year spent in $elgium.
$esides# I would like to thank the %lemish !&uafin Water 'ompany for providing the radar and rain gauge
series.
(pecial thanks to !melia and )offre# thanks for your support and invaluable help. !nd one last personal
comment# I will always be deeply thankful to all my family members to bring me up in humility values.

'arlos Mu*o+# (eptember ,-./








ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
. I01R23'1I20 ................................................................................................................................ .
... Problem 3efinition ................................................................................................................... .
.., Main 2b4ectives ........................................................................................................................ ,
..5 1hesis (ummary ....................................................................................................................... 5
, R!I0%!LL M"!(R"M"01( .............................................................................................................. 5
,.. 1ypes of Precipitation ............................................................................................................... 5
,., 1ipping $ucket Rain 6auges ...................................................................................................... 7
,.,.. Working principle of the tipping bucket rain gauge ........................................................... 7
,.,., ncertainties in rain gauge measurements. ...................................................................... 7
,.5 Weather Radars ........................................................................................................................ 8
,.5.. Working principle .............................................................................................................. 8
,.5., Radar e&uation ................................................................................................................. 9
,.5.5 1ypes of radar ................................................................................................................... :
,.5./ (patial and temporal resolution in weather radars. ......................................................... ..
,./ L!WR ;<$and Radar ................................................................................................................ ..
5 L"="0 '!(" (13> ...................................................................................................................... .7
5.. Weather in Leuven ................................................................................................................. .7
5., Location ................................................................................................................................. .8
5.5 L!WR Leuven 'ity Radar ......................................................................................................... .9
5./ Leuven Rain 6auges ................................................................................................................ .?
/ R"=I"W 2% 3I%%"R"01 '!LI$R!1I20 M"1@23( ............................................................................ .:
/.. 'alibration Methods ............................................................................................................... .:
/., L!WR Improved Preprocessed 3ata Ad$B outputsC .................................................................. ,.
7 M"1@232L26> ............................................................................................................................. ,5
7.. 3ata Preparation .................................................................................................................... ,5
7., Duality !nalysis. ..................................................................................................................... ,/
7.5 'alibration Methods ............................................................................................................... ,/
8 R"(L1( !03 3I('((I20(. ........................................................................................................... ,8
iii

8.. Duality !nalysis Results !nd 3iscussions. ................................................................................ ,8
8., Linear Regression Method Results and 3iscussions ................................................................. 5-
8.5 Marshall EPalmer Paramenters 'alibration Method................................................................ 5,
8./ FG< 'alibration MethodH Results !nd 3iscussion. ..................................................................... 55
8./.. (patial resolution influence. ............................................................................................ 5:
8./., 'lutter influence ............................................................................................................. /-
8./.5 'overed area influence ................................................................................................... /5
8././ Maximum intensities # total amount of rainfall and duration influence ........................... /5
9 '20'L(I20( !03 R"'2MM"03!1I20( ...................................................................................... /8
9.. 'onclusions ............................................................................................................................ /8
9., Recommendations !nd %uture Work ...................................................................................... /?
? R"%"R"0'"( ................................................................................................................................... /:
0ielsen# ).".# )ensen# 0.".# Rasmussen# M.R.# ,-.5a. 'alibrating L!WR weather radar using laser
disdrometers. !tmospheric Research# .,,I .87<.95. .......................................................................... 7.
LIST OF FIGURES
%ig ,.. 3escribes the formation process of convective and stratiform events. ................................. /
%ig ,., Working principl Working principle of a TBRG ...................................................................... 7
%ig ,.5 Working principle of a weather Radar .................................................................................. 9
%ig ,./ Scanned volume by a weather radar ..................................................................................... ?
%ig ,.7 Beam filling volume correction .......................................................................................... .5
%ig. 5... Climatological information of Leuven based on monthly averages .................................... .7
%ig 5., a Leuven location in Belgium !b "rovincieus building !c L#WR radar ............................... .8
%ig /.. (tandard calibration method example ............................................................................... .:
%ig 8..AaC Radar snapshots for the event took place on $
th
%une&Resol&'() m ...................................... ,8
%ig 8..AbC Radar snapshots for the event took place on $th %une&Resol&()* m..................................... ,8
%ig 8., #ccumulation of the raw radar data of the whole events of +
th
and $
th
,une ...................... ,9
%ig 8.5 @iguest reflectivities map for the whole events of +
th
and $
th
of ,une& ............................... ,9
%ig 8./ 1wo clutter dry period snapshots of (-
th
and ($
th
,une are shown& .................................... ,?
%ig 8.7 !ccumulation of the raw radar data for the entire month of )une in a logarithmic scale .... ,:
%ig 8.8 Linear regression method for . of the rain gauges& ............................................................. 5-
iv

%ig 8.9 Range dependent curve for the 'alibration %actor to be applied to radar correction. .......... 5.
%ig 8.? Radar and rain gauge rain rates time series for W/ Gauge for the event of 0
th
,une .............. 5.
%ig 8.: #ccumulation radar and gauge rainfall curves after applying correction 1 $
th
,une ............. 57
%ig. 8..- #ccumulation radar and gauge rainfall curves after applying correction 1 '*th ,une .......... 58
%ig 8... Radar and gauge rain rates time series G and linear regression method :
th
)une ................. 59
%ig 8.., Radar and gauge rain rates time series for 5 of the gauges during the event of .-th )une .... 5?
%ig 8..5 "ffect of applying the filter algortihm in the accumulated map of )une ................................ /,
%ig 8../ Snapshot of the $
th
event of ,une &#ttenuation issue ............................................................. /7
LIST OF TABLES

1able ,.. dB/ scale for weather radar&. ............................................................................................ :
1able ,., Weather radar types ...................................................................................................... .-
1able ,.5 L#WR city radar technical characteristics. ........................................................................ .,
1able 5.. Characteristics of Leuven rain gauges& . ........................................................................... .?
1able 7.. 2vents during ,une (*'+ and mean characteristics . ......................................................... ,5
1able 8.. FaH values after applying calibration method during the events of )une ,-./. .................. 5,
1able 8., FbH values after applying calibration method during the events of )une ,-./. .................. 55
1able 8.5 G values during the events of )une ,-./ for an spatial resolution of .,7 meters. ............ 5/
1able 8./ 'oefficient of determination values during the events of )une ,-./ JJJJJJJJJJJ. 5/
1able 8.7 G values for an spatial resolution of ,7- m during the events of )une ,-./ ..................... /-
1able 8.8 G values after applying clutter filter during the events of )une ,-./. ............................... /,
1able 8.9 1otal average area covered during the event# K respect the total covered by the radar.. /5
1able 8.? Maximum intensities at every gauge during each of the events . ..................................... //
1able 8.: Total rainfall accumulation at every gauge during each of the events . ........................... //





v

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. 1herefore# 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.

(pace and temporal re&uirements for the input data of the hydrologic models are still in discussion.
@owever# it is clear that current rain gauges distribution in most cases does not ade&uately 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. 0evertheless# the
accuracy is inade&uate 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.

1he radar used in this study is the L!WR 'ity radar whose main advantages are the affordable costs of its
installation# the ade&uate range for urban hydrology applications# and a high spatio<temporal resolution.
1herefore# this study addresses how the L!WR 'ity radar of Leuven performs by making use of different
correction methods to the radar outputs on the basis of the rain gauges network estimations.

1he 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. 1he 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. "ight events belong to )une of ,-./ were used
as a data set in this investigation.

vi

1he results of the static calibration method showed a large variability in the parameters involved and no
tendency was found on them. %actor that might influence on the results obtained were analy+ed and some
recommendation were given in order to faces the challenges of the L!WR 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
!D!%I0 %lemish !&uafin Water 'ompany
'% 'oefficient factor lineal calibration method
3MI 3anish Meteorological Institute
3R2 3igital 2utputs Radar
3( 3iestestraat Rain 6auge
3(3 3rop (i+e 3istribution
"@ "gen@ovestraat Rain 6auge
6L" 6eneralised Likelihood ncertainty "stimation methodology for L!WR data calibration
@6 @ogeebeek Rain 6auge
IPW!R" Inter<niversity Program in Water Resource "ngineering
G 'onstant of FG calibration methodH
GL Geulenstraat Rain 6auge
L!WR Local area weather radar
L!WR 'R L!WR 'ity Radar
M(" Mean (&uare "rror
2@ 2ud@evstraat Rain 6auge
1$R6s 1ipping $ucket Rain 6auges
WM2 World Meteorological 2rgani+ation
W( Warostraat Rain 6auge
WB RWBIL< Leuven WW1P Rain 6auge
.

1 11 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Definiion
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. @istorically#
rainfall has always been measured with rain gauges which represents in a proper way what happens at
that specific point.
1he 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# (chilling L %uchs A.:?8C# Lei L
(chilling A.::/C# Willems L $erlamont A.:::C# and =an Mameren L 'lemens A.::9C came to the conclusion
that the Frainfall inputs are one of the most important sources of uncertaintyH# affecting significantly the
outputs of the models in terms of volumes# peaks# and hydrograph shapes A %aures et al. #.::7M Luyckx et
al. .::?# Morena et al. ,--, # Willems L $erlamont A,--,C# 6iulianelli et al. #,--8C.
1hus# it is clear that errors coming from the estimation of the rainfall are transferred to the model# which#
of course# can compensate them by calibrating the parameters involved in the model structure. !lthough
good results can be obtained# it obviously leads to a non<realistic estimation of the parameters of the
model. 1hereby# it seems more appropriate to correct errors in the source. 1herefore# appropriate
temporal space knowledge of rain is necessary# and as a result# time and space resolutions re&uirements
for urban models need to be defined.
1here has been an extensive research these last years about the spatial and temporal re&uirements in
urban hydrology. (everal authors have investigated and recommended temporal and spatial resolution
based on comparisons between the output provided by the models and reality.
1hese recommendations vary between different studies A0ielsen Phd thesis# ,-.5C. (patial values may
vary from less than .-- meters A"infalt Mau< GNtter #,--,C up to . km# depending on si+e of catchment of
the study A$erne et al.# ,--/C# while temporal scales range from . to 7 minutes. 1herefore# it is still a
sub4ect under discussion A2choa Rodrigue+# ,-./C. What is clear is that rainfall measurements with high
spatial and temporal resolutions are needed in urban hydrology field.
,

