The Large-Scale Precipitation Parametrization Scheme: Unified Model Documentation Paper 026

Unified Model Documentation Paper 026
The Large-Scale Precipitation Parametrization Scheme
UM Version : 10.1
Last Updated : 2014-12-05 (for vn10.0)
Owner : Jonathan Wilkinson
Contributors:
R. Forbes, J. Wilkinson, D. Wilson
Met Office
FitzRoy Road
Exeter
Devon EX1 3PB
United Kingdom
© Crown Copyright 2015
This document has not been published; Permission to quote from it must be obtained from the Unified Model
system manager at the above address
UMDP: 026
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 A note on terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Microphysical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Summary of differences between Wilson and Ballard [1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Model variables 5
2.1 Water vapour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Liquid water content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Rain water content and rain rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Diagnostic representation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Prognostic representation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Ice water content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1 Single prognostic representation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.2 Prognostic representation of a second ice category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.3 Prognostic representation of graupel: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Snow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Flux to mixing ratio conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Physical constants and equations of state 7

3.1 Latent heat correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Parametrized Particle Characteristics 9

4.1 Particle Size Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Splitting of ice into aggregates and crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Generic Ice Particle Size Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1 Mid-latitude version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2 Global version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3 Further comments relevant to both versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4 Terminal Fall Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1 Crystal fall speed relations using Mitchell [1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.2 Splitting the ice fallspeeds with the Generic PSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.3 Abel and Shipway [2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5 Density Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5.1 Brown and Francis [1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6 Inferring particle size distributions from mixing ratios and fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 Sub Grid-scale treatment 16

5.1 Gridbox partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2 Vapour distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3 Improved Warm Rain Microphysics Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 Parametrized Microphysical Process Terms 18

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.1 A note on graupel transfers not included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2 Calculation of cloud drop number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2.1 Using a simple land-sea mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2.2 Using the CLASSIC aerosol species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.3 Using the UKCA-derived cloud drop number concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.4 Using MURK aerosol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.5 Drop tapering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3 Transfer equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.1 PLSET: Droplet Settling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.2 PIFALL/PSFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of ice (aggregates and crystals) . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3.3 PRFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3.4 PGFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of graupel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.5 PIPRM: Heterogeneous nucleation (Deposition on to natural ice nuclei) . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.6 PIFRW: Homogeneous nucleation of liquid water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.7 PIFRR: Homogeneous nucleation of rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1 © Crown Copyright 2015

UMDP: 026
6.3.8 PSDEP/PSSUB: Deposition/Sublimation of vapour on to aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.3.9 PIDEP/PISUB: Deposition/Sublimation of vapour on to ice crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.10 Hallett-Mossop process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.11 PSAUT: Aggregation of ice crystals to snow aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3.12 PSACI: Collection of ice crystals by snow aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3.13 PSACW: Riming by aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.14 PIACW: Riming by crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.15 PGAUT: Autoconversion of snow to graupel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.16 PGACW: Riming by graupel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.17 PGACS: Collection of snow aggregates by graupel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.18 PSACR: Collection of rain by aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.19 PIACR: Collection of rain by crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3.20 PSMLTEV: Evaporation of melting snow aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.21 PIMLTEV: Evaporation of melting ice crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.22 PSMLT: Melting of snow aggregates to rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.23 PIMLT: Melting of ice crystals to rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.24 PGMLT: Melting of Graupel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3.25 PREVP: Evaporation of rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3.26 PRACW: Accretion of cloud liquid water by rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3.27 PRAUT: Autoconversion of cloud liquid water to rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3.28 Scavenging of aerosol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7 Numerical methods 36
7.1 Fall of ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.2 Implicit formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3 Sequential solution of process transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.4 Numerical checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.5 Iteration of microphysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix I: Relationship between rain rate, particle size distribution and fall velocity 40
Appendix II: Interface with UKCA 42
Appendix III: Calculation of Radar Reflectivity 43
References 45

UMDP: 026
1 Introduction
This document describes the science of the version 3 large-scale precipitation schemes at version 9.1 of the
UM.
The next section introduces the basic microphysical structure of the schemes and the second section the vari-
ables that are used within the scheme. The next two sections look at the parametrization of atmospheric
quantities and hydrometeor characteristics. The sub grid-scale treatment is introduced next and then details of
the parametrization of each of the transfer processes outlined in the first section. The final section deals with
numerical implementation of the processes within the model. We have included references to the origins of
terms and parametrizations where they are known. Many of the representations come from work by Damian
Wilson in developing the scheme and are unpublished. We note these when they arise. The source for a couple
of parametrizations is unknown; these are noted where they arise. However, current work aims to remove as
many of these unknowns in favour of relations with a scientific and credibility basis.
The purpose of the large-scale precipitation scheme (often referred to as the ‘microphysics’ scheme) is to
model the significant atmospheric microphysical processes that result in the downwards transfer of water in the
atmosphere (precipitation) and phase changes between vapour, liquid water and ice water. The model carries
variables that represent water vapour, liquid water droplets, rain and three types of ice (a large-ice mode or
‘aggregates’, a small-ice mode or ‘crystals’ and graupel), although not all of these are used operationally. Within
each model gridbox the large-scale precipitation scheme will calculate the transfers of moisture between each of
these categories, by modelling the microphysical processes that occur in the atmosphere. The scheme will also
advect the ice and rain categories to represent their fall through the atmosphere. This will result in transport of
water downwards and the possibility of precipitation at the surface. Hence the large-scale precipitation scheme
works on model columns, starting at the top and moving downwards.
1.1 A note on terminology
In the UM, all quantities are described as the ratio of the mass of a water species (vapour, rain, ice crystals,
ice aggregates or graupel) to the unit mass of dry air. However, the term ’specific humidity’ is applied generally
to water vapour only and is defined as the mass of water vapour per the total mass (air plus vapour). In
practice, the two have approximately the same value, as the mass of vapour is much less than the mass of air.
UMDP-015 (Dynamics) shows that all quantities are passed into model physics as ’mixing ratios’; therefore we
have used this term in this document. However, in the code you may see references to specific humidity. These
are technically incorrect and they should read mixing ratio, but the difference is only of academic interest.
1.2 Microphysical processes
The scheme is originally based upon that developed by Rutledge and Hobbs [1983] and was developed princi-
pally by Sue Ballard and then Damian Wilson. The earlier, 3B scheme is described, along with sample results,
in Wilson and Ballard [1999]. This scheme has been retired as of VN7.7 of the UM.
Only four phases are assumed (liquid, vapour, ice aggregates and rain) and the microphysical processes repre-
sented are:
• Fall of ice and rain under gravity
• Primary nucleation of ice particles by heterogeneous and homogeneous nucleation
• Deposition and sublimation of ice
• Aggregation: The collection of ice particles by other ice particles
• Riming: Ice particles collecting cloud droplets, which freeze on impact
• Capture of raindrops by falling ice particles, which increases the ice content
• Melting of ice particles
• Evaporation of rain
• Accretion: The collection of cloud droplets by raindrops

UMDP: 026
• Autoconversion: The production of rain and drizzle by converting cloud water into rain
Note that the condensation and evaporation of cloud droplets are implemented as part of the large-scale cloud
scheme. For further details, please refer to UMDP-029 .
There are many cloud microphysics processes which are not represented in this parametrization. They are
assumed to be of less significance than the processes that are represented and their omission allows a rea-
sonable representation of clouds to be made without excessive requirements on model memory and integration
time.
1.3 (
3B) and 3D schemes]Summary of differences between Wilson and Ballard [1999] (3B) and 3D schemes
The present (3D) scheme was developed in order to incorporate changes necessary for the PC2 prognostic
cloud scheme. It also contain some important science developments.
Briefly, the scientific differences of the 3D microphysics scheme compared to the Wilson and Ballard [1999]
paper are:
• Options for two ice quantities and associated particle distributions, mass-diameter relationships and fall-
speed diameter relationships
• Options for the inclusion of prognostic variables for ice crystals
• A consistent sub grid-scale model for the vapour, liquid, ice and rain contents
• A sub grid-scale model for the rain variable
• A change in the parameters specifying the raindrop size distribution
• The autoconversion mechanism allows calculation of droplet concentrations from the sulphate aerosol or
the ‘MURK’ tracer aerosol
• Changes in the nucleation of ice
• The option of calculating, rather than specifying, ice fall speeds
• Changes to the capacitance of ice particles and use of different values for evaporation and deposition
• Latent heat correction to evaporation and deposition transfer limits
• Inclusion of changes to cloud fractions as a result of each transfer process
• A change to the sub grid-scale distribution of vapour in the non-liquid cloud part of the gridbox
• Optional inclusion of the prognostic representation of rain
• Optional separate prognostic representation of ice crystals and snow aggregates
• Optional prognostic representation of graupel
• Optional inclusion of droplet settling for the removal of persistent fog
• Optional use of a generic ice particle size distribution [Field et al., 2005, 2007]
• Improved representation of rain fall speeds [Abel and Shipway, 2007]
• Improved link between visibility aerosol and droplet number
• Extensive modifications and improvements to the representation of warm rain, see Section 5.3.
There are also changes to the numerical solution of the fall of ice from level to level.

UMDP: 026
2 Model variables
In all simulations, the four quantities vapour, liquid, ice aggregates and rain all exist. However, there exists
the option to select more detailed microphysical calculations involving prognostic rain and multiple types of ice
particle. This extra detail is intended for use in high resolution versions of the Unified Model and is closer to the
more cloud resolving model type of formulations, such as Swann [1996]. The prognostics in the scheme are
detailed below.
2.1 Water vapour
Symbol ‘q’, units kg kg −1 , code variable ‘q’. This is the vapour mixing ratio and represents the mean water
vapour in the model grid box. It is a prognostic for all options within the scheme.
2.2 Liquid water content
Symbol ‘qcl ’, units kg kg −1 , code variable ‘qcl’. This represents the mean liquid water content in the model
grid box (per kg of moist air). It is a prognostic quantity within this scheme.
2.3 Rain water content and rain rate
Symbols ‘qR ’ and R; code variables ‘qrain’ (mixing ratio) and rainrate (flux)
There are two ways in which rain is represented in the UM. It can be either a prognostic variable and therefore
advected by the model winds, or a diagnostic variable, which is not advected. In the diagnostic scheme, rain
amounts are not allowed to be retained in the model at the end of the timestep; it is assumed that all rain will
have fallen to the Earth’s surface.
The code uses two variables, qrain and rainrate. All transfer processes are performed on qrain only. After the
transfer processes have been performed, this is converted to a rain rate (code symbol rainrate).
2.3.1 Diagnostic representation:
Units kg m−2 s−1 . This represents the flux of rain (or rain rate) in each model level. There is no advection of
rain between horizontal grid boxes, so any rain generated remain within the same vertical column of model grid
boxes, falling from level to level. Individual transfer processes (e.g. accretion or evaporation) may increase or
reduce the rain rate, but it is still assumed that at the end of the timestep, any rain left will have fallen to the
Earth’s surface.
2.3.2 Prognostic representation:
Units kg kg −1 . This represents the mixing ratio of rain. This quantity is advected downwards in the column to
represent its fall. The prognostic representation means that this representation costs more in run-time (it needs
to be advected by the dynamics).
However, there are a number of advantages of a prognostic rain variable as opposed to a diagnostic repre-
sentation. At high resolution rain may be advected horizontally across many grid boxes as it falls. This could
be significant where the rainfall pattern is stationary for an extended period of time, or where the interaction of
the rainfall and the updraught/downdraught in a convective cell is important. Vertical advection from resolved
convective updraughts of order 5 ms−1 may be significant in some circumstances. A prognostic approach also
avoids an instantaneous response to the dynamics and may delay the onset of rainfall in the early stages of a
developing convective storm.

UMDP: 026
2.4 Ice water content
Symbol ‘qcf ’, Units kg kg −1 , code variable ‘qcf ’ This is the mixing ratio representing the mean ice water
content per kg of moist air in the grid box.
2.4.1 Single prognostic representation:
This quantity is split by a diagnostic relationship into a large-ice category, ‘aggregates’ (symbol qcf a , code vari-
able qcf agg), and a small-ice category, ‘crystals’ (symbol qcf c , code variable qcf cry) which are then treated
separately by the microphysical transfers before being recombined after the transfers have been completed.
2.4.2 Prognostic representation of a second ice category
This allows the large-ice and the small-ice quantities to be carried as prognostics elsewhere in the model.
The transfers are the same as in the diagnostic scheme but, of course, no diagnostic split is required and no
recombination of the quantities is required. The prognostic representation was introduced to investigate the
necessary level of complexity required in microphysical schemes and more closely matches representations
within cloud resolving models, such as Swann [1996]. This is currently only used as an experimental option.
Unless you have good reason to use it, it is recommended to use the single prognostic above.
2.4.3 Prognostic representation of graupel:
Symbol qgraup , units kg kg −1 , code variable qgraup This allows the representation of ice in the form of graupel,
which can occur in deep convective cells. It acts as an efficient moisture sink due to having a high fall speed
relative to rain and snow. Hence, the representation of this hydrometeor in high resolution versions of the UM is
probably desirable. The most important microphysical processes associated with graupel have been determined
by Forbes and Halliwell [2003] from CRM runs of convective case studies and details of four implemented
graupel processes are described in section 6.3. Again, this is only an experimental option at present and it is
recommended that you do not use it (unless you have good reason to do so).
2.5 Snow
Symbol ‘S’, units kg m−2 s−1 , code variable ‘snow’ This simply represents a temporary quantity, namely the
amount of ice that falls from one gridbox to the one immediately below. Its mass is contained entirely within the
ice water content variables and it should not be considered as a separate ice quantity. The total mass of ice in
a gridbox is therefore given by qcf a + qcf c + qgraup . The flux of qcf a + qcf c + qgraup is given by S.
2.6 Flux to mixing ratio conversion
S and, in the diagnostic version, R are stored as fluxes, q, qcl and qcf as mixing ratios. In places in the code we
need to convert between mixing ratios and fluxes. To ensure that water is conserved,the following conversion is
applied to ice passed into the grid box from above:
∆z
S = ρqcf (1)
∆t
where S (in kg m−2 s−1 ) is the flux of qcf (in kg kg−1 ), which could represent graupel, crystals or aggregates,
ρ is the air density (kg m−3 ), ∆z is the thickness of the layer (m) and ∆t is the model timestep (s). A similar
conversion applies for rain.

UMDP: 026
3 Physical constants and equations of state
Table 1 shows the values of the physical constants used in the microphysics parametrization. The UM includes
a temperature dependence for the thermal conductivity, dynamic viscosity and diffusivity terms and an additional
pressure dependence for the diffusivity term [Rogers and Yau, 1989].
The functions FKa (T ), Fµ (T ) and Fψ (T, p) in the UM are defined as:
23
T 393
FKa (T ) = Fµ (T ) = , (2)
T0 T + 120
23
T 393 p0
Fψ (T, p) = , (3)
T0 T + 120 p
where T is the temperature in Kelvin, T0 is the freezing point of water, p is the pressure and p0 =1000 hPa.
• The Schmidt number used in the definition of the ventilation coefficient (see section 6) is defined as µ/(ψρ).
In the UM, the Schmidt number is taken as 0.6, following Rutledge and Hobbs [1983].
• The values of latent heat are valid for a temperature of 0°C and are assumed in the model to be constant
for all temperatures (this assumption helps to conserve energy in the model).
Aside: In practice, however, these values change with temperature and recent research [Fukuta and
Gramada, 2003] suggests the latent heat of fusion decreases dramatically at temperatures below −20°C:
it is found to be less than half the 0°value at −30°C. Given that this could significantly affect the latent
heating in ice cloud and hence affect the cloud dynamics it could be important to include this temperature
dependence in the vapour pressure and latent heats.
Symbol Definition Value Units

Lv latent heat of vapourization 2.501×106 J kg−1
Lf latent heat of fusion 3.34×105 J kg−1
Ls latent heat of sublimation 2.835 ×106 J kg−1
Ka thermal conductivity of air 0.024 FKa (T ) J m−1 s−1 K−1
µ dynamic viscosity of air 1.717×10−5 Fµ (T ) kg m−1 s−1
ψ diffusivity of water vapour in air 2.21×10−5 Fψ (T, p) m2 s−1
R gas constant for dry air 287.05 J kg−1 K−1
ρw density of liquid water 1000.0 kg m−3
g acceleration due to gravity 9.80665 m s−2
ǫ ratio of molecular weights of 0.62198
water and dry air
Table 1: Values and definitions of physical constants used in the microphysics parametrization.
The air density is estimated from the virtual temperature equation.

p
ρ= (4)
(RT (1 + 0.6q − qcl − qcf ))
where p is the pressure (N m−2 ) and R is the gas constant for dry air (287 J kg −1 K −1 ). The factor of 0.6 is
strictly the value (1 − ǫ)/ǫ, which is 0.608. The air density calculated here does not impact on the conservation
properties of the scheme, it is the input mass of air in a gridbox which is important for this. This is still calculated
via the hydrostatic assumption, which is not ideal for the non-hydrostatic formulation the Unified Model now
uses.
3.1 Latent heat correction
Many of the transfer processes are limited by the saturation mixing ratio. In any process which results in a
change in phase, latent heat is produced or removed. This heat will modify the saturation mixing ratio. This

UMDP: 026
modification can be accounted for in a change from vapour to a condensate phase by multiplying the available
moisture by the correction factor aL . This is derived in UMDP-029 (large-scale cloud) and is approximated in
the large-scale precipitation scheme by
1 ǫL2 qsat
=1+ (5)
aL cp RT 2
where L is the latent heat of the phase change, qsat is the saturation mixing ratio over liquid or ice depending
on the phase change, cp is the heat capacity of air at constant pressure and R is the gas constant for dry air.
The latent heat correction is then used to scale the deposition, evaporation and sublimation processes in the
UM transfer rates.

UMDP: 026
4 Parametrized Particle Characteristics
4.1 Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution (PSD), nx (D), for a particle of diameter, D is defined as a gamma function:
nx (D) = n0x Dαx e−λx D , (6)
where n0x is the intercept parameter, λx is the slope parameter, αx is the constant shape parameter. (x can be
either R for rain, a for aggregates, c for ice crystals or g for graupel). For a single moment scheme, the intercept
parameter is assumed constant or a simple function of λx
n0x = nax λnx bx (7)
where nax and nbx are constants. Table 2 shows the values of the above constants for the large-scale precipi-
tation scheme.
Model nax nbx αx Reference
Rain 0.22 2.2 0.0 Abel and Boutle [2012]
Aggregates 2.0 × 106 Fnax (Tc ) 0.0 0.0 Cox [1988]
Crystals 40.0 × 106 Fnax (Tc ) 0.0 0.0 Investigation by Wilson
Graupel 5 × 1025 −4.0 2.5 Ferrier [1994]
Table 2: Default values of constants used in the particle size-spectra relations. The rain parameters were
selected specifically in order to produce smaller drop sizes for lighter rain, as demonstrated from radar data.
The parametrization of the crystal size distribution follows the form of Cox [1988] but uses aircraft data from
Field [1999] to influence the choice of the values of the parameters.
The functions Fnax (Tc ) represent the observed broadening of the size spectra with increasing temperature for
ice particles (due to the aggregation process). It is defined as:
MAX [Tc , −45◦ C]

Fnax (Tc ) = exp − , (8)
8.18◦ C
where Tc is the temperature in degrees Celsius. This form was selected after comparison with aircraft data:
see, for example, Field [1999, 2000].
4.2 Splitting of ice into aggregates and crystals
In the version of the scheme where there is only one ice prognostic, qcf , this is split between the aggregates
qcf a and crystals qcf c using the following diagnostic function.
faggregates = 1 − exp (−Tscaling (T − TCT )qcf /qcf 0 ) (9)
where (T − TCT ) is the temperature difference from the cloud top. TCT is calculated as the temperature of the
first layer counting upwards which did not have snow falling into it. Tscaling and qcf 0 are specified parameters
(see table 3) and faggregates is the fraction of qcf that is apportioned to the aggregate part of the particle size
distribution. This formulation was developed by Wilson and is based upon both aircraft data (for example,
Field, 1999) and modelling data [Cardwell et al., 2002]. The flux of snow that is carried between model levels
represents the combined fluxes of both aggregates and crystals. When snow falls into a layer it is assumed to
be distributed between aggregates and crystals according to the partition of the layer into which it falls. At the
end of the microphysics routine the final values of qcf a and qcf c are added together to reform qcf which is then
used as a single quantity in the rest of the model.
4.3 Generic Ice Particle Size Distributions
Following the work of Field et al. [2005], the option is now available to include a generic ice particle size distri-
bution for aggregates only.

UMDP: 026
Tscaling 0.0384 K−1

qcf 0 1.0 × 10−4 kg kg−1
Table 3: Parameters for the splitting of ice into crystals and aggregates.
4.3.1 Mid-latitude version
Using aircraft data over large areas around the British Isles, Field et al. [2005] show that the ice particle size
distribution all have bimodal distributions. It is possible to relate any moment of the distribution (for example,
the zeroth moment, which is usually number concentration) to the second moment (directly proportional to ice
water content) as a power law as follows:
b̂(n̂,Tc )
Mn̂ = â(n̂, Tc )M2 (10)
where Mn̂ is moment of the distribution of order n̂ and Tc is the temperature in degrees Celsius. The parameters
â and b̂ are determined using the formulae
log10 â(n̂, Tc ) = â1 + â2 Tc + â3 n̂ + â4 TC n̂

+â5 TC2 + â6 n̂2 + â7 Tc2 n̂
+â8 Tc n̂2 + â9 TC3 + â10 n̂3 (11)
b(n̂, Tc ) = b1 + b2 Tc + b3 n̂ + b4 Tc n̂
+b5 Tc2 + b6 n̂2 + b7 Tc2 n̂
+b8 Tc n̂2 + b9 Tc3 + b10 n̂3 (12)
with the values of az and bz where z represents the subscripts 1 to 10 are given in table 4.
z az bz
1 5.065339 0.476221
2 −0.062659 −0.015896
3 −3.032362 0.165977
4 0.029469 0.007468
5 −0.000285 −0.000141
6 0.312550 0.060366
7 0.000204 0.000079
8 0.003199 0.000594
9 0.000000 0.000000
10 −0.015951 −0.003577
Table 4: Coefficients and exponents of moment for equations 11 and 12.
4.3.2 Global version
As an extension to the Field et al. [2005] work, Field et al. [2007] developed an extension to the 2005 parametriza-
tion but based on a global aircraft data set. The new parametrization is of the form
ˆ fˆ(n̂)
Mn̂ = d(n̂) exp( êTc ) M2 (13)
ˆ ê and fˆ can be determined as exponential and quadratic functions of n̂ as follows:

where the parameters d,

UMDP: 026
ˆ = exp( 13.6 − 7.76n̂ + 0.479n̂2 )

d(n̂)
ê(n̂) = −0.0361 + 0.0151n̂ + 0.00149n̂2
fˆ(n̂) = 0.807 + 0.00581n̂ + 0.0457n̂2. (14)
The global version should revert to the same results as the mid-latitude version in a mid-latitude limited area
model, although this has yet to be proven within the UM.
4.3.3 Further comments relevant to both versions
In the transfer equations for ice, (described in more detail in section 6.3), it is possible to use various different
moments of the particle size distribution to obtain the transfer rates, without having to make assumptions about
the intercept parameters of the distribution using the ice water content. These are discussed in turn in section
6.3.
Note that the generic ice particle size distribution includes the effect of crystals within the formulation and hence
it is not possible to use both the generic ice particle size distribution and the inclusion of crystals in the UM at
the same time.
4.4 Terminal Fall Speed
The terminal fall velocity of a precipitating particle, Vx (D) can be expressed as a function of diameter:
Gx
ρ0
Vx (D) = cx Ddx e−hx D (15)
ρ
where cx , dx , hx and Gx are constants (see Table 5) and ρ0 is a reference density of 1 kg m−3 . The scheme
also has the option to specify the parameters cx and dx by using knowledge of their area-diameter relationships
and a Best number (Be )- Reynolds number (Re ) relationship as described by Mitchell [1996].
fx
(1−2fx ) (fx −1) ax
c x = e x µ0 ρ0 (2g)fx (16)
rx
dx = fx (bx + 2 − sx ) − 1 (17)
◦ 1
where µ0 is the dynamic viscosity of air at 0 C, g is the acceleration due to gravity and
Aice = rx Dsx (18)
where Aice is the maximum cross-sectional area of an ice particle and
Re = ex Befx (19)
where parameters are given in tables 5, 6, 9 and 10.
4.4.1 ]
Crystal fall speed relations using Mitchell [1996]

Recently, the Brown and Francis [1995] ice particle densities have been used operationally in the UM (see
section 4.5.1 for further details). If the Brown and Francis [1995] particle densities are used, the 2nd Re-X
(Re Be in this document) relation (Eq.19) of Mitchell [1996] must also be used to ensure the crystal velocities
are correct, when crystals are used in the model.
So, when Brown and Francis [1995] densities are being used, the last line of table 6 should be replaced by that
in table 7.
1 This should not be confused with the exponent of the fallspeed air density correction used from equation 15 onwards. To avoid any
confusion, in this document ‘g’ will be used for acceleration due to gravity and ‘G’ in the fall speed correction with air density.

UMDP: 026
Model cx dx Gx hx Reference
Rain 386.8 0.67 0.4 0.0 Sachinananda and Zrnić [1986]
Aggregates 14.3 0.416 0.4 0.0 Mitchell [1996]
Crystals 74.5 0.640 0.4 0.0 Mitchell [1996]
Graupel 253.0 0.734 0.4 0.0 Ferrier [1994]
Table 5: Default values of constants used in the fall speed relations. The Sachinananda and Zrnić [1986]
relationship does not asymptote to a fixed value for large diameters and better representations exist; these are
discussed further in section 4.4.3. The ice fall speeds are selected so as to agree with the values calculated
using the Mitchell [1996] relationships.
Species ex fx rx sx Reference
Aggregates 0.2072 0.638 0.131 1.88 Mitchell [1996]
Table 6: Constants used in the calculation of ice crystal and aggregate fall speed relationships. Graupel, like
rain is assumed to be spherical; hence it is not possible to set values for the constants in this table for these
quantities.
Species ex fx rx sx Reference
Table 7: Parameters for use in the 2nd Re-X (Re Be in this document) relation (Eq.19) of Mitchell [1996]; now
operational in the NWP suite.
4.4.2 Splitting the ice fallspeeds with the Generic PSD
The Generic PSD described in section (4.3) uses a single size distribution to describe the whole particle popu-
lation. In contrast the exponential PSD splits the total ice water content in each grid box into ice and aggregate
categories. Hence for the exponential PSD different fallspeed-diameter relations can be specified for the two
categories. To allow this level of flexibility with the Generic PSD we use the following formulation.
Two different Vt − D relations can be specified and these are used individually to calculate two candidate mass-
weighted mean fallspeeds in each grid box. Denoting the two relations by
Vt = c1 Dd1 , (20)
Vt = c2 Dd2 (21)
(neglecting the associated factors of air density), the two candidate mass-weighted mean fallspeeds are given
by
ρqcf [V ](1)
qcf = aMb+d1 (qcf , Tc ), (22)
ρqcf [V ](2)
qcf = aMb+d2 (qcf , Tc ). (23)
In each grid box the Vt − D relation is selected which gives the least mass-weighted mean fallspeed. The se-
lected fallspeed is then used for all ice-microphysical process rate calculations for that grid box on that timestep.
This includes sedimentation, but also depositional growth (where Vt affects the ventilation), riming and so on.
4.4.3 r
ain fall speeds]Abel and Shipway [2007] rain fall speeds

This changes the standard rain fall speeds (equation 15, with values from Sachinananda and Zrnić, 1986) to
the relation in appendix of Abel and Shipway [2007]:
GR
ρ0
VR (D) = c1R Dd1R e−h1R D + c2R Dd2R e−h2R D

