Search for: All records

Abstract Hail research and forecasting models necessarily involve explicit or implicit—and uncertain—physical assumptions regarding hailstones’ shape, tumbling behavior, fall speed, and thermal energy transfer. Whereas most models assume spherical hailstones, we relax this assumption by using hailstone shape data from field observations to establish empirical size–shape relationships with reasonable degrees of randomness considering hailstones’ natural shape variability, capturing the observed distribution of triaxial ellipsoidal shapes. We also incorporate explicit, random tumbling of individual hailstones during their growth to simulate their free-falling behavior and the resultant changes in cross-sectional area (which affects growth by hydrometeor collection). These physical attributes are incorporated in calculating hailstones’ fall speeds, using either empirical relationships or analytical relationships based on each hailstone’s Best and Reynolds numbers. Options for drag coefficient modification are added to emulate hailstones’ rough surfaces (lobes), which then modifies their thermal energy and vapor exchange with the environment. We investigate how applying these physical assumptions about nonspherical hail to the Penn State hail growth trajectory model, coupled with Cloud Model 1 supercell simulations, impacts hail production and examine the reasons behind the resulting variability in hail statistics. The choice of hailstone size–mass relation and fall speed scheme have the strongest influence on hail sizes. Using nonspherical, tumbling hailstones reduces the number of large hailstones produced. Applying shape-specific thermal energy transfer coefficients subtly increases sizes; the effects of lobes vary depending on the fall speed scheme used. These physical assumptions, although adding complexity to modeling, can be parameterized efficiently and potentially used in microphysics schemes. Significance StatementIn numerical modeling of hailstorms, we usually consider hailstones to be spherical to simplify calculations, but in nature, hailstones generally are not spheres and can be rather lumpy and have spikes. The purpose of this study is to examine how the model result would change when nonspherical hailstone shape is implemented. We examine the relationship between hailstone shape and physical processes during hail growth in effort to explain why these changes occur and offer insights on how nonspherical hailstone shape may be parameterized in bulk microphysics schemes. 

Abstract Lasting updrafts are necessary to produce severe hail; conventional wisdom suggests that extremely large hailstones require updrafts of commensurate strength. Because updraft strength is largely controlled by convective available potential energy (CAPE), one would expect environments with larger CAPE to be conducive to storms producing larger hail. By systematically varying CAPE in a horizontally homogeneous initial environment, we simulate hail production in high-shear, high-instability supercell storms using Cloud Model 1 and a detailed 3D hail growth trajectory model. Our results suggest that CAPE modulates the updraft’s strength, width, and horizontal wind field, as well as the liquid water content along hailstones’ trajectories, all of which have a significant impact on final hail sizes. In particular, hail sizes are maximized for intermediate CAPE values in the range we examined. Results show a non-monotonic relationship between the hailstones’ residence time and CAPE due to changes to the updraft wind field. The ratio of updraft area to southerly wind speed within the updraft serves as a proxy for residence time. Storms in environments with large CAPE may produce smaller hail because the in-updraft horizontal wind speeds become too great, and hailstones are prematurely ejected out of the optimal growth region. Liquid water content (LWC) along favorable hailstone pathways also exhibits peak values for intermediate CAPE values, owing to the horizontal displacement across the midlevel updraft of moist inflow air from differing source levels. In other words, larger CAPE does not equal larger hail, and storm-structural nuances must be examined.