Technical Note

Rain Microstructure and Erosivity Relationships under

Pressurized Rainfall Simulator
M. A. M. Abd Elbasit 1; C. S. P. Ojha, M.ASCE 2; Z. Ahmed 3; H. Yasuda 4; A. Salmi 5; and F. Ahmed 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Rain simulators have been used extensively in order to assess the interaction between rainfall and land surface. The main objective of
a rain simulator is to produce rain with characteristics similar to natural rainfall at a certain geographical location. This paper investigates the
microstructural characteristics of rainfall generated by a pressurized simulation system and their impact on rainfall erosivity in comparison with
natural rainfall for different environments. The simulated raindrop characteristics have been measured using two piezoelectric transducers to
investigate the rainfall kinetic energy and drop size distribution. The pressurized simulation system was able to generate rain with different
intensities and the relationship between the pressure and rainfall intensity was statistically significant. On the other hand, the time-based rainfall
kinetic energy was increasing linearly with rainfall intensity. The pressurized rain simulator showed low volume–based kinetic energy (KEc )
and the trend was different from that observed under natural rainfall. The average percentage of small raindrops (< 2 mm) was more than 98%,
and the average median drop size was 1.4 mm. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001140. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Drop size distribution; Erosivity; Piezoelectric transducer; Soil erosion; Rainfall energy.

Introduction
Rain simulators have been used intensively to investigate the land-
surface and water interaction processes at laboratory and field levels.
The major purpose of rain simulators is to produce rain similar to
natural rainfall under a controlled environment. Generally, a rain
simulator can be any device that applies water in a way similar to
natural raindrops. However, natural rain characteristics change with
location, season, and rain type. In the field of soil erosion, rain sim-
ulators played a major role in investigating the relationships between
various factors affecting erosion processes to generate sediment
yield data in order to parameterize and validate erosion models
and to assess the effectiveness of different erosion control methods.
The main advantages of rainfall simulators are the controllability,
i.e., produce rainfall with certain event characteristics, and the
repeatability, i.e., the ability to reproduce the same event (Pall
et al. 1983; Esteves et al. 2000; Armstrong and Quinton 2009).
The rain simulators can be classified based on applied drops num-
ber to single-drop and multiple-drops simulators. The single-drop
simulators have been used mainly to assess the fundamental
processes of soil detachment due to specific raindrop properties
1
Research Fellow, Dept. of Geography, Environmental Management
and Energy Studies, Univ. of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006,
South Africa (corresponding author). E-mail: abdelbasit@uj.ac.za;
m_abdelbasit@hotmail.com
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee 247667, India.
3
Doctor, Dept. of Agriculture, Soil and Environmental Science Section,
Univ. of Haripur, Haripur 22620, Pakistan.
4
Associate Professor, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori Univ.,
Tottori 1390, Japan.
5
Gradient Lab. Ltd., Kisällinete 8, FI-06150 Porvoo, Finland.
6
Professor, Head of School, School of Geography, Archaeology and
Environmental Studies, Univ. of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050,
South Africa.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 15, 2014; approved on
November 3, 2014; published online on January 5, 2015. Discussion per-
iod open until June 5, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/C6015001(6)/$25.00.
(Al-Durrah and Bradford 1982; Bradford et al. 1986; Mouzai and
Bouhadef 2003). The high control on the raindrop properties is
the major advantage of single-drop simulators. However, extrapola-
tion of the results of such simulators is not applicable because natural
rainfall consists of various drop size spectrums that change with
time, intensity, and rain type. The multiple-drops simulators have
been useful devices to evaluate the raindrop detachment and trans-
port by surface runoff (Armstrong and Quinton 2009). The advan-
tages of multiple-drops simulators are that these can be applied at
laboratory and field scale and the wide drop spectra can be compared
with natural rain. Hall (1970a) classified multiple-drops rain simu-
lators into two types: pressurized and dripper-type rain simulators.
The pressurized rain simulators generate the raindrops by applying
the water through nozzles under pressure provided, in most cases,
by a water pump and the simulated rainfall intensity changes by
changing the pressure [e.g., Williams et al. (1998), Esteves et al.
(2000), Yu et al. (2003), Armstrong and Quinton (2009), Grismer
(2012), and Iserloh et al. (2013)]. On the other hand, the dripper-type
rain simulators generate the raindrops through needles, micropipes,
or holes on the hanged tank, and raindrops fall by gravity; usually the
change in rainfall intensity occurs due to the changes in the flow rate
or water head on the tank [e.g., Foster et al. (2000), Kinnell (2005),
Abd Elbasit et al. (2010, 2011), and Dunkerly (2012)].
Basically, each simulation system has its own advantages and
limitations. The dripper-type simulators usually generate raindrops
between medium and large sizes, but sufficient height is needed in
order to allow all drops to reach their terminal velocity. In the pres-
surized simulators, the produced raindrops are in the range of small
sizes and the raindrops gain speed at the nozzle orifice, which
makes the simulators’ height not as important as the dripper type.
In other words, the simulated rain characteristics change with the
simulation mechanism. The height limitation in the dripper type
makes the pressurized simulators useful at the field level.
The main rainfall property that controls most of the other
rain characteristics is the drop size distribution (DSD). The develop-
ment of a rain simulator that can generate DSD trend similar to
natural rain represents the major challenge for rain simulators’
design efforts. Generally, the rain characteristics can be divided
into macrostructural and microstructural rain properties. The