(24)
ρ

UMDP: 026
where the subscript R is used instead of x as this change only applies to rain. The value of the constants used
is given in table 8. It should be noted that while Abel and Shipway [2007] set GR to be 0.5, following the practice
of the Met Office Large Eddy Model (LEM), we have retained the value of 0.4 to maintain consistency with the
rest of the UM, as defined in table 5.
Parameter c1R d1R h1R c2R d2R h2R GR

Value 4854.1 1.00 195.0 −446.009 0.782127 4085.35 0.4
Table 8: Parameters used in the Abel and Shipway [2007] rain fall velocity (equation 24) as set-up for the UM.
Note that parameter c2R differs from Abel and Shipway [2007] as there is a mistake in their paper where they
give this term the wrong sign. The version used here and in the UM is correct.
The inclusion of these extra parameters allows a precise fit to the rainfall observations of Beard [1976]. The
Sachinananda and Zrnić [1986] in the UM provides a good fit to the fall velocity of rain, but for smaller drizzle
drops, the fall speed is overestimated by as much as a factor of ten. Simple tests using the 1D explicit micro-
physics model of Wilkinson et al. [2010b] and the 1D KiD model [Shipway and Hill, 2010] have indicated that
this should improve the representation of drizzle in the UM. The scheme works in one of two ways:
• Prognostic Rain In this case, the Sachinananda and Zrnić [1986] relation is replaced by the Abel and
Shipway [2007] fall velocity in every instance that a rain velocity assumption is made in the code. The
largest impact is in the ‘fall’ routine, where the rain falls out from one layer to the next. This determines
how long the rain content remains in each layer. Use of the new Abel and Shipway [2007] relation allows
rain to remain in the column for longer, thus allowing more time for the small drops to evaporate.
• Diagnostic Rain In this case, all rain is assumed to fall out in one timestep, irrespective of the size of
the drops, so altering the fall speed of rain will have little impact. To get around this problem, the code
examines the difference in fall velocity between the Sachinananda and Zrnić [1986] and Abel and Shipway
[2007] relations. The ratio of the two velocities is used to enhance the evaporation rate, such that light
drizzle rates are evaporated more readily, whilst the heavier rain rates remain unaffected. For consistency,
the Abel and Shipway [2007] relation is also applied throughout the code wherever a transfer involves a
rain-rate assumption.
4.5 Density Distribution
The mass-diameter relation for rain simply assumes a spherical drop with a density equal to that for liquid
water, 1000 kg m−3 . Similarly, the mass-diameter relation for graupel simply assumes a spherical particle with
a density equal to 500 kg m−3 .
For other ice species, we assume a power law relating the mass of the particle to the diameter.
Mx (D) = ax Dbx (25)
Although this can result in ice particle densities that get above that for solid ice, this enables the power law
representation allows the microphysical transfer rates to be solved easily.
Species ax bx Reference
Aggregates 0.0444 2.1 based on Locatelli and Hobbs [1974]
Crystals 0.587 2.45 Similar to table 1 of Mitchell [1996]
Table 9: Default values of constants used in the density relations.
4.5.1 i
ce particle densities]Brown and Francis [1995] ice particle densities

An alternative density function to the default one used in the UM has been derived by Brown and Francis [1995],
following Locatelli and Hobbs [1974]. The relation gives better agreement with aircraft measurements of ice and
has been shown by Wilkinson [2007] to give better agreement with radar reflectivity measured by the Chilbolton

UMDP: 026
Species ax bx Reference
Aggregates 0.0185 1.90 Brown and Francis [1995]
Crystals 0.0185 1.90 Brown and Francis [1995]
Table 10: Values of density relations used by Brown and Francis [1995]
94–GHz radar. Use of Brown and Francis [1995] reduces the density by approximately a factor of four, but
dependent on size. The parameters for ax and bx (after translation into SI units) are given in table 10.
These parameters have been adopted for use in the current operational UM and can be set in the gui/namelist.
If the density is changed to Brown and Francis [1995], then the 2nd Re-X (Re Be in this document) relation
(Eq.19) of Mitchell [1996] must also be used. Section 4.4.1 contains details on how to do this.
4.6 Inferring particle size distributions from mixing ratios and fluxes
In order to solve for the microphysical transfer rates it is necessary to be able to infer the particle size distribution
in terms of mixing ratios and fluxes. The exception to this is when the generic ice particle size distribution is
being used (see section 4.3 for details). We can do this by integrating the mass-diameter relationship across
the particle-size distribution relationship. For fluxes we also weight by the fall-speed relationship. For the flux
description of the rainfall rate we have:
DR =∞ GR
π ρ0
Z
dR
R= ρw D R 3 c R D R NR (DR )dDR (26)
DR =0 6 ρ
where R is the rainfall rate (in kg m−2 s−1 ). Using the description of the raindrop size distribution
NR (DR ) = naR λnRbr DR

αR
exp (−λR DR ) (27)
and solving the integral for λR gives the result
1
 GR  4+d
R +αR −nbr
ρ0
 π cR ρ ρw naR Γ (4 + αR + dR ) 
λR =  . (28)
6R

A full derivation of this is available in appendix I.

This will define the raindrop size distribution for a given R and will be used as part of the calculation of transfer
rates for the microphysical processes. A similar calculation can be performed for the ice aggregate content:
Da =∞
1
Z
qcf a = aa Daba Na (Da )dDa (29)
ρ Da =0
where qcf a is the ice water mixing ratio in the aggregates (in kg kg −1 ). This solves for λa as:
b 1
naa aa Γ(ba + 1 + αa ) a +1+αa −nba
λa = (30)
ρqcf a
and similarly for λc :
b 1
nac ac Γ(bc + 1 + αc ) c +1+αc −nbc
λc = (31)
ρqcf c
and finally for λg :

UMDP: 026
b 1
nag ag Γ(bg + 1 + αg ) g +1+αg −nbg
λg = . (32)
ρqgraup
The microphysical transfer processes modelled are generally solved by performing similar integrals over the
particle size distribution.

UMDP: 026
5 Sub Grid-scale treatment
5.1 Gridbox partitions
Gridbox partitions are used in the precipitation schemes. The grid boxes in the model represent areas which
can be several hundred kilometres across. Such a gridbox will contain a very large degree of heterogeneity in
its cloud field. The microphysical transfer rates that are calculated are thus not directly applicable to the whole
gridbox.
The schemes divide the grid box into eight regions, representing the possible states of presence or absence of
ice 2 , liquid water and rain. (Thus there are three phases each with 2 options, present or absent and 23 = 8.)
In order to calculate the size of these partitions we need to know information about the ice cloud fraction (by
volume), Ci , the liquid cloud fraction, Cl , the rain fraction and how these are overlapped with each other. The
microphysics scheme will be provided with information from the large-scale cloud scheme about not only Ci and
Cl , but also their combined cloud fraction C. Hence it is possible to calculate their overlap as:
Cmixed phase = Ci + Cl − C. (33)
There is an assumption about the overlap of the ice cloud and liquid cloud but this is made in the large-scale
cloud scheme (the default setting of this is for minimum overlap). The rain fraction will be calculated within the
microphysics scheme along with the rain flux. It is assumed to overlap according to the rules below, applied in
the order they are shown:
1. Firstly, maximally with liquid-only cloud
2. Then maximally with mixed-phase cloud
3. Finally, maximally with ice-phase cloud.
The transfer processes are then solved over each of the eight possible partitions, assuming a uniform distribution
of ice water content across the part of the grid box which contains ice cloud (and similar uniform assumptions for
liquid water and rain). Since many of the eight partitions will produce either zero transfer or identical transfers,
the calculation can usually be condensed into solving for just one partition and multiplying by the fraction of the
gridbox containing the relevant partitions.
5.2 Vapour distribution
We assume that there is no temperature or pressure distribution across the gridbox. The assumption of in-
stantaneous condensation will fix the vapour content within liquid cloud to qsat water (T, p). However, no similar
assumption can be made for ice, indeed if we did then we could not grow ice by deposition or sublimation. To
close the problem we will parametrize the vapour content in the clear (no liquid or ice cloud) part of the gridbox.
We will make the assumptions, which are first stated for the case when there is no liquid water in the gridbox.
• If C is zero then the mean value of vapour content in the clear sky part of the gridbox is equal to q. This is
required by conservation of vapour.
• If C is one then we will choose to parametrize the vapour content in the clear sky part of the gridbox as
RHc qsat ice , where RHC is the critical relative humidity, at which cloud begins to form.
• There is a linear change with C between these two fixed values.
Including the possibility of liquid water cloud, where we know the local value of q is equal to qsat water , and
combining the above into equation form, gives
Cice only RHc qsat ice + Cclear qa

qclear = (34)
Cice only + Cclear
where Cice only is the fraction of the gridbox with ice cloud but not liquid cloud, Cclear is the fraction of the
gridbox with neither liquid nor ice cloud, RHc is the critical relative humidity parameter and qa is the average
vapour content in the partitions without liquid cloud (hence if there is no liquid cloud then qa = q). qa is given by
2 when crystals are used, aggregates and crystals are classed together as ice, graupel is ignored at present

UMDP: 026
q − Cl qsat water
qa = . (35)
1 − Cl
If qclear is less than RHc qsat ice then a uniform distribution of vapour is assumed across the liquid-free part of
the gridbox, with no difference between the ice cloud and the clear sky. The vapour content in the ice-cloud-only
partition, qice only can then be specified from the values in the remaining partitions:
q − Cl qsat water − Cclear qclear

qice only = . (36)
Cice only
Note that qice only is not allowed to exceed qsat water . If it does then the surplus is added to qclear .
5.3 Improved Warm Rain Microphysics Scheme
From version 8.4, an option for an improved warm rain microphysics scheme is available through the gui/namelist.
This changes the autoconversion (Sec 6.3.27) and accretion (Sec 6.3.26) parametrizations, and corrects bugs
in the evaporation (Sec 6.3.25) and sedimentation (Sec 6.3.3) parametrizations. Furthermore, it improves the
sub-grid treatment of the warm rain microphysics, which is important due to the highly nonlinear nature of many
of the process rates. Boutle et al. [2014] gives full details, but we summarise the results here.
For any microphysical process rate of the form M = aq b , for some constants a and b and a local quantity q, the
grid-box mean process rate M = aq b does not equal that obtained from the grid-box mean value of q, i.e. aq b ,
unless b = 1 or there is no variability in q at the sub-grid scale. For microphysics, typically neither of these
conditions are met, and therefore a representation of the sub-grid variability is required. The one chosen here
is to assume that q follows a log-normal distribution at the sub-grid scale:
(ln q − µ)2

1
P (q) = √ exp − , (37)
2πσq 2σ 2
where µ = ln(q̄(1 + f 2 )−1/2 ) and σ 2 = ln(1 + f 2 ), allowing us to characterise the sub-grid variability entirely in
terms of f , the fractional standard deviation of q. By integrating the process rate over this distribution, we find
that the un-biased process rate is given by M = E(f, b)aq b , where
2
E(f, b) = (1 + f 2 )−b/2 (1 + f 2 )b /2
. (38)
This analytical correction method can easily be extended to multiple variables with a joint probability distribution
function and some correlation (ρ). The improved warm rain scheme applies this representation of the sub-
grid variability in cloud (qcl ) and rain water (qR ) to the autoconversion and accretion parametrizations. f is
parametrized, either based on the analysis of CloudSat, CloudNet-ARM and aircraft data presented in Boutle
et al. [2014] or for consistency set to the same parametrization as used in the subgrid cloud generator that
describes subgrid cloud structure for the radiation scheme. The cloud-rain correlation is specified, currently at
ρ = 0.9.
Finally, the improved scheme includes a treatment of rain fraction consistent with the prognostic rain formulation.
Previously, rain fraction was only created when cloud autoconverted or snow melted. With prognostic rain, rain
mass can be present in a column even if neither of those processes has occurred, and can be advected between
columns. Therefore, if rain mass is present but rain fraction is not, the rain fraction is set to the maximum cloud
fraction in the column above. This assumes that since the cloud fraction is prognostic, it will be advected at
approximately the same rate as the rain, and therefore is using the cloud fraction as a proxy for the rain fraction
rather than including an additional prognostic variable.

UMDP: 026
6 Parametrized Microphysical Process Terms
6.1 Introduction
The Parametrization of each transfer processes will be discussed below. Each one also has an associated
latent heat transfer involved, which will modify the temperature of the gridbox. This won’t be explicitly stated
below, but can be assumed. We also include, for completeness, a summary of the cloud fraction changes as a
result of each process, (which can be passed to PC2), although these do change from model version to model
version.
The equations governing the transfer of moisture from one category to another can be written in qualitative form,
in a similar way to Rutledge and Hobbs [1983], as:
Dq
• Dt = (Sublimation of Crystals and Aggregates + Evaporation) − (Deposition of Crystals and Aggregates
+ Heterogeneous Nucleation)
Dqcl
• Dt = −(Droplet settling + Rain Autoconversion + Riming + Rain Accretion + Deposition + Heteroge-
neous Nucleation + Homogeneous Nucleation)
DqR
• Dt = (Fall into layer − Fall out of layer) + (Rain Autoconversion + Rain Accretion + Melting) −(Evaporation
+ Capture + Homogeneous Nucleation)
Dqcf a
• Dt = (Fall into layer − Fall out of layer) + (Deposition + Capture + Riming + Aggregation) − (Graupel
autoconversion + Graupel Capture + Sublimation + Melting of aggregates)
Dqcf c
• Dt = (Fall into layer − Fall out of layer) + (Deposition + Capture + Riming + Heterogeneous Nucle-
ation + Homogeneous Nucleation) − (Aggregation of crystals + Sublimation + Melting + Capture by
aggregates)
Dqgraup
• Dt = (Fall into layer − Fall out of layer) + (Graupel Autoconversion + Riming + Capture) − Melting
It should be noted that the heterogeneous nucleation and the deposition terms can convert both liquid and
vapour to the ice categories, both of which can receive ice mass. Some other variables have inputs from
a number of sources. For example, rain (qR ) increases by the melting of crystals, aggregates and graupel.
Similarly, qR can be decreased by capture by crystals, aggregates or graupel. Evaporation can be of various
quantities (including settling cloud droplets, rain, melting ice or snow). Melting and capture can again be in
various microphysical categories.

