Experimental comparison evaluates rainfall simulators for stormwater management, indicating their suitability for urban research.
Side-by-side comparison of a Pressurised (PRS) and Drop-Forming Rainfall Simulator (DRS), with icons indicating intensity, uniformity, drop size, and velocity. PRS suits high-intensity studies; DRS offers broader versatility. Rainfall simulators are typically categorised as either pressurised or drop-forming systems, each offering distinct advantages depending on the research application. This study presents a comparative experimental analysis of a pressurised nozzle-based rainfall simulator and a drop-forming needle-based rainfall simulator, assessing their suitability for urban stormwater management research. Both setups were constructed indoors with a 1.5 × 1.5 m rainfall area and a 2.3 m raindrop fall height. The simulators were evaluated based on rainfall intensity, spatial uniformity, drop size distribution and drop velocity. The pressurised system produced intensities from 23.9 to 109.7 mm/h, while the drop-forming system achieved 4.5–21.0 mm/h. Uniformity coefficients ranged from 81.2 to 93.3% (cups) and 86.6 to 96.4% (trays) for the pressurised system, and 85.7% (cups) and 94.8% (trays) for the drop-forming system. D50 raindrop sizes ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 mm for the pressurised system and 1.7 mm for the drop-forming system. Estimated median drop velocities ranged from 82.5 to 98.5% of terminal velocity. While both systems replicated key rainfall characteristics, the pressurised simulator was limited to high-intensity events. The drop-forming simulator offered finer control and broader applicability, supporting its use in urban hydrology and stormwater management research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zyl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: