4.6 Article

Performance characteristics of a new electronic snow water equivalent sensor in different climates

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 1418-1433

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10211

Keywords

snow water equivalent; electronic sensor; hydrology; field measurements; snow pillow

Funding

  1. USDA NRCS
  2. Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The US Army ERDC CRREL and the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service developed a square electronic snow water equivalent (e-SWE) sensor as an alternative to using fluid-filled snow pillows to measure SWE. The sensors consist of a centre panel to measure SWE and eight outer panels to buffer edge stress concentrations. Seven 3m square e-SWE sensors were installed in five different climate zones. During the 2011-2012 winter, 1.8 and 1.2m square e-SWE sensors were installed and operated in Oregon. With the exception of New York State and Newfoundland, the e-SWE sensors accurately measured SWE, with R-2 values between the sensor and manual SWE measurements of between 0.86 and 0.98. The e-SWE sensor at Hogg Pass, Oregon, accurately measured SWE during the past 8years of operations. In the thin, icy snow of New York during midwinter 2008-2009, the e-SWE sensors overmeasured SWE because of edge stress concentrations associated with strong icy layers and a shallow snow cover. The New York e-SWE sensors' measurement accuracy improved in spring 2009 and further improved during the 2011-2012 winter with operating experience. At Santiam Junction, measured SWE from the 1.8 and 1.2m square e-SWE sensors agreed well with the snow pillow, 3m square e-SWE sensor, and manual SWE measurements until February 2013, when dust and gravel blew onto the testing area resulting in anomalous measurements. (c) 2014 The Authors. Hydrological Processes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available