VOLUME 43 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY NOVEMBER 2004

Freezing-Level Estimation with Polarimetric Radar

EDWARD A. BRANDES AND KYOKO IKEDA
National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

(Manuscript received 19 November 2003, in final form 10 May 2004)

ABSTRACT
A simple empirical procedure for determining freezing levels with polarimetric radar measurements is de-
scribed. The algorithm takes advantage of the strong melting-layer signatures and the redundancy provided by
the suite of polarimetric radar measurements—in particular, radar reflectivity, linear depolarization ratio, and
cross-correlation coefficient. Freezing-level designations can be made with all volumetric scanning strategies.
Application to uniform (stratiform) precipitation within 60 km of the radar and with brightband reflectivity
maxima of greater than 25 dBZ suggests an accuracy of 100–200 m.

1. Introduction ments of radar reflectivity and vertical velocity for de-

An automated method for estimating freezing-level
heights would have several benefits.1 Freezing-level
heights are required for designating potential icing lay-
ers in storms and for verifying their prediction with
numerical forecast models. Knowing the height of the
freezing level is important for determining whether pre-
cipitation observed by radar is rain or snow and is nec-
essary for its quantification. Alerts could be provided
for those engaged in snow removal and aircraft-deicing
operations. The freezing-level height is also a compo-
nent of polarimetric radar–based algorithms for general
hydrometeor classification (e.g., Vivekanandan et al.
1999).
The long-recognized association between melting hy-
drometeors and bright bands in vertical profiles of radar
reflectivity measurements can be exploited to estimate
08C heights (e.g., Mittermaier and Illingworth 2003;
Gourley and Calvert 2003). Retrievals should improve
if supplemental information is considered. White et al.
(2002) describe a procedure using profiler measure-
1
The freezing level is defined (Glickman 2000) as the lowest level
in the atmosphere at which the temperature, measured by a ther-
mometer exposed to the air, is 08C. It is recognized that cloud droplets
may supercool to much lower temperatures before freezing and that
the melting of hydrometeors may begin at a slightly warmer air tem-
perature because of the wet-bulb effect.
* The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by
the National Science Foundation.
Corresponding author address: Dr. Edward A. Brandes, National
Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.
E-mail: brandes@ncar.ucar.edu
termining the 08C level. The increase in hydrometeor
terminal velocity that accompanies melting is used to
confirm designations based on reflectivity and may per-
mit freezing-level designations in situations in which
strong reflectivity signatures are not observed.
Here we examine the utility of polarimetric mea-
surements for designating freezing levels. Measure-
ments of differential reflectivity, linear depolarization
ratio, cross-correlation coefficient, and differential prop-
agation phase are particularly sensitive to the presence
of large, wetted particles characteristic of melting layers.
In comparison with radar reflectivity, they can give more
precise definition of melting layers and may exhibit
melting-layer signatures in convective precipitation.
Although the problems are closely related, interest
here is in freezing-level designation rather than melting-
layer determination. In many respects the latter problem
is more difficult. Radar-derived melting-layer charac-
teristics depend on the habits and size of the frozen
particles present. Melting-layer upper boundaries are of-
ten inferred by a change in curvature of the reflectivity
profile (e.g., Fabry and Zawadzki 1995). However, re-
flectivity increases can also arise from particle growth
and aggregation. It is not unusual for reflectivity in-
creases to begin hundreds of meters above the freezing
level and well before melting-layer signatures occur in
other polarimetric measurements. Although lower
boundaries of melting layers appear to be sharply de-
fined in radar measurements, the boundary is probably
indistinct. Large ice particles associated with stratiform
precipitation can fall to temperatures of 58C and higher
before melting is complete (e.g., Willis and Heymsfield
1989). However, hydrometeors in the final stages of
melting are virtually indistinguishable from raindrops.
Radar depictions of melting layers are strongly influ-

