Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems

Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements

Version 2.0 (Final)
EPA-454/B-08-002

March 2008

Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems

Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements Version 2.0 (Final)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Analysis Division

Measurement Technology and

Ambient Air Monitoring Groups

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page ii of x

ii

Foreword

This document represents Volume 4 of a five-volume quality assurance (QA) handbook series. This 

volume is dedicated to meteorological measurement systems and their support equipment. Volume I 

provided general QA guidance that is pertinent to the remaining volumes. Volume II is dedicated to the 

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program and the data collection activities of that program. Volume III 

pertains to Source and Emission monitoring methods. Volume V pertains to ambient dry deposition. 

This document, Volume IV, is designed to provide clear and concise information and guidance to the 

State/Local/Tribal (SLT) air pollution control agencies that operate meteorological monitoring equipment 

and systems. Recently, the new monitoring rule was published, which establishes the requirements for 

meteorological monitoring in support of National Core (NCore) network. The new monitoring rules 

require that meteorological data be collected at all NCore stations, as stated in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Chapter 40 Section 58, Appendix D.3.b. Thus, there is a need for updated information 

to guide the SLT agencies as they implement the NCore network. 

Since the last version of Volume IV was written, there have been a number of breakthroughs in 

instrument development and support equipment. The new “sonic” anemometer systems have been on the 

market for several years and this document will provide guidance on how best to operate those systems. 

In addition, there have been advancements in digital data acquisition where the signal from the sensor or 

the sensor’s translator box is a purely digital signal. Support equipment, such as data acquisition systems 

(DAS) have also changed in support to these new “state of the art” instruments that are now available. 

As you read through this document, please be careful to note the references in the manual, as they may 

have World Wide Web Internet links associated with them. Where possible, the authors placed Internet 

links into the document so that if the reader wishes to get more in-depth or background material, then it is 

available through the link. 

Another addition to this manual that is not in the other QA Handbooks is the links to audio/video files. 

This document will have Internet links in the calibration sections of 4.2 through 4.8 that will direct the 

reader to audio/video files posted on the EPA’s AMTIC website ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ ). These 

audio/video files are short, but in-depth movies on how to calibrate/audit common meteorological 

instruments that are in use today. 

Disclaimer of Endorsement

Mention of or referral to commercial products or services, and/or links to non-EPA sites does not imply 

official EPA endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data, or products presented at those 

locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. Mention of commercial products/services 

on non-EPA servers is provided solely as a pointer to information on topics related to environmental 

protection that may be useful to EPA staff and the public. 
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page iii of x

iii

Contents

Section Page Revision Date

Foreword.................................................................... ii 1.0 03/24/08

Disclaimer of Endorsements...................................... ii 1.0 03/24/08

Contents..................................................................... iii 2.0 03/24/08

Acknowledgments...................................................... vi 2.0 03/24/08

Figures and Tables..................................................... vii 2.0 03/24/08

Introduction................................................................ 1/17 2.0 01/20/08

0.1 Contents of the Handbook........................... 1/17

0.2 EPA Quality System.................................... 2/17

1. Tower Guidance and Siting 2.0 01/20/08 

1.1 Type of Towers........................................... 1/18

1.2 Installation and Setup.................................. 3/18

1.3 Tower Wiring.............................................. 12/18

1.4 Tower Siting................................................ 14/18

2. Wind Speed and Direction 2.0 01/20/08

2.1 Introduction................................................. 1/27

2.2 Types of Instruments and Specifications..... 1/27

2.3 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 4/27

2.4 Installation, Instrument Exposure, and 

Wiring ......................................................... 5/27

2.5 Calibration and Alignment.......................... 6/27

2.6 Operation and Maintenance ........................ 16/27

2.7 Auditing....................................................... 17/27

2.8 Scalar, Vector and Sigma Calculations....... 24/27

2.9 Estimating Accuracy and Precision............. 27/27

3. Temperature and Temperature Gradient 2.0 01/20/08

3.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications..... 1/6

3.2 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 2/6

3.3 Installation and Wiring................................ 2/6

3.4 Calibration................................................... 4/6

3.5 Operation and Maintenance ........................ 6/6

3.6 Auditing....................................................... 6/6
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page iv of x

