Laserfiche WebLink
<br />It can be seen from Table 2 that the data span a wide range of physical <br />locations and storm types, sizes, and durations. This range of observed <br />rainc:ell characteri stics appear to be adequately represented by the computer- <br />simulated model raincells. All values of G are between 0.4 and 2.25 (A50 <br />between 0.29 and 0.1) Thus, observed precipitation gradients range from <br />approximately linear to those that increase toward the precipitation maximum. <br />Obsey'ved shapes tend to be elliptical with average values of E ranging from 1 <br />to 3. <br /> <br />Court (1961) concluded that area-depth formulae he examined <br />i ndi cated that short-duration storms tend to have steeper preci pit,ation <br />gradients than those of longer duration and larger area. Huff (1968a) <br />indicated that a uniform precipitation gradient (P(x) a kA where A is the <br />area within the isohyet of interest and k is a constant) is most frequently <br />found with steady-type rains in the colder part of the year, an increasing <br />gradient toward the storm centel" (P(x) a kAl/2) most commonly OCCU1"S in <br />midwestern storms, and a very skewed gradient [P(x) a exp (-kAl/4)] <br />occurs in single celled air mass storms of strong intensity but small areal <br />extent. The tendenci es suggestE~d by Court and Huff are not obvi ous in the <br />data derived from the area-depth formulae. The lack of cons'istency may, in <br />part, result from the varying dE~nsities of the gage networks used jin the <br />various studies and from the subjective construction of the isohyetal maps. <br />Also, the fit of the area-depth formulae to the data may only be approximate. <br />The data derived graphically from the isohyetal maps do, however, tend to <br />support the generalizations of Court and Huff. <br /> <br />14 <br />