q 2004 American Meteorological Society 1541

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC

1542 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
enced by beam smoothing (Sánchez-Diezma et al.
2000), and their precise determination with operational
radars would require a deconvolution of the spatially
distributed measurements.
Here the problem of freezing-level detection is re-
duced to finding the height at which signatures for the
various polarimetric parameters are maximized and then
using predetermined statistical relationships between
those heights and the freezing level. Retrieval is facil-
itated by redundancy among polarimetric measurements
and their sensitivity to mixed-phase hydrometeors.
There is a potential problem. Upper portions of melting
layers may exhibit isothermal layers with dry-bulb tem-
peratures close to 08C (Stewart et al. 1984; Willis and
Heymsfield 1989). The total distance over which melt-
ing occurs and the statistical relation between radar sig-
natures and the freezing level could be affected. This
situation was not observed in the data examined here.
We begin by describing the properties of polarimetric
radar measurements and examine typical profiles. Model
parameter profiles are then presented and used to esti-
mate freezing levels for several examples. Estimates are
verified with soundings and aircraft observations.
2. Polarimetric measurements
Polarimetric measurements with strong melting-layer
signatures include radar reflectivity Z, differential re-
flectivity ZDR , linear depolarization ratio (LDR), cross-
correlation coefficient rHV , and different propagation
phase FDP . [For detailed descriptions of these param-
eters, their usage, and typical values for different hy-
drometeor types, see Doviak and Zrnić (1993, chapter
8)]. Radar reflectivity at horizontal polarization (H) and
vertical polarization (V) for a unit volume (mm 6 m 23 )
are defined as
Z H,V 5
l4
p |K| 2
5 E
0
Dmax
sH,V (D)N(D) dD,
where l is the radar wavelength, K is the dielectric factor
of water, sH,V (D) are the radar cross sections of scat-
terers at horizontal and vertical polarization, N(D) is
the size distribution, and D is the particle equivalent
diameter. Reflectivity is most often expressed in ‘‘dBZ’’
(10 3 logZH,V ).
Differential reflectivity (dB) is computed from
ZDR 5 10 3 log(ZH /ZV ).
Differential reflectivity is positive (negative) for parti-
cles whose major axes are close to horizontal (vertical).
Differential reflectivity is zero for particles that are
spherical or for aspherical particles with a random dis-
tribution of orientations. Raindrops tend to flatten and
orient themselves with their major axes close to hori-
zontal. For rain, ZDR ranges from 0.3 to 3 dB. Pristine
ice crystals have small axis ratios (vertical dimension
divided by horizontal dimension) and high bulk density,
and they fall with their major axes near horizontal. De-
VOLUME 43
pending on crystal type, ZDR can be 2–5 dB. Aggregates
have large axis ratios and low bulk density; ZDR for these
particles is small (,0.5 dB).
Hydrometeors whose principal axes are not aligned
with the electrical field of the transmitted radiation cause
a small amount of the energy to be depolarized and to
appear in the orthogonal direction. The depolarized
(cross polar) signal stems primarily from nonspheroidal
particles that wobble or tumble as they fall, creating a
distribution of orientations (canting angles). Signals are
enhanced for wetted and melting particles. LDR (dB)
is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of cross-polar
and copolar signals; that is,
LDR 5 10 3 log(ZVH /ZH ),
where ZVH is the signal received at vertical polarization
(cross-polar return) for a transmitted horizontally po-
larized wave. LDR is small (on the order of 234 to
225 dB, depending on antenna isolation) for rain and
dry snow. Wet and melting snow can have an LDR from
215 to 220 dB.
The cross-correlation coefficient rHV is computed
from reflectivity at horizontal and vertical polarization.
This parameter is sensitive to the distribution of particle
sizes, axis ratios, and shapes. Theoretical values are
;0.99 for raindrops and ice crystals. For melting ag-
gregates, rHV can be less than 0.90. Because rHV and
LDR are both sensitive to the presence of large wetted
particles, their melting-layer responses are similar—but
of opposite sign.
The above polarimetric parameters are derived from
signal measurements that depend upon backscattering
properties of illuminated particles. Radar waves are also
subject to attenuation and phase shifts. For an aniso-
tropic medium like raindrops or pristine ice crystals,
propagation constants for horizontally and vertically po-
larized waves differ. Horizontally polarized waves
‘‘see’’ a larger particle cross section and consequently
propagate more slowly than do vertically polarized
waves. Signals returned to the receiver for the two po-
larizations exhibit different accumulative phase (time)
shifts depending on hydrometeor size, shape, orienta-
tion, quantity, and distance from the radar. The differ-
ential phase shift FDP (8) actually has two components—
a propagative component related to the difference in
forward-scattering amplitudes and a component related
to a backscatter differential phase. The backscatter phase
shift can become significant when Mie scatterers (e.g.,
large melting aggregates) are present. As a consequence,
FDP measurements can also be used to detect melting
layers.
Radar measurements utilized in this study were ob-
tained with the National Center for Atmospheric Re-
search’s S-band dual-polarization radar (S-Pol). To
make the LDR measurement, the radar alternately trans-
mits horizontally and vertically polarized electromag-
netic waves and simultaneously receives scattered sig-
nals at both polarizations (Randall et al. 1997). Oper-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA
FIG. 1. Profiles of polarimetric measurements (ZH , LDR, rHV , ZDR , and FDP ). The estimated 08C level (2.47 km) is shown by a horizontal
line. Heights are above mean sea level.
ational considerations dictate that the Weather Surveil-
lance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) modified for
