Raindrop Size Distribution Modeling from a Statistical Rain Parameter ...

716

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY

VOLUME 48

Raindrop Size Distribution Modeling from a Statistical Rain Parameter Relation and Its Application to the TRMM Precipitation Radar Rain Retrieval Algorithm TOSHIAKI KOZU Shimane University, Matsue, Shimane, Japan

TOSHIO IGUCHI National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Koganei, Tokyo, Japan

TOYOSHI SHIMOMAI Shimane University, Matsue, Shimane, Japan

NOBUHISA KASHIWAGI The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan (Manuscript received 25 March 2008, in final form 8 October 2008) ABSTRACT A generalized method is presented to derive a ‘‘two scale’’ raindrop size distribution (DSD) model over a spatial or temporal domain in which a statistical rain parameter relation exists. The two-scale model is generally defined as a model in which one DSD parameter is allowed to vary rapidly and the other is constant over a certain space or time domain. The existence of a rain parameter relation such as the radar reflectivity– rainfall rate (Z–R) relation over a spatial or temporal domain is an example of such a two-scale DSD model. A procedure is described that employs a statistical rain parameter relation with an assumption of the gamma DSD model. An example using Z–R relations obtained at Kototabang, West Sumatra, is presented. The result shows that the resulting two-scale DSD model expressed by conventional DSD parameters depends on the assumed value of parameter m while rain parameter relations such as k–Ze relations from those models using different m values are very close to each other, indicating the stability of the model against the variation of m and the validity of this method. The result is applied to the DSD model for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) precipitation radar 2A25 (versions 5 and 6) algorithm. The derivation procedure of the 2A25 DSD model is described. Through the application of this model, it has become possible to make a logically well-organized rain profiling algorithm and reasonable rain attenuation correction and rainfall estimates, as described in an earlier paper by Iguchi et al.

1. Introduction Estimation of raindrop size distribution (DSD) parameters is important in obtaining accurate rain-rate estimates from radar measurements. In theory, a multiparameter radar rainfall measurement such as a dualpolarization radar (Bringi and Chandrasekar 2001) or a dual-frequency radar (e.g., Meneghini et al. 1992) can provide the information about DSD, which in turn can

be utilized for a better rain-rate estimate. In reality, however, it is generally difficult to extract such information for each radar resolution volume because of the difficulty in satisfying measurement accuracy requirements needed to make the DSD estimation. The DSD is often approximated with a gamma model: N(D) 5 N 0 Dm exp( LD) 5 NT

Corresponding author address: Toshiaki Kozu, 1060 Nishikawatsu, Matsue, Shimane 690-8504, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1175/2008JAMC1998.1 Ó 2009 American Meteorological Society

Lm11 Dm exp( LD), G(m 1 1)

(1)

where D is the drop diameter, {N0, m, L} or {NT, m, L} are parameters of the gamma model, and G() is the

APRIL 2009

KOZU ET AL.

complete gamma function (Ulbrich 1983). Although NT is the zeroth moment of the DSD, it has been treated also as a DSD parameter (Chandrasekar and Bringi 1987). The parameter m is often fixed for simplicity and to make it possible to estimate DSD from a dualparameter radar measurement. It appears that two DSD parameters (e.g., N0 and L with a fixed m) are not fully independent from one resolution volume to another; the spatial variability of DSD parameters can be represented by a ‘‘two scale’’ model (Kozu and Nakamura 1991). The two-scale model is generally defined as a model in which one DSD parameter is allowed to vary rapidly (e.g., for each range bin or from moment to moment) and the other is constant over a certain space or time domain (e.g., one radar beam or one rain event). This model has been used for extracting DSD-related information from multiparameter measurements combining data having different spatial resolutions in the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) (Iguchi et al. 2000; Haddad et al. 1997b). In such a scheme, an appropriate two-scale DSD model is important to achieve reasonable results when the estimated DSD is used to obtain ‘‘final goal’’ rainfall parameters (in the above cases, the rainfall rate and the attenuation coefficient at each TRMM radar resolution volume). We can study an appropriate two-scale model if we have actual DSD data, but such a situation is only available at a limited number of experimental sites. Therefore, we often have to rely on indirect DSD information such as the relation between radar reflectivity factor Z and rain-rate R (Z–R relation) obtained from simultaneous radar and rain gauge observations. Ulbrich (1983) attempted to relate N0 with m in the threeparameter gamma distribution model using a set of Z–R relations listed by Battan (1973) and instantaneous disdrometer-measured DSD data. However, the relationship thus obtained may not reflect the microphysics of precipitation but rather results from a correlation between N0 and m because of the functional form of the DSD model (Chandrasekar and Bringi 1987). Haddad et al. (1997a) proposed a unique parameterization of DSD in which rain rate is treated as a DSD parameter and the other two parameters are defined so that they are mutually uncorrelated with rain rate. A feature of their parameterization is to treat rain rate as one of the three DSD parameters. They also discussed spatial variability of the other two DSD parameters, suggesting that they are less variable over a several-kilometer range based on a Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Response Experiment (TOGA COARE) Particle Measuring Systems, Inc., probe dataset. Assuming that rain rate is only a

