Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2310 <br /> <br />JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES <br /> <br />VOLUME 35 <br /> <br />~ 10-2 <br />.. <br />'E <br />o <br /> <br />o <br />Z 10-3 <br /> <br /> <br />10-1 49 47 45!:1-341 <br /> <br />29 <br />__ Model <br />== ass <br />o Time (min) <br /> <br />101 <br />R (mm/hrl <br /> <br />'E <br />-2 <br /><l: <br />Cl <br />lD <br />::!!: <br /><l: <br />...J <br /> <br /> <br />_ Model <br />=-= ass <br />o Time (min: <br /> <br />_T <br />T"_ <br />I --_ <br />-=~+----29 <br />--- I <br />I <br />I <br />1 <br /> <br />2 3xIOO 0 <br />10 10 <br /> <br />101. <br />R (mm/hr) <br /> <br />FIG. 7. Parametric cycles resulting from the model: (a) No marching with time; (b) A <br />marching with time. Regression lines of growth stage observations (dashed) and dissipa- <br />tion stage (long dash) are shown. Error bars indicate (Y= 1 limits for observations. Note <br />how model converges to Marshall-Palmer values during dissipation stage. <br /> <br />that collisional breakup is the dominant breakup pro- <br />cess when there is a high number concentration of <br />drops. The fact the Srivastava did not permit this <br />process in his model is a contributing factor to the non- <br />exponential spectral form which resulted. This has <br />been examined in more detail by Srivastava (1978), <br />and the results of this work \ show that spontaneous <br />breakup is not negligible if No"'" 3 X 10-3 cm-4 and <br />^"'" 10 cm-I. Production ratios, determined from <br />Srivastava's Figs. 1 and 2, substantiate this conclusion <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />'E <br />u <br /> <br />(0) ^ vs R (Single <br />Penetration) <br />C <br /> <br />,..---, <br />-< <br /> <br />311 1 <br />1 ~2 3;12111 B <br />11 111 1 ))..3&583 <br /> <br />~ <br />52 <br />t9 <br />o <br />...J <br /> <br />-- <br />.....t-ttt.ttt....... <br /> <br />23 llJSZ <br />1311112 <br />A <br /> <br />, <br />, < <br />D'" <br />< " <br />2 <br /> <br />, , <br /> <br />o <br />0.1 1.0 <br />(c) NT vs R <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />'" 3 <br />'E <br />r--;::' <br />2:.., <br />52 <br />t9 <br />0 2 <br />--l <br /> <br />l~l~B .. <br />2. .11++ <br />." <br /> <br />Cui +'1.-+:1 <br /> <br />125 -lot 1 <br />3211 ....... 1 <br />JCJ "'1 <br />251 ++2 1 <br />1'+ 1...... 121:2 <br />22..... 11 <br />1 .. 1 J1 <br />1 1. ..... 2:\ 22 <br />D1 ...... i 1 <br />""6 1. <br /> <br />+; ~ z 12A <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />I <br />0,1 1.0 10 100 <br />R (mm/hr) <br /> <br />-I <br /> <br />.,. <br />'E -2 <br />~ <br />~ <br />2:..,-3 <br />52 <br />t9 <br />o <br />--l -4 <br /> <br />(b) No vs R (Single <br />Penetration) <br />, <br />'< l .l. C 1 263 B H <br />1 l5il lJJl7'+ ..+...tot <br />1 :1 1++++22 <br />I ..t+++'t 136 <br />11 1++++ t Z11 <br />11..... +! 231 <br />...... ;ji' 12 <br />.. D1 1 Z~.1 ~~ A <br />l2 l 2 <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />-5 <br />0.1 <br /> <br />1.0 10 <br /> <br />(d) Points on the <br />Parametric Cycle <br /> <br /> <br />N <br />t <br /> <br />FIG. 8. Parametric cycles as evidenced from one aircraft penetra- <br />tion of a storm: (a) A, (b) No, (c) NT, (d) key points on the <br />parametric cycles with respect to schematic representation of rain- <br />fall rate isopleths. Arrow indicates typical aircraft flight path. <br />Regression curves in Figs. 8a-8c are indicated by plus signs. <br />Datum frequency indicated by numbers. <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />in that the spontaneous and collisional terms are <br />roughly equal in magnitude for the previously specified <br />parametric values. <br />A critical question arises as to how initial conditions <br />arise which are favorable to spontaneous breakup. The <br />observations presented here show that low concentra- <br />tions of drops < 2 mm diameter at cloud base occur <br />when an updraft is likely to be present. The most <br />straightforward explanation is that small drops are <br />unable to fall through the updraft. Furthermore, the <br />spectral form associated with updraft sorting is very <br />similar to that which results from the stochastic <br />coalescence and spontaneous breakup processes as given <br />by Srivastava (1971) and the model results presented <br />herein. The authors hypothesize that prior updraft <br />sorting of the drop spectrum lowers the total number <br />concentration to the point where spontaneous breakup <br />may be as or more important than the collisional <br />breakup process. Given that spontaneous breakup is <br />roughly proportional to total number concentration and <br />collisional breakup is proportional to concentration <br />squared, this argument is physically plausible. Con- <br />clusive demonstration of this sequence is not possible <br />from the observations alone due to limitations of sampl- <br />ing spectra within the storms. Interpretation of the <br />model results is ambiguous to the extent that the effects <br />of sedimentation cannot be readily separated from the <br />breakup processes. <br /> <br />6. Spatial variation of drop spectra <br /> <br />As evidenced by Fig. 3, some drop distributions are <br />not well described by the exponential parameters No <br />and t... Nevertheless, regressions were performed on all <br />individual (500 m path length) spectra for the purpose <br />of delineating power-law relationships between rainfall <br />rate R and exponential spectrum parameters. It may <br />be recalled that for MP distributions, No=0.08 cm-4 <br />