© ASCE C6015001-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 macrostructural rain properties include rainfall intensity, duration,
depth, and uniformity, which have mainly been considered in pre-
vious studies (Esteves et al. 2000). On the other hand, the micro-
structural properties, which include the raindrop size, mass,
speed, shape, and erosivity load, are rarely investigated. The rainfall
erosivity represents an important rain characteristic for the erosion
processes. The rainfall erosivity is defined as the potential of rainfall
to cause soil erosion or detachment. The definition describes the ero-
sivity as a qualitative rain property, and thus there is a need for a
quantitative or physical scale for the rainfall erosivity. However,
in general, any index that considers the raindrop mass and velocity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is sufficient to quantify the rain erosivity (Epema and Riezebos

1983). Measurement of raindrop mass and velocity represents an
important challenge for rainfall erosivity evaluation. These methods
include piezoelectric transducers [e.g., Abd Elbasit et al. (2010,
2011)], optical sensors (Salles and Poesen 2000), and estimation
from raindrop size measured by stain method (Laws and Parsons
1943) and flour pallet (Hall 1970b). Based on these characteristics,
a well-designed rain simulator must have a similar erosivity trend as
that found in natural rainfall. This similarity will ensure that the sedi-
ment erosion results can be compared with other rain simulators and
natural conditions. However, there are several technical difficulties
that hinder the development of a rainfall simulator that can produce
rain typically similar to natural rainfall. Thus, the objective of this
paper is to investigate the characteristics and similarities between
simulated rainfall using a pressurized simulation mechanism and
natural rain.

Fig. 1. Pressurized rainfall schematic and side view showing the simu-
Materials and Methods lator components and the nozzles distribution