717

variable DSD parameter over a several-kilometer domain is a type of the two-scale DSD model. However, their parameterization appears to be too specifically tuned to the TOGA COARE data, leading to a complicated representation of the DSD model. In this paper, we propose a DSD model that is much simpler than Haddad et al. (1997a) but is a versatile method to derive a two-scale DSD model over a space (or time) domain in which certain statistical DSD properties exist. Such properties are estimated from statistical relations among measurable remote sensing or in situ data. The existence of a rain parameter relation, such as a Z–R relation, over a spatial or temporal domain is a representation of the two-scale DSD model, if we assume a DSD model described by two parameters. We note here that Z and R can also be recognized as DSD parameters. Therefore, the existence of a Z–R relation within the domain means that the DSD model can be described only with one parameter within the domain. Because the Z–R relation has been widely obtained and used for radar rainfall remote sensing, our approach could be used not only in specific locations but on wider occasions. The general estimation method is first discussed. An example that uses a Z–R relation to obtain a relation between gamma DSD model parameters is presented. The DSD parameters used are the same as those in Ulbrich (1983), but we will relate N0 and L instead of relating N0 and m as Ulbrich (1983) did. The derived N0–L relation essentially represents the DSD model that is fully consistent with the measured Z–R relation with a fixed m assumption. This model is suitable for relating various rain parameters such as Z, effective radar reflectivity factor Ze, R, and the attenuation coefficient k, as we will see later in this paper. As an application, we use this model to establish the rain parameter relations for the TRMM precipitation radar (PR) rain retrieval algorithm 2A25 (Iguchi et al. 2000). Iguchi et al. (2000) described the outline of the DSD model for 2A25 as a part of their algorithm description. In the last part of this paper, we focus our attention on the description of the DSD model for 2A25. A part of this paper is also recognized as a detailed follow-up of Iguchi et al. (2000) on the aspect of the DSD model.

2. Basic formulation of the problem a. Measurable rainfall parameters and relation to DSD parameters Although natural DSDs are highly variable, threeparameter models can approximate the natural DSDs well for the purpose of relating higher-order moments of the DSD (Kozu and Nakamura 1991). Two-parameter

718


models are less flexible but still provide a good fit to the natural DSDs in limited applications (Kozu and Nakamura 1991). In this paper, we use the gamma DSD model given by Eq. (1) in which the shape parameter m is fixed. For the DSD modeling proposed in this paper, we assume that an integral rain parameter xi measurable with remote sensing is proportional to the ith-order moment of DSD. Those include Z (6th moment), R (approximately 3.67th moment), and rain attenuation coefficients (approximately 3rd–4.5th moments depending on frequency) (Kozu 1991). Those quantities are assumed to be measured without any attenuation effects or to be already attenuation corrected. Let xi be such a quantity with the multiplicative coefficient cxi: xi 5 cxi Mi 5 cxi N 0 G(m 1 i 1 1)/Lm1i11 ,

(2)

where Mi is the ith-order moment of DSD. In a similar way, we assume that another integral rain parameter xj is also measured: xj 5 cxj Mj 5 cxj N 0 G(m 1 j 1 1)/Lm1j11 .

