<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 />
|