Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics

Vol. 35, October 2006, pp. 360-367

Shape of the rain drop size distributions and classification of rain type at Gadanki
Mahen Konwar, Diganta Kumar Sarma, Jyotirmoy Das1 & Sanjay Sharma
Kohima Science College, Jotsoma, Kohima, Nagaland 797 002, India
Electronics and Communication Sciences Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700 108, India
[e-mail: sanjay_sharma11@hotmail.com]

Received 26 August 2005; revised 22 May 2006; accepted 3 July 2006

Three different rain drop size distribution (RDSD) models namely exponential, lognormal and gamma distribution
are fitted to RDSD as spectra observed from Joss-Waldvodgel Disdrometer (JWD) at Gadanki (13.8N, 79.18E).
Gamma distribution shows overall good agreement with observed RDSD for all ranges of rainfall rate. Rainfall rate
calculated from gamma drop size distribution is found to have minimum root mean square error and biasing compared
to exponential or lognormal distribution. The intrinsic shape of RDSD is found out from normalized RDSD which
follows an S shape for both low rain 10 mm h-1 and high rain > 10 mm h-1. The convective and stratiform
rains are separated for an event. The equations of separation for convective and stratiform rains have been derived assuming
power law for log10 (R) - Dm, log10 (N0*) - log10 (R) and log10 (N0*) - Dm. The coefficients and exponent for these equations
are DR = 0.145 , RN = 103 , DN = 0.85 103.15 , and DR = 4.70 , RN = 0.15 , DN = 0.94 , respectively.
Keywords: Rain drop size distribution (RDSD), Exponential DSD, Lognormal DSD, Gamma DSD, Convective rain,
Stratiform rain
PACS No: 92.60.Jq
IPC Code: G01S13/95; G06T1/40

1 Introduction
Rain drop size distribution (RDSD) is one of the
most widely used parameters for better understanding
and complete description of rain phenomenon.
Different RDSD models namely exponential1,
lognormal2, gamma3 and Weibull4 are being used to
study rain characteristics. Marshall and Palmer1
parameterized the RDSD and found that it follows an
exponential distribution of the following form

deviation from an exponential distribution in most

cases. They concluded that the lognormal
representation is suitable for a broad range of
applications and can facilitate interpretation of the
physical processes which control the shape of the
distribution. Its parameters have a simple geometrical
interpretation. The lognormal distribution has the
following expression2

N ( D) = N 0 exp(D)

N ( D) =

... (1)

where, N(D) (m-3 mm-1) is the concentration of

raindrops per diameter interval D (mm), D (mm)
the rain drop diameter, N0 the intercept parameter
with a fixed value of 8 103 mm-1 m-3, (mm-1) the
slope parameter with a power law relation = 4.1
R -0.21 mm-1, and R the rainfall intensity in mm h-1. It is
found that exponential distribution under predicts
(over predicts) the upper tail of the distribution in
very light (heavy) rainfall5.
Due to the departure of RDSDs from
exponentiality, many authors have preferred threeparameter models to describe rain characteristics2.
Feingold and Levin2 fitted three-parameter lognormal
model to frontal convective clouds and found

Nt
exp[ Ln 2 ( D / Dg ) / 2 Ln 2 ]
(2) ( Ln) D
(2)
0.5

where N t (m-3) is the total number of drops, Dg (mm)

the geometric mean of the drop diameter (or median
size diameter), and the standard geometrical
deviation of D.
Ulbrich and Atlas6 has shown that accuracy in
deducing rainfall rates from RDSD can be improved
if it is assumed to be a gamma distribution. The
gamma distribution is a three-parameter distribution.
The following relation gives the modified gamma
drop size distribution

N ( D) = N 0 D exp(D)

(3)

