Despite the apparent simplicity, it is notoriously difficult to measure rainfall accurately because of the challenging environment within which it is measured. Systematic bias caused by wind is inherent in rainfall measurement and introduces an inconvenient unknown into hydrological science that is generally ignored. This paper examines the role of rain gauge shape and mounting height on catch efficiency (CE), where CE is defined as the ratio between nonreference and reference rainfall measurements. Using a pit gauge as a reference, we have demonstrated that rainfall measurements from an exposed upland site, recorded by an adjacent conventional cylinder rain gauge mounted at 0.5 m, were underestimated by more than 23% on average. At an exposed lowland site, with lower wind speeds on average, the equivalent mean undercatch was 9.4% for an equivalent gauge pairing. An improved‐aerodynamic gauge shape enhanced CE when compared to a conventional cylinder gauge shape. For an improved‐aerodynamic gauge mounted at 0.5 m above the ground, the mean undercatch was 11.2% at the upland site and 3.4% at the lowland site. The mounting height of a rain gauge above the ground also affected CE due to the vertical wind gradient near to the ground. Identical rain gauges mounted at 0.5 and 1.5 m were compared at an upland site, resulting in a mean undercatch of 11.2% and 17.5%, respectively. By selecting three large rainfall events and splitting them into shorter‐duration intervals, a relationship explaining 81% of the variance was established between CE and wind speed.

Non‐catching type gauges are the emerging class of in situ precipitation measurement instruments. For these instruments, rigorous testing and calibration are more challenging than for traditional gauges. Hydrometeors characteristics like particle size, shape, fall velocity and density must be reproduced in a controlled environment to provide the reference precipitation, instead of the equivalent water flow used for catching‐type gauges. They are generally calibrated by the manufacturers using internal procedures developed for the specific technology employed. No agreed methodology exists, and the adopted procedures are rarely traceable to internationally recognized standards. The EURAMET project 18NRM03 ‘INCIPIT’ on ‘Calibration and accuracy of non‐catching instruments to measure liquid/solid atmospheric precipitation’, funded by the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR), was initiated in 2019 to investigate calibration and accuracy issues of non‐catching measuring instruments used for liquid/solid atmospheric precipitation measurement. A survey of the existing models of non‐catching type instruments was initially performed and this paper provides an overview and a description of their working principles and the adopted calibration procedures. Both literature works and technical manuals disclosed by manufacturers are summarized and discussed, while current limitations and metrological requirements are identified.

Eight rainfall events recorded from May to September 2013 at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) have been selected to investigate the performance of post-processing algorithms used to calculate the rainfall intensity (RI) from tipping-bucket rain gauges (TBRGs). We assumed a drop-counter catching-type gauge as a working reference and compared rainfall intensity measurements with two calibrated TBRGs operated at a time resolution of 1 min. The two TBRGs differ in their internal mechanics, one being a traditional single-layer dual-bucket assembly, while the other has two layers of buckets. The drop-counter gauge operates at a time resolution of 10 s, while the time of tipping is recorded for the two TBRGs. The post-processing algorithms employed for the two TBRGs are based on the assumption that the tip volume is uniformly distributed over the inter-tip period. A series of data of an ideal TBRG is reconstructed using the virtual time of tipping derived from the drop-counter data. From the comparison between the ideal gauge and the measurements from the two real TBRGs, the performances of different post-processing and correction algorithms are statistically evaluated over the set of recorded rain events. The improvement obtained by adopting the inter-tip time algorithm in the calculation of the RI is confirmed. However, by comparing the performance of the real and ideal TBRGs, the beneficial effect of the inter-tip algorithm is shown to be relevant for the mid–low range (6–50 mm h⁻¹) of rainfall intensity values (where the sampling errors prevail), while its role vanishes with increasing RI in the range where the mechanical errors prevail.