1. Introduction
The radar-measurable variables that identify a target’s position are slant range, which is calculated from the time delay between transmitted and received pulses, the elevation angle of the radar ray at the radar antenna (hereafter called the launch angle), and the azimuth angle of the ray. Hence, the radar coordinates, which are intrinsic to data collection, are slant range r (arc length along a stationary ray), azimuth β, and launch angle α. Important quantities not measured directly but derived from the radar variables are ray height above radar level, ground range, and ray slope angle.
Accepted postulates for applications of ground-based weather radars are (i) that the surface of the Earth1 is a perfect sphere level with the radar antenna and (ii) that the rays are circular with constant curvature (typically much less than Earth curvature). A standard atmospheric stratification determines the value of the ray curvature (Doviak and Zrnić 2006, 19–21; Petrocchi 1982). As pointed out by Askelson (2002), postulate (ii) excludes the straight vertically launched ray. Here we amend postulate (ii) by allowing ray curvature to vary with the cosine of the launch angle. Granted this amended postulate, we develop exact formulas for the derived variables as functions of slant range and launch angle. These formulas are constrained by the properties of a vertically launched ray. At a launch angle of 90°, the formulas satisfy the correct conditions of zero ray curvature, zero ground range, constant ray slope angle of 90°, and equality of slant range and height.
Assuming a flat earth instead of a spherical one and ignoring atmospheric refraction (case 1, Fig. 1) yields simple formulas that are sufficient for ranges only up to a few tens of kilometers (Xu and Wei 2013). At longer ranges serious height errors occur owing to absence of both earth curvature and ray curvature. For computing the signatures of simulated storms with a virtual Doppler radar, keeping the model’s flat earth and calculating an adjusted ray curvature, which preserves the height function (i.e., the dependence of height on slant range and launch angle) to an excellent approximation, is the most practical approach (case 2, Fig. 2). Standard practice, following Schelleng et al. (1933), postulates an equivalent magnified earth, for which the rays become straight (case 3, Fig. 3). Keeping the relative curvature (the planetary curvature minus a constant ray curvature) invariant determines the radius of the equivalent earth. Schelleng et al. demonstrated that for nearly horizontal rays the equivalent-earth model closely replicated results from their real-Earth model. Note however that, unlike the equivalent-earth model, their real-Earth model cannot imitate a vertically launched ray or rays with considerable slopes. For atmospheric observations, we can retain the real-Earth curvature and assume ray curvature that varies with the cosine of the launch angle (case 4, Fig. 4). This provides us with formulas for the actual Earth that are correct for the vertically launched straight ray and agree very closely with those of the equivalent-earth model. The invariant quantity is now the relative curvature evaluated at zero launch angle. Thus, we can derive from our real-Earth model the adjusted ray curvature required in a flat-earth model to preserve the height function.
In section 2 we derive exact solutions for ray height, ground range, and ray slope angle as functions of slant range and launch angle. These solutions are exact only as far as the amended postulates are true. Section 3 tailors these solutions to specific geometries, namely flat earth, equivalent earth, and actual Earth. At this stage the radius of the equivalent earth and the ray curvature to be used on a flat earth are unspecified. In section 4 we find an approximate solution for ray height that is accurate to within 7 m for ranges up to 250 km. This solution depends on the curvatures only via the relative curvature of a ray launched horizontally. This relationship enables us to find the appropriate ray curvature for a flat earth and the radius of an equivalent earth that retain the same function for height versus slant range and launch angle as on the real Earth. Section 5 contains sample calculations in the different cases of height, ground range, and slope angle for slant ranges and launch angles that span the values used by operational WSR-88Ds on thunderstorm days [this span is evident in Fig. 1 of Xu and Wei (2013)]. We present conclusions and planned future work in section 6.
2. Ray geometry and height
We use two coordinate systems, Cartesian coordinates associated with the tangent plane at the radar and right-handed curvilinear nonorthogonal coordinates that are radar-measured position identifiers. The position vector in the Cartesian system is X ≡ Xi + Yj + Hk where i, j, k form an orthonormal basis with i eastward, j northward, and k upward at the radar antenna O. Note that these fixed vectors are either parallel or normal to the tangent plane at O and do not follow the planetary surface if it is curved. Consider a measurement point P and its projection N onto the tangent plane. The Cartesian coordinate H of P is the height of P above the tangent plane and the coordinates X and Y are, respectively, east and north distances to N from the radar. The curvilinear coordinates (r, α, β) are based on the geometry of the radar ray. The origin is at the radar antenna O and r is the slant range (defined as arc length distance from O along a ray to the measurement point P), α is the launch angle of the ray, and β is the ray azimuth angle measured clockwise from due north. Angles are measured in radians unless stated otherwise.