polarimetric measurements will transmit at 458 (slant)
polarization and simultaneously receive returned signals
at horizontal and vertical polarization (Doviak et al.
2000). The planned configuration precludes the LDR
measurement.
The radar observations were obtained during field
programs conducted in various geographical areas. The
freezing-level detection algorithm to be described (sec-
tion 4) has been tested with both warm-season and cold-
season precipitation. Experience shows that bright bands
can often be detected to radar ranges of 40–60 km and
more, depending on precipitation intensity. With in-
creasing distance, beam smoothing causes the thickness
of the melting layer to be increasingly overestimated
and the magnitude of melting-layer signature extremes
to be underestimated (e.g., Sánchez-Diezma et al. 2000).
Freezing-level detections may be prevented altogether
by signal loss in weak precipitation.
Freezing-level designations are possible with all vol-
umetric scanning strategies. Vertical cross-sectional
scans at constant azimuthal angle are well suited for
diagnosis because detailed height information is ob-
tained along the various rays that make up the scan.
Designations are also readily made from vertically
pointing data, but vertical resolution (gate length) can
1543
be an issue with operational radars. Vertical cross sec-
tions and vertical scans are not permitted with the WSR-
88D, which currently makes measurements in a series
of 3608 scans consisting of 9 or 14 elevation angles
from 0.58 to 19.58. Sánchez-Diezma et al. (2000) ex-
amined the dependence of reconstructed reflectivity pro-
files on the distribution of antenna elevation scans typ-
ical of operational radars. Melting-layer signature max-
ima can be displaced upward or downward, depending
on the distribution of antenna elevation angles relative
to the actual freezing level. However, averages of height
estimates should be unbiased. An alternate approach is
to estimate the freezing level from the distribution of
measurements along radar rays at antenna elevation an-
gles that pass through the melting layer.
3. Polarimetric melting-layer signatures
Profiles of radar reflectivity, linear depolarization ra-
tio, cross-correlation coefficient, differential reflectivity,
and differential propagation phase are shown in Fig. 1
for a winter storm observed at 1631 UTC 28 November
2001 as part of the Improvement of Microphysical Pa-
rameterization through Observational Verification Ex-
periment (IMPROVE) field program conducted in the
Oregon Cascade mountains (Stoelinga et al. 2003). [Pre-
vious descriptions of polarimetric measurements in
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
1544 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
melting layers include Bader et al. (1987), Hall et al.
(1984), Herzegh and Jameson (1992), and Zrnić et al.
(1993).] The profiles were computed at a radar range
of 10 km. The data, from orographically forced strati-
form precipitation, were collected in vertical cross sec-
tions with 18 azimuthal and 0.68 vertical spacing. The
measurements were averaged over a radius of 2 km in
the horizontal direction and over 0.2 km in the vertical
direction. The 3-dB beamwidth (;0.2 km at 10 km)
also contributes to the smoothing. Smoothing artifically
increases minima, reduces maxima, and deepens the ra-
dar-indicated melting layer. Advection in nonuniform
precipitation can cause radar reflectivity profiles to dif-
fer considerably from reflectivity along particle trajec-
tories (Fabry and Zawadzki 1995, their Fig. 2). How-
ever, the height at which the strongest melting-layer
signatures appear should be relatively unaffected. Pro-
files of LDR and rHV are insensitive to advection.
Radar reflectivity in the upper ‘‘ice only’’ precipita-
tion layer (3–7 km) increases toward the ground at a
rate of more than 4 dB km 21 (in situ hydrometeor ob-
servations are not available for this event). Hydrometeor
growth in this layer is thought to be due to vapor de-
position and aggregation of small crystals. A rapid in-
crease in radar reflectivity begins at 3.2 km—well above
the melting level of 2.47 km determined from three
soundings released within 60 km of the radar and having
an average release time of 1612 UTC.2 The break point
in the reflectivity profile is considerably higher than that
for LDR and rHV (2.7 and 2.6 km, respectively).3 Dif-
ferences from the measured freezing level respond in
part to radar beam and analysis smoothing. However,
in this case the higher altitude of the upper break point
in the reflectivity trace is thought to be due primarily
to a rapid increase in aggregation. Hobbs (1973) pre-
sents data showing accelerated ice particle growth by
deposition and aggregation as ambient temperatures rise
above 258C and particle stickiness increases. Hence,
the profile is illustrative of a potential problem when
enhanced reflectivity is used as a melting indicator.
Differential reflectivity in the ice layer is small and
declines from 0.35 dB at 5.7 km to a minimum of 0.13
dB at 2.8 km (well above the 08C level determined from
soundings). Hydrometeors in the uppermost regions of
the ice layer either had a greater degree of orientation
with respect to the horizon or a greater eccentricity than
the particles near the melting layer. At other times (not
shown) ZDR was less than 0.15 dB throughout the ice
layer. Small ZDR values are due in part to the lower
dielectric factor for ice particles and their low bulk den-
sity. LDR in the ice layer increases toward the storm
top. It is possible that particles at higher elevations had
a broader distribution of canting angles. That the signal
2
All heights are above mean sea level (MSL).
3
Break points correspond to changes in the profile curvature as
used, for example, by Fabry and Zawadzki (1995) to delimit reflec-
tivity bright bands.
VOLUME 43
is not due to noise is supported by the cross-correlation
coefficient, which does not decrease significantly with
height. Differential propagation phase increases above
the melting layer, particularly above approximately 5
km. The increase is also an indication of particle align-
ment.
Melting and resultant changes in dielectric factor, par-