(3)

By using Eqs. (2) and (3), we recognize that the (xi, xj) pair can be converted to the pair (N0, L). This is the basic concept of a dual-parameter radar measurement proposed by Ulbrich and Atlas (1978) and others. This type of ‘‘point’’ dual-parameter measurement has been extended to ‘‘areawide’’ dual-parameter measurements in which a certain rain parameter is assumed to be constant over the area. The two-scale DSD model is directly applicable to the dual-parameter measurements for such areawide dual-parameter measurements. Kozu and Nakamura (1991) assumed N0 or NT as constant over a certain time domain while L was allowed to vary. This is a simple case of the two-scale DSD model. In this paper, we discuss a general approach to find a proper two-scale model in the case in which a statistical rain parameter relationship between xi and xj is obtained by some method such as regression and probability density matching. The existence of such an xi– xj relation can be recognized as the situation in which the variation of DSD can be parameterized with a single parameter for the domain in which the xi–xj relation holds. Note that this situation means a two-scale DSD model is applicable for the domain, even though the DSD parameter constant in the domain is not N0 or L, but an xi–xj relation that can be converted to an N0–L relation, as we will see later. For simplicity, we first convert the integral rain parameters xi and xj to their natural logarithms Xi and Xj:

X i [ lnxi

VOLUME 48

and X j [ lnxj .

(4)

Equations (2) and (3) are then converted to the following forms: X i 5 lncxi 1 lnG(m 1 i 1 1) 1 ln N 0

X j 5 lncxj 1 lnG(m 1 j 1 1) 1 ln N 0

(m 1 i 1 1)lnL and (5) (m 1 j 1 1)lnL. (6)

Equations (5) and (6) indicate that the measurable integral rain parameters Xi and Xj are related to the conventional DSD parameters lnN0 and lnL with simple linear transformations. Therefore, any relation between Xi and Xj can be converted to an N0–L relation. The N0–L relation derived in this way can be interpreted as the one that represents the DSD variation consistent with the measured Xi–Xj relation. If we have another measurable rain parameter in addition to Xi and Xj, we could estimate the relations among {N0, m, L} or we could improve the accuracy in estimating the N0–L relation, depending on the properties of the third rain parameter. In this paper, we stay with the case in which we have two measurable rain parameters.

b. Finding the rain parameter relation The basic concept of the approach we propose here is to find the ‘‘best’’ Xi–Xj relation that can be converted to the corresponding N0–L relation. A linear regression between Xi and Xj is commonly used for this purpose. However, linear regression has a disadvantage because of the asymmetric nature between Xi and Xj. For example, a regression line from R to Z is not necessarily the best one for estimating R from Z. A better choice to find the statistical relation between Xi and Xj, having similar statistical properties, could be obtained from principal component (PC) analysis, in which the first principal component is the new rain parameter representing the most variable rain parameter on the Xi–Xj plane. For example, if we use the normalized Xi and Xj (Xni and Xnj, respectively), X ni 5 (X i

X i )/sXi

and

X nj 5 (X j

X j )/sXj ,

(7)

where X i and X j are mean values of Xi and Xj and sXi and sXj are their standard deviations, respectively, we obtain the relation X i 5 bX j 1 lna, lna [ X i

bX j ,

with b [ sXi /sXj

and (8)

that corresponds to the first principal component of Xni and Xnj. By going back to the original variables xi and xj, we have the power law

APRIL 2009

719

KOZU ET AL.

xi 5 axbj .

y t (D) 5 3.778D0.67

(9)

(12)

Using Eq. (8) or Eq. (9) with Eqs. (4)–(6), we can obtain a relation between N0 and L. Note that the principal component analysis is not the only way to derive the linear relation between Xi and Xj. In many cases, rain parameter relations are obtained from regressions, and there may be cases in which we have to utilize them to derive the DSD model.

applies, where the unit of y t is meters per second. Therefore, a and b are expressed as ( ) 1 G(m 1 7) lna a5 ln and b 1 b 1 [cxj G(m 1 4.67)]b

3. Use of the Xi –Xj relation

Ulbrich’s (1983) approach was that he used two integral rain parameters proportional to moments [Eqs. (2) and (3)] and eliminated L to obtain a power law between the two integral rain parameters [Eq. (9)]. As a result, a became a function of N0 and m and b became a function of m only. His expression of b was equivalent to setting b 5 0 in Eq. (13). Using these results, he directly related m with the exponent b in the Z–R relation. However, such an assumption is not necessary and may not be valid in general because N0 may be a function of rain rate or L. In our approach, we select a fixed m, but if we have another rain parameter relationship or any other DSD-related information in the area of interest then we adjust m based on such additional information, making the DSD model more flexible and reliable.