UMDP: 026
Quantitatively, the transfers of moisture from one category to another can be written as follows:
Dq
= PSSUB + PREV P + PISUB + PSMLT EV + PIMLT EV
Dt
+PLSET 2 − (PSDEP 2 + PIDEP 2 + PIP RM2 ) (39)
Dqcl 1 ∂
= (ρqcl [V ]qcl )
Dt ρ ∂z
−(PLSET 2 + PRAUT + PSACW + PRACW + PGACW
+PSDEP 1 + PIDEP 1 + PIACW + PIP RM1 + PIF RW ) (40)
DqR 1 ∂
= (ρqR [V ]qR )
Dt ρ ∂z
+PRAUT + PRACW + PSMLT + PIMLT + PGMLT
−(PREV P + PSACR−A + PSACR−G + PIACR−C
+PIACR−G + PIF RR ) (41)
Dqcf a 1 ∂
= (ρqcf a [V ]qcf a )
Dt ρ ∂z
+PSAUT + PSDEP + PSACI + PSACR−A + PSACW
−(PGAUT + PGACS + PSSUB + PSMLT + PSMLT EV ) (42)
Dqcf c 1 ∂
= (ρqcf c [V ]qcf c )
Dt ρ ∂z
+PIDEP + PIACR−C + PIP RM + PIACW + PIF RW + PIF RR
−(PISUB + PIMLT + PIMLT EV + PSAUT + PSACI ) (43)
Dqgraup 1 ∂
= (ρqgraup [V ]qgraup )
Dt ρ ∂z
+PGAUT + PGACW + PGACS + PSACR−G + PIACR−G
−PGMLT (44)
where each of the transfer terms above are defined in table 11. The subscript numbers 1 and 2 indicates first
and second transfers, where transfer to more than one category is possible. Note also that the flux terms in all
categories except q are represented in section 6.3 by PRFALL, PIFALL, PSFALL and PGFALL for rain, ice, snow
and graupel respectively and cloud droplet fall is represented as PLSET1 (sedimentation where no evaporation
takes place). [V ] is a bulk fall velocity of the appropriate category of rain, graupel, ice aggregates or ice crystals,
as ilustrated by the subscript.

UMDP: 026
Code Sink Source Description

RACW qcl qR Collection of liquid cloud by rain
RAUT qcl qR Autoconversion from liquid cloud to rain due to liquid
cloud droplet aggregation
REVP qR q Evaporation of rain
LSET qcl qcl or q Droplet settling
IACW qcl qcf c Collection of liquid cloud by cloud ice (Riming)
IDEP qcl or q qcf c Deposition of vapour on to cloud ice
IPRM qcl or q qcf c Primary nucleation of ice crystals by heterogeneous ice nuclei
IFRW qcl qcf c Nucleation of ice crystals by homogeneous freezing of
liquid cloud drops
IMLT qcf c qR Cloud ice melting to form rain
ISUB qcf c q Sublimation of cloud ice
IMLTEV qcf c q Evaporation of melting ice
IACR-C qR qcf c Collection of rain by ice crystals to form ice crystals.
IACR-G qR qg Collection of rain by ice crystals to form graupel.
SACW qcl qcf a Collection of liquid cloud by snow (Riming)
SDEP qcl or q qcf a Deposition of vapour on to snow
SMLT qcf a qR Melting of snow to form rain
SSUB qcf a q Sublimation of snow
SMLTEV qcf a q Evaporation of melting snow
SACR-A qR qcf a Collection of rain by snow to form snow
SACR-G qR qg Collection of rain by snow to form graupel
SAUT qcf c qcf a Aggregation of crystals to form snow
SACI qcf c qcf a Collection of ice crystals by snow aggregates
GAUT qcf a qgraup Autoconversion of snow aggregates to graupel
GACW qcl qgraup Collection of liquid cloud by graupel (Riming)
GACS qcf a qgraup Collection of snow aggregates by graupel
GMLT qgraup qR Melting of graupel to form rain
Table 11: Details of the process conversion terms that are modelled in the UM microphysics parametrizations.
q is vapour mixing ratio, qcl liquid water mixing ratio, qcf a ice aggregate mixing ratio, qR rain mixing ratio, qcf c
ice crystal mixing ratio and qgraup is graupel mixing ratio. Sedimentation processes are ignored as they do not
change the microphysical category.
6.1.1 A note on graupel transfers not included
At this stage, the following transfer terms have not been represented as they are small in comparison with the
terms in table 11:
• Deposition and sublimation of graupel
• The wet mode of graupel growth.
• Collection of ice crystals (only collection of aggregates is assumed)
• Freezing of rain
6.2 Calculation of cloud drop number
Calculation of cloud droplet number (nd ) is important for the autoconversion and droplet settling transfer pro-
cesses. Cloud drop number is the concentration of activated cloud nuclei. nd can be specified as a simple
constant, depending only upon whether the grid point is a land or sea point, or it can be dependent on model
aerosol. Sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.4 outline some of the possible options.
6.2.1 Using a simple land-sea mask
The simplest option available is to choose one value for the drop concentration over land and another over
sea. This is intended to represent the fact that maritime air is less polluted than continental air. Some sample
values are shown in table 12, although many other varieties of this land-sea split do exist in the literature. The
disadvantage of this method is that in stratocumulus drizzling clouds, the model often has a distinct split in
drizzle fields, which looks rather unrealistic. To get around this issue, we can use aerosol amounts, as detailed
in the next section.

UMDP: 026
nd (land) nd (sea)
UM Default 3.0 × 108 m−3 1.0 × 108 m−3
Bower and Choularton [1992] 6.0 × 108 m−3 1.5 × 108 m−3
Table 12: Land-sea droplet number concentrations
6.2.2 Using the CLASSIC aerosol species
This is a common option in the climate model simulations, but rarely used for NWP. The droplet number is related
to the total aerosol number concentration, naer . This is derived from the CLASSIC aerosol species [Bellouin
et al., 2007] and the result converted to nd , using the Jones et al. [1994] relationship:
nd = 3.75 × 108 1 − exp −2.5 × 10−9 naer .

(45)
The droplet number derived by this method is limited to minimum values of 35×106 m−3 over land and 5×106 m−3
over the sea, sea-ice and ice-sheets.
The input of CLASSIC aerosols can either be a prognostic variable or a fixed climatology. Prognostic variables
are common in climate simulations, but are generally too expensive to use in NWP models. So, in NWP mod-
els, the use of climatological aerosols provides a useful alternative to the land-sea mask discussed in section
6.2.1. The droplet number derived from the climatological aerosols can be scaled in order to account for any
discrepencies between the prognostic and climatological aerosol inputs.
6.2.3 Using the UKCA-derived cloud drop number concentration
The UKCA model (see UMDP-084 ) is capable of producing a cloud drop number concentration derived from
aerosol. This can be passed into the UM microphysics and used in the process rates. In this case, the micro-
physics scheme does not modify the UKCA-derived cloud drop number concentration.
6.2.4 Using MURK aerosol
Total (or ‘MURK’) aerosol is a prognostic mass-mixing ratio of a single aerosol species that is designed to
broadly represent the behaviour of the whole aerosol spectrum, in a simplistic way. In order to diagnose a cloud
drop number concentration, the aerosol mass must first be converted into an aerosol number (naer ). Then, a
portion of the aerosol number concentration can be activated to produce a value of cloud drop number, which
is used in the microphysical calculations.
This scheme uses the parametrization of either Clark et al. [2008] or Haywood et al. [2008] using flight data
around the UK. Both relations share the same equation
12
Amass
naer = n0murk , (46)
m0murk
where Amass is the prognostic mass mixing ratio of the aerosol. The values of the other parameters are given
in table 13
n0murk m0murk
Clark et al. [2008] 5.0 × 108 1.4584 × 10−8
Haywood et al. [2008] 2.0 × 109 1.8956 × 10−8
Table 13: MURK aerosol parameters used in equation 46
Wilkinson et al. [2010a] showed that generating the cloud droplet number using the Jones et al. [1994] rela-
tionship (equation 45) constrained the cloud droplet numbers into a sensible range of values. However Abel
[2012] used aircraft data to suggest that the Haywood et al. [2008] parametrization overestimated the cloud
drop number concentration and that the Clark et al. [2008] gave a better representation of the droplet spectrum
when coupled to the Jones et al. [1994] relation.

UMDP: 026
6.2.5 Drop tapering
Price [2011] showed that drop concentrations were much lower in fog than in stratocumulus cloud, with concen-
trations varying between 20 per cm3 and 100 per cm3 . Wilkinson et al. [2013] derived a parametrization to taper
(or reduce) the drop number concentration in the boundary layer, with lower values closer to the surface. This
can be used in conjunction with the MURK and CLASSIC aerosols as described in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.4.
The surface drop concentration can either be fixed or can vary with aerosol mass mixing ratio.
For a fixed taper, the droplet number at a given height is defined as

η
nd = nds + σ ln (47)
ηs
where η = z/ztoa , z is the altitude of the model level and ztoa is the altitude at the top of the model. nds is
the minimum droplet at a specified ηs ; at present, this is taken to be the eta value of the first model level. σ is
defined as
ndth − nds
σ= (48)
ln ηηths
and the taper height zth is defined as the product of ηth and ztoa .
Hence, above the taper height, the aerosol is unaffected by tapering. The taper height used operationally is
typically around 150 m, with a surface drop number of 75 per cm3 (7.5 ×107 m−3 ).
If a variable taper is used, the value of nds is calculated based on the aerosol amount in the lowest model level
(naers ) as a modified version of equation 45:
nds = ndsmax 1.0 − exp −1.5 × 10−9 naers .

(49)
and a typical value of ndsmax is 100 per cm3 (1.0 ×108 m−3 ).
Finally, if drop taper is selected but neither MURK nor classic aerosol are selected, the land-sea mask is ignored
and a simple assumed profile of cloud droplet number applies. This uses the taper height and surface droplet
concentration set by the user. However, at the taper height, the cloud drop concentration is assumed to be 375
per cm3 , which is relaxed smoothly to 100 per cm3 at 2 km altitude. Above 2 km altitude, the drop number
remains constant at 100 per cm3 .
6.3 Transfer equations
We next look at these terms from section 6.1 in detail. The order of terms approximately follows the order that
they appear in the microphysics scheme.
6.3.1 PLSET: Droplet Settling
qcl to qcl , qcl to q This term is intended to update the cloud prognostics as a results of allowing cloud droplets to
fall out by gravity using a modified Stokes’ law. The terminal velocity of a cloud droplet is given as follows (after
Lamb, 1994, Rogers and Yau, 1989)
2 2
2 ρw g D D
Vcd = = K1 (50)
9 µ 2 2
where K1 = 1.27 × 108 m−1 s−1 /FKa (and FKa is defined in equation 2). Equation 50 is accurate for droplet radii
of up to 30 microns. Damian Wilson has integrated over the cloud droplet spectrum, assuming a Khrgian and
Mazin [1952] gamma distribution, which gives the bulk settling velocity as
23
qcl ρ
1.339 × 106 nd
Vcd = , (51)
FKa
where nd is the cloud droplet number concentration, determined in section 6.2.

UMDP: 026
With the bulk velocity for cloud droplets known, the flux of cloud droplets out of the layer can be calculated as
PLSET = ρqcl Vcd , (52)
with the restriction that the droplets are not allowed to settle more than one vertical grid box per timestep. Given
the settling velocity of the droplets is of the order of cm s−1 , this should be physically realistic.
When droplets are passed from one grid box to the one below, no assumption is currently made of cloud
fraction in the first box; it is simply assumed that there is a uniform distribution of droplets settling into the grid
box below. However, the liquid cloud fraction of the lower grid box into which the droplets are settling is used.
The distribution that falls into the cloudy part of the grid box will be converted into qcl , and results in a transfer of
cloud liquid content downwards. That which falls into the clear part of the grid box will be converted into q and
increase the humidity in the grid box.
6.3.2 PIFALL/PSFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of ice (aggregates and crystals)
This term is scientifically just the flux divergence of the ice across the layer in each model column. Its numerical
solution is not straightforward because of the long timestep and the way in which it is solved is discussed in the
numerical methods section. The solution to the mass mean fall-speed condensate-content relationship is:
Gx dx
b +1+α
ρ0 Γ (dx + bx + 1 + αx ) ρqx x x −nbx
vx = cx (53)
ρ Γ (bx + 1 + αx ) nax ax Γ (bx + 1 + αx )
where qx is the mixing ratio variable for the condensate quantity (qcf a , qcf c , qgraup or qR ). The parameters have
already been defined in section 4. See tables 2, 5 and 9 for the default values used in the UM.
With the generic ice particle size distribution When the generic ice particle option is switched on, equation
53 is modified as follows (now using the ’a’ subscript as this is valid for ice aggregates only):
Ga
ρ0 Mba +da
va = ca aa (54)
ρ ρqcf a
where Mba +da is the result of inputting the expression ba + da into the generic ice particle size distribution
calculation (equation 10, described in section 4.3).
Cloud fraction changes We assume that Ci is not reduced if ice falls out of a layer (since slower falling ice
particles will be left behind), but it is increased if ice falls in from above. The amount of Ci falling in from above
is determined by the overlap of Ci above with the Ci in the current layer. This has been parametrized assuming
that there is a generally maximum overlap between the layers, but a significant amount of non-maximum overlap
as well. This is to represent the effect of wind-shear, although the code does not currently explicitly use the wind-
shear but represents the effect with a single parameter.