!s it has been stated before# rain gauges have been used over the years and can certainly meet with the
temporal re&uirements but not with the spatial re&uirements 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. A"infalt et al ,--/C.
In this study# a specific ;<$and radar# L!WR Local 'ity radar placed in the Provincieus building of Leuven
has been used. 1his radar is able to provide high<resolution data with reasonable costs and with a limited
but enough range for urban applications. 1he accuracy obtained from the raw radar outputs is insufficient#
so a network of eight rain gauges were used and considered as the Ftrue measurementsH at ground level in
order to make use of them to correct the radar estimations.
1he performance of this specific radar has been studied by several authors )ensen A,--,C# )ensen and
Pedersen A,--7C# Pedersen et al.# ,--? and Pedersen et al.# ,-.-# Rollenbeck and $endix A,--8C# "infalt et
al. A,--7C# $orup et al. A,--:C# and 1horndahl and Rasmussen A,-.,C. 0onetheless# further investigations
need to be done.
In the Leuven case study# previous researches conducted by 6oormans# Willems A,-..C and Laurens
3ecloedt 'as. Willems A,-.,C have been done. 1he main difference in this dissertation lies in the fact that#
unlike those previous studies# after its last upgrade# this radar is able nowadays to provide reflectivity
values# and conse&uently# the Marshall<Palmer relation can be used in the correction process of the radar
outputs.
1.! "#in Ob$e%i&es
1o perform a &uality analysis of the improved data processed of the Leuven L!WR radar.
1o correct or calibrate the radar data with a net of rain gauges placed in the study area.
1o analy+ed 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.
5

1.' T(esis S)mm#ry
(& Rainfall measurements3 6ives some theoretical background about rainfall estimation# working principle
of weather radars and main differences between them# giving also the main characteristic of the L!WR
radar.
.& Leuven case study3 3escribes the case study under study.
+& Review of different calibration methods3 'overs a review of different calibration method related with
the methodology used in this study.
)& 4ethodology3 3escribes the methodology used and explains the calibration methods for the radar data
correction.
0& Results and discussionI 3iscusses the results obtained.
- &Conclusions and recommendationsI 'onclusions about the different approaches are given as well as
some recommendations for future work for this particular case study.
?. References
2 22 2 RAINFALLMEASUREMENTS RAINFALLMEASUREMENTS RAINFALLMEASUREMENTS RAINFALLMEASUREMENTS

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 Athe tipping bucket rain gauge and the weather radarC along
with its possible uncertainties and challenges.
!.1 Ty*es of Pre%i*i#ion
Precipitation is an atmospheric phenomenon that starts with the condensation of steam contained in
clouds. It can fall in li&uid Arain and dri++leC or solid phase Ahail# snow# ice needles# graupel and sleetC.
Precipitation can be classified as orographic# convective or stratiform.
/

2rographic 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.
nlike orographic events# convective precipitations typically happen in flat or not high topographically
developed areas. 1hey occur when moist air rises by temperature differences due to local heating. 1hus#
the warm air becomes less dense starting to rise and forming vertical clouds AcumulonimbusC when it
reaches condensation levels# leading to rain and thunderstorms.
(tratiform precipitation are produced when two masses of air which have different characteristics Adensity#
moisture and temperatureC contact each other AfrontC 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. 1his phenomenon is called warm front and precipitation occurs
close to the front. !lternatively# it can happen that the cold mass moves towards the warm air Acold frontC
pushing it up and causing heavy rain and thunderstorm.






Fig.2. 5escribes the formation process of convective 6Strahler and Strahler! (**( and stratiform rainfall
events &Source 6www&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 A@ou+e# .::5# pp. .:9<.::C. 6enerally
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 A@ou+e# .::9C.
7

!.! Ti**in+ B)%,e R#in G#)+es
2.2.1 Workingprincipleoftetipping!"cketr#ing#"ge
1he most used techni&ue for measuring rainfall is the rain gauge and specially the tipping bucket A1$R6sC
rain gauge type due to its easy working principle.
!s can be seen in the figure ,., the 1$R6 consist in a funnel that leads the collected water to a small
triangular double bucket Ametal or plasticC with a hinge at its midpoint. It is a system balance which varies
with the amount of water in the buckets. 1he rotation is produced when the bucket reaches a certain
amount of water# generally -., mm emptying the full bucket# while the other begins to fill. 1his movement
is recorded and therefore precipitation intensities can be computed.
1here are 1$R6s that can make the measurement even in case of snow events since the funnel is e&uipped
with a thermal resistance# which turn the snow into water.




Fig. 2.2 Working principle of a TBRG 6Wheatershack&com
!s it was mentioned above# the volume of water needed to tip it is generally , mm and this is denoted as
the resolution of the rain gauge. 1he 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 Uncert#intie$inr#ing#"ge%e#$"re%ent$.
Measurements on rain gauges are sub4ected to uncertainties originated from errors during the
registrations. 1hese uncertainties can come either from the environmental conditions or the device itself.
Regarding the environmental conditions and according to WM2# losses might be produced by # the effect
of the wind which can lead to underestimations up to ,K <.- K # by evaporation from the container A-K<
8

/KC # by wetting on internal parts of the device and by splash<out and splash<in A.<,KC AWM2# ,--?# I.5<
7C. 2ther sources might be related to the maintenance# to the position and how sheltered the gauge is.
'oncerning 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 overOunderestimation of the rain intensities
if a proper calibration is not carried out A6oorsman# ,-..CM 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 ALuyckx L $erlamont
#,--.CM and finally# by the recording procedure of the tipping movements that can be done in two waysM
either by recording the number of tips in a fixed interval of time # i.g.. minute or 7 minutes# or by recording
the time for each tipping.
$oth processes described above lead to errors. 2n 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 A6oorsman# ,-..C. 2n 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. 1his may occur if no correction by making use of a threshold value
is applied A%rankhauser# R. A.::?CC# since a high underestimation of the first intensity recorded in the next
event can be included in the data set.

!.' -e#(er R#d#rs
2.&.1 Workingprinciple
Radar technology ARadio Detection And RangingC was improved during the II World War with the purpose
of detecting airplanes. It was reali+ed that the images contained echoes from rainfall# circumstance that
was used by scientific meteorological purposes.
1he working principle of weather radar consist on an emission of pulses of electromagnetic waves through
an antenna. 1he pulse duration has an order of magnitude of milliseconds and a wavelength of centimeters
since the desired targets are the raindrops.
9

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. 1he 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. 1he working principle is shown in the figure ,.5.






Fig. 2.! Working principle of a weather Radar 6Cain! (**(

2.&.2 R#'#re("#tion
What the antenna records is actually the energy reflected back in the direction of the radar by the droplets
located within a certain volume Asee figure ,./C. 1hat energy# which is measured in the form of power# can
be expressed asI
P

=
C.|K|
2
.z

2
A,..C
WhereI
Pr P received power AWC
' P radar constant
QGQ
,
P refraction index.Adepend on the type of precipitationC
r P distance from the radar to the target AmC
B P radar reflectivity value Amm
8
Om
5
C
?






Fig. 2." Scanned volume by a weather radar
1he reflectivity / is defined as the sum of the diameters of the droplets to the power of six contained within
a volume# i.e.
Z =
1
v

A,.,C
5i is the diameter of the raindrop in the volume 7. 1he reflectivity is an indirect measure of the rain rate.
(upported by experimental data it was found that the relationship between the two variables usually
responds to the following potential functionI
Z = o. R
b
A,.5C
where R accounts for the rain rate. 1he values of a and b depend on drop si+e distribution A3(3C and
conse&uently on the type of storm that befalls. 1herefore the local conditions of the place where the radar
is working will lead to different values of the parameters. 1he relationship between R and / was first
established by Marshall and Palmer in .:/? with a P ,-- and b P ..8# which in the following years it has
been the most used relation in this field for stratiform precipitation. Probert<)ones A.:8,C stated that the
initial values given by Marshall and Palmer provide a suitable average value for the /<R relationship.
@owever years later A$attan#.:95C gave a list of different values for a and b depending on the kind of
storm# i.g. a P 7-- and b P ..7 for thunderstorms or a P ./- and b P ..7 for dri++le.
i4lenhoet A,--.C analy+ed the different relations mentioned by $attan A.:95C 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. 1his arises as a conse&uence of the smaller average si+e 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.
(everal 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. AMilan RSlek et al# ,--/C.
1herefore# it seems that an accurate estimation of the precipitation with radar needs the use of a dynamic
relation in the Marshall and Palmer e&uation. @owever# in reality it is more common to use a fixed /<R
relationship for all situations.
(ince the reflectivity value / range covers six orders of magnitude# a logarithmic transformation is appliedI
JBZ = 1u. Iog
10
z
z
0
A,./C
In the e&uation dB/ represents decibels relatives to the reflectivity /# and /* is a relative value A. mm
8
Om
5
C.
1he dB/ values range is between - and 97# which covers rainfall rates from -.-9 mmOh to /,. mmOh. %or
example# for a dB/ value of 77 and making use of the Marshall and Palmer relationship the rain intensity
would be .-- mm O h# which is consider a very heavy intensity. 0ext table shows a d$B scale classification.
Table 2. dB/ scale for weather radar&
d$B R AmmOhC Intensity
7 -.-9 @ardly 0oticeable
.- -..7 Light Mist
.7 -.5 Mist
,- -.8 =ery Light
,7 ..5 Light
5- ,.9 Light to Moderate
57 7.8 Moderate Rain
/- ...75 Moderate Rain
/7 ,5.9 Moderate to @eavy
7- /?.8 @eavy
77 .-- =ery @eavy O (mall @ail
8- ,-7 "xtreme O Moderate @ail
87 /,. "xtreme O Large @ail
2.&.& T)pe$ofr#'#r
1here are different types of radars operating at different wavelength and fre&uency .1he most commonly
used radar to estimate rainfall events are shown in the following tableI
.-

Table 2.2 Weather radar types&


!s main concept# radars with higher wave lengths and low fre&uencies produce stronger signals# having a
larger measurement range capacity but re&uiring bigger and expensive antennas. (<$and radars can be
used in many different ranges up to ,/- km. 1hey are not affected by attenuation# which is the source of
energy losses of the electromagnetic radiation beam when it goes through the physical media during its
outward 4ourney. 0aturally# the main drawback is the bigger and costly antennas needed. '<band radars
are used for ranges up to .,- km# they are affected by attenuation and they are more economical and
portable than (<$and radars. ;<$and radars cover smaller areas so they are used mostly for urban
application or smaller catchment within its range. 1he attenuation is a key factor to keep in mind when
using this type of radar cause is the radar which is more affected by this phenomena. 1he main
characteristics as well as its advantages and disadvantages will be discussed in section ,./.
1here exist other types of radars# such as 3oppler and 3ual Polari+ation radars# with different
characteristics that are able to measure other important factors improving the way the rainfall is estimated
and opening new possibilities in this field.
1he 3oppler radar has the capability of measuring information about the radial velocity of the ob4ect
detected by taking into account the 3oppler effect. It measures the variation on the phase wave of the
ob4ect in motion. 1he ability to measure the radial velocity of the raindrops can be related to the wind
speed# an important factor in the development of the storm events. More information on 3oppler radars
can be found in Intech A,-.,C and 3oviak A,--8C.
With 3ual Polari+ation radars the idea is to emit a vertical and hori+ontal polari+ed electromagnetic wave.
'onse&uently# the targeted hydrometers will return the energy in different ways according to their shape
and physical characteristics# which allows to gather more information about the type of precipitation.
!dditional information of these radars can be found in 1estik A,-.5C.
'<$and ;<$and (<$and
WavelengthAcmC / <? ,.7 < 7 ? < .7
%re&uencyA6@+C /<? ? < ., , < /
..

