Technical Papers
Jan 15, 2013

Validation of the NEXRAD DSP Product with a Dense Rain Gauge Network

Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 18, Issue 2

Abstract

The Next-Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) system digital storm-total precipitation product (DSP; 2km×1° at 4–7-min intervals) is examined for its quality in terms of precipitation quantity and spatial rainfall distribution. Observations from a network of 50 rain gauges in the Upper Guadalupe River Basin are compared to the DSP rainfall estimates from two radars: KEWX at New Braunfels, Texas, and KDFX (14 km east of Brackettville, Texas), for the period of September 2006 to June 2008. The rainfall data comparisons are conducted at three temporal scales: 6 min, 1 h, and storm-total accumulations, and at different distances from the radars, from near (<50km) to middle (50–100 km), far (100–160 km), and very far ranges (>160km). A strong range dependence is found from radar estimates, i.e., radar underestimates at near and very far ranges (<50 and >160km), matches well or slightly overestimates at middle ranges (50–100 km), and overestimates at far ranges (100–160 km). The correlation coefficients between paired radar and gauge precipitation estimates are moderate (r from 0.62 to 0.76) for both radars at the three time scales, however, they are spatially different (at the county level, showing a decreasing trend from middle to far ranges, passing west to east through Kerr, Kendall, Comal, and Guadalupe counties) under the KDFX umbrella. Under the KEWX umbrella, there is no trend of spatial correlation coefficients from county to county. Similarly, there is an overall increase of mean relative difference between radar and gauge values from middle to far ranges from the KDFX radar, but mixed results for the KEWX radar. The probabilities of rainfall detection (POD) for both radars are greater than 90% and are always higher than the gauge PODs, which increase from 10% at the 6-min temporal scale, to 30% at the hourly scale, to 70% for the storm-total scale. There is no range dependence for POD. Overall, the DSP product suffers from severe range dependence, and its rainfall estimates agree better with rain gauge estimates during the warm season than during the cold season. However, the DSP’s advantages in high temporal and spatial resolutions and the near real time storm-total rainfall estimations provide great potential for near real time flash flood monitoring and forecasting at local and regional scales, although it still needs more testing and corrections, especially at very close ranges, far ranges, and during the cold season.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by the NOAA/UCAR/COMET grant #S06-58383 and NOAA grant #NA06NWS4680012. We appreciate the help of Jason Burks of the NWS Weather Forecast Office, Huntsville, Alabama who provided the DSPtoShapeFile program, the help from National Weather Service (Greg Story), and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority in archiving and providing radar and rain gauges data is sincerely acknowledged. Critical reviews and constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.

References

ArcGIS [Computer software]. Esri, Inc., Redlands, CA.
Austin, P. (1987). “Relation between measured radar reflectivity and surface rainfall.” Mon. Weather Rev., 115(5), 1053–1070.
Ciach, G. J., and Krajewski, W. F. (1999). “Radar-rain gauge comparisons under observational uncertainties.” J. Appl. Meteorol., 38(10), 1519–1525.
Fabry, F. (2004). “Obstacles to the greater use of weather radar information.” 6th Int. Symp. on Hydrological Applications of Weather Radar, 1–6.
Fulton, R. A., Breidenbach, J. P., Seo, D.-J., and Miller, D. A. (1998). “The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm.” Weather Forecast., 13(2), 377–395.
Habib, E., Ciach, G. J., and Krajewski, W. F. (2004). “A method for filtering out rain gauge representativeness errors from the verification distributions of radar and rain gauge rainfall.” Adv. Water Resour., 27(10), 967–980.
Habib, E., Krajewski, W. F., and Ciach, G. J. (2001). “Estimation of rainfall interstation correlation.” J. Hydrometeorol., 2(6), 621–629.
Jayakrishnan, R., Srinivasan, R., and Arnold, G. J. (2004). “Comparison of rain gauge and WSR88D Stage III precipitation data over the Texas-Gulf basin.” J. Hydrol., 292(1–4), 135–152.
Klazura, G. E., Thomale, J. M., Kelly, D. S., and Jendrowski, P. (1999). “A comparison of NEXRAD WSR-88D rain estimates with gauge measurements for high and low reflectivity gradient precipitation events.” J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 16(11), 1842–1850.
Krajewski, W. F., and Smith, J. A. (2002). “Radar hydrology: Rainfall estimation.” Adv. Water Resour., 25(8–12), 1387–1394.
Neary, V. S., Asce, M., Habib, E. M., and Fleming, M. (2004). “Hydrological modeling with NEXRAD precipitation in Middle Tennessee.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 9(5), 339–349.
Sharif, H. O., Ogden, F. L., Krajewski, W. F., and Xue, M. (2004). “Statistical analysis of radar rainfall error propagation.” J. Hydrometeorol., 5(1), 199–212.
Sharif, H. O., Yates, D., Rita, R., and Mueller, C. (2006). “The use of an automated nowcasting system to forecast flash floods in an urban watershed.” J. Hydrometeorol., 7(1), 190–202.
Skinner, C., Bloetscher, F., and Pathak, C. S. (2009). “Comparison of NEXRAD and rain gauge precipitation measurements in South Florida.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 14(3), 248–260.
Smith, J. A., Seo, D. J., Baeck, M. L., and Hudlow, M. D. (1996). “An intercomparison study of NEXRAD precipitation estimates.” Water Resour. Res., 32(7), 2035–2045.
Wang, X., Xie, H., Sharif, H. O., and Zeitler, J. (2008). “Validating NEXRAD MPE and Stage III precipitation products for uniform rainfall on the upper Guadalupe River Basin of the Texas Hill Country.” J. Hydrol., 348(1–2), 73–86.
Willmott, C. J. (1982). “Some comments on the evaluation of model performance.” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 63(11), 1309–1313.
Xie, H., Zhou, Z., Hendrickx, J. M. H., Vivoni, E. R., Guan, H. T., and Small, E. (2006). “Evaluation of NEXRAD Stage III precipitation data over semiarid region.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 42(1), 237–256.
Xie, H., Zhou, Z., Vivoni, E. R., Hendrickx, J. M. H., and Small, E. (2005). “GIS-based NEXRAD Stage III precipitation database: Automated approaches for data processing and visualization.” Comput. Geosci., 31(1), 65–76.
Yilmaz, K. K., Hogue, T. S., Hsu, K. L., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T. (2005). “Intercomparison of rain gauge, radar, and satellite based precipitation estimates with emphasis on hydrologic forecasting.” J. Hydrometeorol., 6(4), 497–517.
Young, C. B., et al. (1999). “An evaluation of NEXRAD Precipitation Estimates in Complex Terrain.” J. Geophys. Res., 104(D16), 19691–19703.
Young, C. B., Bradley, A. A., Krajewski, W. F., and Kruger, A. (2000). “Evaluating NEXRAD multisensor precipitation estimates for operational hydrologic forecasting.” J. Hydrometeorol., 1(3), 241–253.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 18Issue 2February 2013
Pages: 156 - 167

History

Received: Mar 28, 2011
Accepted: Jun 22, 2012
Published online: Jan 15, 2013
Published in print: Feb 1, 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Newfel Mazari
Ph.D. Candidate, Environmental Science and Engineering, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249.
Hongjie Xie [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Geological Sciences, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
Jon Zeitler
Science and Operations Officer, Austin/San Antonio National Weather Service, 2090 Airport Rd., New Braunfels, TX 78130.
Hatim O. Sharif
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share