If we have a statistical relation that has the form of Eq. (8), then we can convert it to the corresponding N0–L relation. From Eqs. (4), (5), (6), and (8), ln N 0 5 a 1 blnL,

(10)

with a5

(

1 b

1

ln

b5m111

)

cxi G(m 1 i 1 1) b

[cxj G(m 1 j 1 1)] jb i . b 1

1 b

1

lna and

(11)

Equations (10) and (11) represent the relationships between the conventional DSD parameters that are consistent with the integral rain parameter relations [Eqs. (8) and (9)]. We note here the reason why the assumption of an xi–xj relation is a two-scale DSD model. The existence of an xi–xj relation means that the DSD can be described by just one variable parameter, either xi or xj. In other words, the xi–xj relation itself is a ‘‘slowly variable’’ parameter and either xi or xj is a ‘‘rapidly changing’’ parameter. In a similar way, if we convert the DSD parameter to N0 and L, we can say that the N0–L relation, such as Eq. (10), is a slowly variable parameter and either N0 or L is a rapidly changing parameter. A confusing point in this case is that, for example, if we assume that Eq. (10) is slowly variable, we have to fix two parameters, a and b, instead of just one. However, because the DSD is still described with only one variable parameter in this case, we treat this as one of the two-scale DSD models. Using the above result, let us try to find the DSD model matched to a measured Z–R relation. Hereinafter, we use the following units for N(D), D, Z, R, N0, and L: mm21 m23, mm, mm6 m23, mm h21, mm2m21 m23, and mm21, respectively. In the case of the Z–R relation (Z 5 aRb), we note that i 5 6, j 5 3.67, cxi 5 1, and cxj 5 6p(3.778 3 1024). Note also that we assume that the Atlas and Ulbrich (1977) terminal velocity formula

b5m111

3.67b 6 . b 1

(13)

4. Example of DSD modeling with Z–R relation As an example, we use DSD data obtained by a disdrometer of the Joss–Waldvogel type (Joss and Waldvogel 1967) in April and May of 2004 at Kototabang, West Sumatra, Indonesia (Fukao 2006). The disdrometer data were integrated for 3 min to reduce errors due to small sample size and were used to obtain Z–R relations. During this period, a clear transition from an inactive phase to an active phase of the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO; Madden and Julian 1994) was observed. In response to this transition, the DSD shape and Z–R relations changed significantly (Kozu et al. 2005). Therefore, the data should be suitable to test the DSD modeling for two different Z–R relations. We show two cases for Z–R-relation-based N0–L relations assuming m 5 3. Figure 1 shows scattergrams between dBR and dBZ for 14–17 April (MJO inactive phase) and 2–3 May (active phase) directly calculated from the disdrometer data, where DSDs in the former period were broader than in the latter period. The corresponding Z–R relations from the principal component analysis are Z 5 346.65R1.468 and Z 5 101.9R1.667, respectively, as shown by solid lines in Fig. 1. Using Eqs. (10) and (13), we can convert them to the corresponding N0–L relations: N0 5 295.9L2.691 and N0 5 142.0L4.177, respectively. For the calculation of

720


N0 5

FIG. 1. The Z–R relations obtained from disdrometer at Kototabang for (a) 14–17 Apr and (b) 2–3 May 2004, and their first principal component lines.

R we are using Eq. (12) to keep consistency with the moment approximation to rain rate. These statistical N0–L relations derived from the measured Z–R relations can be compared with instantaneous values of N0 and L calculated from individual disdrometer samples using the following equation with the 3.67th and 6th moments of DSD: L5

G(m 1 7) M3.67 G(m 1 4.67) M6

1/2.33 and

Lm17 M6 . G(m 1 7)

VOLUME 48

(14)