2.&.* Sp#ti#l#n'te%por#lre$ol"tionin+e#terr#'#r$.
In order to obtain better estimates of rainfall# the radar must provide an ade&uate spatio<temporal
resolution for the purposes of the specific study. 1he spatio<temporal resolution is not determined by the
wavelength but by the pulse length# the scanning strategy and the beam width. ! short pulse yields finer
spatial resolution but a very short pulse might distort the sensitivity of the radar and therefore affecting
the estimations. ! narrower beam# which depends on the physical characteristics of the antenna# provides
finer spatial resolution. 1he scanning strategy influences both the temporal and spatial resolution. 1here
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 A,--5C and 6eTer A,--7C.
$riefly# 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.
0ormally# ( and ' band radars# due to its high costs# are used for very large ranges and coarser spatio<
temporal scales# even though they can be technically ad4usted to finer scales. @ere is where the ;<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. 1he latter# will be
discussed in next section A,./C
!.. LA-R /0B#nd R#d#r
1he local area weather radar is an ;<band radar which is based on marine radar technology .1he ;<band
radar provides images of locali+ed precipitation and rainfall prediction with a range of 8- km every . or 7
minutes. @owever# the &uality of the estimation starts to decrease after .7 km range A1horndhal et al.#
,--:C. 1herefore# for a L!WR radar# .7 <,- km is the maximum range for a &uantitative estimation of a
precipitation# APedersen et al.# ,-.-C. !lthough 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 8- km. 1his 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. 1here are two model of L!WR radarM L!WR A.7,7O,.,9C model and the 'ity<L!WR Radar A.?5/
.,

modelC AL!WR 'RC# A3@I#,-.-C. 1he model used in the study area is the L!WR 'R# whose technical
specifications are shown in the next table.
Table 2.! L#WR City Radar technical characteristics&
Parameter 'ity<L!WR
Peak Power / GW
$and ;<$and
%re&uency :./. 6@+ UO< 5-- M@+
Wave Lenght 5., cm
Pulse Lenght -.? V sg
$in Lenght .,- m
!ntenna -./ m randome
Receiver Logarithmic receiver
=ertical openning angle AUO<C .- W
@ori+ontal openning angle /W
(amples per rotation /7-
Range 5-O.7 km
(patial resolution
,7- x ,7- m A5- km rangeC
.,7x.,7 m A.7 km rangeC
.7-x.7- m A9.7 km rangeC
7- x 7- m A9.7 km rangeC
1emporal Resolution . or 7 minutes
(canning strategy (ingle layer and continous scanning

1he radar is installed in the Provincieus building of Leuven# which belong to the provincial government of
%lemish $rabant. 1he criteria for the choice of the radar location can be seen in the 1. 6oorsmans doctoral
dissertation A,-..C# and are mainly based on the distance to the sewer system aim to study and on the
clutter influence.

1he 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 digiti+ed by a !O3 converter. 1he processing of the data is
done by one of the computers which first digiti+e the voltage signal as a reflectivity values. 3uring the
signal processing a number of corrections are applied.

1he noise is removed by applying two thresholds. 1he first one# applied during a dry period image# is able
to reduce it approximately by 87 percent. 1he second one# called 'ut<2ff Min# should be able to get rid of
the remaining 57 percent. 1he thresholds are stablished by trial and error# by reloading the radar and
checking the interface images until the noise removal is optimi+ed. 1he volume correction is related to the
.5

fact that the wide opening angle of the beam results in an increase of the volume targeted# which in turn#
depends on the range. 1his 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. 1his process is better described in the following figure.
1he e&uation used for volume correction Ae&. ,.7C shows and exponential decrease with the distanceI






Fig. 2.# Beam filling volume correction 6589 L#WR 4anual !(*'*
Z

= Z

1
C
2
.cxp (.C
3
)
A,.7C
whereI
Brv P =olume corrected reflectivity at range r .
Br P !d4usted reflectivity at range r from.
R P range ',# '5I "mpirical constants that are location dependent. Initial value guessI . and <-.-5.

1he attenuation# already defined in the section ,.5.5. # depends on the fre&uency# the wavelength and the
characteristic of the medium. 1he e&uation used for the attenuation correction A3@I L!WR Manual #,-.-C
is the followingI
Z

= Z
g,
_1 + _
z
i
r-1
i=0
C
1
n
scmplcs
]_ A,.8C
whereI
Br P !d4usted reflectivity value at range r
Bg#r P ncorrected reflectivity at range r
./

nsamples P 0umber of samples in a single scan line# typical value is ?---
X # '. P "mpirical constants A..7 and ,--# respectivelyC

'lutter 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 Fground clutterH. 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. 1he L!WR< 'R is
provided with three schemes to remove the clutter but not always the three are applied A3@I# ,-.-C. 1he
primary clutter removal is performed during a dry period. 1he 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. 1he last step is similar to the first but this time it is
performed in the map with 'artesian coordinates.

2nce all the corrections have been carried out# a polar image is created. "ach pixel contains the average
of several values# since the antenna performs several FshotsH at the same location during a time step. 1his
polar image is conveyed to the other computer where it is stored in 'artesian format at a different
resolutions as shown table ,.5.

1hese spatial resolutions are achieved because the L!WR radar works in lower ranks as compared to other
radars# as the si+e of a pixel in a 'artesian grid is determined by the maximum scanning volume# i.e.# the
volume at maximum range# which depends on both# the pulse and the hori+ontal opening angle.

1hese finer resolutions# in comparison with '<$and radars Awith spatial resolution with even orders of
magnitude of kilometers ALengfeld G et al. ,-./CC# along with a higher temporal resolution# would be in
theory an advantage for L!WR radars in hydraulic and hydrologic applications. 0evertheless# in terms of
accuracy of the rainfall estimates# the L!WR Radar presents deficiencies when compared to other radars.

0ielsen et. al A,-./ bC performed a study comparing '<$and with L!WR reflectivity values by making use
of a set of disdrometers# which are instruments capable of measure drop si+e distribution by making use
of microwaves or laser technologies. 3isdrometers provide a more accurate measure of reflectivity
ALoffler<Mang et. al# .:::C. It was found that when comparing the reflectivity of the two radars with the
.7

reflectivity given by the disdrometers# the '<band was able to represent the values of reflectivity in a more
accurate way than L!WR radar affecting thus negatively to the rain rates estimation as also 0ielsen shows
when compares rain rates of both radars after applying a range dependent correction.
!ccording to 0ielsen APhd 1hesis# ,-.5 C# 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 ad4ustment of the radar. It is worth noting that the L!WR radar was
born with marine purposes# so it might be expected a worse performance than a radar built specifically for
meteorological use.

& && & LEU,ENCASESTUD- LEU,ENCASESTUD- LEU,ENCASESTUD- LEU,ENCASESTUD-
'.1 -e#(er in Le)&en
!ccording to the world weather information service of the WM2 the warmest month on average is !ugust#
the coldest is )anuary# the wettest month is )ulyM being May the driest one as can be seen in the figure 5..









Fig. !. Climatological information based on monthly averages for the .*:years period '$-':
(***&#veraged min and ma; T<! and averaged precipitation&
$elgium is characteri+ed by varied weather conditions and patterns# which might be repeated in different
months. !s it is shown in the figure above# there is a clear distinction between warm and wet seasons.
(easonality and storm type are also factors to take into account when analy+ing the data obtained in a
.8

calibration. !s a general rule# in this study area# the precipitations can be classified as convective or
stratiform. 3uring 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 A(teiner #.::7C.
'.! Lo%#ion
1he chosen location for the radar installation AProvincieus building# fig. 5.,C and the reasons are specified
in the above section ,./.






Fig. !.2 a Leuven location in Belgium ! b "rovincieus building !c L#WR radar 65ecloedt!(*'(
3espite the low output power emitted# the radar is not allowed to broadcast electromagnetic waves
towards the airport direction upon the government authorities recommendation. 1he figure 5.5 illustrates
the situation.







Fig. !.! Rain gauges locations! and airport blocked beam area &Circles radius 6)! '* km L!WR
Leuven city radar.
.9

'.' LA-R Le)&en 1iy R#d#r
!s previously mentioned# the radar original intent was for marine application# this fact brings limitations
to its performance in meteorological cases. %or example# in the beginning# the outputs given by the system
did not provide reflectivity values as other types of weather radar.
1herefore# for the outputs given by the radar# the so called 3igital 2utputs Radar A3R2C the Marshall <
Palmer relation could not be used Ae&. ,.5C. 1hus# the rainfall estimations were calculated based on purely
empirical relations between rainfall ground registration and 3R2. (ome of the different calibration
methods data are explained in the next section A(ection /C.
$ased on a series of progress and the studies carried out by 3@I A(ection /C# the relation 3R2<d$B has been
implemented# and as a result# this radar model is nowadays capable of providing directly reflectivity values
in form of d$B.
1hese improvements were tested by 0ielsen et al. A,-.,C# who compared the performance of two L!WR
radars placed at the same location# one of which incorporated the new preprocessed data. 1he study was
carried out by making use of a set of disdrometers which were considered as the FtrueH estimation at its
location.
1he results indicated that the new configuration of L!WR estimates much more accurately the temporal
dynamics of the rainfall but still insufficient# meanwhile the former version tended to overestimate low
rate rainfall intensities and overestimate the peak intensities within the event.
%or this case study# the L!WR Leuven radar is provided with the new upgrades. 1herefore the radar outputs
are obtained as d$B values. !lthough the data provided by !D!%I0 comprised a period of time between
3ecember ,-.5 and )une ,-./# due to an internal error in the radar only the events that took place during
)une were used in this study.
!mong the resolutions provided by the radar outputs# it was decided to make use of the .,7x.,7 meters
and ,7- x,7- meters resolutions with a range of .7 to 5- km respectively. 1he reason to work with two
resolutions with a significant difference is first# to check how it affects in the first &uality approximation
analysis of radar outputs# and second# to find out whether or not the different resolutions influences in
the calibration processes.
.?

'.. Le)&en R#in G#)+es
'oncerning the rain gauges involved in this study# it has been used a set of eight gauges belonging to
!D!%I0. 1he set of rain gauges are described in the table A5..C where the temporal resolution Y t! and
tipping depth resolution Aconcepts already explained in Asection R6CC are shown along with the distance to
the radar.