KONWAR et al.: RAIN DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTION & CLASSIFICATION

where, N0 (mm-1- m-3) is the intercept parameter,

the shape parameter and (mm-1) the slope parameter
of the distribution.3, 7 Method of moments approach
can be used to calculate the parameters8 N0, and .
Different representations of RDSDs such as
exponential, lognormal and gamma have their own
limitations. For example the intercept parameter of
gamma distribution is not well defined and not
considered as a physical quantity9. Hence
normalization of N(D) is considered as one of the
options in studying the shape of RDSD. Sekhon and
Srivastava10, 11 and Willis7 suggested a normalization
of the rain drop diameters and of the drop size
distribution in order to deal directly with the whole set
of the spectra on a unique plot, where the parameters
of the RDSD were fitted more robustly and
independently of R. Normalization of N(D) gives rise
to the intrinsic shape of RDSD that compares the
shape of the two spectra, not having same liquid water
content (LWC) and/or median volume drop diameter
(Dm). Testud et al.9 developed a mathematical
technique to normalize rain spectra and found it to
follow an S shape.
For any rain event the classification of convective
and stratiform rain is very important due to its
different nature of contribution of latent heat released
to climate. Tokay and Short8 observed a significant
change of gamma parameter, i.e. interceptor N0,
during the transition from convective to stratiform
rain. Interceptor N0 of exponential distribution also
demonstrates a similar nature during the transition
period5. Atlas et al.12 classified rain events as
convective, transition and stratiform type rather than
convective and stratiform type. They identified rain
event as initially convective, if rain rises sharply to
peak in excess, about 10-15 mm h-1 while D0 (mass
weighted mean diameter) does not vary greatly. When
D0 and R decrease simultaneously following
convective period, the rain is classified as transition.
The stratiform rain is characterized by approximately
steady rain having R 10 mm h-1 and usually with
higher values of D0 (mm).
In recent times many works have been carried out
to find suitable relationships between the gamma
parameters and rainfall type. Ulbrich3 reported that
the gamma RDSD parameters such as N0, and
display a systematic dependence on one another
between different rainfall types, as well from
moment-to-moment within a given rainfall type.
Tokay and Short8 found that it is possible to classify

361

convective and stratiform types of rain from N0-R and

-R relations. Maki et al.13 studied the shape of
modified gamma RDSD during convective and
stratiform regions. They found distinct characteristic
RDSDs for both occasions. Testud et al.9 also
separated stratiform and convective rain types by
normalizing the spectra. They presented scatter plots
of log10 (R) versus Dm, log10 (R) versus log10 (N0*), and
log10 (N0*) versus Dm and found separate clusters of
convective and stratiform types of rain.
In India numerous researchers are studying
different RDSD models to fit them to rain
phenomenon. For Indian climate Jassal et al.14, Verma
and Jha15 studied lognormal drop size distribution and
proposed lognormal RDSD model over Dehradun.
Suresh and Bhatnagar (personal communication)
found lognormal distribution to fit well with observed
DSD in rain spectra at Cuddalore (11.46N, 79.46E)
during north-east monsoon. However they observed
some deviation in the rain rate, 10-50 mm h-1 during
pre-monsoon and south-west monsoon season. A
similar study was made by Reddy and Kozu16, who
examined the seasonal variation of gamma parameters
at Gadanki. Over Gadanki, Rao et al.17 separated
precipitating systems using Doppler spectra of
VHF/UHF wind profilers and established their
associated Z-R relationships. They also discussed the
respective RDSDs during convective, transition and
stratiform periods.
In this paper an effort is made to present a study of
the characteristics of the RDSD and different types of
rain with the help of Joss-Waldvodgel Disdrometer
(JWD)18 observations. The study has been carried out
with the following objectives:
(i) To examine the fitting of the three RDSD
models, i.e. exponential, lognormal and gamma, to the
observed RDSD spectra for different rainfall intensity
(ii) To examine the intrinsic shape of RDSD rain
spectra
(iii) To separate convective and stratiform rain
types from RDSD characteristics
This paper is organized in the following manner.
Section 1 presents introduction. Section 2 describes
the observational system and data analysis
methodology. Sections 3 and 4 describe the
observations. Results and conclusions are presented in
Section 5.
2 System description and data analysis
The JWD is one of the most widely used

