Collecting and Measuring Precipitation Using a Rain Gauge

Simon Wachholz
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Abstract
Precipitation is an important meteorological variable, and obtaining accurate measurements
are critical for forecasters, people in weather sensitive industries, and the general public. The
purpose of this experiment was to determine whether 3-D printed materials could be used
accurately in order to increase the accessibility of rain gauges. To test this, a 3-D printed rain
gauge and a commercial rain gauge were placed in the Arboretum at The Pennsylvania State
University (PSU) in State College, Pennsylvania. Precipitation was collected from 12-27
September 2018 and compared to a reference gauge located one mile away at the Walker
Building on PSU’s campus. Daily rainfall measurements in all three gauges ranged from a trace
(T) to 0.94” with the commercial rain gauge often observing the lowest precipitation amounts.
On average, the 3-D printed gauge measured 35.6% more rain than the commercial gauge, and
17.9% less than the reference gauge. We concluded based upon these results that nearby trees to
the observation site were close enough to affect our precipitation measurements. The original
aim of this experiment was to construct a more accurate rain gauge using 3-D printed materials.
However, we determined that the primary factors influencing a rain gauge’s accuracy lie in the
rain gauge location and potential under catch rather than the rain gauge material design itself.

I. Introduction
Accurate precipitation observations are critical in both forecasting and understanding the
mesoscale processes behind significant rainfall events. There are several different methods to
measure precipitation. Rain can be measured manually through collection, automatically by
measuring a property of the rainfall, or remotely such as through radar (Brock and Richardson
2001). Several difficulties are associated with accurately measuring precipitation. Trees may
interfere and block precipitation from reaching the gauge. Wind can also influence
measurements by creating undercatch. Additionally, each gauge acts as a point measurement and
may not be representative of an entire area. To address these concerns, a 3-D printed gauge was
tested to determine the feasibility of creating more gauges to cover a larger spatial area and to
create a more representative sample of precipitation measurements.
Manual rain gauges collect rain into a cylinder and are emptied after the measurement is
made. Most of these accumulation rain gauges collect a wide area of precipitation that funnels
into a relatively smaller tube. According to the National Weather Service (NWS) guidelines, the
standard funnel to tube area is 10:1 meaning if one inch of rain fell into the funnel, the equivalent
amount inside the tube should be 10 inches. This allows gauges to be sensitive to smaller
amounts of rain, increasing the measurement’s accuracy. The NWS (2014) also notes that some
gauges use a calibrated measurement stick to measure the rain, while other gauges simply use a
graduated cylinder. If a measurement stick is used, it is important to consider the stick’s size
because it will displace some of the water upward increasing the apparent precipitation total
(NWS 2014). Several different types of automatic rain gauges also exist. Pressure rain gauges
work by emptying the precipitation after a certain amount weighs down on a sensor. Tipping
gauges work by accumulating an amount of precipitation in a bucket and tip upon filling; a ticker
tracks how many times the bucket tipped to measure the amount of rain that fell (Brock and
Richardson 2001).
There are several different benefits and errors associated with each type of rain gauge.
National Weather Service guidelines state that gauges should be situated at least twice as far
away as the height of any obstructions (NWS 2014). Error can result if trees or buildings block
precipitation from entering the rain gauge (Iida et al. 2018). Wind can also reduce the amount of
precipitation a gauge collects (Brock and Richardson 2001). To reduce this error, some gauges
use a wind shield to minimize the wind’s effect on rainfall trajectory. The use of a wind shield is
not uniform as only 20-40% of first-order stations use an Alter wind shield, creating an
inconsistency for how precipitation is measured from site to site (Groisman and Legates 1994).
Openings in areas surrounded by trees also act as natural wind shields, provided the trees are a
sufficient distance from the gauge. Groisman and Legates (1994) also note that errors can be
inconsistent over time, since nearby vegetation can grow, affecting precipitation measurements.
Wind often has a more significant effect on the collection of snow since turbulence from the
wind can reduce the amount of snow that is collected in the gauge (NWS 2014). Different types
of frozen precipitation including sleet, graupel, freezing rain, or wet snow all present different
collection challenges (Thériault et al. 2012). Freezing rain might accrue in the funnel reducing