Table !. Characteristics of Leuven rain gauges&
'ode Location Y t AminC R AmmC 3istance AmC
WB RWBIL< Leuven WW1P . -., ,7.:
GL Geulenstraat . -., 7?77
@6 @ogeebeek . -., 795/
W( Warostraat . -., 79/-
3( 3iestestraat . -., 5,8,
"@ "gen@ovestraat . -., 7,95
2@ 2ud@evstraat . -., /,/:
W$ RWBI$ < Gobeek Lo . -., ,/,5

It can be seen that all rain gauges are within a range between ,./ and 7.? km. 1he specific location of the
rain gauges within the study area is shown in the figure 5.5 above.
!s mentioned in the section ,.,.,# several uncertainties exist when rainfall is estimated with tipping gauges
and therefore# they must be calibrated and corrected. 1he data obtained by !&uafin 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 1oon 6oorsmans A,-..C.
!s a first approach# in principle no strange measurements were appreciated in the rain gauges with the
exception of the Geulenstraat gauge# which from ,9th )une on# did not record any rainfall during periods
in which rainfall events actually occurred. 2f 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 1oon
6oorsman dissertation A,-..C who performed the different calibration methods using different time
intervals when separate events. @is best results were obtained for an interval of 8- minutes# which is the
same value obtained by Pedersen et al. A,-.-C as a criteria to select events.
.:

1herefore# tipping recordings by a rain gauge belong to the same event if they are separated in time by
less than 8- minutes. In addition# a threshold of . mm of total accumulated precipitation for the whole
event is established as a minimum to consider it as an event in the study.
* ** * RE,IEWOFDIFFERENTCALI.RATIONMET/ODS RE,IEWOFDIFFERENTCALI.RATIONMET/ODS RE,IEWOFDIFFERENTCALI.RATIONMET/ODS RE,IEWOFDIFFERENTCALI.RATIONMET/ODS
L!WR radar technology applied to hydrological purposes is relatively recent. !n evidence of this is that the
earliest studies date back to ,--,.
!mong all methods present in literature# it will be described here 4ust those which were used as a reference
for the methods applied later on in this study.
..1 1#libr#ion "e(ods
1he calibration method most commonly used is the so called standard L!WR calibration method#
A1horndahl and Rasmussen#,-.,C which comes from the (um 'alibration Method developed by Pedersen
A,--/C. 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 R32 obtained by the radar. 1he slope of the
resulting fitting line is then considered as the final calibration factor to be applied when transforming R32
to rain rate estimations Ae&. /.-CI
R = CF. R0 A/.-C
!n example of this method is shown in the following figure.





Fi+ ..1 (tandard calibration method example. (ource A1horndal and Rasmussen# ,-.,C
,-

1horndal 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.
1hey also found that the obtained calibration parameters were range dependent due to the fact that the
volume radar parameters were Hneutrally selectedH. 1herefore# 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.
1his 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.
(ome authors# as 3ecloedt A,-.,C or 1horndahl et al. A,-..C# 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 $endix A,--7C# in which they found a threshold
within their data set explained by the saturation at the receiver next to the radar. 1his problem was solved
for the next versions of the radar. Moreover# the studies conducted by Pedersen A,--:# ,-.-C and
1horndahl and Rasmussen A,-.,C# confirmed how the radar L!WR showed a clear tendency to
underestimate the peaks. !ctually# this fact motivated a dynamic approach study by $orup et al. A,--:C
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 Fdid not have enough time to ad4ust properlyH.
$orup concluded# that the &uality of the data provided by a dynamic ad4ustment of the radar is comparable
to that coming from the rain gauges present in the study.
(imilar approaches as those mentioned above were conducted by 0ielsen et al. A,-./aC# which ended up
in the application of the so called 6enerali+ed Likelihood ncertainty "stimation methodology in both
static and dynamic approaches# confirming that the static strategy was still providing insufficient results#
underestimating again the peak intensity values.
1he results were improved in the case of the dynamic approach# although large uncertainties were
obtained. 1hese results seem logical since the parameters from the immediately preceding time intervals
are used in this approximation. 0ielsen# also included in his studies how the length of the preceding time
,.

interval affects the results# showing that# regardless the time length# the results were always improved.
@owever# it was found that short time scales gave better results.
..! LA-R Im*ro&ed Pre*ro%essed D## 2dB3 o)*)s4
!s mentioned in section 5.5 # the new version of the L!WR radar provides outputs in d$B format# therefore
new possibilities in calibration comes into play since the Marshall<Palmer B<R relation is now applicable.
1he transformation of the output in d$B comes from the studies conducted by 0ielsen A,-.5 aC in which
the author# based on a set of disdrometers# performed a calibration of the R32 outputs from the L!WR
radar with the radar reflectivity values provided by the disdrometers.
!s already pointed out in the table ,.5# the radar receiver L!WR is logarithmic# conse&uently the signal
derived for 3R2 can be related to the power received in its logarithmic domain Ae&. /..C
P

= R0 + C
0
A/..C
X P (caling constant.
3R2 P L!WR output.
'- P 2ffset constant.
Pr P Received power in logarithmic domain.
%urthermore# the general radar e&uation Ae&. ,..C# 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 Ae&. /.,C
Z = c
1
p

r
2
A/.,C
B P Reflectivity
pr P Received power in linear domain..
'. P Radar constant.

1he 3R2 and Pr are in principle corrected for attenuation by the internal preprocessing of the L!WR radar.
If the reflectivity transformation reflectivity is applied Asee e&. ,./C is applied# the expression becomesI
JBZ = C
2
P

+2u log (r) A/.5C

d$B P 1ransformed reflectivity
r P Range in kilometers

,,

When e&uation /.5 and /.. are combined the following relation is obtainedI
JBZ = C
3
+ R0 +2u log (r) A/./C
'5 P 'onstants '- and ', combined.
1he way to set the calibration coefficients was done by making use of the previous e&uation /./ in in such
a way that a linear regression could be fitted between 3R2 and /:(*log6r for each of the disdrometers.
1he constant are selected by combining the results of all the regression lines obtained. 1hus# the constant
C. is therefore the y<intercept# while the slope is the = coefficient.
!ccording to 0ielsen A,-.5aC # in principle# Fthis method is universalH# although relations between 3R2 and
/ should vary for each particular case and therefore the constant ad4ustment must vary for each specific
location. $esides# Fthe disdrometer can be used to periodically check the values a and b of the Marshall <
Palmer relationH# accounting thus# for the seasonal variations.
1aking into account all these changes and applying a new method of calibration# 0ielsen A,-.,a C compared
two radar placed at the same location. 2ne# with the R32 old output configuration and the other with the
new d$B<output configuration. !s 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 EPalmer relation#
as compared to using traditional methods with the outputs coming from the Fold preprocessed versionH.
3espite considerable improvements in the results a challenge came up from this analysis and according to
the author# Fthe d$B output of L!WR were not fully correct# and a modification had still to be madeH.
1his correction was performed by 0ielsen himself A,-./#bC where the reflectivity values were corrected
according to the following e&uation
Z
co
= Z C
u
c
(C
b
)
Ae&. /.7C
Bcor P 1ransformed reflectivity.
B P ncorrected reflectivity.
r P Range in kilometers.
'a # 'b P empirical correction parameters.
,5

1he coefficients were established in basis of comparing the data with the disdrometers rainfall estimates.
'onse&uently# it was again done a comparison between results from the Fold data processedH configuration
and the Fnew Fone. 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 d$B values and thus rain rate were obtained. D<D plot of radar and disdrometer estimates
accumulation AmmC were compared. 1he results confirmed again the improvements in the FnewH version#
since the D<D plot were less scattered.
0 00 0 MET/ODOLO1- MET/ODOLO1- MET/ODOLO1- MET/ODOLO1-
5.1 D## Pre*#r#ion
!s mentioned in section 5.5# due to problems with the outputs on the radar until May ,9
th
of ,-./# only
data from the month of )une ,-./ has been taken into account. 1herefore# the data set obtained contains
only eight events whose characteristics are shown in table 7... 1he criterion for considering an event as
such is explained in section 5./. !ccordingly# at least . mm of cumulative rainfall and a period of time
between tipping registration never exceeding 8- min were the main conditions to pick the events.
!lthough# other criteria like the number of rain gauges able to register precipitation were also taken into
account.
Table #. 2vents during ,une (*'+ and mean characteristics&
3ate
(torm
duration AminC
!cc.RainAmmC

Max !cc.AmmC
Max
intensityAmmOminC
5<)un /- ,.5

7 -.85
/<)un

,7 ..7,

,./ -./.
:<)un

5/ .-.5

.8., ../8
.-<)un . 5, :.?

.5./ ,..:
.-<)un , .9 ,...

5./ -.?.
,9<)un . ,/ ,.:

8./ /.-?
,9<)un , /7 ,.:/

/., -.,
,:<)un :7 7...

/./ -.8-?

Regarding the radar# it was initially 4ust used the data for a spatial resolution of .,7 x .,7 m with a range
of .7 km. @owever# later on# a resolution of ,7- x ,7- m was used# the reason will be specified in the
,/

results and discussion section .1he raw data provided by the radar are four times the value of d$B A3@I#
,-.-C.
5.! 6)#liy An#lysis.
!s a first step# and prior to the calibration procedure# a study of the &uality of the data provided by the
radar was carried out. 1he data output was extracted by making use of the Matlab algorithm created by
1oon 6roosmans in his dissertation thesis. 2nce it was checked that the extraction was working properly#
a &uality analysis of the radar data was performed by creating different maps and animated 6I%(# in such
a way that accumulation rainfall maps for the entire month of )une were produced# along with peak
intensities spatial distribution for each of the events. 1hus# effects such as attenuation# volume correction#
clutter effect and storm evolutions patterns were analy+ed to obtain a deep insight of how the radar was
performing for each of the events# in order to keep in mind all this factor for the calibration processes.
5.' 1#libr#ion "e(ods
3espite the few events presented in the data set# the first method applied was the standard calibration
method# with the difference that the data provided now consists of d$B values and thus# the Marshal <
Palmer relation with the standard values a P ,-- and b P ..8 were applied in such a way that accumulated
rain rates coming from the radar and rain gauge were confronted in the linear regression.
!fter applying the linear regression# the next step was to proceed with a method related to the
methodology used by 0ielsenA,-./ bCand described in section /.,# 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 d$B values in order to ad4ust the rain accumulation curves for
each of the events.
1he e&uation used# results from the combination of e&uations ..5 and ../ as followsI
JBZ = 1u. Iog
10
Z + K Z = o. R
b

R = 1u
dBZ+K-10 Iog (c)
10b

A7..C

,7

Where I
a # b P (tandard coefficients for the Marshall<Palmer relation A,--#..8C.
R P Rain rate AmmOhC.
In fact it is possible to appreciate the similarity with the correction reflectivity e&uation applied by 0ielsen
Ae&. /.7C when applying the logarithmic transformation in the following wayI

Z
co
= Z C
u
c
(C
b
)

JBZ = 1ulogZ
co
JBZ = 1u. logZ + K A7.,C
JBZ = 1ulogZ +1u logC
u
+4.S4 r C
b


1hus# it is seen that in a way# the d$B 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.
1he way of obtaining the 1 value was by minimi+ing the M(" between accumulated data from rain gauge#
and accumulated data from radar for each of the ? events of the data set.
$esides# the coefficient of determination of the accumulated series values were computed in order to
check how well the data fit.
1he second method used is a modification of the above G 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 e&uation A7.,C without correcting the reflectivity. 1his 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.

,8

2 22 2 RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS. RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS. RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS. RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS.

7.1 6)#liy An#lysis Res)ls #nd Dis%)ssions.
1he first approach was to display the improved preprocessed output provided by the radar. 1herefore
events were visuali+ed by creating a moving 6I% based videos in order to analy+e the characteristics and
evolution of the events involved in this study. In the following figures three snap shots belong to the :
th

)une event are shown for two different resolutions.