For computing the signatures of simulated storms with a virtual Doppler radar, (s, α, β) coordinates are more convenient than (r, α, β) since s is readily available and r is not. Let P be a point at a given ground range on a specific ray identified by its launch angle and azimuth. We require the slant range of P in order to compute the height of P and the ray’s slope angle at P in order to compute Doppler velocity. Thus, we need in the various cases the inverse relationships for the slant range r as a function of the ground range s and launch angle α. These are obtained in the appendix.
3. Compiling the formulas for each case
4. Parameter determination
We make small angle approximations in this section to find the equivalent curvatures that preserve the height function approximately across different planet geometries. First note that in case 1 there are no curvature parameters to adjust to reach agreement with the real-Earth case 4. Consequently, this model greatly underestimates the beam height at long range. Its slope angle is an inaccurate estimate as it does not vary from the launch angle.
Planetary curvature 1/a and ray curvature κ0 cosα under conditions of standard NEXRAD refraction for the real Earth (radius a⊕ ≈ 6.371 × 106 m, case 4), for an equivalent earth (case 3), and for a flat earth (case 2). In case 1 the earth is flat and there is no refraction. In cases 2, 3, and 4 the planetary curvature minus the ray curvature at 0° launch angle (i.e., 1/a − κ0) is invariant to keep beam height the same function of slant range. For refraction in the U.S. standard atmosphere instead of standard refraction, replace 1/5.76 with 1/4.
We now have a way to investigate the dependence of vortex signatures on range. Our method utilizes a Doppler-radar simulator to obtain at different ranges the Doppler-velocity patterns either of simple analytical vortex flows (e.g., Davies-Jones and Wood 2006)2 or of velocity fields produced in a numerical simulation of a supercell above a flat lower boundary (Wood et al. 2018). Formula (49) provides ray curvature as a function of launch angle α. We use the relationship (37) [or (A8)] to determine arc lengths r along rays at specified ground ranges s. We then use (35) to compute the heights of ray points. From (36) we calculate the ray slope angles that are needed in calculations of Doppler velocities.
5. Results
In the volume coverage patterns used by operational WSR-88D weather radars to scan thunderstorms, the launch angle α varies from 0.5° to 19.5° and the slant range r extends to around 250 km. The paired values (r, α) in Tables 2–4 represent observation points on the lowest ray and near the tops of storms.
Ray height ze on the equivalent earth, calculated from (31), for selected values of slant range r and launch angle α that are chosen to approximate the extent of slant ranges and elevation angles used by operational WSR-88D radars on thunderstorm days. Also shown are the deviations from ze of (i) z⊕, the exact height on the real Earth calculated from (41), (ii) zf, the height over a flat earth calculated from (35), and (iii) za, the approximate height on the real Earth calculated from (47). The height error in case 1 is ze (column 3) − r sin α (column 7). The approximate height za is the sum of the three terms in the last three columns. The calculated radius of the equivalent earth and the designed ray curvature over a flat earth correspond to ray curvature κ⊕ = cos α/(5.76a) over the real Earth.
Slant range r times cos α minus ground range s for selected values of slant range r and launch angle α and for different planet geometries. Here s⊕, se, sf, and s1 are the ground ranges on the real Earth, on the equivalent earth, on the flat earth with standard refraction, and on the flat earth without refraction. Note that r cos α − s1 ≡ 0. Formulas (40), (30), (34), and (28) supply s⊕, se, sf, and s1, respectively.
Beam slope angle θ for selected values of slant range r and launch angle α and for different planet geometries (real Earth, equivalent earth, flat earth with standard refraction). For flat earth with no refraction θ = α. In general θ = α + s/a − κr where the terms s/a and −κr are listed for each geometry.
We performed calculations with double precision (15 significant digits) rather than single precision (7 significant digits) so that we could compute small differences in height accurately. Recall from section 2 that for accurate computation 1 − cos κr should be replaced everywhere by the equivalent expression 2 sin2(κr/2). Table 2 shows, for the selected values of r and α, the height in the equivalent-Earth model, which is the one in standard use, and the deviations from this height in models with different geometries. The height error in case 1 (flat earth, no refraction) is excessive [as depicted in Fig. 1 of Xu and Wei (2013) or computed from Table 2]. For example, it is 4 km at 250 km range. The approximate height, which pertains collectively to cases 2, 3, and 4, deviates from the equivalent-Earth height by at most 7 m. Height in the real-earth model (case 4) differs from that in the equivalent-Earth model by no more than 1 m. Height on the flat earth (case 2) deviates from equivalent-Earth height by at most 4 m. The height differences in cases 2 to 4 decrease rapidly with inverse range and are trivial compared to half of the half-power beamwidth of a WSR-88D (roughly 400 m at 50 km range and 2 km at 250 km). Since 0° is a possible supplemental launch angle being tested currently at two WSR-88Ds, we also calculated the height differences in cases 2–4 for zero launch angle and ranges of 50, 100, 125, and 250 km. These differences were 1 m or less.