∂Ci ∂Ci
= MAX , 0 vi + ws (55)
∂t ∂z
where vi is the mass-weighted mean fall speed of the aggregates and crystals and ws is currently set to a
constant, ws = 1 × 10−4 s−1 , which is a typical baseline value for the wind-shear parameter.
6.3.3 PRFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of rain
Prognostic rain. For the mixing ratio (prognostic rain) version of the scheme this term takes the same form as
for the fall of ice; equation 53 is used, although the quantities with the x subscript become those for rain listed
in tables 2 and 5.
Diagnostic rain In the flux (diagnostic rain) version of the scheme the rain variable is assumed to fall entirely
out of the model column within the timestep. In each grid box in the vertical, the magnitude of the flux of rain can
be altered by other transfer processes. However, after precipitation is initiated, the fall speed of the diagnostic
rain flux remains unaltered by changes to the drop size distribution and fall speed parameters in tables 2 and 5.
However, all transfer processes are still applied and increase or decrease the magnitude of the rain rate.

UMDP: 026
6.3.4 PGFALL: Sedimentation (fall) of graupel
All graupel is assumed to be prognostic; there is no diagnostic graupel available. The fall term takes the same
form as for the fall of ice; equation 53 is used, although the quantities with the x subscript become those for
graupel listed in tables 2 and 5.
6.3.5 PIPRM: Heterogeneous nucleation (Deposition on to natural ice nuclei)
qcl to qcf c , q to qcf c . This term provides a small ‘seed’ ice content for ice free clouds in order that the other
microphysical terms can grow it. The term acts if all the following criteria are satisfied:
Tc < −10 deg C

RHinuc = MIN 0.01(188.92 + 2.81Tc + 0.013336 Tc 2 ), 1.0 − 0.1

RH > RHinuc
m0 5

qi < qinuc qinuc = MIN 0.01 exp(−0.6 Tc ), 1 × 10 (56)
ρ
where m0 = 1 × 10−12 represents the mass of a single, newly nucleated ice particle, RH = (q + qcl )/qsat water
and Tc is the temperature in degrees Celsius. qinuc is the combined mass of the number of active nuclei
produced per timestep following the temperature dependent function suggested by Fletcher [1962]. The other
criteria restrict the nucleation term to low temperatures and regions of high vapour content [Heymsfield and
Miloshevich, 1995]. This nucleated ice content is first removed from the available liquid water, and then from
available vapour (hence PIP RM1 and PIP RM2 terms). It is added to the qcf c (rather than qcf a ). The amount of ice
nucleated is not critical to the evolution of the model, the deposition terms will fairly rapidly grow the nucleated
ice and other model balances will dominate the model. If a prognostic number concentration was used, as in
some CRMs, then the nucleation term becomes more important.
The scheme additionally restricts nucleation to regions where liquid water is present (the RHinuc term still
restricts the amount of ice that can be nucleated) and assumes that nucleation occurs in all locations within the
liquid cloud volume, so Ci is set equal to C if there is a nucleation increment.
6.3.6 PIFRW: Homogeneous nucleation of liquid water
qcl to qcf c . All liquid water at temperatures less than −40◦C is instantaneously frozen to form ice particles (qcf c ),
according to Rogers and Yau [1989]. In the scheme Ci is set equal to C and Cl set to zero.
6.3.7 PIFRR: Homogeneous nucleation of rain
qR to qcf c . As PIFRW, but for rain rather than liquid water.
6.3.8 PSDEP/PSSUB: Deposition/Sublimation of vapour on to aggregates
qcl to qcf a , q to qcf a . The deposition/sublimation equation is (following Rogers and Yau, 1989 or Rutledge and
Hobbs, 1983):
q
dMx qisat − 1
= CF ′ . (57)
dt AB
where dMx /dt represents the rate of change of mass due to the phase change, AB is a function of temperature
and is different for ice or liquid particles, C is the shape parameter, for spherical particles C = 2πD, and F ′ is the
ventilation coefficient. The scheme uses the ventilation factor of Thorpe and Mason [1966], which is applicable
for hexagonal plates:
1 1
F ′ = 0.65 + 0.44Sc3 Re2 (58)

UMDP: 026
where Re is the Reynolds number given by

Vx (D)Dρ
Re = (59)
µ
where µ is the dynamic viscosity of air. The Schmidt number, Sc is set to 0.6 as discussed earlier.
The integrated value of CF ′ for spherical particles over a generalised gamma distribution of sizes is defined as:
12 G2x !
Γ(2 + αx ) cx 1 1 ρ 0 Γ (0.5dx + αx + 2.5)
Vx = 2πn0x 0.65 (2+α ) + 0.44 Sc3 ρ 2 (60)
λx x µ ρ (λx + 0.5hx)(0.5dx +αx +2.5)
x can stand for R,c,a or g. The deposition and sublimation rates of snow aggregates (PSDEP and PSSUB ) are
given by

q
qisat −1
PSDEP (or − PSSUB ) = × Vx (61)
ρABice
where ABice is a thermodynamic term given by Rogers and Yau [1989] as

LS LS Rv T
ABice = −1 + (62)
Rv T Ka (T )T eisat ψ(T, p)
where eisat is the saturated vapour pressure over ice. When liquid exists this is assumed to be removed before
the ice (the Bergeron-Findeisen process: Bergeron, 1935), hence the split into PSDEP 1 and PSDEP 2 terms. The
deposition/sublimation term only acts when T < 0 deg C.
Non-spherical particles. The above derivation is for spherical particles (these are used by default but aren’t
consistent with the area-size relationships). For non-spherical particles we can use the concept of capacitance
to provide a multiplying factor to the rate equation. This gives [Rogers and Yau, 1989]:
2 12
1 − r1a
c= 1
, ra > 1(prolates) (63)
log ra + (ra 2 − 1) 2
c = 1, ra = 1(spherical) (64)
1 2
1 − ra 2
c= 1
, ra < 1(oblates) (65)
sin−1 (1 − ra 2 ) 2
where ra is the axial ratio3

c is the multiplying factor to apply to Vx . The precipitation scheme allows the specification of an axial ratio and
make additional assumptions about the nature of the particle shape; subliming particles are assumed to have a
more rounded shape with more molecular-scale surface steps on their surface. This means it is more difficult to
deposit ice than sublime it, and accordingly the rate for depositing ice is multiplied by a factor of 0.9, which is a
number used by Wilson to represent this process.
With the generic ice particle size distribution When the generic ice particle size distribution is switched on,
equation 61 remains identical, but equation 60 is modified as
c 21 G2x !
x 1 1 ρ0
Vx = 2π 0.65M1 + 0.44 Sc ρ
3 2 M1+0.5(da +1) , (66)
υ ρ
where M1 is the first moment of the generic ice particle size distribution calculation and M1+0.5(da+1) is the
result of inputting 1 + 0.5 (da + 1) into the generic ice particle size distribution calculation.
3 This is defined as a/b in Rogers and Yau [1989] and Pruppacher and Klett [1997]. In their notation, a is the major semi-axes while b is
the minor semi-axes.

UMDP: 026
The multiplying factor, c, for non-spherical particles may also be used to scale the values coming from equation
66.
Cloud fraction changes Deposition is assumed to remove Cl but not to adjust Ci or C. If we assume a uniform
distribution of liquid water across the liquid cloud partition between values 0 and 2qCcll , and a uniform removal of
liquid water, then we obtain the expression
1
∆qcl 2
∆Cl = Cl 1 − − Cl . (67)
qcl
Sublimation is assumed to reduce Ci but not to alter Cl . A similar argument to that for deposition allows one to
estimate this change as
1
∆qcf 2
∆Ci = Ci 1 + (68)
qcf
and hence a similar adjustment to the total cloud fraction (since sublimation can only occur outside of liquid
cloud).
6.3.9 PIDEP/PISUB: Deposition/Sublimation of vapour on to ice crystals
qcl to qcf c , q to qcf c . This term is identical to the above except the parameters used are those for the ice crystal
category.
6.3.10 Hallett-Mossop process
Formulation in the UM
There is functionality in the UM to include a simple Hallett and Mossop [1974] process that acts to increase the
deposition rate by a factor when supercooled liquid water is present, although this is not usually turned on in the
model. A gui/namelist switch from VN7.9 allows this option to be turned on if required.
The deposition rate to ice crystals with the Hallett-Mossop representation on (P IDEPHM ) is given by

qcl
P IDEPHM = P IDEP 1 + fHM (T ) (69)
qcl0
where qcl0 is a reference liquid water content from Hallett and Mossop, 1974 (1.0 × 10−4 kg kg−1 ) and fHM is a
function of temperature

1 T − THM2
fHM = 1 − exp , THM2 > T > THM1 (70)
HMnorm THM3

T − THM1
fHM = exp , T < THM1 (71)
THM3
fHM = 0, T > THM2 (72)
where
THM1 − THM2
HMnorm = 1 − exp . (73)
THM3
THM1 and THM2 are the temperature limits for producing splinters, the rate varies with number concentration
over an altitude equivalent to a temperature change of THM3 . If you wish to use this representation, you are
advised to set THM1 = −8 ◦ C, THM2 = −3 ◦ C, THM5 = 7 ◦ C.

UMDP: 026
6.3.11 PSAUT: Aggregation of ice crystals to snow aggregates
qcf c to qcf a
If there is only one ice prognostic
The schemes have a diagnostic split between ice crystals and aggregates and therefore do not include an
explicit autoconversion term from ice crystals to aggregates. Instead, the single ice prognostic variable is split
each timestep into crystals and aggregates for the microphysical processes as described earlier.
If there are two ice prognostics
The process of aggregation of ice crystals to snow aggregates is coded to emulate the diagnostic split scheme,
i.e. the amount of ice crystal mass is calculated using the diagnostic split (equation 9) and any mass greater
than this threshold is transferred to the aggregate category.
6.3.12 PSACI: Collection of ice crystals by snow aggregates
qcf c to qcf a . In reality, the transfer process should be small. This modification only works when the use of a
second ice prognostic (crystals) is used. Collection of ice crystals by snow does not take place when the generic
ice particle size distribution is turned on.
The rate of collision between the snow and ice crystal categories is parametrized as a double integration, to
take into account the spectrum of sizes of particles of each category. The general result for the rate that mass
from category y is collected by category x is
∞ ∞
1 π
Z Z
PY ACX = Exy (Dx + Dy )2 |Vx (Dx ) − Vy (Dy )|
ρ 0 0 4
Mx (Dx )nx (Dx )ny (Dy )dDx dDy (74)
Where Exy is a collection efficiency defined following Gray et al. [2004] as
Exy = 0.02 exp(0.08(T − 273.15)) (75)
The integration of equation 74 is made easier (or indeed possible) by making the assumption of Forbes and
Halliwell [2003] that
|vx (Dx ) − vy (Dy )| = MAX [(vx + vy )/8, |vx − vy |] (76)
for all values of Dx and Dy . So the velocity difference between any two particles from the two different categories
is assumed to be the difference between the mass–mean fall velocities vx and vy or a quarter of the average
of the two mass–mean fall velocities, whichever is greater. The latter takes account of the distribution of fall
speeds in the case where the mean fall speeds of the two categories are similar.
Substituting in equation (76) allows equation (74) to be integrated giving equation 77 (where many of the pa-
rameters have been defined earlier in section 4, with default values in tables 2,9 and 5.) Specifically now for the
collection of ice by snow we have:
π
PSACI = Exy aa n0c MAX [(Va + Vc )/8, |Va − Vc |]
4ρ
Z ∞Z ∞
× (Da + Dc )2 Daba na (Da )nc (Dc )dDa dDc
0 0
π
= Exy aa n0c MAX [(Va + Vc )/8, |Va − Vc |]
4ρ
Z ∞
Γ(1 + αc ) Γ(2 + αc ) Γ(3 + αc )
× Daba na (Da ) Da2 (1+α ) + 2Da (2+α ) + (3+α ) dDa
0 λc c λc c λc c

UMDP: 026
π
= Exy aa n0a n0c MAX [(Va + Vc )/8, |Va − Vc |]
4ρ

Γ(1 + αc ) Γ(3 + αa + ba ) Γ(2 + αc ) Γ(2 + αa + ba )
× (1+αc ) (3+αa +ba )
+ 2 (2+α ) (2+α +b )
λc λa λc c λa a a

Γ(3 + αc ) Γ(1 + αa + ba )
+ (3+α ) (1+α +b )
(77)
λc c λa a a

UMDP: 026
6.3.13 PSACW: Riming by aggregates
qcl to qcf a .
When the generic ice particle size distribution is not used)
Although this term is called ’riming’, it obeys a similar process (and hence is formulated in the same way), as
that for the accretion of liquid cloud by falling rain.
Ga
πn0a ca Γ(3 + da + αa )Eaw qcl ρ0
PSACW = (78)
4(λa + ha )3+da +αa ρ
Collision/collection efficiency Eaw are also assumed to be 1, which is not such a reasonable assumption for
ice particles since they have slower fall-speeds (see e.g. Mitchell, 1996). No change in the cloud fractions are
assumed. This term is only allowed to act when T< 0◦ C.
When the generic ice particle size distribution is used
This follows the same form as equation 78, although with the intercepts replaced by moment calculations.
Equation 10 is used to calculate the moment of the ice particle size distribution corresponding to 2 + da , M2+da
and then the riming equation can be modified as follows:
Ga
π ρ0
PSACW = ca M2+da Eaw qcl . (79)
4 ρ
6.3.14 PIACW: Riming by crystals
qcl to qcf c . This term is formulated in the same way as the riming by aggregates term in equation 78 (and is
valid for non-generic ice PSD cases). The only differences are the values of the parameters used in the PSD,
density and fall speed parametrizations. Collision/collection efficiency are also assumed to be 1 and no change
in cloud fractions occur.
6.3.15 PGAUT: Autoconversion of snow to graupel
qcf a to qgraup . It is assumed that when snow growth is dominated by riming liquid cloud it increases its density,
so some is converted to the graupel category. A threshold snow mass concentration is defined which must be
exceeded before this process is activated. This is for ρqcf a > 3 × 10−4 kg m−3 and also the temperature must
be below −4 C. This is based on radar observations of a large number of convective showers over Southern
England [Forbes and Halliwell, 2003]. The conversion rate is:
PGAUT = 0.5 × MAX [0, PSACW − PSDEP ] . (80)
where PSACW is the rate of riming of snow and PSDEP is the rate of snow deposition. Thus the riming rate of
snow must exceed the rate of growth due to vapour deposition. The coefficient of 0.5 is inserted because the
riming snow will not immediately increase its density to that of graupel.
6.3.16 PGACW: Riming by graupel
qcl to qgraup . The collection rates of liquid cloud by graupel obey exactly the same physics as the riming of
crystals and aggregates (equation 78, but with the parameters for graupel from tables 2 and 5 used in place of
those for aggregates).