Figure 2 shows the comparison of instantaneous values of N0 and L with the statistical N0–L relations converted from the Z–R relations obtained with the principal component analysis. Note that the Z–R-relationbased statistical N0–L relations fit the instantaneous values based on Eq. (14) well, although they do not necessarily match the least squares fit of instantaneous values of N0 and L. Such a discrepancy may be a limitation of this DSD modeling method, but, as will be shown later, this does not cause much of a problem in the application to estimate other integral rain parameter relations, such as between k and Ze and between R and Ze. The above result indicates that once we have a statistical relation between Z and R, we can translate it to that between N0 and L with a fixed m. Using the Z–Rrelation-based two-scale model, we can obtain any rain parameter relations for the period of interest. Note that once the DSD model is established, we do not need to assume that an integral rain parameter is proportional to a moment of DSD, as we needed to in Eqs. (2) and (3). For example, Fig. 3 shows the scattergram between k (dB km21) and Ze (mm6 m23) for 13.8 GHz and 208C. The solid lines represent the results calculated from the N0–L relations (two-scale models) mentioned above using the Mie theory. Furthermore, the open squares are instantaneous values directly calculated from the disdrometer data also using the Mie theory. The results indicate that the k–Ze relations from the two-scale model fit the instantaneous values well despite the slight discrepancy in N0–L relations between the statistical relation and instantaneous values mentioned above. A question we have here is about the effect of fixing m on other rain parameter relations, such as the k–Ze relations, since the N0–L relation is sensitive to changes in m. In the above model of 14–17 April 2004, for example, N0–L relations for m 5 0, 3, 6, and 10 are N0 5 5560.8L20.3068, N0 5 295.9L2.691, N0 5 2.140L5.691, and N0 5 0.000 448L9.691, respectively, given that Z 5 346.65R1.468. The effect of m variation can be evaluated with integral rain parameter relations relevant to microwave propagation and meteorology, such as k–Ze and W–Ze relations, where W represents the liquid water content (g m23). Figure 4 shows the k–Ze and W–Ze relations for 14–17 April calculated from the N0–L relations mentioned above using the Mie theory assuming m 5 0, 3, 6, and 10. It is found that the variation of these relations with changing m is very small. The variations for 2–3 May have been found to be similar or smaller than those of the 14–17 April case.

APRIL 2009

KOZU ET AL.

721

FIG. 3. The k–Ze relations (m 5 3) corresponding to the fitting lines in Fig. 1 (solid line) and instantaneous values of k and Ze. FIG. 2. The N0–L relations (m 5 3) corresponding to the fitting lines in Fig. 1 (solid line) and instantaneous values of N0 and L.

We note that the natural variation of the m value ranges between 0 and 20 (Kozu and Nakamura 1991; Tokay and Short 1996; Illingworth and Blackman 2002), with the mode around 4–6. However, we should also note the shortcomings of the Joss–Waldvogel disdrometer. It tends to underestimate the number of small diameter drops, especially in heavy rain, and cannot resolve large drop sizes of 5.0–5.5 mm (Tokay et al. 2002). Considering this fact, we believe that a m value slightly smaller than those obtained from the past Joss–

Waldvogel disdrometer data (i.e., m 5 3) would be a reasonable choice as a nominal value of m. We also note that the change in the above-mentioned k–Ze and W–Ze relations assuming m 5 10 or larger is very close to the results for m 5 6. Therefore, the present evaluation should be sufficient in safely concluding that the effect of m variation on the rain parameter relations is minor. For these reasons, we assume m 5 3 for all calculations of rain parameter relations for TRMM PR rain retrieval. As an overall validation, we show the result using longer-period disdrometer data for which the correlation coefficient between dBR and dBZ is lower than the

722


FIG. 4. The (a) k–Ze relations and (b) W–Ze relations derived from the principal component fitting of the Z–R relation for 14–17 Apr 2004 disdrometer data assuming m 5 0, 3, 6, and 10.

shorter events shown above. Figure 5a shows the Z–R relations (disdrometer-measured values and their principal component analysis fitting of Z 5 192.8R1.596). From the fitting line, we have obtained N0–L relations for different m values. Using those results, we calculate k–Ze relations for 13.8 GHz and 208C, assuming m 5 0 and 10, which are shown in Fig. 5b along with instantaneous values directly calculated from disdrometer data. As shown in this figure, the Z–R-relation-based DSD model fits the disdrometer data very well.

VOLUME 48

FIG. 5. (a) The Z–R relation (disdrometer data) from 10 Apr to 5 May 2004 at Kototabang and its PC fitting. (b) The k–Ze relation (disdrometer data) and the relations derived from the PC fitting of the Z–R relation in (a), assuming m 5 0 and 10.

5. Application to TRMM PR rain retrieval algorithm The above Z–R-relation-based DSD model is applied to versions 5 and 6 of the TRMM PR 2A25 rain retrieval algorithm. In this section, we describe a detailed procedure of making the DSD model for the 2A25 algorithm. The ‘‘default’’ or ‘‘standard’’ Z–R relations for the DSD model were derived for stratiform and convective rains, based on several Z–R relations obtained in oceanic and semioceanic tropics in the past (see Table 1).

APRIL 2009

KOZU ET AL.