Table 2 also lists the three terms in the approximate-height formula (47). The first term applies to straight beams (κ0 = 0) on a flat Earth (a = ∞), the second term is the large correction for Earth curvature, and the third term is a smaller but still significant correction for atmospheric refraction.
Table 3 lists deviations in cases 2–4 of ground range s from r cosα, which is the ground range s1 in case 1 (flat earth, no refraction). The deviations increase with planetary curvature. However, the maximum deviation in the table is just slightly more than 0.2% of r cosα. Using (28), (37), (33), and (A7) in cases 1–4, respectively, recovers slant range from ground range to well within a meter.
6. Summary
Given the assumptions that the earth’s surface is a perfect sphere of radius a⊕ through the antenna and that the radar rays have curvature κ⊕ that varies only with the cosine of the launch angle (our real-Earth model), we obtain exact formulas for ray height (41), ground range (40), and beam slope angle (42) as functions of slant range r and launch angle α. We find that the heights given by the equivalent-earth model agree with our real-Earth heights to within 1 m for the volume coverage patterns used by WSR-88Ds in thunderstorm situations. We demonstrate that to an excellent approximation ray height is the same function of slant range if planetary curvature minus ray curvature at zero launch angle is held constant. This allows us to formulate a flat-earth model in which ray curvature is adjusted to compensate for zero earth curvature. The ray curvature for the flat-earth model is provided by (49). With standard refraction ray height varies from real Earth to flat earth by 6 m at most. The ray curvature is negative for standard refraction, indicating that rays bend concavely upward relative to a flat earth. The beam slope angle is virtually the same in the real-Earth, the equivalent-earth, and flat-earth models. Ground range in the flat-earth model differs from its value on the real earth because the geometrical transformation to a flat earth distorts space. However, even at long range (250 km), the deviation is only around 250 m, which is the range gate resolution of a WSR-88D. For a virtual radar inserted in a supercell model, the slant range r is a latent variable and we can regard the ground range sf as an observed variable. Thus, we trace a ray launched at an angle α by using (37) to derive r from sf, then finding the height and slope angle of the ray from (35) and (36).
Planned work involves placing a virtual Doppler radar within a numerical or analytical model of a supercell with a flat lower boundary, and computing the virtual signatures of simulated storms, using the ray curvatures derived herein. Varying the radar location will enable us to investigate effects of range and viewing direction on the magnitudes of various signatures.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Dusan Zrnić, Dr. Qin Xu and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that improved the paper. Thanks are also due to Walter Zittel, Richard Murnan, and Daniel Berkowitz of National Weather Service Radar Operation Center Applications Branch for assisting in providing reference information (e.g., Petrocchi 1982) on the index of refraction in the computation of beam height.
APPENDIX
Retrieving Slant Range from Ground Range
REFERENCES
Askelson, M. A., 2002: Kinematic, dynamic, and thermodynamic impacts of hook-echo hydrometeors, including explorations into the utilization of polarimetric radar data. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 245 pp.
Davies-Jones, R., and V. T. Wood, 2006: Simulated Doppler velocity signatures of evolving tornado-like vortices. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 1029–1048, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1903.1.
Doviak, R. A., and D. S. Zrnić, 2006: Doppler Radar and Weather Observations. 2nd ed. Dover, 562 pp.
Petrocchi, P. J., 1982: Automatic detection of hail by radar. Environmental Research Paper. 796, AFGL-TR-82-0277, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 33 pp.
Schelleng, J. C., C. R. Burrows, and E. B. Ferrell, 1933: Ultra-short-wave propagation. Proc. Inst. Radio Engr., 21, 427–463, https://doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1933.227639.
Stumpf, G., K. Hondl, S. B. Smith, R. Toomey, M. T. Filiaggi, and V. Lakshmanan, 2005: Status on the four-dimensional radar analysis tool for AWIPS. 11th Conf. on Mesoscale Processes/32nd Conf. on Radar Meteorology, Albuquerque, NM, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P8R.4, https://ams.confex.com/ams/32Rad11Meso/webprogram/Paper96028.html.
Wood, V. T., R. Davies-Jones, and C. Potvin, 2018: Virtual near-radar Doppler velocity signatures of low-level supercell horizontal and vertical rotations: Simulation study. 29th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Stowe, VT, Amer. Meteor. Soc, 81, https://ams.confex.com/ams/29SLS/webprogram/Paper348096.html.
Xu, Q., and L. Wei, 2013: Prognostic equation for radar radial velocity derived by considering atmospheric refraction and earth curvature. J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 3328–3338, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-011.1.
We use the proper noun “Earth” in reference to the actual Earth, and the common noun “earth” when referring to a fictitious earth such as a flat earth or equivalent earth.
In Eq. (6) of Davies-Jones and Wood (2006), 2π should have been r.