UMDP: 026
6.3.17 PGACS: Collection of snow aggregates by graupel
qcf a to qgraup . The rates of collision between the graupel and snow categories is parametrized in the same way
as the snow/crystal collisions (PSACI) described by equation 77 in section 6.3.12, but with the coefficients for
graupel replacing those for snow aggregates and those for snow aggregates replacing those for ice crystals.
The collection efficiencies remain the same as those used in equation 75.
With the generic ice particle size distribution
This uses the same physics, but is calculated slightly differently from 77 in section 6.3.12. Equation 10 is used
to calculate the zeroth (M0 ), first (M1 ), second (M2 ) and ba + da (Mba +da ) moments of the ice distribution. The
moment Mba +da is used to calculate the ice particle fall speed, following equation 54.
Equation 77 is then modified as follows:
π
PGACS = Exy ag n0g MAX [(vg + va )/8, |vg − va |]
4ρ
Γ(3 + αg + bg ) Γ(2 + αg + bg )
× M0 (3+α +b )
+ 2M1 (2+αg +bg )
λg g g λg
!
Γ(1 + αg + bg )
+M2 (1+αg +bg )
(81)
λg
With the improved graupel parametrization

When the improved graupel representation (snow-rain collisions set to create graupel), this term is set to 0.0.
This is based on personal communication with Greg Thompson (NCAR) who believes that collisions between
graupel and snow particles do not result in any changes in the form of ice. There is no increase in graupel or a
decrease in snow.
6.3.18 PSACR: Collection of rain by aggregates
qR to qcf a . This term uses similar assumptions as for the collection of ice crystals by snow aggregates above
(equation 77 in section 6.3.12). Again, the approximation

va + vR
fV = MAX |va − vR |, (82)
8
is used and the collision and collection coefficients are now assumed to be 1. Integrating leads to terms in λR
and λa which can then be solved:
π 2 ρw f V
PSACR = naa λna ba naR λnRbR
24ρ

Γ(3 + αa )Γ(4 + αR ) 2Γ(2 + αa )Γ(5 + αR )
× +
λ3+α
a
a 4+αR
λR λ2+α
a
a 5+αR
λR

Γ(1 + αa )Γ(6 + αR )
+ (83)
λ1+α
a
a 6+αR
λR
Note that equation 83 is formulated slightly differently than equation 77 due to the captured quantity being water
and not ice.
With the improved graupel parametrization The resultant of the collision/collection PSACR can either be
aggregates or graupel. Collisions that produce graupel are noted PSACR−G whilst those which produce aggre-
gates are noted PSACR−A . If the improved graupel scheme (allowing snow-rain collisions to produce graupel) is
switched off, then the collision will not produce any graupel (i.e. the result is always PSACR−A ).
If the scheme is switched on, then collisions between aggregates and rain will always produce graupel.

UMDP: 026
Aside: Note that a different sub-routine is used dependent on whether the collection/captured quantity is be-
tween rain and ice. lsp collection.F90 is used for ice-ice processes, lsp capture.F90 is for ice-liquid processes
and liquid-liquid (accretion) is in lsp accretion.F90.
The rain fraction is reduced simply in proportion to that by which the rainfall rate was reduced.
∆CR ∆qR
= (84)
CR qR
where CR is the rain fraction. There are no changes to the cloud fractions as a result of this process.
When the generic ice particle size distribution is used
This is calculated in a similar way to section 6.3.17. Equation 10 is used to calculate the zeroth (M0 ), first (M1 ),
second (M2 ), 1 + 0.5(da + 1) (M1+0.5(da +1) ) and ba + da (Mba +da ) moments of the ice distribution. The moment
Mba +da is used to calculate the ice aggregate fall speed, following equation 54.
Equation 83 can be modified as follows
π 2 ρw f V
PSACR = naR λnRbR
24ρ

M2 Γ(4 + αR ) 2M1 Γ(5 + αR )
× +
λ4+α
R
R
λ5+αR
R
M0 Γ(6 + αR )
+ (85)
λ6+α
R
R
where, as usual the moments replace the aggregate terms.

When the generic ice particle size distribution is used in conjunction with the improved graupel scheme (allowing
snow-rain collisions to produce graupel) then a different approach must be used due to the lack of an ice crystal
category. This is done by comparing the mean diameters of each of the species involved in the collision.
For rain, we can derive the mass-mean diameter as
R∞
naR λnRbR π6 ρw DR
3
exp(−λR D)DdD
D¯R = R0 ∞ nbR π 3
0 naR λR 6 ρw DR exp(−λR D)dD
R∞
D4 exp(−λD)dD
= R0∞ 3
0 D exp(−λD)dD
Γ(5) λ4R
=
λ5R Γ(4)
4
= (86)
λR
The value of λR can then be derived as in section 4.6. A similar approach can be used to define 4.0/λR for
aggregates. This is simply as follows
4
D̄a =
λa
Mba+1
= (87)
Mba
where equation 10 is used to calculate the two moments required. If D¯R is greater than D̄a then the result of a
collision is a graupel particle. Otherwise the result will be an ice aggregate.
6.3.19 PIACR: Collection of rain by crystals
qR to qcf c . This term is formulated in the same way as the collection of rain by aggregates term (PSACR;
equation 83 in section 6.3.18). The only differences are the values of the parameters used to describe the
properties of the crystals.

UMDP: 026
With the improved graupel parametrization Collisions between crystals and rain will produce graupel (PIACR−G )
if the rain mixing ratio is 0.1 g kg−1 or above. Below this threshold the result of the collision will be crystals
(PIACR−C ).
6.3.20 PSMLTEV: Evaporation of melting snow aggregates
qcf a to q. This term acts to evaporate any ice at temperatures above 0°C since the deposition term is switched off
at these temperatures. The term follows that for the deposition/sublimation process equation with the exception
that saturation vapour pressures and latent heats in the calculation of the evaporation rate are used for liquid, not
ice. However, the latent heat of sublimation is used to calculate the temperature change due to the evaporation.
Either the default ‘intercepts’ method or the generic ice particle size distribution can be used with this option;
the formulation is the same as in section 6.3.8.
6.3.21 PIMLTEV: Evaporation of melting ice crystals
qcf c to q. This term is parametrized in the same way as for aggregates, simply with the crystal parameters
instead of the aggregate values.
6.3.22 PSMLT: Melting of snow aggregates to rain
qcf a to qR . This is solved from the diffusion equation. The latent heat due to melting is equal to the sum of the
sensible heat lost due to thermal diffusion and convection and the latent heat due to vapour transfer:
dMmelt
Lf = −2πDKa Tc F ′ + 2πDLv ψρ(q − q0sat )F ′ (88)
dt
Here, q0sat is the saturation mixing ratio at 0 ◦ C. Integrating over all particle diameters, and ignoring corrections
due to the sensible heat associated with accreted liquid water, the melting of snow to form rain is given as:
1
PSMLT = (Ka (T − T0 ) − Lv ψρ(q − q0sat )) × Va (89)
ρLf
where T0 is 0°C. The ventilation coefficient is given in equation 60. The second term can be subsumed into
the first if we use the wet-bulb temperature, Tw , in the calculation. Damian Wilson approximated the wet bulb
temperature over a range of temperatures and pressures as
Tw − T0 = T − T0 + (qwsat − q) × (N1 + N2 (p − N3 ) − N5 (T − N6 )) . (90)
where N1 = 1329.31 K, N2 = 0.0074615 K m2 N−1 , N3 = 0.85 × 105 N m−2 , N5 = 40.637 and N6 = 275K. The
variable qwsat is the saturation mixing ratio with respect to liquid water.
The value of Tw used in the calculation is weighted by the size of the ice-only and the mixed-phase partitions in
the gridbox. The rain fraction is increased to Ci if Ci is larger than the rain fraction. The scheme reduces the Ci
in proportion to the mass of ice melted:
Ci
∆Ci = PSMLT (91)
qcf a
and reduces C assuming that the changes to Ci are randomly overlapped with any existing liquid cloud.
Using the generic ice particle size distribution
This follows the intercept method, although with the ventilation coefficient as defined in equation 66.
6.3.23 PIMLT: Melting of ice crystals to rain
qcf c to qR . This term is equivalent to the melting of aggregates to rain, although with different parameter values.

UMDP: 026
6.3.24 PGMLT: Melting of Graupel
qgraup to qR . The melting of graupel acts as a source of rain and is parametrized in the same way as the melting
of snow to form rain in the UM:
1
PGMLT = Ka (Tw − T0 ) × Vg , (92)
ρLf
where Lf is the latent heat of fusion, Ka is the thermal conductivity, (Tw − T0 ) is the difference between the
wet-bulb temperature of the air and 0°C and Vg is the integrated ventilation factor for spherical particles with a
generalised gamma distribution of particle sizes:
 
12 G2g
Γ(2 + αg ) cg 1 1 ρ Γ (0.5dg + αg + 2.5) 
Vg = 2πn0g 0.78 (2+α ) + 0.31 Sc3 ρ 2 (0.5dg +αg +2.5)
. (93)
λg g µ ρ 0 (λg + 0.5hg )
It should be noted that the ventilation coefficients used here, (0.78 and 0.31) are the same as rain and not ice.
This method is used elsewhere in the literature (e.g. Reisner et al., 1998 ) and tries to implement the fact that
graupel particles are spheres with a much higher density than aggregates, and are more like raindrops in nature
than they are like aggregates.
6.3.25 PREVP: Evaporation of rain
qR to q. The evaporation rate of rain is analogous to the sublimation of snow in equation (61) and only occurs in
sub-saturated air.
q
qwsat − 1
PREV P = × Vr (94)
ρABliq
where ABliq is the thermodynamic coefficient appropriate for liquid drops and is given by,

Lv Lv Rv T
ABliq = −1 + . (95)
Rv T Ka T ψesat liq
There are a few differences to the sublimation term. The ventilation factor is different, in this term we use the
Beard and Pruppacher [1971] formulation:
1 1
F ′ = 0.78 + 0.31Sc3 Re2 (96)
where the Schmidt number, Sc , is again approximated to the value 0.6. The particles are also assumed to be
spherical in the capacitance calculation.
Note that if the user has diagnostic rain selected and the Abel and Shipway [2007] rain fall speeds selected, the
evaporation rate will be enhanced for light rain rates, in an attempt to remove some of the spurious drizzle from
the model. See section 4.4.3 for more details.
The rain fraction is reduced in proportion to the mass of rain evaporated, in a similar way to the capture term.
There are no cloud fraction changes associated with this term.
6.3.26 PRACW: Accretion of cloud liquid water by rain
qcl to qR . The rate that liquid cloud is collected by rain is the product of the sweep out rate of rain, the mass
concentration of liquid cloud and the efficiency that liquid cloud droplets collide with and then coalesce with
raindrops that intercept them on their direct fall line. This is formulated as:
GR
πn0r cr Γ(3 + dr + αR )Erw qcl ρ0
PRACW = (97)
4(λR + hR )3+dr +αR ρ
We assume that the collision/collection efficiency is 1. There is assumed to be no change in rain fraction and
no change in cloud fractions.

UMDP: 026
Under the improved warm rain scheme, this process rate is replaced by the formulation of Khairoutdinov and
Kogan [2000], bias corrected following Boutle et al. [2014]. Therefore, the process rate is given by:
1.15 1.15
PRACW = 67E(fcl , fR , ρ)qcl qR , (98)
where
E(fcl , fR , ρ) =
2
2 −1.15/2 2 1.15 /2
(1 + fcl ) (1 + fcl )
2
×(1 + fR2 )−1.15/2 (1 + fR2 )1.15 /2
q
× exp ρ1.152 ln(1 + fcl 2 ) ln(1 + f 2 ) ,
R (99)
p
(0.45p− 0.25Cl ) (xCl )2/3 ((0.06xCl )1.5 + 1)−0.17

Cl < 1
fcl = , (100)
0.11 (xCl )2/3 ((0.06xCl )1.5 + 1)−0.17 Cl = 1
and p
(1.1p− 0.8CR ) (xCR )2/3 ((0.11xCR )1.14 + 1)−0.22

CR < 1
fR = , (101)
0.3 (xCR )2/3 ((0.11xCR )1.14 + 1)−0.22 CR = 1
and ρ = 0.9 is specified.
6.3.27 PRAUT: Autoconversion of cloud liquid water to rain
qcl to qR . The UM has a power-law formulation of autoconversion as a function of liquid water content with a
minimum threshold liquid water content.
The conversion rate is based on that specified by Tripoli and Cotton [1980]:
qcl
PRAUT = A1 Eauto (ρqcl )A2 −1 (102)
(nd )A3
where nd is the number of water droplets and Eauto = 0.55 represents a collision/collection coefficient. The
parameter A1 is defined as
4πg
A1 = 43 1
(103)
4
18 3π µρw 3
7 1
which has the numerical value 5907.24 at 0◦ C. The other parameters have the values A2 = 3 and A3 = 3
There is a minimum liquid water mixing ratio threshold, qcl0 (units of kg kg−1 ), for autoconversion to occur.
Default Scheme: qcl0 is defined as the liquid water content such that the number concentration of particles
of radii 20 µm or larger is 1000 m−3 . The number of droplets of radius greater than r (nr ) can be estimated
assuming a modified gamma cloud droplet distribution [Pruppacher and Klett, 1997] and then integrating from r
to infinity:
A 2A 2A
nr = r2 e−Br + 2 re−Br + 3 e−Br (104)
B B B
3
13
27ρqcl
where A = B 2nd , B = rmean
3
and rmean = 80πρ n
w d
This can be inverted for a threshold radius of 20 µm and a threshold concentration of 1000 m−3 using the
following numerical approximation (from Andy Jones):
1
qcl0 = 6.20 × 10−31 n3d − 5.53 × 10−22 n2d
ρ

7.59
+ 4.54 × 10−13 nd + 3.71 × 10−6 − (105)
nd
where nd is in units of m−3 . The value of nd is determined in section 6.2.