Rain Simulators
A pressurized rainfall simulator located at the Arid Land Research charge when it receives force (Abd Elbasit et al. 2010). Two sensors
Center, Tottori University, Japan, was used to generate simulated were used to measure the KE (mJ) and DSD (mm). The two sensors
rainfall events with different intensities. The simulator was initially were modified from the RAINCAP precipitation sensor, manufac-
constructed to study the impact of different soil amelioration and tured by Vaisala (Finland) (Fig. 2). The sensor measurement was
land cover materials on soil and water conservation under hilly slope based on the acoustic detection of the impact of individual rain-
conditions (Amu-Mensah et al. 2013). The simulator consisted of drops (Salmi and Ikonen 2005). The signals from the impact are
water pump, main and lateral PVC lines, two full cone nozzles proportional to the raindrops’ mass. The sensor was constructed
(Spraying System Standard FullJet 1=8 0 0 GG 4.3 W) installed at from a piezoelectric plate (crystalline quartz) covered by a stainless
each lateral line, manual and solenoid valves, pressure gauge, water steel shell used to protect the sensing element. A noise and signal
meter, and electronic controller (Fig. 1). The manual valves were conditioning system was used to discriminate signals from other
used to control the pressure at the lateral lines as shown in Fig. 1. sources than the initial raindrop impact. The sensors were cali-
The simulators have six laterals, three laterals at each side of slope. brated and validated under a controlled drop size falling from a
The lateral length was 1.5 m and each lateral has two nozzles with 14-m height and natural rainfall (Salmi and Elomaa 2007; Pohjola
0.5 m between them. The main line and the six laterals were mounted et al. 2008). The sensor’s signal was divided to measure the
by rods to a metal frame covered by plastic sheets (Fig. 1). The sim-
ulator was used to apply water to six soil plots (2.5 × 1.5 m) with 30°
slope angle. The water pump was equipped with an electronic con-
trol system and connected to a large water tank located under the
ground (Fig. 1). Three moisture sensors (TDR) have been installed
at each plot at different depths and connected to data logger in order
to evaluate the infiltration and the changes at the soil moisture. A
pressure gauge was installed at each lateral in order to control the
variation in the rainfall intensity due to changes in the pressure.
The rainfall depth uniformity was assessed using Christiansen’s uni-
formity coefficient (Christiansen 1942), and was found to range be-
tween 54 and 56% (Amu-Mensah et al. 2013).

Kinetic Energy and Drop Size Measurement

The rainfall kinetic energy (KE) and DSD were monitored at 10-s
Fig. 2. Pressurized rain simulator, piezoelectric sensors, and tipping-
intervals using piezoelectric transducer sensors (Fig. 2). This tech-
packet rain gauge used for characterization
nique depends on the ability of crystal plate to produce electric

© ASCE C6015001-2 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 raindrops’ size and kinetic energy in eight size classes normalized
to the mean drop diameter. The KE sensor was also validated under
simulated rainfall and the sensor output was compared with the cal-
culated KE using rainfall DSD and empirically estimated velocity,
which gave statistically significant correlation under different rain-
fall intensities (Abd Elbasit et al. 2011). The outputs from the two
sensors were stored automatically in two notebook computers using
the RS-232 serial interface and data logging software. The rainfall
depth and intensity was measured using a tipping-bucket rain gauge
(Davis Rain Collector II, California) with 0.2-mm rainfall depth
accuracy (Fig. 2). The rain gauge was attached to event data logger
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(HOBO event; Onset Computer Corp., Massachusetts) with 0.5-s
time recording accuracy. The output from the two sensors (Fig. 2)
was then used to calculate the rainfall erosivity parameters.
Calculations
The rainfall characteristics were investigated for 18 pressure levels
and the observation for each level was repeated three times. The
duration of each run was 10 min, which generated at least 60 data
sets for the KE and DSD per level. The rainfall kinetic energy was
expressed in two ways (Kinnell 1981): (1) time-based kinetic en-
ergy where energy is a function of time (KEt , J m−2 h−1 ), and
(2) volume-based kinetic energy where energy is a function of rain-
fall depth (KEc , J m−2 mm−1 ). The KEt was calculated from the
direct measurement of the KE piezoelectric sensor using the follow-
ing equation (Abd Elbasit et al. 2011):