INDIAN J RADIO & SPACE PHYS, OCTOBER 2006

362

instruments around the globe for analyzing the rain

RDSD and rain characteristics. The data used in this
study are collected from the JWD, located at National
Laboratory for Atmospheric Research (NLAR) at
Gadanki (13.8N, 79.18E), India. The JWD estimates
the diameter of the drops by sensing the voltage
induced from the downward displacement of a 50 cm2
styrofoam cone, once it is hit by rain drops. The
output voltage relates to the diameter of the raindrop
falling at terminal velocity. The standard output of the
JWD is utilized in this study, which is the number of
drops that are sorted into 20 size intervals ranging
from 0.3 to about 5.0-5.5 mm for a one-minute
integration time. However, one disadvantage of JWD
is its inability to detect the lower drops during heavy
precipitation. For reducing this error, dead error
correction method has been applied19. Various rain
parameters such as rainfall rate, liquid water content,
radar reflectivity factor, kinetic energy of the falling
drops can be measured with the help of JWD. The
third moment of the RDSD gives the rain fall rate R in
mm h-1, expressed by the following relation
R = (/6) (3.6/10 ) (1/AT) (ni D )
6

(4)

where A is the collecting area of the disdrometer, T

the integration time, ni and D the number of drops and
drop diameter of the ith channel of JWD, respectively.
The intrinsic shape of the RDSD is obtained by
normalizing the number density N(D) by a term N0*,
thus eliminating the effect of rain rate R on the shape
of the distributions. The normalized theoretical or
observed raindrop spectra are obtained by the
following expressions9
N ( D) = N 0* F ( D / Dm )

(5)

The scaling parameter for concentration N 0* is

calculated by the relation

N 0* =

44 LWC
w Dm4

(6)

The mass weighted mean diameter Dm, which is

equal to the ratio of fourth moment to the third
moment of RDSD spectra, given by
Dm =

M4
M3

(7)

where M3, M4 are the 3rd and 4th moment of RDSD

spectra. There is a relationship between and of

gamma distribution
expression3
=

given

by

the

following

+4
Dm

(8)

where the shape parameter is obtained from

11G 8 + [G (G + 8)]1/ 2
2(1 G )

with G =

M 43
M 32 M 6

(9)

(10)

where M6 is the 6th moment of RDSD spectra.

For the present study, analysis is carried out with
21000 RDSD spectra collected during the period from
1998 to 2001 at Gadanki. RDSD spectrum of rainfall
intensity greater than 0.1 mm h-1 is considered as a
rainy event.
3 Observations and results
The average RDSDs for rainfall intensity of 5, 25,
50 and 75 mm h-1 are shown in Figs 1(a), (b), (c) and
(d), respectively. The averaged RDSDs are obtained
by considering the various RDSD spectra of nearly
equal R. In case of 5 mm h-1, the average spectrum is
obtained by averaging 1170 spectra. For 25 mm h-1,
87 spectra in the range from 24 to 26 mm h-1 are
considered. In case of 50 mm h-1, 11 spectra are
averaged and lastly for 75 mm h-1, 6 spectra are
considered. The exponential, lognormal and gamma
RDSD model parameters are calculated from
moments method2,5,8. The model parameters
corresponding to each RDSD model for the four rain
intensity regimes are given in Table 1. It is seen that
for rain rate of 5 mm h-1, the three models are
showing good fit to the observed RDSD [Fig. 1(a)].
At rain rate of 25 mm h-1 and 50 mm h-1, the
exponential RDSD overestimates the observed RDSD
at the smaller drop diameter and along the middle and
higher diameter ranges it is showing good agreement
with the observed RDSD. At rain rate of 50 mm h-1,
the gamma and lognormal RDSD shows good
agreement with the observed RDSD. At 75 mm h-1 the
lognormal RDSD underestimates at the smaller
diameter ranges [Fig. 1(d)]. On the other hand the
exponential RDSD overestimates at the lower and
higher drop diameter and underestimates at the middle
drop diameter ranges. The gamma RDSD shows a

KONWAR et al.: RAIN DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTION & CLASSIFICATION

fairly good agreement between the model RDSD and

observed RDSD at very heavy rain in all drop
diameter ranges.
Value of R (mm h-1) calculated from exponential,
lognormal and gamma RDSD are compared with
those observed from the JWD, and root mean square
errors are found out. Figures 2(a), (b) and (c) show
the frequency distribution of the root mean square
error at various ranges in increment of 1.25 for
exponential, lognormal and gamma RDSD model,
respectively. The corresponding maximum range of
error is found to be 15.0, 12.5 and 10.0 for these three
models. The biasing factor in case of exponential
RDSD is 0.4600 while the root mean square error
(RMSE) 1.1247. For lognormal RDSD, the biasing
factor and the RMSE are found to be + 0.3172 and
0.9199, respectively. In case of gamma RDSD, the
biasing factor comes out to be 0.0697 and RMSE