UMDP: 026
Tripoli and Cotton [1980] autoconversion threshold: qcl0 is defined as

3
4 ρw rcrit nd
qcl0 = π (106)
3 ρ
where rcrit = 7 × 10−6 m and nd is defined in section 6.2; this was the only option available in the now-retired
3B scheme.
With both the default, and Tripoli and Cotton autoconversion thresholds, autoconversion will not reduce the liquid
water content to below the value of qcl0 .
Under the improved warm rain scheme, this process rate is replaced by the formulation of Khairoutdinov and
Kogan [2000], bias corrected following Boutle et al. [2014]. Therefore, the process rate is given by:
PRAUT = 1350E(fcl)qc2.47 Nc−1.79 , (107)
where 2
2 −2.47/2 2 2.47 /2
E(fcl ) = (1 + fcl ) (1 + fcl ) , (108)
and fcl is given in Equation 100.
Cloud and rain fractions. The rain fraction is increased to Cl if Cl is greater than the current rain fraction. The
cloud fractions are not altered by this microphysical process.
6.3.28 Scavenging of aerosol
In addition to the link between MURK aerosol and cloud droplet number concentration described in section
6.3.27, falling precipitation particles can remove aerosol (sometimes called scavenging). Rain-out of most
aerosol species is covered in the appropriate documentation ( UMDP-020 ). However, in the case of MURK
aerosol, this follows the method of Clark et al. [2008], and the mixing ratio of aerosol, Amass is reduced as:
Amass
(109)
1.0 + Krain RR + Ksnow SR + Kds P LSET
Where RR is the rain rate, SR is the snow rate and P LSET is the droplet settle rate. The other coefficients can
be described as
Krain = Ksnow = Kds = 1.0 × 10−4 × 3600 × ∆t. (110)

UMDP: 026
Figure 1: Autoconversion Thresholds for the default scheme (black line; equation 105) and the Tripoli and Cotton [1980] formula (red line;
equation 106), shown as a function of cloud droplet number.
7 Numerical methods
This section briefly describes some of the numerical methods that are used in the solution of the transfer
equations.
7.1 Fall of ice
The fall of ice is a particular problem to a microphysics scheme. The model levels are close together near the
surface (less than 100 m apart) and the timestep may be (in the climate model) as much as 30 minutes. This
means that ice should be able to fall through several model levels in one timestep.
To solve this we look at the rate of change of ice mass (in either the ‘crystals’ or the ‘aggregates’ category)
contained in a layer:

UMDP: 026
∂qcf x
ρ∆z = Sx − v1x ρ qcf x (111)
∂t
where v1x is the mean ice fall speed out of the layer and Sx is the snowfall rate into the layer. If we assume that
Sx and v1x are continuous with time (which is true in a steady state) we can solve this equation as:
Sx
qcf x (t + ∆t) = (1 − a) + qcf x (t)a (112)
ρv1x
where a is given by

v1x ∆t
a = exp − . (113)
∆z
By conservation of ice mass we can deduce that the snowfall rate out of the layer
( Sx (z − ∆z) ) can be written as:
ρ∆z
Sx (z − ∆z) = Sx (z) − (qcf x (t + ∆t) − qcf x (t)) (114)
∆t
which gives a solution

∆z Sx (z)
Sx (z − ∆z) = Sx (z) + qcf x ρ − (1 − a) . (115)
∆t v1x
This solution will have numerical difficulties if we define v1x as the mean fall-speed of the ice that starts in a
particular layer and qcf x in this layer is zero. Accordingly we define v1x as an average of the fall speed in the
layer and that of v1x from the layer above:
∆z
vx qcf x + v1x (z + ∆z)Sx ρ∆t
v1x (z) = ∆z
. (116)
qcf x + Sx ρ∆t
Since we only store one snowfall flux and one value of v1 from layer to layer, we average v1a (z) and v1c (z)
according to the relative mass fractions of aggregates and crystals. Similarly, Sa and Sc are apportioned from S
using the same mass fraction.
The formulation introduces a significant amount of numerical dispersion when a single ‘block’ of ice is advected
downwards. Although this is not desirable from a numerical point of view (a semi-Lagrangian scheme may be
better, although more expensive to implement), Forbes has shown that the amount of dispersion is fortuitously
similar to the amount of physical dispersion that should occur because of the distribution of ice particle sizes
(and hence fall speeds).
7.2 Implicit formulation
Certain transfer terms, notably those whose rates are proportional to the amount of a particular variable, can
be solved with an implicit timestep, rather than an explicit one. One example is the riming term. This can be
simplified to the general form:
∂qcl
= −k qcl (117)
∂t
where k can be considered a constant (it actually depends on the ice content etc.). The exact solution would
take the form of an exponential decay. The explicit solution is:
qcl (t + ∆t) = qcl (t)(1 − k∆t) (118)
which would be a reasonable solution if qcl is being continuously replenished by another process (this cannot
be guaranteed, though). The implicit solution which is used in the code is to approximate the solution as:
1
qcl (t + ∆t) = qcl (t) (119)
1 + k∆t

UMDP: 026
which will not allow qcl to go negative. A first order binomial expansion of the implicit solution will retrieve the
explicit solution.
Other terms which are formulated implicitly include the melting term. Here, the rate is proportional to the
temperature difference between the wet-bulb temperature and the melting point of ice, and this forms the implicit
part of the calculation. Not all the transfer terms are coded in an implicit formulation, so the advantages of this
formulation are likely to be limited.
7.3 Sequential solution of process transfers
The transfer processes are calculated sequentially in the model. The sequential updating allows easier coding
of limit relationships when two or more processes compete for water in the same category. For larger timesteps
the sequence is important (although placing transfers in parallel does not guarantee less timestep sensitivity). In
particular it is necessary to place the sublimation term after the fall of ice term in order to allow ice to evaporate
on a reasonable depth scale. The order the transfer processes are applied are:
Droplet settling, Fall of ice, Homogeneous nucleation, Heterogeneous nucleation, Deposition / Sublimation,
Aggregation, Crystal collection by aggregates, Riming, Graupel autoconversion, Graupel Riming, Graupel col-
lection, Capture, Evaporation of melting snow, Melting, Evaporation of rain, Accretion, Autoconversion.
The transfer for the ‘crystals’ is performed before the transfer for the ‘aggregates’.
Sequential updating is hardwired ‘on’ in most versions of the UM.
7.4 Numerical checks
The transfers are followed by two numerical checks to remove small ice contents when they are not growing
significantly. The first check is on qcf . This is evaporated back to vapour if the first condition (1) is true and any
of the subsequent conditions (2, 3 or 4) are true:
1. qcf < qcf min
2. T > 0◦ C
3. qice only < qisat and Cmixed phase = 0
4. qcf < 0
where qcf min equals 1×10−8 kg kg−1 . Condition 3 is equivalent to there being no depositional growth. Condition
4 may apply because of numerical inaccuracies elsewhere in the scheme or model.
The second check is on snowfall that occurs at T > 0 °C. Because of the long timesteps involved, it is possible
for ice to fall a considerable distance before seeing the melting term. Accordingly, we apply an additional melting
term. This converts the flux S out of a layer to an equivalent value of qcf in the same layer and melts it to rain
(limited by the amount by which T exceeds Tw ). This term therefore provides a ‘bypass’ to the melting rate
term earlier. This is undesirable when precise location of the melting layer at the surface is critical, as in an
operational mesoscale forecast environment. Hence an iterative melting option is available, which will iterate
only the melting and advection terms, and only when the timestep to layer depth ratio gets large.
7.5 Iteration of microphysics
The microphysical transfers within each gridbox can be iterated so that a shorter timestep can be used within
each transfer term. The fluxes of rain and snow that fall into the gridbox from above are assumed to be uniform
across the timestep. The fluxes out of the gridbox are summed over the iterations to produce the input fluxes for
the gridbox immediately below.

UMDP: 026
A secondary substepping procedure can be used, which steps over each model column multiple times with a
shortened timestep. This can be used instead of, or in conjuction with, the substepping within each layer.
Iterations are also used in iterative melting. This is used in coarser-resolution models where diagnostic rain is
used and accurate rain-snow boundaries are required for forecasting purposes. In this case, several iterations
of the melting processes PSMLT, PIMLT and PGMLT are used to give more realistic estimates of where rain will
fall and where it will fall as snow.

UMDP: 026
Appendix I: Relationship between rain rate, particle size distribution and fall velocity
(with thanks to Cyril Morcrette)
The rainrate in the UM is defined as the product of the number of drops, n(D) dD, their mass, m(D) and fall
velocity, v(D) integrated over the drop size distribution (DSD) spectrum.
Z ∞
R= n(D)m(D)v(D)dD (120)
0
Let us look at each of the elements which make up the right hand side in turn. In the Unified Model (UM)
large-scale precipitation scheme the number of raindrops of a given size, n(D), i.e. the DSD is assumed to be
of the form
n(D) = x1R λx2R Dx4R exp(−λD) (121)
where λ, which depends on the rainrate, represents the slope of the distribution, D is the diameter of the
raindrop and the subscript R in x1R , x2R and x4R indicates that these DSD parameters are valid for rain. For
simplicity we will no longer use the R subscripts, but we must remember that a different set of values for x1 ,
x2 and x4 are used for aggregates and for ice crystals. The form of the DSD given by eqn. 121 is a general
gamma distribution. The value of x4 currently in the model is zero, so the DSD actually simplifies to a modified
exponential distribution. However for completeness, the parameter x4 is retained in the derivations that follow.
The mass of a raindrop is given by the product of its volume and density:
4 3
m(D) = πr ρw
3
π 3
= D ρw (122)
6
where ρw is the density of liquid water and the radius, r, of a drop is half its diameter. Finally the fall velocity
of the raindrops is assumed to be related to the diameter according to a power law with a density correction to
take account of drops falling slower in denser air.
ρ gR
0
v(D) = cR DdR (123)
ρ
At low altitudes, where ρ ≃ ρ0 the density correction is small and can be neglected for simplicity. Substituting
for n(D), m(D) and v(D) in eqn. 120 gives
∞
π
Z
R = x1 λx2 Dx4 exp(−λD) D3 ρw cR DdR dD
0 6
Z ∞
π
= x1 λx2 ρw cR Dx4 exp(−λD)D3 DdR dD
6 0
Z ∞
x2 π
= x1 λ ρw c R D(x4 +3+dR ) exp(−λD) dD (124)
6 0
We make use of the gamma function defined (for example by Doviak and Zrnić [1984]) as
∞
1
Z
Γ(ν) = xν−1 exp(−µx)dx (125)
µν 0
to write
π Γ(x4 + 3 + dR + 1)
R = x1 λx2 ρw cR
6 λ(x4 +3+dR +1)
π Γ(x4 + 4 + dR )
= x1 ρw cR (x +4+d −x ) (126)
6 λ 4 R 2

UMDP: 026
which can be re-arranged to give
x πρ c Γ(x + 4 + d ) (x +4+d1 −x )
1 w R 4 R 4 R 2
λ= (127)
6R

UMDP: 026
Appendix II: Interface with UKCA
The UKCA chemistry and aerosols sub-model takes a number of large scale cloud and precipitation diagnostics
as input. For a list of these and a brief explanation of how they are used see the table below. If any changes
modify the results for these variables it will prevent UKCA jobs from regressing. If the changes are significant it
would be prudent to discuss them with the UKCA code owner before lodging the change.
Precipitation inputs to UKCA

Sec Item Description Use in UKCA
4 205 CLOUD LIQUID WATER AFTER LS Used in activate and aerosol ctl
PRECIP
4 222 RAINFALL RATE OUT OF MODEL Used in chemistry and aerosols
LEVELS
4 223 SNOWFALL RATE OUT OF MODEL Used in chemistry and aerosols
LEVELS
Table 14: Precipitation Diagnostics which are used by UKCA

UMDP: 026
Appendix III: Calculation of Radar Reflectivity
Radar Reflectivity is used as an alternative or in addition to precipitation rate to determining precipitation

strength. Use of radar reflectivity rather than rain rate is common in the USA. Radar reflectivity diagnostics
are also of interest to those examining radar data directly and also for data assimilation.
It is possible to calculate radar reflectivity from the microphysics code. This is done with the following assump-
tions:
• Rayleigh Scattering is assumed, which is valid for most rain radars, but is not valid for cloud radars (which
typically operate at frequencies greater than 20 GHz).
• The bright band is not explicitly modelled.
• Attenuation is not accounted for and the calculation makes no assumption on the location of the radar.
Diagnostics currently available are shown in table 15. It is anticipated that the 2D diagnostics will be used
operationally and could be archived, while the 3D diagnostics may be of use for research purposes and for data
assimilation.
Item Description Dim. Notes

110 Surface Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 2D Uses model level 1 from item 118
111 Max Reflectivity in Column (dBZ) 2D Determined for each column
from item 118
112 Radar Reflectivity at 1km AGL (dBZ) 2D Determined from item 118
113 Graupel Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D
114 Ice Aggregate Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D
115 Ice Crystal Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D
116 Rain Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D
117 Liquid Cloud Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D
118 Total Radar Reflectivity (dBZ) 3D Linear sum of items 113 to 117
Table 15: Available radar reflectivity diagnostics (all diagnostics are contained in section 4).
The diagnostics are calculated in the same manner as Appendix A of Stein et al. [2014], which is based upon
the Appendix of McBeath et al. [2014], which is itself based upon Gaussiat [2008]. As Rayleigh scattering is
assumed, reflectivity is considered proportional to mass squared. The linear radar reflectivity for ice crystals,
ice aggregates, rain and graupel is given as
Z ∞
ˆ
Zlinx = Qx |Mx (D)|2 nx (D)dD, (128)
0
with nx (D) being determined by equation 6 and Mx (D) being determined by equation 25. Stein et al. [2014]
show that by including equations 6 and 25 into equation 128 and using the value of λx determined in section
4.6 then
Zlinx = Qˆx Cx nax (ax )2 Γ(1 + 2bx + αx ) λ−(1+2b
x
x +αx −nbx )
, (129)
with, Cx being the cloud fraction of that grid box and λ being calculated for the in-cloud water content, rather
than the grid box mean. This is used for all species with two exceptions:
1. With the generic ice particle size distribution
When the generic ice particle option is switched on, equation 129 is modified for the aggregates category as
2
18 6ai/π
Zlina = 0.224 × 10 M4 , (130)
ρa
where in this case, M4 is equivalent to 2.0 × bi .