TABLE 1. The Z–R relations (Z 5 aRb) used to make the default DSD model for the 2A25 algorithm (GATE is the Global Atmospheric Research Program Atlantic Tropical Experiment). Location

a

b

Remarks

Nigeria

Convective 264 1.34 Shower

Nigeria

Stratiform 313 1.41 Wide spread

Reference

Ajayi and Owolabi (1987) Tropical 180 1.35 GATE Austin and Geotis Atlantic (1979) Tropical 170 1.52 GATE Cunning and Sax Atlantic (1977) Florida 250 1.47 Shower Stout and Mueller (1968) Florida 224 1.51 Thunderstorm Stout and Mueller (1968) Marshall Islands 146 1.42 Shower Stout and Mueller (1968) Kapingamarangi 139 1.43 Tokay and Short (1996) Darwin 170 1.47 Short et al. (1990)

Kapingamarangi 367 1.30 Florida

322 1.33 Continuous

Marshall Islands

226 1.46 Continuous

Ajayi and Owolabi (1987) Tokay and Short (1996) Stout and Mueller (1968) Stout and Mueller (1968)

The ‘‘past’’ does not mean the PR-measured Ze but Z–R relations obtained in past studies using ground-based radars and rain gauges or disdrometers. By utilizing those past study results (power-law Z–R relations), we try to obtain a DSD model applicable to the TRMM PR measurement that mainly aims at the measurement of tropical to subtropical rainfall. The term ‘‘semioceanic’’ is somewhat ambiguous. We treat it as meaning an observation site within about 100 km from the coastline, such as Florida; Darwin, Australia; and Ile-Ife, Nigeria (in Table 1). The ‘‘global average’’ Z–R relation was obtained as follows: 1) Choose a set of Zs (Z1, Z2, . . . , Zn between 14 and 50 dBZ) and calculate corresponding rain rates (R1i, R2i, . . . , Rni), where i denotes the Z–R relation number, that is, a specific Z–R relation listed in Table 1. 2) Average all Rjis [i.e., calculate Rj_av 5 (Rj1 1 Rj2 1 1 Rjm)/m, where m is the number of relevant Z–R relations] for j 5 1, 2, . . . , n. A set of pairs, (Z1, R1_av), (Z2, R2_av), . . . , (Zn, Rn_av), is then obtained. 3) By making a principal component analysis on a log– log space, a linear relation between dBZ and dBR,

723

which is converted to a power law Z 5 aRb, is obtained. We used Z–R relations from rainfall data in tropical oceanic and semioceanic climate considering that the main target of TRMM observation is tropical rain. Although there might be some systematic difference in DSD between land and ocean regions that was also suggested by TRMM PR observation (Iguchi et al. 2000), it was decided that introducing such a land/ocean separation in the DSD model was too premature in producing the ‘‘operational’’ standard products. The resulting global average Z–R relations are Z 5 300R1.38 (stratiform) and Z 5 185R1.43 (convective). Using these default Z–R relations for the 2A25 algorithm, we generated the corresponding N0–L relations for m 5 3, N0 5 3175L1.54 (stratiform), and N0 5 2724L2.25 (convective), and a set of rain parameter relations, such as k–Ze relations, that was summarized in Table 1 of Iguchi et al. (2000) as initial values.

6. Summary We have proposed a method to derive a two-scale DSD model over a spatial or temporal domain in which statistical rain parameter relations exist. The two-scale DSD model is generally defined as a model in which one DSD parameter is allowed to vary rapidly (e.g., for each range gate or from moment to moment) and the other is constant over a certain space or time domain (e.g., one radar beam or one rain event). The existence of an integral rain parameter relation such as a Z–R relation over a spatial or temporal domain is considered to be an example of the two-scale DSD model. We described the procedure of employing a rain parameter relation derived from standard statistical data processing with an assumption of the gamma DSD model. The test results using Z–R relations obtained at Kototabang, West Sumatra, showed that the resulting two-scale DSD model expressed by the N0–L relation varies depending on the assumption of m but that higher-order rain parameter relations such as k–Ze relations from those different models are very close to each other, indicating the stability of the model against the change of m in the application to rain parameter relations. This result was applied to the DSD model for the TRMM PR 2A25 (versions 5 and 6) algorithm. A detailed procedure of the model construction was described. Acknowledgments. This work has been supported by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) under the joint research on TRMM and by the Grant-inAid for Scientific Research funded by the Ministry of