ticle fall speed, particle shape and size, and aggregation
are factors that cause reflectivity bright bands (Battan
1973; Fabry and Zawadzki 1995). The total increase in
radar reflectivity from the maximum curvature point in
the reflectivity profile (23 dBZ) to the brightband max-
imum (40 dBZ, 2.3 km) is 17 dB. Part of the increase
comes from changes in the density and dielectric factor
of the hydrometeors (6.5 dB, Fabry and Zawadzki
1995). Enhanced aggregation is also believed to be a
significant contributor to the increase in this case.
Melting also affects the other polarimetric measure-
ments. LDR, rHV, and FDP values just above the melting
layer are 228 dB, 0.99, and 9.98, respectively. Rapid
changes occur as melting ensues, with LDR increasing
to a maximum of 218 dB, rHV decreasing to a minimum
of 0.91 (a melting-layer signature maximum), and FDP
increasing to 10.78. Melting signatures for these three
variables peak at 2.1 km. The decrease in rHV is likely
a consequence of a greater variety of shapes and axis
ratios associated with partly melted particles and the
introduction of raindrops. Large LDR implies a distri-
bution of mixed-phase particles with a broad distribution
of canting angles, perhaps a result of increased hydro-
meteor fluttering and spinning. The increase in FDP may
be due primarily to melting and particle growth through
a backscatter differential phase shift. The indicated low-
er boundary of the melting layer is 1.7 km for reflec-
tivity, 1.6 km for LDR and FDP , and 1.5 km for rHV .
For this event, the melting-layer signature for FDP close-
ly matches that for ZH , LDR, and rHV . In general, how-
ever, the measurement is noisy and responds to local
gradients of reflectivity (Ryzhkov and Zrnić 1998), and
the distribution of measurements through the melting
layer may exhibit large fluctuations (e.g., Zrnić et al.
1993). S-Pol measurements on occasion show two max-
ima in the melting layer with a minimum between them
at the height of the reflectivity maximum. Because FDP
depends on the total pathlength, the global maximum
is usually at the storm top or at far distances for mea-
surements at low antenna elevation angles.
As temperatures rise and melting proceeds, the hy-
drometeors eventually collapse into raindrops. Particle
terminal velocities increase, and faster-falling particles
are removed from the region. The reflectivity decrease
may also respond to the breakup of partly melted hy-
drometeors. Reflectivity at the top of the rain layer is
;28 dBZ. LDR and rHV take on values close to those
in the ice layer.
Differential reflectivity maxima associated with melt-
ing usually occur at lower levels than do reflectivity
maxima. This fact suggests that the maximum eccen-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA
FIG. 2. Model profiles (ZH , LDR, and rHV ). The assumed freezing level (4.5 km) is shown.
tricity of melting hydrometeors occurs at a lower level
in the atmosphere than does their maximum size, as-
suming that the largest particles are located close to the
reflectivity maximum. The height depression of the ZDR
maximum is a function of reflectivity magnitude. Mean
depressions were typically 0.2 km for bright bands with
a reflectivity maximum of 25 dBZ and 0.5–0.6 km for
a maximum of 45 dBZ. In comparison, depressions for
LDR and rHV are smaller and more narrowly distributed
(more discussion in section 4). S-Pol beams for hori-
zontal and vertical polarization have a small mismatch
that can cause spurious ZDR values in regions of strong
reflectivity gradient. The minimum in the ZDR trace at
2.8 km is thought to be a manifestation of this problem.
Differential reflectivity spikes, like that at 1.9 km, ap-
pear in several datasets. At times, as in Fig. 1, the spike
is close to the bottom of the melting layer just when
other parameters are losing their melting-layer signa-
tures. It is not clear whether the spike is an artifact or
representative of the melting process. On occasion, the
uppermost regions of storms exhibit ZDR values that are
greater than 2 dB, indicative of pristine ice crystals.
Such measurements are often transient in our datasets
and, like FDP measurements in the melting layer, are not
easily modeled. Also, there is no ZDR or FDP signature
at zenith. (This mode is used for ‘‘calibrating’’ the ZDR
measurement and determining the error level in FDP .)
Reflectivity is essentially independent of the antenna
elevation angle. Simulations conducted by Vivekanan-
dan et al. (1993) show that LDR and rHV have an ele-
vation-angle dependence for precipitation in which ice
1545
crystals and aggregates contribute equally to reflectivity.
Assumed axis ratios were 0.2 and 0.8, respectively.
However, observed profiles obtained from low-elevation
and vertically pointing scans show little difference, an
indication that the observed particles were more spher-
ical on average. Although ZDR and FDP may provide
useful information in some situations, the task of iden-
tifying those events is made unnecessary by robust sig-
natures for ZH , LDR, and rHV . As a consequence, only
the latter parameters are used for designating freezing
levels in this study.
4. Model and implementation
Model freezing-level profiles for reflectivity, linear
depolarization ratio, and cross-correlation coefficient
are shown in Fig. 2. The profiles are based on statistics
gathered from several field programs conducted in dif-
ferent climatic regimes and are representative of average
profiles obtained with operational radars at ranges of
less than 60 km. The profiles are used to determine if
the basic melting-layer patterns described in section 3
exist. The procedure is insensitive to the profile details;
rather, it is the overall correspondence between the ob-
served and model profiles and the presence of melting-
layer signature maxima that is important. For illustration
purposes, a freezing-level height of 4.5 km is assumed.
For reflectivity, a constant rain-layer value is also as-
sumed (27 dBZ). Within the lower portion of the bright
band, reflectivity increases with height to 35 dBZ over
a depth of 0.7 km and then decreases to 23 dBZ over
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
1546 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 43