iv

Section Page Revision Date

4. Rainfall and Precipitation 2.0 01/20/08

4.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications..... 1/6

4.2 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 4/6

4.3 Calibration................................................... 4/6

4.4 Operation and Maintenance ........................ 5/6

4.5 Auditing....................................................... 6/6

5. Relative Humidity and Dew Point 

Determination 2.0 01/20/08

5.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications..... 1/4

5.2 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 2/4

5.3 Installation and Wiring................................ 3/4

5.4 Calibration................................................... 3/4

5.5 Operation and Maintenance ........................ 4/4

5.6 Auditing....................................................... 4/4

6. Solar Radiation 

Measurements 2.0 01/20/08

6.1 Introduction................................................. 1/9

6.2 Solar Radiation............................................ 1/9

6.3 Types of Instruments................................... 2/9

6.4 Specifications.............................................. 6/9

6.5 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 6/9

6.6 Installation, Instrument Exposure, and 

Wiring ......................................................... 6/9

6.7 Calibration................................................... 7/9

6.8 Operations and Maintenance....................... 8/9

6.9 Auditing....................................................... 9/9

7. Atmospheric Pressure 

Measurements 2.0 01/20/08

7.1 Units and Scales.......................................... 1/5

7.2 Types of Instrumentation ............................ 1/5

7.3 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 2/5

7.4 Installation and Instrument Exposure.......... 3/5

7.5 Calibration................................................... 5/5

7.6 Operation and Maintenance ........................ 5/5

7.7 Auditing....................................................... 5/5

8. Ground-Based Remote

Sensing Devices 2.0 01/20/08

8.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications..... 2/28

8.2 Acceptance Testing ..................................... 11/28

8.3 Installation and Siting.................................. 14/28

8.4 Calibration................................................... 19/28

8.5 Operation, Maintenance, and Quality 

Control......................................................... 20/28

8.6 Auditing....................................................... 24/28
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page v of x

v

Section Page Revision Date

9. Data Acquisition Systems and Meteorology 2.0 01/20/08

9.1 Introduction................................................. 1/9

9.2 DAS Data Acquisition in Analog 

Layout – Signal Conditioning ..................... 1/9

9.3 Instrument Connectivity.............................. 1/9

9.4 Data Communication................................... 4/9

9.5 Sampling Rates............................................ 4/9

9.6 Meteorological Data Generated by DAS..... 5/9

9.7 Identification of Data Acquisition 

Calculation Issues........................................ 8/9

10. Meteorological Data Validation and Verification 2.0 01/20/08

10.1 General Approach ....................................... 1/13

10.2 Data Verification Methods.......................... 3/13

10.3 Manual Review Methods ............................ 7/13

10.4 Data Validation Methods ............................ 8/13

11. New Technologies 2.0 01/20/08

11.1 Wind – Anemometers.................................. 1/6

11.2 Temperature – Thermometers..................... 2/6

11.3 Pressure – Barometers................................. 2/6

11.4 Solar Radiation – Pyranometers.................. 3/6

11.5 Precipitation – Rain Gauges........................ 4/6

11.6 Upper-Air Measurements............................ 4/6

11.7 Multiple Parameter Weather Sensor............ 5/6

12. References 2.0 01/20/08

Appendix A: Meteorological Systems Audit 

Evaluation Form....................................................... 1/8 1.0 12/22/07

Appendix B: Examples of Meteorological Sensor 

 Calibration Forms .................................................... 1/3 1.0 12/22/07

Appendix C: Meteorological Measurement 

 Methods Validation Criteria 1/12 2.0 01/20/08
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page vi of x

vi

Acknowledgments

Work on a document such as this requires the work and dedication of many people. This section 

acknowledges those that have provided their time and effort to create this document. 

Team Lead: Dennis K. Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD

Team Co-lead: Nealson Watkins, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD

Authors of the Chapters: 

Chapter 0: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD; Joey Landreneau, Sonoma Technology, Inc. 

Chapter 1: Daniel Fields, Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Chapter 2: David Bush, T+B Systems, Inc.; Paul Roberts, Sonoma Technology, Inc. 

Chapter 3: Paul Fransiola, T+B Systems Inc. 

Chapter 4: Tammy Eagan, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Chapter 5: Paul Fransiola, T+B Systems Inc. 

Chapter 6: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD; Joey Landreneau, Sonoma Technology, Inc.

Chapter 7: Kent Field, Ventura County APCD; Joey Landreneau, Sonoma Technology, Inc.

Chapter 8: Bob Baxter, T+B Systems Inc.; Tim Dye, Sonoma Technology, Inc. 

Chapter 9: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD, Gary Arcemont, San Joaquin Valley AQMD

Chapter 10: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD

Chapter 11: Joey Landreneau, Sonoma Technology, Inc.

Appendix A: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD

Appendix B: Dennis Mikel, EPA – OAQPS, AQAD

Appendix C: Richard Heffern, State of Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Editorial review and formatting were provided by Sonoma Technology, Inc. under contract with the EPA. 