 n
π 1 3,600 104 X
KEt ¼ KEi
12 106 t A i¼1
where KEt = kinetic energy rate (J m−2 h−1 ); t = sampling time
(10 s); A = piezoelectric sampling area (60 cm2 ); n = number of
classes (eight drop size classes); and KEi = kinetic energy mea-
sured at i class ranging from 1 to 8 (mJ).
The KEc was determined from the KEt and rainfall intensity
using the following equation (Kinnell 1981):
KEc ¼ cf KEt I −1
where KEc = kinetic energy content (J m−2 mm−1 ); KEt = kinetic
energy rate (J m−2 h−1 ); I = rainfall intensity (mm h−1 ); and cf =
conversion factor equal to 1.
60
50 I (mm h -1 ) = 172.52 x P (MPa) + 10.02
Rainfall intensity (mmh -1)
N = 18, R2 = 0.95 ( P < 0.001)
40
30
20
10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
(a) Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 3. Impact of change on pressure on (a) simulated rainfall intensity; and (b) intraevent intensities
© ASCE
Results and Discussion
Rain Macrostructure
The relationships between the pressure and rainfall intensity on the
other side are shown in Fig. 3(a). The pressurized rainfall simulator
was able to generate a wide range of simulated rainfall intensities.
The rainfall intensity changed positively with the pressure. The
minimum rainfall intensity obtained was 14 mm h−1 , where the
maximum intensity was 50 mm h−1 . Generally, the pressurized rain
simulators are sensitive to selected nozzle type, size, and optimum
pressure (De Lima et al. 2002). The performance of the simulator
nozzles will be highly affected by the application of water in pres-
sures less or greater than the optimum limit. The optimum pressure
for the used nozzle ranged between 0.03 and 0.55 MPa. The 1-min-
based rainfall intensity was examined to evaluate the intensity sta-
bility [Fig. 3(b)]. The intraevent variation in the rainfall intensity
ranged between 30 and 15% for the low and high rainfall inten-
sities, respectively. However, the intraevent rain average variation
decreased to less than 5% when a higher time interval was consid-
ered (e.g., 3 min). The intraevent simulated rainfall variation has a
significant impact on the resulted infiltration, runoff, and sediment
(Dunkerley 2012).
Kinetic Energy Relationships
The rainfall KEt at a 10-s interval obtained under four
representative intensities range between 27 and 50 mm h−1 , as
shown in Fig. 4. The KEt showed an increase in mean and range
ð1Þ with the increase in rainfall intensity (Fig. 4). The variation in the
rainfall KEt signals was also found to increase with the increase in
the rainfall intensity. This can be attributed to the increase in the
large drops content (>2 mm) with the intensity, which is shown as
high energy levels (peaks) at the signals time series. The relation-
ships between simulated rainfall intensity and overall time-based
kinetic energy (KEt ) are shown in Fig. 5(a). The simulator showed
a clear linear relationship between the intensity and KEt , with some
discrepancy that can be attributed to the pulse nature of the gen-
erated pressure (Armstrong and Quinton 2009). Both linear and
nonlinear (power, exponential, and logarithmic) relationships have
ð2Þ
been reported under natural rainfall and under different environ-
ments (Sanchez-Moreno et al. 2012). In general, the generated rain-
fall KEt increases positively (linearly or nonlinearly) with rainfall
intensity, which follows the general reported trend under natural
rainfall (Van Dijk et al. 2002).
27.6 34.8 43.2 46.8
0.2 0.25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(b) Time (minutes)
C6015001-3 J. Hydrol. Eng.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 0.6 27.6 mm h-1
0.4 Average KEt= 0.11 (0.06)

0.2

0 34.8 mm h
-1
150

Kinetic energy flux (J m-2 h-1)

Average KEt= 35.77 (13.37)
100

50

0 -1
150 43.2 mm h
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Average KEt= 38.80 (14.26)

100

50

0
400 46.8 mm h
-1

Average KEt= 51.15 (43.27)

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s)

Fig. 4. Rainfall energy flux (KEt ) with 10-s time interval resulting under four representative intensity levels