2
the amount of liquid in the gauge. Hail, sleet, or snow might also accumulate in the funnel
preventing any additional precipitation from entering the gauge. With a wide variety of rain
gauge types already in existence, finding alternative materials to build a rain gauge with may
prove useful in building more efficient, cost-effective rain gauges.
Little research has been done on the use of 3-D printed rain gauges. However, broader
information on 3-D printing indicates that prints consist of an organic or water-based binder
being sprayed several times across the build layer that hardens upon completion of the print
(Bose et al. 2013). Afterwards, the print is heated so it can harden to increase the strength. (Bose
et al.). An important consideration is how porous a layer is because the more porous, the greater
the risk for cracking in the design (Bose et al. 2013). Additionally, for rain gauges, it is critical
that all of the precipitation is collected into the gauge, so a porous material would ultimately be a
poor choice for a rain gauge.
The main goal of this experiment is to build a better rain gauge using different collection
materials. We used a 3-D printed funnel to collect precipitation. One of the benefits of using a 3-
D print is that the cost of producing the materials is often lower than other materials (Chang and
Chih-Yuan, 2017). Polylactic acid (PLA) is a common material used in 3-D printing and is
composed of renewable, organic materials such as cornstarch. Since very limited past
experiments have used 3-D printed rain gauges, this experiment hopes to determine the
usefulness of using 3-D printed materials for more common use in rain gauges.

II. Experimental Methods

In order to construct a suitable rain gauge for this experiment, a 3-D print design for a rain
gauge funnel was found on Thingiverse and printed through Penn State’s Maker Commons. The
print was constructed using Polylactic Acid (PLA). The diameter of the funnel was 6.00 inches,
and the height was 4.00 inches. The funnel had a flat top, so raindrops could have landed on top
of the funnel and then fallen into the funnel depending on the wind direction. Therefore, a metal
reducer was glued on top of the 3-D printed funnel to minimize the error of potential
accumulated raindrops along the funnel edge. A reducer is a type of wide funnel whose area is
only slightly reduced. For the experimental gauge, the upper diameter of the reducer was 7.06
inches and the lower diameter was 6.00 inches. The reducer also increased the overall volume of
the funnel so hail or snow could be measured. Figure 1a shows the 3-D printed funnel, with the

3
larger metal reducer on top. Precipitation was collected in a smaller cylinder with a diameter of
3.19 inches and was placed inside a larger cylinder with a diameter of 6.00 inches; the funnel
was placed directly on top of the two cylinders. The inner cylinder was waterproofed and used to
collect precipitation. Three wooden stakes were utilized surrounding the outer cylinder to
prevent the rain gauge from tipping over during windy or adverse conditions. Since the cylinders
were opaque, a measuring stick was used to measure the depth of the accumulated precipitation.
A commercial rain gauge was placed directly next to the homemade gauge as shown in Figure 1b
to compare to the homemade gauge. A reference gauge located one mile away at the Walker
Building in University Park, PA was also utilized to compare the accuracy of the homemade and
reference gauges.
The rain gauge was placed in PSU’s arboretum. The area was relatively open and
surrounded only by tall grasses. The area was chosen because nearby trees and vegetation acted
as a natural wind shield. Figure 2a shows the obstructions immediately surrounding the rain
gauge. The area was surrounded by trees at a minimum distance of 55 feet. This provides enough
space to prevent the trees from blocking precipitation, but close enough that they act as a natural
wind shield. Figure 2b shows the rain gauge’s location relative to University Park and the
Walker Building, where the reference precipitation measurements were made.
The rain gauge was set up 12 September 2018 around 1130z and observations were
performed daily at 1130z from 13-27 September 2018. Official observations at the Walker
Building are taken daily at 12z. To accurately compare precipitation totals between our rain
gauge and the official observations, some data interpolation was necessary to account for the 30-
minute difference in observation times. Every morning after the observation was taken, weather
conditions and radar-estimated precipitation were noted in order to estimate how much, if any,
rain fell between 1130z through 12z.
Differences in the diameters of the funnel and inner cylinder necessitated a conversion
factor in order to calculate the amount of precipitation accumulated. The area of the funnel was
39.17 in2. The area of the inner cylinder was 7.98 in2. The area of the measuring stick was also
calculated to be 1.13 in2. The area of the measuring stick was calculated to determine the volume
of water displaced once the stick was inserted into the cylinder. The area of the measuring stick
was then subtracted from the area of the area of the inner cylinder in order to get the effective
area of the water inside the cylinder when the measurement was being collected.