724


Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). We thank Prof. K. Okamoto for his support in conducting this study. We also thank Dr. J. Kwiatkowski, Dr. A. Tokay, and Prof. K. Shimizu for their valuable discussions and comments. REFERENCES Ajayi, G. O., and I. E. Owolabi, 1987: Rainfall parameters from disdrometer dropsize measurements at a tropical station. Ann. Telecommun., 42, 3–12. Atlas, D., and C. W. Ulbrich, 1977: Path- and area-integrated rainfall measurement by microwave attenuation in the 1–3 cm band. J. Appl. Meteor., 16, 1322–1331. Austin, P. M., and S. G. Geotis, 1979: Raindrop sizes and related parameters for GATE. J. Appl. Meteor., 18, 569–575. Battan, L. J., 1973: Radar Observation of the Atmosphere. University of Chicago Press, 324 pp. Bringi, V. N., and V. Chandrasekar, 2001: Polarimetric Doppler Weather Radar. Cambridge University Press, 636 pp. Chandrasekar, V., and V. N. Bringi, 1987: Simulation of radar reflectivity and surface measurements of rainfall. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 4, 464–478. Cunning, J. B., and R. I. Sax, 1977: A Z–R relationship for the GATE B-scale array. Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 1330–1336. Fukao, S., 2006: Coupling Processes in the Equatorial Atmosphere (CPEA): A project overview. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 84A, 1–18. Haddad, Z. S., D. A. Short, S. L. Durden, E. Im, S. Hensley, M. B. Grable, and R. A. Black, 1997a: A new parametrization of the rain drop size distribution. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 35, 532–539. ——, E. A. Smith, C. D. Kummerow, T. Iguchi, M. R. Farrar, S. L. Durden, M. Alves, and W. S. Olson, 1997b: The TRMM ‘Day-1’ radar/radiometer combined rain-profiling algorithm. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 75, 799–809. Iguchi, T., T. Kozu, R. Meneghini, J. Awaka, and K. Okamoto, 2000: Rain-profiling algorithm for the TRMM precipitation radar. J. Appl. Meteor., 39, 2038–2052. Illingworth, A. J., and T. M. Blackman, 2002: The need to represent raindrop size spectra as normalized gamma distributions

VOLUME 48

for the interpretation of polarization radar observations. J. Appl. Meteor., 41, 286–297. Joss, J., and A. Waldvogel, 1967: A raindrop spectrograph with automatic analysis. Pure Appl. Geophys., 68, 240–246. Kozu, T., 1991: Estimation of raindrop size distribution from spaceborne radar measurement. Ph.D. dissertation, Kyoto University, 196 pp. ——, and K. Nakamura, 1991: Rainfall parameter estimation from dual-radar measurements combining reflectivity profile and path-integrated attenuation. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 8, 259–270. ——, T. Shimomai, Z. Akramin, Marzuki, Y. Shibagaki, and H. Hashiguchi, 2005: Intraseasonal variation of raindrop size distribution at Koto Tabang, West Sumatra, Indonesia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07803, doi:10.1029/2004GL022340. Madden, R. A., and P. R. Julian, 1994: Observations of the 40– 50-day tropical oscillation—A review. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 814–837. Meneghini, R., T. Kozu, H. Kumagai, and W. C. Boncyk, 1992: A study of rain estimation methods from space using dualwavelength radar measurements at near-nadir incidence over ocean. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 9, 364–382. Short, D. A., T. Kozu, and K. Nakamura, 1990: Rain rate and raindrop size distribution observations in Darwin Australia. Proc. Open Symp. on Regional Factors in Predicting Radiowave Attenuation due to Rain, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, URSI, 35–40. Stout, G. E., and E. A. Mueller, 1968: Survey of relationships between rainfall rate and radar reflectivity in the measurement of precipitation. J. Appl. Meteor., 7, 465–474. Tokay, A., and D. A. Short, 1996: Evidence from tropical raindrop spectra of the origin of rain from stratiform versus convective clouds. J. Appl. Meteor., 35, 355–371. ——, A. Kruger, W. F. Krajewski, P. A. Kucera, and A. J. P. Filho, 2002: Measurements of drop size distribution in the southwestern Amazon basin. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 8052, doi:10.1029/ 2001JD000355. Ulbrich, C. W., 1983: Natural variations in the analytical form of the raindrop size distribution. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 22, 1764–1775. ——, and D. Atlas, 1978: The rain parameter diagram: Methods and applications. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 1319–1325.