The relationship between the kinetic energy content and the Rain Microstructure
rainfall intensity is shown in Fig. 5(b). The rainfall energy content The DSD produced by the rain simulator is shown in Fig. 6(a). The
showed a low value compared with natural rainfall reported under
simulators showed a DSD trend similar to the reported Marshall
different geographical locations (Hudson 1963; Carter et al. 1974; and Palmer (1948) relationships. Although the Marshall-Palmer
Wischmeier and smith 1978; Zanchi and Torri 1980; Jayawardena
DSD is highly used in the field of rainfall quantification by radar,
and Reazur 2000). The I − KEc showed a decreasing trend with
several other relationships have been reported. These relationships
the rainfall intensity opposite to reported natural rainfall trends
include exponential, gamma, and lognormal distributions (Sempere
[Fig. 5(b)]. Understanding the I − KEc relationships of simulated
Torres et al. 1994). The average percentage of raindrops with diam-
rainfall in comparison with the natural rainfall trends would help to
eter less than 2 mm was 99% [Fig. 6(a)]. This high percentage of
identify the intensity range that is similar to what is observed in
small raindrop had a high impact on the rainfall energy content.
nature. This low simulated rainfall energy can explain the reason These results showed that the pressurized simulation system has
of extreme rain intensities that are used under simulated rainfall a great limitation in generating medium and large drop size, which
experiments (Dunkerly 2008). In order to increase the applied rain- affects their produced rain kinetic energy content. Similar results
fall total energy to be similar to natural rainfall, there is a need to can be observed in Fig. 6(a). The cumulative percentage of large
use extreme simulated rainfall intensities or increase the area drops number density was less than 2%. The changes in the DSD
covered by the simulator.

60
40
Kinetic energy, KE t (J m -2 h-1 )

50
Kinetic enrgy, KEc (J m-2 mm-1 )

30

40

20
Pressurized rain simulator
30 Wischmeier and Smith (1978)
Hudson (1963)
Jayawardena and Rezaur (2000)
10 Zanchi and Torri (1980)
20 Carter et al.(1974)

10 0
20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60
(a) Rainfall intensity (mm h-1) (b) Rainfall intensity (mm h -1)

Fig. 5. Relationships between rainfall intensity and kinetic energy flux: (a) kinetic energy content; (b) under pressurized rain simulators