4
 In order to calibrate the measuring stick, the ratio of the funnel and inner cylinder was
then calculated using Equation 1.
𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
Equation 1.
𝐼𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎−𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

The ratio was calculated to be 5.72:1, meaning that for every inch of precipitation that fell, 5.72
inches of precipitation would accumulate in the cylinder. The measuring stick was then
calibrated using this ratio to determine the amount of precipitation that fell. Lastly, in order to
compare the accuracy of the gauges, percent error between the experimental, reference, and
commercial gauges were calculated using Equation 2.
𝑎𝑏𝑠(𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100 Equation 2.
𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

III. Results
Table 1 details the measurements and observations during the collection period from 13-27
September. The largest precipitation measurements were observed on 18, 25, 26, and 27
September. Light precipitation of less than 0.05” was also recorded on 13, 14, and 22 September.
The precipitation on 18 September was in association with Hurricane Florence with the reference
gauge observing 0.94” and both the commercial and homemade gauge observing less than the
reference gauge. Precipitation on 25-27 September fell with frontal passages and the reference
gauge observed the most precipitation out of the three gauges on all three days. Drizzle, fog, and
dew were observed at most of the observation times. Some dew did accumulate inside the funnel;
however, any dew that fell into the gauge was recorded as no more than a trace of precipitation.
Table 1 shows that in most instances with precipitation, the commercial gauge observed less than
both the homemade and weather center gauges. This gauge was also located closer to the ground
than both of the other gauges.
Figure 3 shows that rainfall measurements ranged from T – 0.94”. The greatest absolute
error observed between the weather center and the homemade gauge was 0.25” while the greatest
difference between the homemade gauge and commercial gauge was 0.22”, both occurring on 18
September. Figure 3 indicates that the greatest absolute error between the commercial and
weather center gauge was 0.47” with the commercial gauge observing exactly half of the weather
center observation on 18 September. The lowest absolute error observed between the reference
gauge and the homemade gauge on a day with precipitation was 0.00”. The homemade gauge

5
and weather center gauge were most often closest in value, while the commercial gauge
underreported rainfall in every instance.
On 18, 25, 26 September, the dates with the most precipitation, percent error between the
home-made gauge and the weather center gauge was lower than with the commercial gauge (Fig.
5). Days with a 0% error were the days with no observed precipitation. Percent errors of 100%
were calculated on the 13, 14, and 22 September can be attributed to the weather center
measuring 0.03”, 0.01”, and 0.02”, respectively, while the homemade and commercial gauges
only measured traces of precipitation as noted in Table 1.

IV. Discussion
The five days with the highest measurements were 18, 22, 24, 25, 26 September. The largest
precipitation event for all three rain gauges occurred on 17- 18 September in association with the
remnants of Hurricane Florence. Figure 5 shows the surface analysis from 03z 18 September.
The center of the low passed just to the northwest of State College leading to five knot
southwesterly winds in State College during the majority of this precipitation event. Figure 6
shows the next precipitation event when a cold front passed through State College around 06z 22
September. Most of the precipitation associated with this front was scattered as it passed through
State College, but some rain was observed in all three gauges. Winds were 5 knots out of the
southwest at the time of the precipitation.
Several periods of rain occurred from 24-26 September. Figures 7 and 8 show the surface
analyses during this timeframe. Steady rain began around 20z 24 September and continued
through around 17z 25 September. This rain fell ahead of a warm front that traversed the region
around 18z 25 September, coinciding with the conclusion of the event. This accounted for all of
the measured precipitation on 24-25 September. Winds were around five knots and generally out
of the east and northeast. A cold front passed through around 21z on 26 September that brought
more precipitation and southwesterly winds to State College before it passed.
Winds were out of the south or southwest during the majority of the precipitation during
our collection period. This was also the same direction the nearest trees were in with respect to
our gauges. Forty-foot trees were located about 50 feet away from our gauges, though some of
the overhanging branches were slightly closer that could have interfered with our rain gauge
measurements. On 25 September, winds were primarily out of the east and northeast and the