the next 0.5 km. Above the upper break point (4.7 km),
the reflectivity decreases at a rate of 6 dB km 21 . The
upper break point is taken to be above the 08C level to
allow for aggregation that begins before melting. The
reflectivity maximum is shown to be 0.3 km below the
08C level. Although a depression of 0.3 km is a good
mean value, the actual offset depends on precipitation
intensity. Profiles presented by Fabry and Zawadzki
(1995, their Fig. 10) disclose that the brightband re-
flectivity maximum lowers and the melting layer thick-
ens as the reflectivity increases in magnitude. The pro-
files were constructed from 350 h of measurements ob-
tained with a vertically pointing radar at a resolution of
15 m. They assume that the upper break point in the
reflectivity profile coincides with the 08C level. De-
pressions for their profiles were determined and plotted
versus maximum brightband reflectivity in Fig. 3a. A
conservative fit to the depressions is
d1 5 0.0886 2 0.000 400ZH 1 0.000 112Z H2 , (1)
where d1 (km) is the depression of the reflectivity max-
imum from the estimated 08C level and ZH is in dBZ.
Also plotted in Fig. 3a is a sampling of depressions
from field experiments conducted in Florida and Brazil
for which sounding information was available. The de-
pressions are based on measurements from constant an-
tenna-elevation-angle and constant azimuthal-angle
scans in a ratio of 6:7. The depressions, which are shown
regardless of correlation with the model, agree nicely
in the mean with the measurements of Fabry and Za-
wadzki (1995), an indication that aggregation above the
08C level does not dominate the relation.

