Laserfiche WebLink
<br />558 <br /> <br />JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY <br /> <br />VOLUME 5 <br /> <br />where F" Fs are the target and free-stream particle flux, <br />A" As the target and free-stream sample area, and ~, <br />Vs the target and free-stream particle speed. The ideal <br />sample area for infinitesimal particles at the mouth of <br />the aspirator, As. is defined by the four converging <br />streamlines which terminate on the comers of A" the <br />target, or 2D-C sample area in the throat of the aspi- <br />rator. This is the sample area assumed by the constant <br />air flux, A,Va = 0.66 L S-I, used in the concentration <br />measurements presented here, where Va is the airspeed <br />at the target. <br />As particle momentum increases, F, should decrease <br />since fewer particles in As will be entrained into A, by <br />the convergent airflow. Thus the result, assuming V, <br />= Va, should be a decreasing C" and hence Cm, as a <br />function of size with Cm - 1.0 for the smallest sizes. <br />This prediction is not corroborated by the measure- <br />ments presented here nor by the calculations of Nor- <br />ment (1985), and the reason can only partly be ascribed <br />to ignoring the differences of V, and Va. For the mea- <br />surements here on ice particles, ~ was thought to be <br />8 m S-I = 0.6Va (Holroyd 1986). This suggests Cm <br />should decrease from -1.7, whereas values ofCm > 3.0 <br />were observed. From Norment's calculations of the ra- <br />tio F,:Fs, Cm was evaluated assuming ~ = Va. The <br />results indicate that Cm varies from 1.0 to 3.1 for water <br />droplets 20 to 300 JLm, and Cm < 1.0 for droplets> 300 <br />JLm; whereas if the correct ~ is used, Cm varies from <br />1.0 to 3.9 for 20 to 400 JLm droplets, and Cm < 1.0 for <br />droplets> 400 JLm. It appears that particle trajectories <br />cross streamlines to become more concentrated at the <br />target. Norment explains this as a result of the bending <br />of free-stream particle trajectories as they enter the as- <br />pirator, since the aspirator axis is not parallel with the <br />free stream trajectories. This result appears to be borne <br />out by the measurements presented here. Indeed, Nor- <br />ment's calculations of Cm for a horn axis of 600 are <br />quite similar to the results presented in Table 3. <br />For ice particles entrained into the converging air- <br />flow, the quantity V,/Va will be primarily a function <br />of particle mass and independent of winds; whereas <br />F,/ Fs will depend on the total momentum of the par- <br />ticle, since particles with higher momentum will be <br />less likely to follow the convergent airflow. Thus, as <br />crosswinds increase, F,/Fs, hence Cm, should decrease. <br />This result is borne out by Fig. 11, displaying Cm as a <br />function of size from comparisons with the truckborne <br />2D-C; although, results from comparison with the air- <br />borne 2D-C are not consistent with this prediction. <br />Another point which should be mentioned is that <br />the fixed probe with a vertical aspirator functions sim- <br />ilarly to an unshielded precipitation gauge. As such, <br />the efficiency with which snowfall is sampled will be a <br />function of windspeed. The higher the winds, the lower <br />the efficiency. The sampling efficiency of the aspirator <br />may be slightly higher than a precipitation gauge be- <br />cause of light suction at the top of the aspirator, but <br />this would be important only for smaller particles. Two <br /> <br />of the three empirical methods used here for ground <br />truth do not have a wind dependent sampling effi- <br />ciency, while the collection efficiency of the third, oil <br />slides, is primarily determined by the 8.8 m S-I speed <br />of the slides at the end of the rod. Differences caused <br />by wind would primarily cancel themselves, since col- <br />lection efficiency would increase as the slide moved <br />against the wind and decrease as the slide moved with <br />the wind. Thus, these correction factors account for <br />both the effects of aspiration and the wind dependent <br />collection efficiency of the unshielded aspirator horn. <br /> <br />5. Summary and conclusions <br /> <br />Application of particle imaging technology to snow- <br />fall measurements is difficult because of the require- <br />ment to know the speed of particles passing through <br />the imaging laser beam. Attempts to solve this problem <br />by artificially accelerating ice particles, with suction <br />fans at the base of a parabolic horn which fits over the <br />probe, have met with limited success since the errors <br />caused by aspiration have been unknown. Motivation <br />for calibration of such an instrument is provided by <br />the fact that it can provide high resolution snow crystal <br />concentration and size distribution measurements in <br />a form that can be easily managed with computer pro- <br />cessing. Three empirical methods to compare with <br />snowfall measurements made using an aspirated 2D- <br />C have been presented here. <br />The aspirated 2D-C was fixed vertically on the <br />ground and simultaneous measurements were made <br />with a 2D-C on an aircraft making low passes overhead, <br />or an oil-coated slide spun on the end of a rod, or a <br />2D-C carried on a truck. Comparisons ofIPC obtained <br />with the aspirated probe and the other three techniques <br />are reasonably well correlated and in rough agreement. <br />The IPC measured by the aspirated 2D-C are higher <br />by factors of 3.2 compared to the airborne 2D-C, and <br />2.4 compared to the oil slides and truckborne 2D-C. <br />For the airborne and truckborne 2D-C measure- <br />ments, snowfall size distributions were also compared <br />with the aspirated measurements. For each comparison <br />Cm, the ratio (aspirated:unaspirated) ofIPC by size bin <br />was calculated. For the aircraft data, four comparisons <br />were made, while for the truck-mounted unit 82 com- <br />parisons were available. These comparisons produced <br />a reasonably consistent picture, indicating that Cm de- <br />creases as particle size increases, becoming < 1.0 for <br />large particles. This tendency is in qualitative agree- <br />ment with Norment's (1985) calculations. Comparison <br />with the truckborne 2D-C indicated Cm < 1.0 for par- <br />ticles > 1 mm, while for the airborne 2D-C Cm < 1.0 <br />for particles> 0.7 mm. Further stratification by wind- <br />speed of comparisons with the truckborne 2D-C shows <br />Cm decreasing for all particle sizes as winds increase. <br />Comparisons with the airborne 2D-C, however, do not <br />agree with this tendency. In near calm conditions, Cm <br />was still found to vary as a function of particle size <br /> <br />- : <br />