6
trees in that direction were further away resulting in less possible contributions to measurement
errors. The error between the homemade gauge and the weather center measurement was only
1.5% on 25 September, as opposed to a 26.6% error on 18 September with southwesterly winds.
The commercial rain gauge consistently underestimated precipitation amounts. The
commercial gauge was placed about 6 inches above the ground and only around 3 feet away
from weeds about 3 feet tall. The commercial gauge was also placed on the side of the
homemade gauge closest to the trees, possibly resulting in a larger obstruction to precipitation
accumulation. The homemade gauge was less susceptible to these errors because it was located
at roughly the same height of the weeds. .
On average, the lowest percent relative error was between the homemade gauge and the
weather center measurements. Some of these differences could be explained by differences in
location, mainly during the precipitation from 25-27 September. However, on 18 September the
percent error was 25.5% with an absolute difference of 0.24 inches. Nearby obstructions were
probably the main cause of this discrepancy. It was still raining at 1130z 18 September when we
did our measurements, so the 30-minute interpolation between our measurements and the
weather center’s measurements could have contributed to some error. Additionally, precipitation
that fell after 1130z 18 September was in the rain gauge all day and some of it could have
evaporated prior to the next day’s measurement.
There were no significant outliers in the data, suggesting that there were no significant
random errors or interference with our gauges. All of the errors were also relatively consistent,
with the homemade gauge measuring on average 35.6% more than the commercial gauge and
17.9% less than the weather center gauge. There also was not any outside interference with our
gauges as the only dates with liquid in our gauges were days with precipitation. The grass around
our gauges was mowed during our collection period, but the mower avoided both of our gauges.
Based on these results, wind direction was likely the largest predictor of percent relative
error. When the winds had a southerly component, the homemade gauge and commercial gauge
underestimated precipitation amounts. When winds were from the east, error was much lower
between the weather center and homemade gauge, but the commercial gauge still under-
measured rainfall. Therefore, the most important factor to consider when determining a rain
gauge location is avoiding nearby obstructions, especially in the direction of the prevalent wind
direction. Removing errors associated with wind and location, our results show that 3-D printed

7
gauges can perform just as accurately as traditional rain gauges and could be used to increase the
spatial coverage of rain gauges.

V. Conclusion
The main purpose of this experiment was to test the accuracy of different rain gauge
materials. Based on our results after two weeks of data collection, we believe the primary factor
influencing a rain gauge’s accuracy lies in the rain gauge location and potential under catch
rather than the rain gauge itself. Although the experiment showed that 3-D printed gauges are not
more accurate than standard gauges, they can still have similar accuracies if placed strategically.
Assuming the implementation of 3-D printed gauges would be cost effective, 3-D gauges could
be used to increase the spatial coverage of rain gauges.
Since trees were close enough to influence our precipitation measurements, the most
critical component of this experiment to change would be finding a more appropriate siting. Our
rain gauge was placed within twice the distance of the nearest trees, which was less than the ideal
distance stated in the NWS guidelines (NWS 2014). If the gauge was placed in a more open
location, the implementation of a wind shield would also have to be considered because stronger
winds could present a new source of under catch. Another modification to the experiment would
be to consider placing gauges at multiple locations because some of the differences in observed
precipitation might be due to mesoscale features rather than specific errors with our gauges.
Future work still has to be done to see how efficiently the gauge collects frozen
precipitation to observe whether any new errors arise with this type of event. Additionally,
gauges of different materials could be placed at the same site to see if any particular gauge
design impacts precipitation collection. Since our experiment only lasted two weeks, it would
also be critical to collect data for a longer period to see if alternate materials are able to withstand
harsh weather conditions.