FIG. 3. Height depressions of (a) maximum brightband ZH from the 08C level and (b) maximum
melting-layer signatures for LDR and rHV from the brightband reflectivity maximum.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC

NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA 1547

FIG. 4. Retrieved 08C heights. The grid spacing is 5 km. The upper (boldface) number is the
consensus freezing-level height (km MSL), the middle number is s h (km), and the lower number
is the number of parameters with r . 0.7. The reflectivity pattern at 1.58 elevation is underlaid.

Modeled values of LDR and rHV are taken as constant
and equal in the respective ice-only and rain-only layers.
The assumed values are 225 dB and 0.993. Model melt-
ing-layer signatures for LDR and rHV are confined to
the 3.5–4.5-km layer. Melting-layer signature extremes
(216 dB for LDR and 0.92 for rHV ) are assumed to
reside at the middle of the layer or 0.5 km below the
08C level on average and 0.2 km below the reflectivity
brightband maximum.
Melting-layer depressions for LDR maxima and rHV
minima from the 08C level are also functions of pre-
cipitation intensity. Height depressions tend to be larger
than for radar reflectivity. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b,
where the depression of LDR and rHV melting-layer ex-
tremes from the brightband reflectivity maximum are
shown. Mean heights for LDR and rHV melting-layer
extremes from constant-elevation scans are usually
within 0.1 km; hence, the depressions were assumed to
be equal. The relationship between the depression of
the LDR and rHV melting-layer extremes from the re-
flectivity maximum is not quite linear. A polynomial fit
was applied to the measurements (Fig. 3b), and the result
was added to (1) to obtain
d 2,3 5 0.121 1 0.000 445ZH 1 0.0002Z H2 , (2)
where d 2 and d 3 are the depressions for the LDR and
rHV melting-layer signature maxima from the 08C level.
For measurements collected as a stepped series of
constant-elevation scans or as vertical cross sections,
the algorithm constructs measurement profiles at 0.1 km
resolution. This vertical spacing readily reproduces
prominent profile features (e.g., Fig. 1). In general, all
measurements within a 3-km horizontal radius of the
desired profile location are averaged. The vertical av-
eraging interval is 0.2 km. For vertically pointing data,
the range spacing of the radar (usually 0.15 km) is used,
and the radar data are averaged in time over one antenna
rotation of 3608.
Operational radars scan by rotating the antenna
through full 3608 sweeps, incrementing the elevation
angle through a tilt series. Vertical resolution may be
too coarse to construct a profile of radar parameters