Fig $. %a& Snapshots for the event took place on $
th
%une &The pi;el spatial resolution is '() m and the circle
represent ) and '* km range& The colour palet goes from * dB/ to 0* dB/ &Gauges locations are also
displayed&







Fig $. %b& (napshots for the event took place on :
th
4une. 1he pixel spatial resolution is ,7- m and the
circle represent 7 # .- and ,- km range. 1he colour palet goes from - d$B to 8- d$B. Gauges locations
are also displayed&
,9

!fterwards# accumulation maps for each of the events were created in order to find patterns and keep
obtaining deeper understanding of the events befallen. !n example is given in the figure 8.,. Maps of
maximum intensities were also produced # as shown in figure 8.5# 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 $.2 The colour palet goes from 0 to $&0 and indicates the accumulation of the raw radar data during
events of +
th
6left image and $
th
6right image of ,une in a logarithmic scale& The pi;el spatial resolution is
'() m and the circles represent ) and '* km range.







,?

Fig $.! The colour palet goes from * dB/ to 0* dB/ and indicates the average of the five highest reflectivities
in every location during the events of +
th
6left image and $
th
6right image of ,une& The pi;el spatial
resolution is '() m and the circles represent ) and '* km range.

2bserving the results it was clear the presence of what it seems a Fresidual clutterH not removed by the
clutter internal filtering schemes of the radar describes in the section ,./. It should be note the clear
influence especially in the 2@ rain gauge. !s a conse&uence of this# radar snapshots were displayed during
dry periods in order to find out the behavior of this Fresidual clutterH in time Asee fig.8./C.
%inally the entire month of )une was accumulated as indicated in figure 8.7.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 doesnZt allow to come to definitive conclusions# nonetheless# it can be appreciated a certain
homogeneity in the 3( rain gauge area as well as the GL E@6 area that meet the fact that the location radar
was selected to have good results in this last area A6oorsmans# ,-..C.









Fig.$.". The colour palet goes from * dB/ to 0* dB/ &Two dry period clutter snapshots of (-
th
and ($
th

,une are shown&

,:









Fi+. 7.5 1he colour palet goes from 9 to .5 and indicates the accumulation of the raw radar data for the
entire month of )une in a logarithmic scale. 1he pixel spatial resolution is .,7 m Aleft imageC and ,7- m
Aright imageC.1he circles represent 7 and .- km range Aleft imageC and 7# .-# ,- km range Aright imageC.


!fter analy+ing all the maps and moving 6I%s created some conclusions came up. %irst# the presence of
Fresidual clutterH up to a range of .- 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 W( rain gauge# thus W( will be not
considered in the following steps of this study. ! clear obstruction of the radar beam towards east direction
is also noticeable but in this case doesnZt affect any of the rain gauges involved in the calibration process.
2ther important fact is that for weak events the radar is not able to FseeH rainfall further than ,- km since
the attenuation and the beam filling issue explained in section ,./ comes into play# leading to reflectivity
values that might be below the cut<off threshold and conse&uently donZt appear in the images.
1hus# a deeper insight about temporal and spatial distribution and evolution of the different events was
gained by making use of the moving 6I% videos# the accumulation and intensities maps. $esides# a better
understanding about how the radar behaves and the key factors involved in its way to measure the rainfall
were achieved. 1herefore# concepts such as storm time duration# total amount of rainfall# intensity
distributions# clutter or attenuation will be kept in mind during the calibration processes.
5-

7.! Line#r Re+ression "e(od Res)ls #nd Dis%)ssions
1he linear regression method was applied for all the rain gauges but W( and 2@ which were not considered
because of the influence of the airport and the cluttering problems respectively. 1he next figure A8.8C
describes the procedure.



















Fig $.$ Linear regression method for . of the rain gauges& 2ach dot represents an event! the blue line
represents the fitted regression line which slope is the C>! the red line represent ' standard deviation conf&
interval of the regression line and the green line ' standard deviation conf& interval of the total uncertainties
y P -.7.8?x
R[ P -.:58/
-
,
/
8
?
.-
.,
./
.8
- 7 .- .7 ,- ,7 5-
1
o
t
a
l

g
a
u
g
e

a
c
c
u
m
.

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r

e
v
e
n
t

A
m
m
C
1otal radar accum. volume per eventAmmC
-3 R#in G#)+e
2bservations
. (tdev conf. interv. of regression line
. (tdev conf. Interv. <1otal uncertainty
Linear A2bservationsC
y P -.89,.x
R[ P -.?/:9
-
,
/
8
?
.-
.,
./
- , / 8 ? .- ., ./ .8
1
o
t
a
l

g
a
u
g
e

a
c
c
u
m
.

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r

e
v
e
n
t

A
m
m
C
1otal radar accum. volume per eventAmmC
DS R#in G#)+e
2bservations
. (tdev conf. interv. of regression line
. (tdev conf. Interv. <1otal uncertainty
Linear A2bservationsC
y P ..,57.x
R[ P -.98/?
-
7
.-
.7
,-
- , / 8 ? .- .,
1
o
t
a
l

g
a
u
g
e

a
c
c
u
m
.

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r

e
v
e
n
t

A
m
m
C
1otal radar accum. volume per eventAmmC
8G R#in G#)+e
2bservations
. (tdev conf. interv. of regression line
. (tdev conf. Interv. <1otal uncertainty
Linear A2bservationsC
5.

1hus a range dependent curve was fitted in such way a coefficient factor is found at every distance to the
radar# as shown in figure 8.9.






Fig. $.' Range dependent curve for the 'alibration %actor to be applied in radar correction. 1he error bars
represent . std. dev. 'onf. interval. of the uncertainties of the regression line.

When applying the '% to the radar rainfall time series confronted with gauge time series were obtained.
!n example of this is shown in the next figure.

Fig $.(. Radar and rain gauge rain rates time series for W/ Gauge for the event of 0
th
,une
1he 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 4ust from the
linear regression line. !nyhow# it should be considered that a very small set of events was used and
therefore the linear calibration factors are sub4ect to a high uncertainty . 1hus# a larger number of events
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O.-O./ .I5: 8O.-O./ .I// 8O.-O./ .I7- 8O.-O./ .I78 8O.-O./ ,I-, 8O.-O./ ,I-9
R
#
i
n

I
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
-3 G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r !5!: m
Radar
6auge observations
'% P -.,.-5\ 3ist
R[ P -.:?9
-
-.,
-./
-.8
-.?
.
..,
../
..8
- . , 5 / 7 8 9
'
%
3istance to radar AkmC
1F 0R#n+e %)r&e
5,

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.
7.' "#rs(#ll ;P#lmer P#r#meers 1#libr#ion "e(od
$efore applying the G method # it was attempted to correct the radar by changing the coefficients a# b
involved in the Marshall Palmer Relation with the aim of minimi+e the M(" between the accumulated
rainfall values observed in the gauge and the observed by the radar using e&uation 7.. # without
correcting the reflectivity# i.e# by setting a value of G P -.
%irst a method without any restriction on the values of a and b was carried out # with the following results.
Table $. a values after applying calibration method during the events of )une ,-./. A\C0o rain registered
6auges WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
3istance
to
radarAmC

,7,- 7?77 795/ 5,8, 7,95 /,/: ,/,5
"vent a values
5<)un , /8 ,-- ., ?. . 5
/<)un ,9 5/? 9 ., .?: 8 /
:<)un : 5?? 8 ,8 , 7 5:5
.-<)un .
5-5 .: 7-- 5/. ./. .9 .99
.-<)un ,
5/ /-- . ? 9 ., ,55
,9<)un .
5:/ \ \ :9 , 7 5
,9<)un ,
.9 \ .57 75 8: 8 ,9
,:<)un
, \ . , /-- / 8






55

Table $.2 b values after applying calibration method during the events of )une ,-./. A\C0o rain registered.
6auges WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
3istance
to
radarAmC

,7,- 7?77 795/ 5,8, 7,95 /,/: ,/,5
"vent b values
5<)un 5.?? /.-. ..8 /.-. ..-. ,.., 5.:.
/<)un ,.: ..-, 5.,. 5.. ..., 5.8/ 5.?7
:<)un ,.-: ..5, ,.7? ,.8? ,.7: ..-, ..9,
.-<)un .
..9? ,., ../: ..7, ..9. -.:, ..:/
.-<)un ,
,.97 /., ,./8 5... 5.:: ..-5 ..:7
,9<)un .
,.?? \ \ ,.5? 5.: ..-, ,.:8
,9<)un ,
5.,. \ ,.,8 ,.9 5../ ..9. /.-.
,:<)un
/.-. \ 5.?: /.-. ..55 5.?8 5.?.

It can be seen that the values obtained do not have any physical meaning and show great variability. 1his
responds to a pure mathematically approach when minimising the M(" .!ctually 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 aP,--# and calibrate b and vice versa.
%rom 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. 1aking into account all this it does not seem easy to calibrate the radar by
changing a and b .
(ince these parameters depend on the 3(3 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 G calibration method.
7.. <K0 1#libr#ion "e(od= Res)ls #nd Dis%)ssion.
!s explained in section 7.5# a calibration method was applied in order to obtain the different values for
the parameter G which correct the reflectivity values of the radar by minimi+ing the M(" between
accumulated data from radar and rain gauge. 1he extraction of the radar data was done for a spatial
resolution of .,7 meter and time resolution of . minute. %or this purpose a Matlab code was set up in
order to obtain G values for every events for each of the rain gauges but W( which was not considered for
the reasons above mentioned in section 8...
5/

$esides# graphs indicating the coefficient of determination# R
,
# 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. 1he different k and R
,
obtained are shown in the following tables. !fterwards#
an example of the accumulation graphs for three of the rain gauges during two different events are shown.
Table $.! G values for each of the gauges during the events of )une ,-./ for a spatial resolution of .,7
meters. A\C0o rain registered.
6auges WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
3istance
to radarAmC

,7,- 7?77 795/ 5,8, 7,95 /,/: ,/,5
"vent G values Res..,7 m
5<)un <8.?8 <?.// -.:7 /.7. :.8. .,.57 8.78
/<)un /.// </.?? /.-9 <5 ..77 :.9/ <?.:,
:<)un <,./5 ../7 ..8 <7.:/ 5.:: ,,./8 <8.?7
.-<)un . <5.:8 ,./. <5., <. <-.88 .:.88 <7..?
.-<)un , <,.57 <9.7 9.7 <5.5 <7.,5 .9.7 <8.9?
,9<)un . <...:/ A\C A\C <9.8: <.-.,: ,:./ <-.,
,9<)un , <..,: A\C <,.5, <.., <5.55 :.55 <5.9
,:<)un ,.,5 A\C 5.,9 -.9 -.?9 ?.-, ..8?
Table $." 'oefficient of determination values for each of the gauges during the events of )une ,-./ A\C0o
rain registered.
6auges WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
3istance
to
radarAmC

,7,- 7?77 795/ 5,8, 7,95 /,/: ,/,5
"vent 'oef. 3etermination
5<)un -..9 -./, -.?5 -.88 -.97 -.:? -.?7
/<)un -.87 -.?? -.88 - -.:/ -.?5 -.7,
:<)un -.:? -.:? -.:? -.:9 -.:9 -.8? -.:9
.-<)un . -.:? -.:8 -.: -.:. -.?: -.97 -.::
.-<)un , -.?? -.:/ -.7: -.88 -.?7 -.?7 -.:9
,9<)un . -.?: A\C A\C -.:9 -.95 -.? -.7?
,9<)un , -.:5 A\C -... -.:/ -.:8 -.:8 -.:8
,:<)un -.7: A\C -.:5 -.9. -.97 -.:? -.9,

57



















Fi+ 7.> 1he green triangles represent the accumulated rainfall of the radar before calibration while the red dots the accumulation after applying the G constant.
'rosses shows the gauge accumulation registrations. R
,
represents coefficient of determination between radar and gauge accumulation.
-.--
,.--
/.--
8.--
?.--
.-.--
8O:O./ :I59 8O:O./ :I/5 8O:O./ :I/? 8O:O./ :I7/ 8O:O./ .-I--
m
m
Time
-3 Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @ 0!..' Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ !5!: m.
Radar accum
Rain gauge !ccum
2riginal radar !cc.
R[ P -.:?
-
,
/
8
?
-.-- ..-- ,.-- 5.-- /.-- 7.-- 8.-- 9.-- ?.--
A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d


+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
!ccumulated rainfall
Linear A!ccumulated rainfallC
-.--
7.--
.-.--
.7.--
,-.--
8O:O./ :I59 8O:O./ :I/- 8O:O./ :I/5 8O:O./ :I/8 8O:O./ :I/? 8O:O./ :I7. 8O:O./ :I7/
m
m
Time
-B R#in G#)+e Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @ 07.A5 Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ !.!' m.
Radar accum
Rain gauge !ccum
2riginal radar !cc.
R[ P -.:99.
-
,
/
8
?
-.-- ..-- ,.-- 5.-- /.-- 7.-- 8.-- 9.-- ?.--
A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d

+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
-B 1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5m ? 1!5m
!cc. Rainfall
Linear A!cc. RainfallC
-.--
7.--
.-.--
.7.--
,-.--
8O:O./ :I5. 8O:O./ :I5? 8O:O./ :I/8 8O:O./ :I75 8O:O./ .-I-- 8O:O./ .-I-9
m
m
Time
E8 R#in G#)+e Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @ '.>> Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ 5!B' m.
Radar accum
Rain gauge !ccum
2riginal radar !cc.
R[ P -.:9::
-
7
.-
.7
,-
-.-- ,.-- /.-- 8.-- ?.-- .-.-- .,.-- ./.-- .8.-- .?.-- A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d

+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
E8 1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5m ? 1!5m
Rainfall !cc.
Linear ARainfall !cc.C
58



















Fi+. 7.1: 1he green triangles represent the accumulated rainfall of the radar before calibration while the red dots the accumulation after applying the G
constant. 'rosses shows the gauge accumulation registrations. R
,
represents coefficient of determination between radar and gauge accum.
-.--
7.--
.-.--
.7.--
,-.--
8O.-O./ .I59 8O.-O./ .I/5 8O.-O./ .I/: 8O.-O./ .I77 8O.-O./ ,I-- 8O.-O./ ,I-8 8O.-O./ ,I.,
m
m
Time
-3 Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @ 0'.>7 Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ !5!: m.
Radar accum
6auge !cc.
2riginal radar !cc.
R[ P -.:?-/
-
,
/
8
?
.-
.,
-.-- ,.-- /.-- 8.-- ?.-- .-.-- .,.--
A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d


+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
!ccum. Rainfall
Linear A!ccum. RainfallC
-.--
7.--
.-.--
.7.--
,-.--
,7.--
5-.--
8O.-O./ .I58 8O.-O./ .I/5 8O.-O./ .I7- 8O.-O./ .I7? 8O.-O./ ,I-7 8O.-O./ ,I.,
m
m
Time
-B R#in G#)+e Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @ 05.1A Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ !.!' m.
Radar accum
Rain gauge !ccum
2riginal radar !cc.
R[ P -.::.7
-
7
.-
.7
-.-- ,.-- /.-- 8.-- ?.-- .-.-- .,.-- ./.--
A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d


+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
-B 1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5m ? 1!5m
Rainfall !cc.
Linear ARainfall !cc.C
-.--
,.--
/.--
8.--
?.--
.-.--
.,.--
./.--
8O.-O./ .I57 8O.-O./ .I/- 8O.-O./ .I/8 8O.-O./ .I7, 8O.-O./ .I7? 8O.-O./ ,I-5
m
m
Time
E8 R#in G#)+e Resol)ion 1!5 m ? 1!5 m
K @0:.77 Dis#n%e o r#d#r @ 5!B' m.
Radar !ccum.
Rain gauge !ccum
R[ P -.?:
-
7
.-
.7
-.-- ,.-- /.-- 8.-- ?.-- .-.-- .,.--
A
%
%
)
m
)
l
#

e
d

r
#
i
n

+
#
)
+
e

2
m
m
4
A%%)m)l#ed r#d#r 2mm4
E8 1oeffi%ien of deermin#ion
Resol)ion 1!5m ? 1!5m
Rainfall !cc.
Linear ARainfall !cc.C
59




















Fi+.7.11 Radar and gauge rain rate time series for 5 of the gauges during the event of :
th
)une. G method and Linear regression method are compared.
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O:O./ :I59 8O:O./ :I/. 8O:O./ :I/7 8O:O./ :I/: 8O:O./ :I7/
R
#
i
n

i
n

e
n
s
i

i
e
s

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
-B G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r@!.!' m
Radar G Method
6auge 2bservations
Radar L. Regres. Method
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O:O./ :I5. 8O:O./ :I59 8O:O./ :I/5 8O:O./ :I/: 8O:O./ :I77 8O:O./ .-I-- 8O:O./ .-I-8
R
#
i
n

i
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
E8 G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r@ 5!B' m
Radar G Method
6auge 2bservations
Radar L. Regr. Method
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O:O./ :I59 8O:O./ :I/5 8O:O./ :I/: 8O:O./ :I77 8O:O./ .-I-- 8O:O./ .-I-8 8O:O./ .-I.,
R
#
i
n

I
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
-3 G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r !5!: m
Radar G method
6auge 2bservtions
Radar L. Regr. Method
5?




















Fi+. 7.1! Radar and gauge rain rate time series for 5 of the gauges during the event of .-
th
)une. G method and linear regression method are compared.
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O.-O./ .I5: 8O.-O./ .I// 8O.-O./ .I7- 8O.-O./ .I78 8O.-O./ ,I-, 8O.-O./ ,I-9
R
#
i
n

I
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
-3 G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r !5!: m
Radar
6auge observations
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
8O.-O./ .I59 8O.-O./ .I/, 8O.-O./ .I/? 8O.-O./ .I7/ 8O.-O./ ,I-- 8O.-O./ ,I-7
R
#
i
n

I
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
-B G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r !5!: m
Rada G Method
6auge observations
-
-./
-.?
..,
..8
,
,./
,.?
5.,
8O.-O./ .I58 8O.-O./ .I/. 8O.-O./ .I/9 8O.-O./ .I75 8O.-O./ .I7: 8O.-O./ ,I-/
R
#
i
n

i
n

e
n
s
i

y

2
m
m
9
m
i
n
4
Time
E8 G#)+e Dis#n%e o r#d#r@5!B' m
Radar G method
6auge 2bservations
Radar L. Regres. Method
5:

'omparing the plots of the two methods it was reali+ed that the application of the linear method
regression is based in fact on the same strategy that the G method because watching the e&uation
A7..C# one can appreciate that by multiplying each of the rain rates comig from the application of
Marshall<Palmer by '% # mathematically is the same that adding a constant to the d$B as it was
done in method G. 1he difference lies in how the '% and constant G are obtained. 1he '% is obtained
from ratios between the total amount of accumulated radar and gauge# while for the case of G# from
minimi+ing the M(" of the accumulated rainfall curve for each particular event and gauge.
'onse&uentely# the rain rate time series have the same shapes but with the differece that with
the FG calibration methodH # total volumes are obtained more accurately due to the nature of the
method itself . 0evertheless # at least for the data set analy+ed# the FG calbratiion methodH still hardly
describes the temporal dynamics of the rainfall.
Watching the results of the table 8.5# It can be observed a large variability in the values of the
constant G and hence a range dependent curve of the constant G was not possible to established.
1hese results also confirm the pressence an important presence of clutter in the 2@ rain gauge and
therefore # the reflectivity observed is sistematically very low in such a way that a considerble
amount of reflectivity has to be added in order to correct the radar estimation at that place.
1herefore these results# led to a searching for possible factors that could be affecting the
estimation of the G value and its variability # so# new approaches based on the same methodology
were tested for the purpose of finding a trend in the values of the constant k.
1he inffluence of the spatial resolution selected # the averaged covered area of the event # the
maximum intensisties # total amount of rainfall and duration # and finally the clutter issue described
in the &uality analsys# were analy+ed in order to look for pattern that might be inffluencing the G
estimation.
2.*.1 Sp#ti#lre$ol"tioninfl"ence.
1aking into account Pedersen A,--/C where it was found a not insignifficant spatial variablity in the
rainfall radar estimations within a pixel of 7-- meters # a coarser spatial resolution was used in this
study in order to check its inffluence in the calibration. 1he coarsest spatial resolution for this radar
model is ,7- meters # so radar values are expected to be more averaged with respect to the .,7
meters resolution and therefore singularities in the specific pixels of the raingauge might be
/-

corrected.1he k values obtained after extracting the values and applying the same FG calibration
methodH are shown in the next table.
Table $.# G values for spatial resol. of ,7- m during the events of )une ,-./. A\C0o rain registered
6auges WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ R$
3istance
to radarAmC
,7,- 7?77 795/ 5,8, 7,95 /,/: ,/,5
"vent G values Res.,7- m
5<)un <:.:7 <9..: -.-8 7.7: :./: .:.-? 9.7?
/<)un .-..9 <8.,5 ,... <,.7 ...5 .5.7, <.-.9
:<)un <5./8 ..7: -.7 <7..9 5.,. ,/.?/ <7.75
.-<)un . </.7, ..:/ <,.8: <-.9: <-..: ,-.9 <7.-9
.-<)un , <,./9 <?.?/ 9.58 <,.?7 <8.7 .?.77 <7.78
,9<)un . <.,.,5 A\C A\C <7.:5 <?.9 5- -.8.
,9<)un , <,.-7 A\C <,.88 <-.:7 <5.8/ ./.8/ <,./
,:<)un -.?? A\C ,.:7 ,.-: <-.5, .5./9 5./9

2bserving the results of the above table 8.7# 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.
2.*.2 Cl"tterinfl"ence
!fter the &ualility analysis# it was clear the influence of the clutter in the area of study# especially
within the 7 km range area# the urban area of Leuven.
1herefore# a clutter filter it was developed in order to check the impact on the results.
1he 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. 1he conditions are established by trial
and error visuali+ing the results obtained for different radar shots. ! pixel was considered a clutter
if any of the following conditions were metI
If d$B ] 57 and the average of the values of the surrounding 7x7 matrix is ^ ,?
If more than 8 pixels on the 7x7 matrix around the cell are ^Pixel valueO5
If more than 7 of the surrounding 5x5 Matrix are considered as clutter by the prior
conditions.
/.