2. Liquid Cloud
This follows Stein et al. [2014] and McBeath et al. [2014], who derive a relationship of the form
201.6
Zlincl = Qˆcl LW C 2 , (131)
nd

UMDP: 026
where LWC is the in-cloud liquid water content and nd is the cloud drop number concentration, as determined
in section 6.2. Thus, the radar reflectivity due to liquid cloud will change in response to cloud drop number
changes (e.g. by movement of different aerosol masses).
Finally, the value Qˆx is taken as
2
2
|Kx | 6
Qˆx = 1018 , (132)
0.93 πρx
with the only two unknowns now being |Kx |2 and ρx .
Category |Kx |2 ρx [kg m−3 ] Notes

Liquid Cloud, Rain 0.93 1000
Ice Aggregates, Ice Crystals 0.174 900
Graupel 0.174 500 See Section 4.5
Table 16: Constants used in the Radar Reflectivity Calculations.
The factor 1018 in equations 130 and 132 ensures that the units are mm6 m−3 , but before output, this is converted
to dBZ (which is more widely used) as:
ZdbZ = 10.0 LOG10 (Zlin ). (133)
A minimum reflectivity value of -40.0 dBZ is applied throughout the domain; this is because a linear reflectivity
of zero will generate a model error when equation 133 is applied and a radar reflectivity of zero dBZ could be
confused with cloud or light precipitation.

UMDP: 026
References
S. J. Abel. A revision to the MURK aerosol to cloud droplet number concentration parametrization. Technical
report, Met Office Technical Note, 2012.
(Referenced on page 21.)
S. J. Abel and I. A. Boutle. An improved representation of the rain drop size distribution for single-moment
microphysics schemes. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 138:2151–2162, 2012. doi:10.1002/qj.1949.
S. J. Abel and B. J. Shipway. A comparison of cloud-resolving model simulations of trade wind cumulus with
aircraft observations taken during RICO. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 133:781–794, 2007. doi: 10.1002/qj.55.
(Referenced on pages 4, 12, 13, and 33.)
K. V. Beard. Terminal velocity and shape of cloud and precipitation droplets aloft. J. Atmos. Sci., 33:851–864,
1976.
K. V. Beard and H. R. Pruppacher. A wind tunnel investigation of the rate of evaporation of small water drops
falling at terminal velocity in air. J. Atmos. Sci., 28:1455–1464, 1971.
N. Bellouin, O. Boucher, J. Haywood, C. Johnson, A. Jones, J. Rae, and S. Woodward. Improved representation
of aerosols for hadgem2. Technical report, Tech. Note 73, Hadley Centre., Met Office, Exeter, UK., 2007.
T. Bergeron. On the physics of cloud and precipitation. In Proceedings of the 5th Assembly UGGI, volume 2,
page 156, Lisbon, Portugal, 1935.
I. A. Boutle, S. J. Abel, P. G. Hill, and C. J. Morcrette. Spatial variability of liquid cloud and rain: observations
and microphysical effects. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 140:583–594, 2014. doi:10.1002/qj.2140.
(Referenced on pages 17, 34, and 35.)
K. N. Bower and T. W. Choularton. A parametrization of the effective radius of ice free clouds for use in global
climate models. Atmos. Res., 27:305–339, 1992. doi:10.1016/0169-8095(92)90038-C.
Philip R. A. Brown and Peter N. Francis. Improved measurements of the ice water content in cirrus using a
total-water probe. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 12:410–414, 1995.
J. R. Cardwell, T. W. Choularton, D. R. Wilson, and R. Kershaw. Use of an explicit model of the microphysics
of precipitating stratiform cloud to test a bulk microphysics scheme. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 128:573–592,
2002.
P. A. Clark, S. A. Harcourt, B. Macpherson, C. T. Mathison, S. Cusack, and M. Naylor. Prediction of visbility and
aerosol within the operational Met Office Unified Model. Part 1: model formulation and variational assimilation.
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 134:1801–1816, 2008. doi: 10.1002/qj.318.
(Referenced on pages 21 and 35.)
G. P. Cox. Modelling precipitation in frontal rainbands. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 114:115–127, 1988.

R. J. Doviak and Dus̆an Zrnić. Doppler Radar and Weather Observations. Academic Press, London, 1984.
B. S. Ferrier. A double-moment multiple-phase four-class bulk ice scheme. Part I: Description. J. Atmos. Sci.,
51:249–280, 1994.
P. R. Field. Aircraft observations of ice crystal evolution in an altostratus cloud. J. Atmos. Sci., 56:1925–1941,
1999.

UMDP: 026
P. R. Field. Bimodal ice spectra in frontal clouds. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 126:379–392, 2000.
P. R. Field, A. J. Heymsfield, and A. Bansemer. Snow size distribution parametrization for midlatitude and
tropical ice clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 64:4346–4365, 2007.
P.R. Field, R. J. Hogan, P. R. A. Brown, A. J. Illingworth, T. W. Choularton, and R. J. Cotton. Parametrization of

ice-particle size distributions for mid-latitude stratiform cloud. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 131:1997–2017, 2005.
N. H. Fletcher. The physics of rainclouds. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 1962.
R. Forbes and C. Halliwell. Assessment of the performance of an enhanced microphysics parametrization

scheme in the Unified Model at 1 km resolution. Met Office internal report, December 2003.
N. Fukuta and C. M. Gramada. Vapor pressure measurement of supercooled water. J. Atmos. Sci., 60:1871–
1875, 2003.
N. Gaussiat. Comparisons of radar reflectivities with synthesised observations from NWP model output. Tech-
nical report, Met Office, 2008.
M. E. B. Gray, J. Petch, S. H. Derbyshire, A. R. Brown, A. P. Lock, H. A. Swann, and P. R. A. Brown. Version 2.3
of the Met Office Large Eddy Model: Part II. Scientific Documentation. Technical report, Met Office, 2004.
J. Hallett and S. C. Mossop. Production of secondary ice crystals during the riming process. Nature., 249:
26–28, 1974.
J. Haywood, M. Bush, S. Abel, B. Claxton, H. Coe, J. Crosier, M. Harrison, B. Macpherson, M. Naylor, and
S. Osborne. Prediction of visibility and aerosol within the operational Met Office Unified Model. II: Valida-
tion of model performance using observational data. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 134:1817–1832, 2008. doi:
10.1002/qj.275.
A. J. Heymsfield and L. M. Miloshevich. Relative humidity and temperature influences on cirrus formation and
evolution. J. Atmos. Sci., 52:4302–4326, 1995.
A. Jones, D. L. Roberts, and A. Slingo. A climate model study of indirect radiative forcing by anthropogenic
sulphate aerosols. Nature., 370:450–453, 1994.
M. Khairoutdinov and Y. Kogan. A new cloud physics parametrization in a large-eddy simulation model of marine
stratocumulus. Mon. Weather Rev., 128:229–243, 2000.
A. Kh. Khrgian and I. P. Mazin. The size distribution of droplets in clouds. Trudy TsAo, 7, 1952.
Horace Lamb. Hydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 6th edition, 1994.
John D. Locatelli and Peter V. Hobbs. Fall speeds and masses of solid precipitation particles. J. Geophys. Res.,
79:2185–2197, 1974.
K. McBeath, P. R. Field, and R. J. Cotton. Using operational weather radar to assess high-resolution numerical
weather prediction over the british isles for a cold air outbreak case-study. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 140:225–
239, 2014.

UMDP: 026
David L. Mitchell. Use of mass- and area-dimensional power laws for determining precipitation particle terminal
velocities. J. Atmos. Sci., 53:1710–1723, 1996.
(Referenced on pages 11, 12, 13, 14, and 29.)
J. D. Price. Radiation fog. Part I: Observations of stability and drop size distributions. Boundary-Layer Meteorol.,
139:167–191, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10546-010-9580-2.
H. R. Pruppacher and J. D. Klett. Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2nd edition,
1997.
J. Reisner, R. M. Rasmussen, and R. T. Bruintjes. Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter
storms using the MM5 mesoscale model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 124:1071–1107, 1998.
R. R. Rogers and M. K. Yau. A short course in cloud physics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 3rd edition, 1989.
S. A. Rutledge and P. V. Hobbs. The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and
precipiation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: A model for the ‘seeder-feeder’ process in warm-frontal rainbands.
J. Atmos. Sci., 40:1185–1206, 1983.
M. Sachinananda and D. S. Zrnić. Differential propogation phase shift and rainfall rate estimation. Radio Sci.,
21:235–247, 1986. doi:10.1029/RS021i002p00235.
B. J. Shipway and A. A. Hill. A 1D modelling framework for a microphysics intercomparison study: Part I.
manuscript in preparation; to be submitted to Q. J. R. Met. Soc., 2010.
T. H. M. Stein, R. J. Hogan, K. E. Hanley, J. C. Nicol, H. W. Lean, R. S. Plant, P. A. Clark, and C. E. Halliwell. The
three-dimensional morphology of simulated and observed convective storms over southern england. Submit-
ted to Monthly Weather Review, 2014. Copy available from www.met.rdg.ac.uk/clouds/publications.html.
H. A. Swann. The development and validation of a microphysics scheme for cloud resolving model simulations
of deep convection. PhD thesis, Dept. Meteorology, University of Reading, 1996.
A. D. Thorpe and B. J. Mason. The evaporation of ice spheres and ice crystals. Br. J. Appl. Phys., 17:541–548,
1966.
G. J. Tripoli and W. R. Cotton. A numerical investigationof several factors contributing to the observed variable
intensity of deep convection over south Florida. J. Appl. Meteorol., 19:1037–1063, 1980.
J. M. Wilkinson. Evaluating Numerical Model Cloud Parametrizations using Radar and Lidar Simulation. PhD
thesis, Dept. Meteorology, University of Reading, 2007.
J. M. Wilkinson, S. J. Abel, and P. R. Field. Does the introduction of a simple cloud-aerosol interaction improve
the representation of drizzle in the operational met office unified model? In Proc. 13th AMS Conference on
Cloud Physics, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., 2010a.
J. M. Wilkinson, R. J. Hogan, and A. J. Illingworth. Using Doppler radar and modelling to diagnose problems
with ice sublimation depth scales in forecast models. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 136:2094–2108, 2010b.
J. M. Wilkinson, A. N. F. Poson, F. J. Bornemann, M. Weeks, P. R. Field, and A. P. Lock. Improved microphysical

representation of drizzle and fog for the Met Office Unified Model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 139:488–500,
2013.

UMDP: 026
Damian R. Wilson and Susan P. Ballard. A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK Meteorological
Office Unified Model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 125:1607–1636, July 1999. doi: 10.1002/qj.49712555707.

The Large-Scale Precipitation Parametrization Scheme: Unified Model Documentation Paper 026

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Large-Scale Precipitation Parametrization Scheme: Unified Model Documentation Paper 026

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unified Model Documentation Paper 026

The Large-Scale Precipitation Parametrization Scheme

© Crown Copyright 2015

3 Physical constants and equations of state 7

4 Parametrized Particle Characteristics 9

5 Sub Grid-scale treatment 16

6 Parametrized Microphysical Process Terms 18

1 © Crown Copyright 2015

6.3.8 PSDEP/PSSUB: Deposition/Sublimation of vapour on to aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix II: Interface with UKCA 42

Appendix III: Calculation of Radar Reflectivity 43

2 © Crown Copyright 2015

1.1 A note on terminology

1.2 Microphysical processes

3 © Crown Copyright 2015

4 © Crown Copyright 2015

2.1 Water vapour

2.2 Liquid water content

2.3 Rain water content and rain rate

2.3.1 Diagnostic representation:

2.3.2 Prognostic representation:

5 © Crown Copyright 2015

2.4 Ice water content

2.4.1 Single prognostic representation:

2.4.2 Prognostic representation of a second ice category

2.4.3 Prognostic representation of graupel:

2.6 Flux to mixing ratio conversion

6 © Crown Copyright 2015

3 Physical constants and equations of state

Symbol Definition Value Units

The air density is estimated from the virtual temperature equation.

3.1 Latent heat correction

7 © Crown Copyright 2015

8 © Crown Copyright 2015

4 Parametrized Particle Characteristics

4.1 Particle Size Distribution

4.2 Splitting of ice into aggregates and crystals

4.3 Generic Ice Particle Size Distributions

9 © Crown Copyright 2015

Tscaling 0.0384 K−1

4.3.1 Mid-latitude version

log10 â(n̂, Tc ) = â1 + â2 Tc + â3 n̂ + â4 TC n̂

Table 4: Coefficients and exponents of moment for equations 11 and 12.

4.3.2 Global version

ˆ ê and fˆ can be determined as exponential and quadratic functions of n̂ as follows:

10 © Crown Copyright 2015

ˆ = exp( 13.6 − 7.76n̂ + 0.479n̂2 )

4.3.3 Further comments relevant to both versions

4.4 Terminal Fall Speed

Aice = rx Dsx (18)

where Aice is the maximum cross-sectional area of an ice particle and

where parameters are given in tables 5, 6, 9 and 10.

Crystal fall speed relations using Mitchell [1996]

11 © Crown Copyright 2015

4.4.2 Splitting the ice fallspeeds with the Generic PSD

ain fall speeds]Abel and Shipway [2007] rain fall speeds

12 © Crown Copyright 2015

Parameter c1R d1R h1R c2R d2R h2R GR

4.5 Density Distribution

Mx (D) = ax Dbx (25)

Table 9: Default values of constants used in the density relations.

ce particle densities]Brown and Francis [1995] ice particle densities

13 © Crown Copyright 2015