© ASCE C6015001-4 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 600
Number density (m -3 mm -1 )
14 mm h-1
30 mm h-1
400
40 mm h-1
50 mm h-1
Marshall-Palmer DSD
N(D) = 1033.72 x e-1.08D
R2 = 0.55
200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0 1
1 2 3 4
(a) Drop size (mm)
Fig. 6. (a) Rain drop size distribution under four selected rainfall intensity generated in comparison with Marshall-Palmer; and (b) relationship
between rainfall intensity and median drop size distribution
have a great impact on the relationship between median drop size
(D50 ) and rainfall intensity [Fig. 6(b)].
The pressurized rain simulator showed an unclear relationship
between the rainfall intensity and D50 . The average D50 was
1.4 mm. In general, the reported average D50 for a pressurized rain
simulation system is lower than dripper-type simulation system
(Bowyer-Bower and Burt 1989). Iserloh et al. (2013) reported a
similar range of median drop size, which ranged between 0.37
and 3.0 mm for the pressurized rainfall simulators compared to
4.0 and 6.5 mm for the dripper types.
Conclusions
Rain simulators have been used intensively in sediment generation
studies at the laboratory-and field-scale level. This paper showed
that the examined pressurized rain simulators have a high ability
to control the rain macrostructural properties including the intensity
and duration. The range of intensities varied between 14 and
50 mm h−1 . The raindrop size distribution was found to follow a
similar relationship to that observed under natural rainfall. How-
ever, the average percentage of small raindrops under all intensities
was more than 98%. This high content of small raindrops had a
great impact on the median drop size and rainfall energy relation-
ships. The average drop size for the pressurized rainfall simulator
was less than 1.6 mm. On the other hand, the rainfall energy was
lower than natural rainfall and followed a relationship different
from the natural rainfall. This result recommends the use of an ad-
justing factor to correct each rainfall intensity level separately in
order to simulate certain natural rainfall events.
References
Abd Elbasit, M. A. M., Yasuda, H., and Salmi, A. (2011). “Application of
piezoelectric transducers in simulated rainfall erosivity assessment.”
Hydrol. Sci. J., 56(1), 187–194.
Abd Elbasit, M. A. M., Yasuda, H., Salmi, A., and Anyoji, H. (2010).
“Characterization of rainfall generated by dripper-type rainfall simula-
tor using piezoelectric transducers and its impact on splash soil ero-
sion.” Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 35(4), 466–475.
Al-Durrah, M. M, and Bradford, J. M. (1982). “The mechanism of raindrop
splash on soil surfaces.” Soil Sci Soc Am J., 46(5), 1086–1090.
© ASCE
J. Hydrol. Eng.
2.2
Median drop size, D5 0 (mm)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
5 10 20 30 40 50 60
(b) Rainfall intensity (mmh-1)
Amu-Mensah, F. K., Yamamoto, T., and Inoue, M. (2013). “Investigating
rainwater harvesting on highly permeable soil-baseline conditions.” Int.
J. Water Resou. Enviro. Eng., 5(7), 426–433.
Armstrong, A., and Quinton, J. N. (2009). “Pumped rainfall simulators: the
impact of rain pulses on sediment concentration and size.” Earth Surf.
Process. Landforms, 34(9), 1310–1314.
Bowyer-Bower, T. A. S., and Burt, T. P. (1989). “Rainfall simulators for
investigating soil response to rainfall.” Soil Technol., 2(1), 1–16.
Bradford, J. M., Remley, P. A., Ferris, J. E., and Santini, J. B. (1986).
“Effect of soil surface sealing on splash from a single waterdrop.” Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J., 50(6), 1547–1552.
Carter, C. E., Greer, J. D, Braud, H. J., and Floyd, J. M. (1974). “Raindrop
characteristics in south central United States.” Trans. ASAE, 17(6),
1033–1037.
Christiansen, J. E., (1942). Irrigation by sprinkling, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
De Lima, J. L. M. P., Torfs, P. J. J. F., and Singh, V. P. (2002). “A math-
ematical model for evaluating the effect of wind on downward-spraying
rainfall simulators.” CATENA, 46(4), 221–241.
Dunkerley, D. (2008). “Rain event properties in nature and in rainfall sim-
ulation experiments: A comparative review with recommendations for
increasingly systematic study and reporting.” Hydrol. Process., 22(22),
4415–4435.
Dunkerley, D. (2012). “Effects of rainfall intensity fluctuations on infiltra-
tion and runoff: Rainfall simulation on dryland soils, Fowlers Gap,
Australia.” Hydrol. Process., 26(15), 2211–2224.
Epema, G. F., and Riezebos, H. T. (1983). “Fall velocity of waterdrops at