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC

1548 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
accurately. However, radar measurements from beams
that pass through the melting level at high elevation
angles in stratiform precipitation often show well-de-
fined bright bands. Vertical profiles with resolutions of
a few tens of meters can be constructed from these data
by plotting the measurements as a function of height
rather than distance.
For ZH and LDR all averaging is done in the loga-
rithmic domain to reduce the impact of measurements
with high reflectivity. Averaging for rHV is in linear
space. Several thresholds are applied. Only those por-
tions of profiles with radar reflectivity of more than 10
dBZ and only those profiles with a reflectivity maximum
of more than 25 dBZ are retained for analysis. These
constraints remove measurements associated with weak
precipitation and those potentially influenced by system
noise. Also, searches for freezing levels are conducted
only over atmospheric depths at which they are cli-
matologically likely. For winter storms in the Oregon
Cascade mountains, the limits were 1–4 km. (A limit
lower than 1 km was preferred but was prevented by
an extended ground-clutter problem.) For summer
storms in Florida, the height limits were 3–6 km.
The model profiles are used to verify that the expected
melting-layer signatures are present through pattern
matching. For example, the height of the radar-observed
VOLUME 43
FIG. 5. Time series of freezing-level designations for radar
reflectivity, linear depolarization ratio, and cross-correlation
coefficient. Observed freezing levels deduced from sound-
ings and aircraft are superimposed.
reflectivity maximum is determined and the model pro-
file overlaid such that the height of the observed re-
flectivity maximum coincides with the model reflectivity
maximum. A data file is then generated that consists of
paired observed and model reflectivity values at heights
for which measurements are available. The linear cor-
relation coefficient r1 is computed from the paired re-
flectivities as a measure of how closely the observed
profile matches the model. The procedure is repeated
for LDR and rHV by again matching the heights of melt-
ing-layer signature extremes. For Fig. 1, r1 (ZH ) 5 0.91,
r 2 (LDR) 5 0.95, and r 3 (rHV ) 5 0.97. Observed profiles
with a correlation of more than 0.7, that is, profiles with
at least 50% of their variance explained by the model,
are retained. The estimated freezing-level height is
simply
h i 5 htmax i 1 d i ,
where i is the parameter index, htmax i is the height at
which the signature maximum appears, and d i is the
estimated depression from the freezing level. For Fig.
1, h1 5 2.55 km and h 2 5 h 3 5 2.57 km. A consensus
(weighted) height is determined with
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA 1549

FIG. 6. Retrieved freezing-level heights, as in Fig. 4, but for a summer stratiform rain event.
The grid spacing is 10 km; the reflectivity pattern at 1.28 elevation is underlaid. An aircraft
measurement of the freezing-level height and its location (dot) are shown.

Ohr . of the signature maxima. By keying on profile extremes,

n
2
i i the need to retrieve the details of the melting-layer sig-
5
Or
h fzlv n natures by a deconvolution of the smoothed radar mea-
2
i surements is avoided.
The summation is for the n parameters that meet the
correlation criterion. Profiles with higher correlations 5. Results
have greater weight, and the final precision of the con-
sensus freezing-level estimate will, in general, be better a. Examples
than 100 m. For Fig. 1, hfzlv 5 2.56 km. As a measure
of scatter, the standard deviation sh is computed from Freezing-level retrievals on a 5-km grid determined
from vertical cross-sectional scans for the Cascades

! O (h 2 h
1 n
sh 5 i fzlv
n
Usually, s h is nonzero, and the parameter serves as a
confidence factor for the retrieval.
Note that the correlation is independent of systematic
differences between the observed and model profiles.
Further, correlations are relatively insensitive to profile
details, in particular for LDR and rHV , because the cor-
relation magnitude is dictated largely by the matching
storm at 1538 UTC are shown in Fig. 4. The upper
)2. number to the right of the grid point is the consensus
height estimate. The central number is the standard de-
viation of the estimates, and the lower number is the
number of parameter profiles from which the consensus
height is estimated. Freezing-level designations are
made to a range of 30 km. The spread in consensus
designations is narrow. The largest standard deviations
occur in regions with ground clutter and weak precip-
itation. Inspection of the estimated heights reveals that

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC

1550 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 43

FIG. 7. Measurements of ZH , LDR, and rHV at 68 antenna elevation for the dataset in Fig. 6. The lower-right panel shows retrieved
freezing-level heights, as in Fig. 6, except computed from measurements at 4.88, 6.08, 7.28, and 9.68 antenna elevation.