1he new value for a clutter pixel would be the median of the values within a 7x7 matrix around each
of the pixel.
!s a result of applying the clutter filter it was found that it was useful but 4ust 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. 1he
explanation for this was found by comparing original images during dry period with images during
storm events .
3uring the dry period# the areas where reflectivity values were found Asee figure 8./C# were
approximately the same ones found during the rain events. 1he reflectivity values were clearly lower
than the surroundings as shown in fig. 8.. and fig 8.,. 1herefore# 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.
1hus# a new condition is added by means of comparing two arrays# one with the original reflectivity
values and another after applying a 7x7 median filter to the previous one# in such a way that for
this second matrix# each pixel contains the median value of its neighbors . !fter 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 ad4usting a statistical
distribution for the whole set of ratios# that happened to be Log<0ormal# it was found that Awith a
:7K of confidenceC the pixels values affected by clutter were between 5?K and 77K of the mean
value of its neighbors not affected by clutter. !nother condition was to limit the algorithm# to pixels
with reflectivity lower than ,7 d$B# in order to keep out of the filter# the values never affected by
clutter .1hus# a pixel was considered a clutterI
If d$B ^ ,7 and if its values is between 5?K and 77K of the mean value of 7 x 7 matrix
pixels around.





/,

1he way how the filter performed# can be seen in the next figureI









Fig $.! "ffect of applying the filter algortihm in the accumulated map during the whole month of
)une ,-./.2@ gauge still not corrected by the filter.

1he k values obtained after applying the filter were the fllowingI
Table $.$ G values after applying clutter filter during the events of )une ,-./. A\C0o rain registered
"vent

G values
5<)un
</.95 <.-.9/ ,.,8 5.7- ?.97 ...57 /./.
/<)un
,.9: <7.., 8.:- <5.,. ..59 ?.:/ <9.8-
:<)un
<..95 ..,5 7.., <8.?, /.:/ ,-.9/ <?.5:
.-<)un .
</./9 ,.,, <5.8, <../- <-.:/ .9..- </.99
.-<)un ,
<,.-: <...,7 8.-- </.-8 </.77 ,?.-- <?.?.
,9<)un .
<...5/ \ \ <8.:, <8.5? 5,.,? <-..5
,9<)un ,
<..77 \ <,.,5 <..78 <5.8- 8.,7 </.77
,:<)un
../: \ /.7? -.75 -.?- .-.7. ../?

2bserving the results of the above table 8.8# it is clear that applying the clutter filter did not solve
the variablity on the G values.
!s can be seen in the table A8.8C and also in the figure 8..5 the filter was not able to improve 2@
gauge estimations . ! possible testing to evaluate the performance of the filter would have been
/5

by checking the effects of the application of the filter in the regression line method but this approach
was not performed in this study.
2.*.& Co3ere'#re#infl"ence

In order to check whether there was any relationship between the area covered and the G 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 $.' 1otal average area covered during the event# and K respect the total area covered by the
radar.
"vent !verage areal covered AGm,C K
5<)un 798 .8.-
/<)un /., .../
:<)un :?. ,9.5
.-<)un . .-:/ 5-./
.-<)un , ?75 ,5.9
,9<)un . /,: ...:
,9<)un , .,-. 55./
,:<)un ?-: ,,.7


'omparing this tables with the tables 8.5 and 8.7 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.
2.*.* M#4i%"%inten$itie$5tot#l#%o"ntofr#inf#ll#n''"r#tioninfl"ence
Maximun intensities # total amount of rainfall and duration of the events were considered with the
same purpose .1he following data were used for this porpuse.



//

Table $.( Maximum intensities at every gauge during each of the events.
Max .IntensitiesAmmOminC
WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
5<)un -.87 -.,. -..:: -., -.5? -., -..:
/<)un -.,-8 -.,. -./-.7 -./, -..: -., -..:
:<)un -.85 ..5 -.?. -./, ..5: ../8 ../7
.-<)un . ..98 ..5 -./ ,..: ..?, ../8 ..89
.-<)un , -., -.,. -.?. -./, -..: -.8 -.8.
,9<)un . -./.8 \ \ -./, -.79 5.?5 ..89
,9<)un , -.,-8 \ -..: -., -.?: -., -..:
,:<)un -.,-. \ -..: -., -.?: -., -..:

Table $.)& Total rainfall accumulation at every gauge during each of the events
1otal rainfall accumulationAmmC
WB GL @6 3( "@ 2@ W$
5<)un /../ ../9 ..5: -.?5 /.:7 ,./- ../-
/<)un -.?, ..8? ,.-- -.8, ,./9 ..8- -.8-
:<)un 8.?: ...9- ...:. 7.?. .8.85 .,.,: 8.95
.-<)un . :.98 ...,. 5./. ...:9 .-./5 :.,. .5.,:
.-<)un , ..// ..,8 ,.?. ..?8 ..9. ,.,. ,./.
,9<)un . ..?8 \ \ /../ /.,. /.79 8.98
,9<)un , /.., \ ,..: ,.8: ,.,? 5.-- ,..:
,:<)un 7..7 \ /.5? /.5/ /.77 /.?- 7..?

(uch as it was done with the areal covered influence # a pattern was sought but again# no relation
was found .0evertheless #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 6I% files
produced. 'oncluding that this variability in the constants might be related to the dynamics and
spatial development of the storms. !t this point # it was here # where the attenuation issue came to
scene.
'onsidering 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 e&uation Asee e&. ,.8C might be
insufficient to account for attenuation when considerable temporal and spatial variation of the
rainfall distribution occurs . 1his motivated a first approach in order to check how this issue was
affecting the variability of the G values.
/7

!n 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.
! first approach in this direction was made. 1hus # what was happening during the :
th
)une was
investigated for the gauges W$ and WB since they are placed at the same distance and the same
amount of accumulated rainfall was recorded. With this conditions # similar G values would have
been expected # but as is shown in the table 8.5 # that was not the case. 1herefore 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 $resenham algortihm was used AWatt#,-.-C.
1he values obtained indicated that more averaged reflectivity was detected in the W$ gauge path
to the radar #5..,7 d$BOmin # than in the WB path # ,7.,7 d$BOmin # and that is the reason why the
G value is different and more correction had to be done for the W$ gauge A(ee table 8.5C. 1his is
possible to appreciate more graphically in the next figure.











Fig $." . Snapshot of the $
th
event of ,une in the moment the high intensity cell is passing trough
the area of interest&The colormap bar was change to apreciate more the contrasts&
/8

(o# it can be seen how the path to WB 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 d$B values are lower. 2n the contrary for the W$ case# it can be seen how the high
intensity cell is placed 4ust above the gauge and therefore the path is free of high intensity cells in
such a way the attenuation less# and the d$B values in averaged larger since there is still considreavle
intensities rates in between.1hus# more correction had to be applied to reflectivity values in W$
than in WB # fact that is is reflected in the G values.
1his 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.
!ltough 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.
6 66 6 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOM CONCLUSIONSANDRECOM CONCLUSIONSANDRECOM CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS MENDATIONS MENDATIONS MENDATIONS
B.1 1on%l)sions
Rainfall estimation is a driving force in the field of hydrology# being a main input in the hydrologic E
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 ;<
$and radar of Leuven is now given in terms of reflectivity. In order to evaluate the performance of
the new configuration of the Leuven ;<$and radar several approaches have been made. 3ue to some
problems in the radar configuration only events belonging to )une of ,-./ were included in this
evaluation.
! first &uality analysis of the data provided was done. 3ifferent maps and animated 6I%s were
created in order to understand the spatial and temporal dynamic of the events included in the data
set. ! clear presence of clutter within a range of .- km was noticed# as well as an obstruction of the
radar beam towards east direction. 1he fact that no waves are emitted towards airport direction
was also confirmed.
(ince 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.
/9

! variation of the classic linear regression method was performed. 1he method still hardly described
the temporal dynamics of the rainfall but a range dependent tendency was found when correcting
the radar measurements. ! calibration method based on the fitting of accumulation radar and gauge
rainfall curves for each of the events by correcting the reflectivity was used. 1he main purpose was
to find any patterns in the correction of the reflectivity values# but a high variability in this direction
was found. 1herefore several approaches were attempted in order to explain it. !fter 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. 1he 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.
(everal factors might be affecting the results obtained. %irst# the internal radar settings about how
reflectivity values are provided were not reviewed in this study and its reliability was taken for
granted. (econdly# a small set of ? 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. %inally# 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 hori+ontal# and the radar internal ad4ustment 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.
! special attention should be placed in the attenuation factor. (ince this type of weather radar is
much more affected by attenuation than other weather radars# it seems that a simple static range
dependent e&uation correction to account for the attenuation issue is insufficient for taking into
account the dynamism associated to rainfall events.


/?

B.! Re%ommend#ions #nd F))re -or,
It seems that the G calibration method used in this study leads to a very dynamic values for the FGH
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.
!nyhow# 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.
1herefore# by applying a dynamic method in such a way that the short<term radar and gauges
estimation are continuously ad4usted# it is expected to obtain better results. (ince 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.
'onsidering 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.
%urthermore# 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 &uantile
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.
$eing aware of the difficulties involved# a final recommendation would be the installation of further
rain gauges which would be useful for the calibration processes of the radar# as well as a set of
disdrometers that might help in the seasonal changes in the B<R Marshall<Palmer relation and would
be useful to check the d$B internal conversion of the radar.
/:

It also should be noted that new approaches in improving radar rainfall estimations by combining
the potentialities of the L!WR ;<$and radar with the '<$and are being tested by different
researchers and might be interesting to apply them in this case study.

7 77 7 REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES

$attan# L. ).# .:8-. Radar observation of the atmosphere. Duarterly )ournal of the Royal Meteorological
(ociety# ?8I ,:,.
$erne# !.# 3elrieu# 6# 'reutin# ).# and 2bed# '. A,--/C. 1emporal and spatial resolution of rainfall
measurements re&uired for urban hydrology. )ournal of @ydrology# ,::# .88<.9:.