Fig. 1Averaged number density spectra (solid line),

exponential RDSD (dash line), lognormal RDSD (long short dash
line) and gamma RDSD (dot line) for (a) 5 mm h-1, (b) 25 mm h-1,
(c) 50 mm h-1 and (d) 75 mm h-1 rainfall intensities

363

0.3662. Rainfall rate calculated from exponential

RDSD underestimates while lognormal RDSD
overestimates towards higher rain rate compared to
observed values. Gamma RDSD exhibits a good
agreement between calculated and observed rainfall
intensity, where the RMSE and biasing factor are
found to be minimum compared to the other two
RDSD models. Hence from this comparative study it
is revealed that the Gamma RDSD is performing
better compared to the other two RDSD models.
Figures 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), present the
frequency distribution of R, Dm, , and log10 (N0*)
for rainfall intensity 10 mm h-1. Frequency
distribution of R is shown in Fig. 3(a), where mean
rainfall intensity is 1.56 mm h-1 with standard
deviation (SD) of 1.96 mm h-1. The mean value of Dm
is found to be 1.21 mm and SD of 0.42 mm. As
shown in Fig. 3(c), the mean value of gamma shape
parameter is found to be 10.60 and SD of 8.19. In
case of , the mean value is found to be 13.84 mm-1
while the SD of 9.94 mm-1. The mean value of scaling
parameter log10 (N0*) is 3.42 and SD 0.535. Rain
events having R greater than 10 mm h-1 are referred
here as high rain and belong mostly to convective
regime. High rains consist of nearly 10.0% of total
rainfall observations. Frequency distributions of the
various parameters for high rain are presented in Figs
3(f), (g), (h), (i) and (j). Mean rainfall intensity is
28.60 mm h-1 with a SD of 22.13 mm h-1 [Fig. 3(f)].

Fig. 2Bar diagram of errors obtained from the observed rain

rate and estimated rainfall intensity from (a) exponential, (b)
lognormal and (c) gamma RDSD

Table 1Model parameters for various RDSD models

Rainrate
R
mm h-1
5
25
50
75

Exponential
N0

m-3 mm-1
mm-1
4.49103
4.82103
4.30103
1.50104

2.69
1.93
1.62
1.98

Nt
m-3
607
713
806
1133

Rain Drop size distribution

Lognormal
Gamma
N0

Dg

mm
mm
mm-1
mm-1- m-3
0.209
0.177
0.176
0.110

0.355
0.110
0.282
0.399

6.235 103
7.511103
4.777103
5.593104

0.53
1.93
2.34
6.71

3.01
2.73
2.43
4.74

364

INDIAN J RADIO & SPACE PHYS, OCTOBER 2006

Figure 3(g) shows the frequency diagram of Dm, with

the mean Dm found to be 2.09 mm with a SD of 0.626
mm. The mean of is 9.47 and SD value of 6.22 [Fig.
3(h)]. The mean is found to be 6.90 mm-1 with SD
of 3.43 mm-1 [Fig. 4(i)]. Frequency distribution of
log10 (N0*) is shown in Fig. 3(j). Its mean and SD
values are 3.70 and 0.49, respectively. It is observed

that though there is a large variability of R for both

low (stratiform) and high (convective) rainfall
intensity categories, there is nearly same mean value
of and log10 (N0*) for both types of rain.
The intrinsic shape for low rain 10 mm h-1 is
shown in Fig. 4(a). It is obtained by plotting N(D)/N0*
versus D/Dm. This shape is different from any of

Fig. 3Frequency distribution of (a) R, (b) Dm, (c) , (d) , (e) log10(N0*) for R 10 mm h-1 and frequency distribution of (f) R, (g) Dm,
(h) , (i) , (j) log10(N0*) for R >10 mm h-1

Fig. 4Intrinsic shape for (a) R 10 mm h-1 and (b) R > 10 mm h-1

KONWAR et al.: RAIN DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTION & CLASSIFICATION

