The Collection Efficiency of Shielded and Unshielded Precipitation Gauges. Part II: Modeling Particle Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of windshields to reduce the impact of wind on snow measurements is common. This paper investigates the catching performance of shielded and unshielded gauges using numerical simulations. In Part II, the role of the windshield and gauge aerodynamics, as well as the varying flow field due to the turbulence generated by the shield–gauge configuration, in reducing the catch efficiency is investigated. This builds on the computational fluid dynamics results obtained in Part I, where the airflow patterns in the proximity of an unshielded and single Alter shielded Geonor T-200B gauge are obtained using both time-independent [Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)] and time-dependent [large-eddy simulation (LES)] approaches. A Lagrangian trajectory model is used to track different types of snowflakes (wet and dry snow) and to assess the variation of the resulting gauge catching performance with the wind speed. The collection efficiency obtained with the LES approach is generally lower than the one obtained with the RANS approach. This is because of the impact of the LES-resolved turbulence above the gauge orifice rim. The comparison between the collection efficiency values obtained in case of shielded and unshielded gauge validates the choice of installing a single Alter shield in a windy environment. However, time-dependent simulations show that the propagating turbulent structures produced by the aerodynamic response of the upwind single Alter blades have an impact on the collection efficiency. Comparison with field observations provides the validation background for the model results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".