Browse

You are looking at 11 - 16 of 16 items for :

  • IFloodS 2013: A Field Campaign to Support the NASA-JAXA Global Precipitation Measurement Mission x
  • All content x
Clear All
Robert M. Beauchamp, V. Chandrasekar, Haonan Chen, and Manuel Vega

Abstract

The NASA dual-frequency, dual-polarization Doppler radar (D3R) was deployed as part of the GPM Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS) ground validation field campaign from 1 May through 15 June 2013. The D3R participated in a multi-instrument targeted investigation of convective initiation and hydrological response in the midwestern United States. An overview of the D3R’s calibration and observations is presented. A method for attenuation correction of Ka-band observations using Ku-band results is introduced. Dual-frequency ratio estimates in stratiform rain and ice are presented and compared with theoretical values. Ku-band quantitative precipitation estimation results are validated against IFloodS ground instruments.

Full access
Bong-Chul Seo, Brenda Dolan, Witold F. Krajewski, Steven A. Rutledge, and Walter Petersen

Abstract

This study compares and evaluates single-polarization (SP)- and dual-polarization (DP)-based radar-rainfall (RR) estimates using NEXRAD data acquired during Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS), a NASA GPM ground validation field campaign carried out in May–June 2013. The objective of this study is to understand the potential benefit of the DP quantitative precipitation estimation, which selects different rain-rate estimators according to radar-identified precipitation types, and to evaluate RR estimates generated by the recent research SP and DP algorithms. The Iowa Flood Center SP (IFC-SP) and Colorado State University DP (CSU-DP) products are analyzed and assessed using two high-density, high-quality rain gauge networks as ground reference. The CSU-DP algorithm shows superior performance to the IFC-SP algorithm, especially for heavy convective rains. We verify that dynamic changes in the proportion of heavy rain during the convective period are associated with the improved performance of CSU-DP rainfall estimates. For a lighter rain case, the IFC-SP and CSU-DP products are not significantly different in statistical metrics and visual agreement with the rain gauge data. This is because both algorithms use the identical NEXRAD reflectivity–rain rate (ZR) relation that might lead to substantial underestimation for the presented case.

Full access
Luciana K. Cunha, James A. Smith, Witold F. Krajewski, Mary Lynn Baeck, and Bong-Chul Seo

Abstract

The NEXRAD program has recently upgraded the WSR-88D network observational capability with dual polarization (DP). In this study, DP quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) provided by the current version of the NWS system are evaluated using a dense rain gauge network and two other single-polarization (SP) rainfall products. The analyses are performed for the period and spatial domain of the Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS) campaign. It is demonstrated that the current version (2014) of QPE from DP is not superior to that from SP mainly because DP QPE equations introduce larger bias than the conventional rainfall–reflectivity [i.e., R(Z)] relationship for some hydrometeor types. Moreover, since the QPE algorithm is based on hydrometeor type, abrupt transitions in the phase of hydrometeors introduce errors in QPE with surprising variation in space that cannot be easily corrected using rain gauge data. In addition, the propagation of QPE uncertainties across multiple hydrological scales is investigated using a diagnostic framework. The proposed method allows us to quantify QPE uncertainties at hydrologically relevant scales and provides information for the evaluation of hydrological studies forced by these rainfall datasets.

Full access
Ibrahim Demir, Helen Conover, Witold F. Krajewski, Bong-Chul Seo, Radosław Goska, Yubin He, Michael F. McEniry, Sara J. Graves, and Walter Petersen

Abstract

In the spring of 2013, NASA conducted a field campaign known as Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS) as part of the Ground Validation (GV) program for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission. The purpose of IFloodS was to enhance the understanding of flood-related, space-based observations of precipitation processes in events that transpire worldwide. NASA used a number of scientific instruments such as ground-based weather radars, rain and soil moisture gauges, stream gauges, and disdrometers to monitor rainfall events in Iowa. This article presents the cyberinfrastructure tools and systems that supported the planning, reporting, and management of the field campaign and that allow these data and models to be accessed, evaluated, and shared for research. The authors describe the collaborative informatics tools, which are suitable for the network design, that were used to select the locations in which to place the instruments. How the authors used information technology tools for instrument monitoring, data acquisition, and visualizations after deploying the instruments and how they used a different set of tools to support data analysis and modeling after the campaign are also explained. All data collected during the campaign are available through the Global Hydrology Resource Center (GHRC), a NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).

Full access
Phu Nguyen, Andrea Thorstensen, Soroosh Sorooshian, Kuolin Hsu, and Amir AghaKouchak

Abstract

Floods are among the most devastating natural hazards in society. Flood forecasting is crucially important in order to provide warnings in time to protect people and properties from such disasters. This research applied the high-resolution coupled hydrologic–hydraulic model from the University of California, Irvine, named HiResFlood-UCI, to simulate the historical 2008 Iowa flood. HiResFlood-UCI was forced with the near-real-time Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information Using Artificial Neural Networks–Cloud Classification System (PERSIANN-CCS) and NEXRAD Stage 2 precipitation data. The model was run using the a priori hydrologic parameters and hydraulic Manning n values from lookup tables. The model results were evaluated in two aspects: point comparison using USGS streamflow and areal validation of inundation maps using USDA’s flood extent maps derived from Advanced Wide Field Sensor (AWiFS) 56-m resolution imagery. The results show that the PERSIANN-CCS simulation tends to capture the observed hydrograph shape better than Stage 2 (minimum correlation of 0.86 for PERSIANN-CCS and 0.72 for Stage 2); however, at most of the stream gauges, Stage 2 simulation provides more accurate estimates of flood peaks compared to PERSIANN-CCS (49%–90% bias reduction from PERSIANN-CCS to Stage 2). The simulation in both cases shows a good agreement (0.67 and 0.73 critical success index for Stage 2 and PERSIANN-CCS simulations, respectively) with the AWiFS flood extent. Since the PERSIANN-CCS simulation slightly underestimated the discharge, the probability of detection (0.93) is slightly lower than that of the Stage 2 simulation (0.97). As a trade-off, the false alarm rate for the PERSIANN-CCS simulation (0.23) is better than that of the Stage 2 simulation (0.31).

Full access
Evan J. Coopersmith, Michael H. Cosh, Walt A. Petersen, John Prueger, and James J. Niemeier

Abstract

Soil moisture monitoring with in situ technology is a time-consuming and costly endeavor for which a method of increasing the resolution of spatial estimates across in situ networks is necessary. Using a simple hydrologic model, the estimation capacity of an in situ watershed network can be increased beyond the station distribution by using available precipitation, soil, and topographic information. A study site was selected on the Iowa River, characterized by homogeneous soil and topographic features, reducing the variables to precipitation only. Using 10-km precipitation estimates from the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) for 2013, high-resolution estimates of surface soil moisture were generated in coordination with an in situ network, which was deployed as part of the Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS). A simple, bucket model for soil moisture at each in situ sensor was calibrated using four precipitation products and subsequently validated at both the sensor for which it was calibrated and other proximal sensors, the latter after a bias correction step. Average RMSE values of 0.031 and 0.045 m3 m−3 were obtained for models validated at the sensor for which they were calibrated and at other nearby sensors, respectively.

Full access