RDSD models namely exponential, lognormal or

gamma distribution and it follows an S type shape.
The intrinsic shape for high rainfall rate, i.e. greater
than 10 mm h-1, also follows a similar S shape to
that of low rain intensity [Fig. 4(b)]. It suggests that
irrespective of rainfall rate, liquid water content, type
of rain, median volume drop diameter and gamma
RDSD parameters, the intrinsic shape of RDSD
follows a universal S shape. This result is similar to
the intrinsic shape as shown by Testud et al.9 It is
encouraging to note that the intrinsic shape of
normalized RDSD follows the same shape, i.e. S
shape, irrespective of different geographical locations.
It is to be noted that in general rain events having R >
10 mm h-1 mostly occurs during convective rain and
low intensity rain having R 10 mm h-1 during
stratiform rain period. Though different types of
microphysical mechanisms are dominant during
convective and stratiform rain, similar types of S
shape are observed in both types of rain.
4 Classification of rain type
In order to separate convective and stratiform type
of rain from R, Dm and N0* parameters, a rain event on

365

17-18 May 1999 is selected. The temporal variation of

R, N0, log10 (N0*) and Dm are presented in Figs 5(a),
(b), (c) and (d) respectively, from 2123 to 0332 hrs
LT. Maximum rainfall intensity of 87 mm h-1 is
observed from JWD observations, considered to
belong to convective type of rain. The sudden jump
down of N0 parameter is considered as the starting of
stratiform rain5. As shown in Fig. 5(b), at the time of
starting of stratiform rain, the gamma intercept
parameter N0 jumps down from 2.6158 1016 to 335
mm-1- m-3 at around 2344 hrs LT. As the transition
period is conventionally classified as a part of the
decaying stage of convective rain (Atlas et al.)12, for
simplicity we considered the data of transition phase
as part of convective regime. In Fig. 5 this is marked
by a solid line to specify the boundary line for both
types of rain. The normalization parameter N0* is
found to follow the rainfall intensity [Fig. 5(c)].
During stratiform rain, considerably large and nearly
constant values of Dm is observed; although small
rainfall with low rainfall intensity < 10 mm h-1 is
observed for a long duration of time from 2344 to
0332 hrs LT [Fig. 5(d)]. Scatter plots of log10(R) - Dm,
log10 (N0*) log10(R) and log10 (N0*) - Dm are shown

Fig. 5Temporal variation of (a) R, (b) N0, (c) log10 (N0*) and (d) Dm of the event on 17-18 May, 1999 from 2123 LT to 0333 LT

366

INDIAN J RADIO & SPACE PHYS, OCTOBER 2006

R = 0.145 Dm4.70

(11)

N 0* = 103 R 0.15

(12)

N 0* = 0.85 103.15 Dm0.94

(13)

Similar observations are also reported by Testud

et al 9. However their equations of separation are
different from present analysis. They studied the JWD
data collected from Tropical Ocean and Global
Atmosphere Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response
Experiment (TOGA COARE). They found the
following as the equations of separations for
stratiform and convective type of rain R = 1.64 Dm4.25 ,
N 0* = 107 R 0.1 and N 0* = 0.95 107 Dm0.42 . Both the
convective and stratiform type of rain are having well
separated clusters exhibiting distinct behaviour of
both types of rain.

Fig. 6Scatter plot of (a) log10(R)- Dm, (b) log10(N0*)- log10(R)

and (c) log10(N0*)-Dm [The convective rain is indicated by circle
while stratiform by star marks.]

in Figs 6(a), (b) and (c), respectively. Two separate

clusters of stratiform and convective type of
rain are observed in all the plots. Power law
equations
are
assumed
between
them
RN
DR

of the form R = DR Dm , N 0 = RN R
and
N 0 = DN DmDN . The estimated equations that separate
these two clusters are given as follows

5 Conclusions
The gamma distribution is found to be a good
representative of RDSD, showing an overall
agreement with observed RDSD. The RMSE of
estimated rain from gamma distribution is found to be
minimum, which is better than both exponential and
lognormal distributions.
The mean values of and log10 (N0*) show more or
less constant values for both types of low and high
rainfall intensity rain categories, though they have
large variability in R. The intrinsic shape of RDSD
has been examined by the procedure followed by
Testud et al.9 It is found that the S shape structure
is prominent in convective as well as in stratiform
rain. Invariability in universal S shape is observed
despite having widely varying ranges of rainfall
intensity, mass weighted drop diameter and gamma
RDSD parameters. The robustness of the universal
shape of RDSD also evokes that any presumption of
the shape of RDSD is not required as it departs from
exponential, gamma and lognormal RDSD.
Rain type such as convective and stratiform are
separated by scatter plots of log10(R) - Dm, log10 (N0*)
- log10(R) and log10 (N0*) - Dm. Separate clusters of
stratiform and convective rain are obtained in each
scatter plot and corresponding equations for
separation are derived.
Acknowledgement
Authors from Kohima Science College, Nagaland
acknowledge gratefully the financial support from the