the highest freezing levels are close to the radar and
that the freezing level lowers to the east (right).
Trends in the designated freezing levels for the three
radar parameters are presented in Fig. 5. Individual data
points represent either median or weighted-mean heights
determined for the domain shown in Fig. 4. Weights
were assigned as in section 4. The decrease in heights
beginning at 1800 UTC coincides with passage of a cold
front.
Examination of the scatter about the mean trends
shows that for this storm the most repeatable designa-
tions are from the LDR parameter. The range in heights
at any particular time is about 0.1 km. The series for
radar reflectivity shows a number of spurious desig-
nations at heights of 1.4–2.0 km. These arise from clut-
ter-contaminated measurements and can easily be re-
moved with a consistency check.
Freezing-level heights determined from soundings re-
leased at Salem, Oregon, (60 km north-northwest of the
radar) and at a special sounding site (55 km to the south-
west) and from aircraft observations (25 km west of the
radar) are also shown in Fig. 5. The comparison is ex-
cellent, suggesting that detailed information regarding
the 08C level can be retrieved and that errors are small.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC

NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA
FIG. 8. Histograms of freezing-level designations based on individual radar parameters and the
consensus estimate.
FIG. 9. Algorithm-retrieved freezing levels for winter (IMPROVE) and
summer (PRECIP98) storms plotted against in situ measurements.
1551
For individual parameter designations on 28 November,
the percentage of profiles that did not meet the corre-
lation criterion was 37% for reflectivity, 9% for linear
depolarization ratio, and 54% for cross-correlation co-
efficient.
A retrieval for a summer stratiform rain event that
formed off the east coast of Florida during the ‘‘PRE-
CIP98’’ field program (Brandes et al. 2002) is presented
in Fig. 6. The radar was operated in sector mode, and
the antenna was stepped through a series of elevation
scans. The storm was somewhat stronger than that in
Fig. 4, permitting freezing-level designations to dis-
tances of 60 km. The actual freezing level, as observed
by a research aircraft, is shown. In Fig. 6, two LDR
profiles and four rHV profiles did not meet the correlation
criterion.
An example of melting-layer signatures for ZH , LDR,
and rHV at 6.08 elevation for the dataset in Fig. 6 is
presented in Fig. 7. The lower-right panel in Fig. 7
shows retrievals for constant elevation scans at 4.88,
6.08, 7.28, and 9.68. The data were averaged over azi-
muthal sectors of 108 at each range bin. Plotted data
points are centered on the sector midpoint and radar
range corresponding to the designated freezing-level
height. For this analysis, one reflectivity and four linear
depolarization ratio profiles were rejected. The melting-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
1552 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
level pattern, with heights decreasing on average to the
east, is similar to that in Fig. 6. There are some differ-
ences that stem from the way the data were processed.
The input data in each case are the same. However, in
Fig. 6 the data are interpolated to a rectangular grid to
produce a column of measurements whose vertical res-
olution is dictated in large part by the spacing between
successive elevation scans (1.28). At a range of 40 km,
the vertical distance between scans is about 0.8 km.
Melting-layer signature maxima can be displaced up-
ward or downward, depending on the distribution of
antenna elevation angles relative to the actual freezing
level (Sánchez-Diezma et al. 2000).
The large number of designations that is possible for
a precipitation area can be used for evaluation, much
like the consistency among individual parameters at a
particular location. Figure 8 shows a histogram of freez-
ing-level designations for the individual radar param-
eters and the consensus estimates for yet another storm
system. Estimated freezing-level heights are for the grid
shown in Fig. 4 and include all designations within a
30-min window. Some of the variation is undoubtedly
caused by meteorological factors. However, the number
counts are concentrated in the 2.1-km-height category
for each parameter. The dispersion in Fig. 8 can be used
to eliminate suspected retrievals. The most consistent
freezing-level designations in this case (after removing
outliers) are with radar reflectivity.
b. Verification
A comparison of algorithm freezing-level designa-
tions and in situ measurements made by research aircraft
and local temperature soundings is presented in Fig. 9.
The available verification data for IMPROVE are from
soundings located 25–60 km from the radar and not in
the region of volumetric sampling. Comparisons labeled
as PRECIP98 are based on coincident aircraft and radar
measurements. The dataset is small, but overall the
agreement is good, with little or no bias. The mean
absolute error (the departure from the 1:1 line) is 0.14
km, and the root-mean-square error is 0.17 km 2 .
6. Summary and conclusions
A simple empirical algorithm for estimating freezing-
level heights from polarimetric radar measurements of
reflectivity, linear depolarization ratio, and cross-cor-
relation coefficient is described. Designations are based
on melting-layer signatures and are determined by
matching observed profiles of the polarimetric variables
with idealized profiles. Consensus freezing-level des-
ignations are made by weighing the goodness of fit for
the individual parameters. The algorithm was designed
for stratiform precipitation with brightband reflectivity
of greater than 25 dBZ. Testing on a limited dataset
reveals that the method allows for retrieval of fine detail
in the freezing-level surface with an accuracy of 0.1–
VOLUME 43
0.2 km at radar ranges of less than 60 km. Potential
problems could arise with events characterized by deep
isothermal 08C layers. However, application to the re-
flectivity profiles from isothermal events described by
Stewart et al. (1984) and Willis and Heymsfield (1989)
suggests that the procedure should yield reasonable es-
timates for the base of the 08C layer. The response of
LDR and rHV in deep isothermal 08C layers is yet to be
determined. The current algorithm was not designed to
determine multiple freezing levels routinely. However,
designations can be made if there is sufficient separation
between freezing levels and algorithm searches are re-
stricted to heights that contain only one freezing level
(e.g., Ikeda et al. 2004, manuscript submitted to J. At-
mos. Sci.).
Acknowledgments. We thank Robert Rilling and Jean
Hurst for preparing the numerous radar data tapes used
in the analysis and Drs. Marcia Politovich and Guifu
Zhang for constructive comments on the manuscript.
This research is in response to requirements of and fund-
ing from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The views expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official policy or position
of the FAA.
REFERENCES
Bader, M. J., S. A. Clough, and G. P. Cox, 1987: Aircraft and dual
polarization radar observations of hydrometeors in light strati-
form precipitation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 113, 491–515.
Battan, L. J., 1973: Radar Observation of the Atmosphere. University
of Chicago Press, 279 pp.
Brandes, E. A., G. Zhang, and J. Vivekanandan, 2002: Experiments
in rainfall estimation with a polarimetric radar in a subtropical
environment. J. Appl. Meteor., 41, 647–685.
Doviak, R. J., and D. S. Zrnić, 1993: Doppler Radar and Weather
Observations. Academic Press. 562 pp.
——, V. Bringi, A. Ryzhkov, A. Zahrai, and D. Zrnić, 2000: Con-
siderations for polarimetric upgrades to operational WSR-88D
radars. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 17, 257–278.
Fabry, F., and I. Zawadzki, 1995: Long-term observations of the
melting layer of precipitation and their interpretation. J. Atmos.
Sci., 52, 838–851.
Glickman, T., Ed., 2000: Glossary of Meteorology. 2d ed. Amer.
Meteor. Soc., 855 pp.
Gourley, J. J., and C. M. Calvert, 2003: Automated detection of the
bright band using WSR-88D data. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 585–
598.
Hall, M. P. M., J. W. F. Goddard, and S. M. Cherry, 1984: Identifi-
cation of hydrometeors and other targets by dual-polarization
radar. Radio Sci., 19, 132–140.
Herzegh, P. H., and A. R. Jameson, 1992: Observing precipitation
through dual-polarization radar measurements. Bull. Amer. Me-
teor. Soc., 73, 1365–1374.
Hobbs, P. V., 1973: Ice in the atmosphere: A review of the present
position. Physics and Chemistry of Ice, E. Whalley, S. J. Jones,
and L. W. Gold, Eds., Royal Society of Canada, 308–319.
Mittermaier, M. P., and A. J. Illingworth, 2003: Comparison of model-
derived and radar-observed freezing-level heights: Implications
for vertical reflectivity profile-correction schemes. Quart. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 129, 83–95.
Randall, M., J. Lutz, and J. Fox, 1997: S-Pol’s high isolation me-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC
NOVEMBER 2004 BRANDES AND IKEDA
chanical polarization switch. Preprints. 28th Conf. On Radar
Meteorology, Austin, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 252–253.
Ryzhkov, A., and D. Zrnić, 1998: Beamwidth effects on the differ-
ential phase measurements of rain. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,
15, 624–634.
Sánchez-Diezma, R., I. Zawadzki, and D. Sempere-Torres, 2000:
Identification of the bright band through the analysis of volu-
metric radar data. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 2225–2236.
Stewart, R. E., J. D. Marwitz, J. C. Page, and R. E. Carbone, 1984:
Characteristics through the melting layer of stratiform clouds.
J. Atmos. Sci., 41, 3227–3237.
Stoelinga, M. T., and Coauthors, 2003: Improvement of Microphysical
Parameterization through Observational Verification Experi-
ment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 1807–1826.
Vivekanandan, J., R. Raghavan, and V. N. Bringi, 1993: Polarimetric
1553
radar modeling of mixtures of precipitation particles. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 31, 1017–1030.
——, D. S. Zrnić, S. M. Ellis, R. Oye, A. V. Ryzhkov, and J. Straka,
1999: Cloud microphysics retrieval using S-band dual-polari-
zation measurements. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 381–388.
White, A. B., D. J. Gottas, E. T. Strem, F. M. Ralph, and P. J. Neiman,
2002: An automated brightband height detection algorithm for
use with Doppler radar spectral moments. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 19, 687–697.
Willis, P. T., and A. J. Heymsfield, 1989: Structure of the melting
layer in mesoscale convective system stratiform precipitation. J.
Atmos. Sci., 46, 2008–2025.
Zrnić, D. S., N. Balakrishnan, C. L. Ziegler, V. N. Bringi, K. Aydin,
and T. Matejka, 1993: Polarimetric signatures in the stratiform
region of a mesoscale convective system. J. Appl. Meteor., 32,
678–693.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 07/06/21 01:11 PM UTC