Acknowledgements
I conducted the experiment with Nicole LoBiondo, who gathered half of the experimental data.
Student meteorologists independent of this experiment took reference rain gauge measurements
at the Walker Building. Additionally, Dr. Bowley was instrumental in providing guidance and
feedback throughout this project.

8
References
Bose, S., Vahabzadeh, S., Bandyopadhyay, A. 2013. Bone tissue engineering using 3D
printing, Materials Today, Volume 16, Issue 12. Pages 496-504. Web.
Brock and Richardson. 2001. Chapter 9 Precipitation in Meteorological Measurement Systems.
Chang, Chih-Yuan. Study on the Correlation Between Humidity and Material Strains in
Separable Micro-Humidity Sensor Design. Sensors 17.5 (2017): 1066. Crossref. Web.
Groisman, P. and Legates, D. 1994: The Accuracy of United States Precipitation Data. Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society.
Iida, S., D.F. Levia, K. Nanko, X. Sun, T. Shimizu, K. Tamai, and Y. Shinohara, 2018:
Correction of Canopy Interception Loss Measurements in Temperate Forests: A
Comparison of Necessary Adjustments among Three Different Rain Gauges Based on a
Dynamic Calibration Procedure. J. Hydrometeor., 19, 547–553, Web
National Weather Service. 2014. “Rain Gauge Instrumentation”. National Weather Service
Technical Note.
Thériault, J.M., R. Rasmussen, K. Ikeda, and S. Landolt, 2012: Dependence of Snow Gauge
Collection Efficiency on Snowflake Characteristics. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol.,51,
745–762, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0116.1

9
Figure 1. (a) shows the 3-D printed funnel with the metal funnel attached on top. The area of the
funnel on top represents the area of precipitation that the rain gauge will collect. (b) shows the
experimental rain gauge on the left, with the reference gauge located just to the right of the
experimental gauge.

10
 Homemade and
Commercial Gauges

Reference Gauge

Figure 2. (a) The rain gauge was placed near the center of the map, with the distance to the
nearest trees added for reference. The grass in the area is mostly overgrown with vegetation
roughly similar in height to the rain gauge. (b) This map shows the distance of the rain gauge to
the Walker Building and its general location relative to Penn State University.

11
Table 1. Rainfall measurements and percent errors for each rain gauge. The homemade and
commercial precipitation gauges were set up at 1130z on 12 September 2018 in State College,
PA, and observations were conducted daily at 1130z from 13 September 2018 through 27
September 2018. Rainfall measurements were measured to the nearest hundredth of an inch. A
trace (T) of precipitation indicate less than 0.01 inches of precipitation fell. The date indicates
the date of the observation, which represents the 24-hour accumulation prior to the observation.

Figure 3. Daily rainfall measurements for the homemade, commercial, and weather center
gauges. Values of a trace are treated as 0.00” in the graph.

12
Figure 4. Percent relative error (%) between the homemade, commercial, and weather center
gauges. Measured values of a trace were treated as 0” for percent error calculations. The 100%
error only occurred when one of the gauges measured no precipitation while another did observe
precipitation.

Figure 5. 03z 18 September 2018 surface analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region. The thin solid
lines are isobars, and the background shading denotes elevation. The remnants of Hurricane
Florence moved through central Pennsylvania at this time with the remnant low passing almost
directly over State College.

13
Figure 6. 06z 22 September 2018 surface analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region. Contours and
shading are the same as Fig. 5. A weak cold front moved through Pennsylvania early on 22 Sept.

Figure 7. 12z 25 September 2018 surface analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region. Contours and
shading are the same as Fig. 5. Precipitation on 24-25 Sept. fell in association with an
approaching warm front from the southwest.

14
Figure 8. 21z 26 September 2018 surface analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region. Contours and
shading are the same as Fig. 5. Another cold front passed through central Pennsylvania during
this time.

15