KONWAR et al.: RAIN DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTION & CLASSIFICATION

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO),

Bangalore to carry out this work under RESPOND
program (10/4/362). Authors thank the Director,
NMRF for providing the Disdrometer data. Active
support from the Engineers of NMRF is thankfully
acknowledged. The kind support from coordinator
of UGC-SVU center of MST Radar application
is gratefully acknowledged. Authors are indebted
to the authorities of Kohima Science College for
providing necessary facilities to carry out the research
work.
References
1 Marshall J S & Palmer W M, The distribution of raindrops
with size, J Meteorol (USA), 5 (1948) 165.
2 Feingold G & Levin Zev, The lognormal fit to raindrop size
spectra from frontal convective clouds in Israel, J Clim &
Appl Meteorol (USA), 25 (1986) 1346.
3 Ulbrich C W, Natural variations in the analytical form of the
raindrop size distribution, J Clim & Appl Meteorol (USA), 22
(1983) 1764.
4 Jiang H, Sano M & Sekine M, Weibull raindrop-size
distribution and its application to rain attenuation, IEE Proc
Microwave Antennas Propag (UK), 144 (1997) 197.
5 Waldvogel A, The N0 jump of raindrop spectra, J Atmos Sci
(USA), 31 (1974) 1068.
6 Ulbrich C W & Atlas D, Assessment of the contribution of
differential polarization to improved rainfall measurements,
Radio Sci (USA), 19 (1984) 49.
7 Willis P T, Functional fits to some observed drop size
distributions and parameterization of rain, J Appl Meteorol
(USA), 41 (1984) 1648.

367

8 Tokay A & Short D A, Evidence from tropical raindrop

spectra of the origin of rain from stratiform versus
convective clouds, J Appl Meteorol (USA), 35 (1996) 355.
9 Testud J, Oury S, Blake R A, Amayene P & Dou X, The
concept of Normalized distribution to describe raindrop
spectra: A tool for cloud physics and cloud remote sensing, J
Appl Meteorol (USA), 40 (2001) 1118.
10 Sekhon R S & Srivastava R C, Snow size spectra and radar
reflectivity, J Atmos Sci (USA), 27 (1970) 299.
11 Sekhon R S & Srivastava R C, Doppler radar observations of
drop-size distributions in a thunderstorm, J Atmos Sci (USA),
28 (1971) 983.
12 Atlas D, Ulbrich C W, Marks Jr F D, Amitai E & Williams C
R, Systematic variation of drop size and radar-rainfall
relations, J Geophys Res (USA), 104 (1999) 6155.
13 Maki Masayuki, Keenan T D, Sasaki Y & Nakamura K,
Characteristics of the raindrop distribution in tropical
continental squall lines observed in Darwin, Australia, J Appl
Meteorol (USA), 40 (2001) 1393.
14 Jassal B S, Verma A K & Singh L, Rain drop-size
distribution and attenuation for Indian climate, Indian J
Radio Space Phys, 23 (1994) 193.
15 Verma A K & Jha K K, Raindrop size distribution model for
Indian climate, Indian J Radio Space Phys, 25 (1996) 15.
16 Reddy K K & Kozu T, Measurements of raindrop size
distribution over Gadanki during south-west and north-east
monsoon, Indian J Radio Space Phys, 32 (2003) 286.
17 Rao T N, Rao D N, Mohan K & Raghavan S, Classification
of tropical precipitating systems and associated Z-R
relationships, J Geophys Res (USA), 106 (2001) 699.
18 Joss J & Waldvogel A, Ein Spektrograph fr
Niedersclagstropfen mit automatischer Auswertung, Pure
Appl Geophys (USA), 68 (1967) 240.
19 Sauvageot H & Laucaux J P, The shape of averages drop size
distributions, J Atmos Sci (USA), 52 (1995) 1070.