$echand# ). and 'hau# ).L. A"ditorsC# ,-.,. 3oppler Radar 2bservations EWeather radars# Wind Profiler and
!dvanced !pplications. In1ech# /?, pp.
$orup# M.# 6rum# M.# Linde# ).).# and Mikkelsen# P.(.# ,--:. !pplication of high resolution x<band radar data
for urban runoff modellingI constant vs. dynamic calibration. InI Proc. ?th International Workshop on
Precipitation in rban !reas# .-E.5 3ecember ,--: at (t. Morit+# (wit+erland.
'ain# 3.# ,--,. 3oppler radar fre&uently asked &uestions. 0ational 2ceanic and !tmospheric !dministration.
3ecloedt# L.'.# =an !ssel# ). and Willems# P.# ,-.,. Improving the fine scale rainfall estimation of a local area
weather radarI case of an ;<band radar at Leuven# $elgium. InI Proc the 9th "uropean 'onference on Radar in
Meteorology and @ydrology A"R!3C# ,/<,: )une ,-., at 1oulouse# %rance.
3@I# ,-.-I Local !rea Weather Radar AL!WRC 3ocumentation. =ersion 5.,# .</:.
httpIOOradar.dhigroup.comOpublicationsOpublications.html
3oviak# R.). and Brnic# 3.(.# ,--8. 3oppler Radar and Weather 2bservations. 3over Publications. (econd
"dition# .(.!.# 7:, pp.
"infalt# 1. and Maul<G_otter# $.# ,--,. Routine use of radar measurements in a hydrological serviceI what are
the users re&uirements` InI (trecker# ". W. and @uber# W. '. A"ditorsC. InI Proc. :th Int. 'onf. on rban
3rainage# Portland# 2regon# (!.
"infalt# 1.# !rnb4erg<0ielsen# G.# 6ol+# '.# )ensen# 0.".# Duirmbach# M.# =aes# 6. and =ieux# $.# ,--/. 1owards a
roadmap for use of radar rainfall data in urban drainage. ). @ydrol.# ,:: A5E/CI .?8E,-,.
7-

"infalt# 1.# )essen# M. and Mehlig# $.# ,--7. 'omparison of radar and raingauge measurements during heavy
rainfall. Water (ci. 1echnol.# 7. A,CI :7E,-..
%ankhauser# R.# .::?. Influence of systematic errors from tipping bucket rain gauges on recorded rainfall data.
Water (cience and 1echnology# 59I .,.E .,:.
%aures# ).M.# 6oodrich# 3.# Woolhiser# 3. !.# and (orooshian# (.# .::7. Impact of small<scale spatial rainfall
variability on runoff modeling. )ournal of @ydrology# .95I 5-:E5,8.
6eTer '.# ,--7. Radar products and operational applications. WM2<1(M(. InI Proc 1raining course on weather
radar systemsI 1urkey radar training ..-M .,E.8 (eptember ,--7# at !ntalya# 1urkey.
6iulianelli# M.# Miserocchi# %.# 0apolitano# %.# and Russo# %.# ,--8. Influence of space<time rainfall variability
on urban runoff. Proceedings of the .9th I!(1"3 International 'onference Modelling and (imulation# ,/<,8
May# ,--8 at Montreal# D'# 'anada.
6oormans# 1.# ,-... !nalysis of local weather radar in support of sewer system modelling. @ydraulics
Laboratory < 3epartment of 'ivil "ngineering# Gatholieke niversiteit Leuven# $elgium Aunpubl.C# ,., pp.
)ensen# 0.". and Pedersen# L.# ,--7. (patial variability of rainfallI variations within a single radar pixel. !tmos.
Res.# 99 A.E/CI ,8:E,99 A(P"'. I((.C.
Lei# ).@.# and (chilling# W.# .::/. Parameter uncertainty propagation analysis for urban rainfall runoff
modeling. Water (cience and 1echnology# ,: A.<,CI ./7<.7/.
Lengfeld# GM 'lemens# MM Manster# @ and !ment# %# ,-./. rban @igh<Resolution Precipitation ProductI
'ombining '<$and and Local ;<$and Radar. InI Proc. ?th "uropean 'onference on Radar in Meteorology and
@ydrology A"R!3C# .<7 (eptember ,-./ at 6armisch<Partenkirchen# 6ermany.
LNffler<Mang# M. and )arg ).# .:::. !n 2ptical 3isdrometer for Measuring (i+e and =elocity of @ydrometeors.
). !tmos. 2ceanic 1echnol.# .9I .5-E.5:.
Luyckx# 6.# Willems# P.# and $erlamont# ).# .::?. Influence of the spatial variability of rainfall on sewer system
design. In Wheater# @. and Girby# '. A"ds.C# @ydrology in a changing environment# InI Proc. $ritish @ydrological
(oc. Int. 'onf.# "xeter# G.
Luyckx # 6. and $erlamont# ).# ,--.. (implified Method to 'orrect Rainfall Measurements from 1ipping $ucket Rain
6auges. InI $rashear# R. and Maksimovic# '. A"ditorsC# rban 3rainage Modeling. !merican (ociety of 'ivil
"ngineers# 989<998.
7.





Marshall# ). and Palmer# W.# .:/?. 1he distribution of raindrops with si+e. )ournal of Meteorology# 7I .87E.88.
Meischner# P. A"ditorC# ,--5. Weather RadarI Principles and advanced !pplications. (pringer# 6ermany# 559
pp.
Morena# %.# !ndrieu# @.# Rodrigue+# %.# and 'reutin# ).<3.# ,--,. "ffect of rainfall variability on the hydrological
behavior of urban basinsI a simulation study based on weather radar data. In (trecker# ". W. and @uber# W. '.
A"ds.C# Proc. :th Int. 'onf. on rban 3rainage# Portland# 2regon# (!.
0ielsen# ).".# 1horndahl# (. and Rasmussen# M.R.# ,-.,. "valuering af ny processeringsmetode til L!WR. 3'"
1echnical Reports# ./:I /- p.
0ielsen# ).".# ,-.5. 'ombining '<band and ;<band weather radars for accurate precipitation measurements
over urban areas. Phd 1hesis 3epartment of 'ivil "ngineering# !alborg niversity# !alborg.
0ielsen# ).".# )ensen# 0.".# Rasmussen# M.R.# ,-.5a. 'alibrating L!WR weather radar using laser disdrometers.
!tmospheric Research# .,,I .87<.95.
0ielsen# ).".# $evenb# G.# 1horndahl# (. and Rasmussen# M.R.# ,-./a. 6L" based marine ;<band weather radar
data calibration and uncertainty estimation. rban Water )ournal.
0ielsen# ).".# 1horndahl# (. and Rasmussen# M.R# ,-./b. Improving weather radar precipitation estimates by
combining two types of radars. !tmospheric Research# .5:I 58</7.
2choa<Rodrigue+# (.# ten =eldhuis# M.'.# $runi# 6.# 6ires# !.# van !ssel# )# Wang# L.# Reinoso<Rodinel# R.# Ichiba#
!.# Groll# (.# (chert+er# 3.# 2nof# '. and Willems# P.# ,-./. Multi<storm# multi<catchment investigation of rainfall
spatial resolution re&uirements for urban hydrological applications. InI Proc. "uropean 6eoscience nion
6eneral !ssembly# ,9 !pril<, May ,-./ at =ienna# !ustria.
Pedersen# L.# ,--/. (caling properties of precipitation. "xperimental study using weather radar and rain
gauges. Proceedings of a MasterHs thesis# !alborg niversity.
Pedersen# L.# Bawad+ki# I.# )ensen# 0.".# and Madsen# @.# ,--?. !ssessment of DP" results from / kW ;<band
Local !rea Weather Radar AL!WRC evaluated with (<band radar data. InI Proc. 1he %ifth "uropean 'onference
on Radar in Meteorology and @ydrology A"R!3C# 5- )une < / )uly ,--? at @elsinki# %inland.
7,


Pedersen# L.# )ensen# 0. ".# and Madsen# @.# ,-.-. 'alibration of Local !rea Weather Radar. Identifying
significant factors affecting the calibration. !tmospheric Research# :9I .,:E./5.
Probert<)ones# ).# .:8,. 1he radar e&uation in meteorology. Duarterly )ournalof the Royal Meteorological
(ociety# ?? A59?CI /?7E/:7.
Robert# ! and @ou+e# )r.# .::5. 'loud dynamics. !cademic press Inc# 'alifornia# 795 pp.
Robert# !. and @ou+e# )r.# .::9. (tratiform Precipitation in Regions of 'onvectionI ! Meteorological Paradox`.
!merican Meteorological (ociety# 9?I ,.9: <,.:8.
Rollenbeck# R. and $endix# ).# ,--8. "xperimental calibration of a cost<effective ;<band weather radar for
climate ecological studies in southern "cuador. !tmos. Res.# 9: A5E/CI ,:8E5.8.
RSlek# M.# 'he+e# )<L.# @andwerker# ).# 3elobbe# L. and i4lenhoet# R.# ,--/. Radar techni&ues for identifying
Precipitation type and estimating &uantity of precipitation .
(chilling# W. and %uchs# L.# .:?8. "rrors in (tormwater Modeling# ! Duantitative !ssessment. ). @ydraul. "ng.#
.., A,CI ...E.,5.
(teiner# M.# @ou+e# R.!. and >uter# (.".# .::7. 'limatological characteri+ation of three<dimensional storm
structure from operational radar and rain gauge data. )ournal of applied meteorology# 5/I .:9?<,--9.
(trahler# !. and (trahler# !.# ,--5. Introducing Physical 6eography A5
rd
edC. WIL">. 0ew >orkO 6reat $ritain#
8?/ pp.
1estik# %.>. and 6ebremichael# M.# ,-.5. 3ual<polari+ation Radar Rainfall "stimation. InI 1estik# %. > and
6ebremichael# M. A"ditorsC# RainfallI (tate of the (cience. !merican 6eophysical nion# Washington# 3. '.
1horndahl# (. L. and Rasmussen# M. R.# ,--:. 'hallenges in ;<band weather radar data calibration. InI Proc.
?th International workshop on precipitation in urban areas. Rainfall in the rban 'ontextI %orecasting# Risk
and 'limate 'hange# .-<.5 3ecember ,--:# at (wit+erland.
1horndal# (.# Rasmussen# M.R.# ,-.,. Marine ;<band weather radar data calibration. !tmospheric Research#
.-5I 55E//.
75

i4lenhoet# R.# ,--.. Raindrop si+e distributions and radar reflectivity<rain rate relationships for radar
hydrology. @ydrology and "arth (ystem (ciences# 7A/CI 8.7E8,9.
=an Mameren# @.# and 'lemens# %.# .::9. 6uidelines for hydrodynamic calculations on urban drainage in the
0etherlandsI overview and principles. Water (cience and 1echnology# 58# A?<:CI ,/9<,7,.
Watt# !lan A,---C. bRasteri+ing edgesc. .5 Computer Graphics A5 editionC. p. .?/.
Willems# P.# and $erlamont# ).#.:::. Probabilistic modeling of sewer system overflow emissions# Water
(cience and 1echnology# 5: A:CI /9 E 7/.
Willems# P. and $erlamont# ).# ,--,. !ccounting for the spatial rainfall variability in urban modelling
applications. Water (cience and 1echnology# /7 A,CI .-7E..,.
Willems P.# ,--7. ncertainties in Rainfall<Runoff Modeling. InI Lehr# ).@. and Geeley# ). A"ditorsC. Water
"ncyclopedia# 7I ,:9<5-5.
WM2# ,--?. 6uide to @ydrological Practices. =ol. I# @ydrology<%rom measurements to hydrological
Information. 'hairperson# Publications $oard. 6eneva# (wit+erland. .8?I ,:8 pp.