different heights as a factor influencing erosivity of simulated rain.”
Rainfall simulation runoff and soil erosion, J. DePloey, ed., 1–17.
Esteves, M., Planchon, O., Lapetite, J. M., Silvera, N., and Cadet, P. (2000).
“The ‘EMIRE’ large rainfall simulator: Design and field testing.” Earth
Surf. Process. Landforms, 25(7), 681–690.
Foster, I. D., Fullen, M. A, Brandsma, R. T., and Chapman, A. S. (2000).
“Drip-screen rainfall simulators for hydro- and pedo-geomorphological
research: The Coventry experience.” Earth Surf. Process. Landforms,
25(7), 691–707.
Grismer, M. E. (2012). “Rainfall simulation-designs, performance and ero-
sion measurement variability.” California Agric., 66(3), 102–107.
Hall, M. J. (1970a). “A critique of methods of simulating rainfall.” Water
Resou. Res., 6(4), 1104–1114.
Hall, M. J. (1970b). “Use of stain method in determining the drop-size dis-
tributions of coarse liquid sprays.” Trans. ASAE, 13(1), 0033–0037.
Hudson, NW. (1963). “Raindrop size distribution in high intensity storms.”
Rhod. J. Agr. Res., 1(1), 6–11.
Iserloh, T., et al. (2013). “European small portable rainfall simulators: A
comparison of rainfall characteristics.” CATENA, 110, 100–112.
C6015001-5 J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Jayawardena, A. W., and Rezaur, R. B. (2000). “Drop size distribution and
kinetic energy load of rainstorms in Hong Kong.” Hydrol. Process.,
14(6), 1069–1082.
Kinnell, P. (1981). “Rainfall intensity-kinetic energy relationships for soil
loss prediction.” Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Pro., 45(1), 153–155.
Kinnell, P. I. A. (2005). “Sediment transport by medium to large drops
impacting flows at subterminal velocity.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
69(3), 902–905.
Laws, J. O., and Parsons, D. A. (1943). “Relation of raindrop size to in-
tensity.” Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 24(2), 452–460.
Marshall, J. S., and Palmer, W. M. K. (1948). “The distribution of raindrops
with size.” J. Meteor., 5(4), 165–166.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mouzai, L., and Bouhadef, M. (2003). “Water drop erosivity: Effect on soil
splash.” J. Hydraul. Res., 41(1), 61–68.
Pall, R., Dickinson, W. T., Beals, D., and McGIRR, R. (1983). “Develop-
ment and calibration of a rainfall simulator.” Can. Agric. Eng., 25(2),
181–187.
Pohjola, H., Konkola, L., Hoikkanen, M., and Schultz, D. M. (2008). “Ad-
justing radar-derived QPE with measured drop-size distribution at the
surface.” 5th European Conf. on Radar in Meteorology and Hydrology,
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Salles, C., and Poesen, J. (2000). “Rain properties controlling soil splash
detachment.” Hydrol. Process., 14(2), 271–282.
Salmi, A., and Elomaa, L. (2007). “Measurement of the terminal velocity
and shape of falling raindrops at Vaisala rain laboratory.” Eighth Euro-
pean Conf. on Application of Meteorology (ECAM), European
Meteorological Society, Berlin.
© ASCE C6015001-6
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Salmi, A., and Ikonen, J. (2005). “Piezoelectric precipitation sensor from
Vaisala.” World Meteorology Organization Technical Conf. on
Meteorological and Environmental Instruments and Methods of Obser-
vation (TECO 2005), World Meteorological Organization, Rome.
Sanchez-Moreno, F., Mannaerts, C. M., Jetten, V., and Löffler-Mang, M.
(2012). “Rainfall kinetic energy–intensity and rainfall momentum–
intensity relationships for Cape Verde.” J. Hydrol., 454–455,
131–140.
Sempere Torres, D., Porrà, J. M., and Creutin, J. D. (1994). “A general
formulation for raindrop size distribution.” J. Appl. Meteorol.,
33(12), 1494–1502.
Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Bruijnzeel, L. A., and Rosewell, C. J. (2002). “Rain-
fall intensity-kinetic energy relationship: A critical literature appraisal.”
J. Hydrol., 261(1–4), 1–23.
Williams, J. D., Wilkins, D. E., McCool, D. K., Baarstad, L. L., Klepper,
B. L., and Papendick, R. I. (1998). “A new rainfall simulator for use in
low-energy rainfall areas.” Appl. Eng. Agric., 14(3), 243–247.
Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). “Predicting rainfall erosion
losses.” Agricultural Handbook 537, Science and Education
Administration, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Yu, B., Ciesiolka, C. A., and Langford, P. (2003). “Calibration of an os-
cillating nozzle-type rainfall simulator.” Earth Surf. Process. Land-
forms, 28(13), 1483–1490.
Zanchi, C., and Torri, D. (1980). “Evaluation of rainfall energy in central
Italy.” Assessment of erosion, M. D. Boodt and D. Gabriels, eds., Wiley,
Toronto, 133–142.
J. Hydrol. Eng.