Comments and questions can be directed to: 

Dennis Mikel or,

Nealson Watkins

EPA-OAQPS-AQAD

109 Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Email: mikel.dennisk@epa.gov

 Watkins.nealson@epa.gov
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page vii of x

vii

Figures

Number Title Section Page

0.1 The EPA Quality System 3/16

1.1 Telescopic Pole 2/18

1.2 Triangular Fixed 2/18

1.3 Triangular Adjustable 3/18

1.4 Pneumatic 3/18

1.5 Fold-Over 3/18

1.6 Ground Installation Procedure 4/18

1.7 Roof Installation Procedure 5/18

1.8 (a) Fascia Board Support; (b) Fence Post Guy Wire Anchor 7/18

1.9 (a) Angle Iron Support—Expanded View; 

(b) Angle Iron Support—Close-Up View 8/18

1.10 (a) Metal Wall Support—Telescopic Tower (Expanded View); 

(b) Metal Wall Support—Telescopic Tower (Close-Up View) 9/18

1.11 (a) Expanded View Guy Wire Harness—Telescopic Tower; 

(b) Close-Up View Guy Wire Harness—Telescopic Tower 10/18

1.12 Lightning Protection Installation 11/18

1.13 Signal Cable at Tower Base 12/18

1.14 Temperature Cable Installation and Expanded/Close-Up Views 13/18

1.15 Wiring on a Crank-Down Tower 14/18

1.16 Example of a Tower Location 17/18

1.17 Example of a Tower Attachment 18/18

2.1 Example of Cup and Vane System 2/27

2.2 Propeller Anemometer and Vane 3/27

2.3 2-D Sonic Anemometer 3/27

2.4 3-D Sonic Anemometer 3/27

2.5 Siting Wind Instruments 6/27

2.6 DC Motor Calibration 7/27

2.7 Torque Disk 7/27

2.8 Torque Disk in Testing Position 7/27

2.9 Waters Torque Watches 9/27

2.10 Magnetic Declinations for the United States 10/27
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page viii of x

viii

Number Title Section Page

2.11 True Geographic North and Magnetic North 10/27

2.12 Adjusting for (a) East and (b) West Declinations; (c) No Adjustment for Magnetic 

Declination of 0° 10/27

2.13 Side View of the Placement of a Compass or Transit for Measuring the 

Crossarm Direction 12/27

2.14 Top View Illustrating the Measurement of the Relative Direction of the 

Crossarm 12/27

2.15 Measurement of the Relative Direction of the Sun 12/27

2.16 Projection of Sun’s Reflection Using a Brunton Pocket Transit 13/27

2.17 Linearity Test Fixture 20/27

2.18 Sensor Mounting for the Testing and Evaluation of the Audit Wind 

Sensor Against a Sonic Anemometer 22/27

2.19 Wind Speed Plot Showing the Mechanical Sensor (AQ) vs. the 

Sonic Anemometer for Wind Speeds Greater Than 1 ms-1 23/27

2.20 Wind Direction Plot Showing the Mechanical Sensor (AQ) vs. the Sonic 

Anemometer for Wind Speed Greater Than 1 ms-1 23/27

2.21 Typical Mounting of the Audit Sensors on the Site Tower 24/27

2.22 Calculated Wind Direction Averages from a Simulated 3,600-Sample 

Data Set 26/27

3.1 Example of a Platinum Wire Thermistor 1/6

3.2 A Naturally Ventilated Shield 3/6

3.3 A Motor-Aspirated Shield 3/6

4.1 Cylinder Precipitation Gauge 1/6

4.2 Automatic Wet/Dry Precipitation Collector 1/6

4.3 Universal-Weighing Gauge 2/6

4.4 Tipping Bucket Without the Shield 2/6

4.5 Example of an Alter Wind Shield 3/6

5.1 A Motor-Aspirated RH Shield 1/4

5.2 A Typical RH Probe 1/4

6.1 Solar Irradiance Versus Wavelength of Light Emitted by the Sun 2/9

6.2 Eppley Pyranometer PSP 3/9

6.3 Illustration of an Eppley Pyranometer 3/9

6.4 LiCor Pyranometer 5/9

6.5 NovaLynx Pyranometer 5/9

6.6 Eppley Normal Incidence Pyrheliometer 5/9
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page ix of x

ix

Number Title Section Page

6.7 Epply Solar Tracker 5/9

6.8 Net Radiometer 7/9

6.9 Absolute Cavity Pyrheliometer 8/9

7.1 Electronic Barometer 2/5

7.2 Portable Digital Barometer 2/5

7.3 NEMA 4X Enclosure 4/5

7.4 Tower-Mounted Barometer with Pressure Port 4/5

8.1 Schematic Showing the Differences Between In-Situ (Point) and Remote 

Sensor (Volume) Measurements 2/28

8.2 Schematic Showing the Transmitted and Received Signals From Sodars, 

Radar Wind Profilers, and RASS 4/28

8.3 Schematic Showing the Vertical and Oblique Beams 5/28

8.4 Schematic Showing a Beam Pattern for an Oblique Beam and its 

Associated Side Lobes 5/28

8.5 Schematic Showing a Monostatic and Bistatic Sodar System 7/28

8.6 Pictures of Different Types of Sodars: Mini-Sodar, Multi-Axis Sodar, 

Phased-Array Sodar 8/28

8.7 Photographs of Types of Radar Wind Profilers: 

Phased-Array System and Fixed-Axis Antenna System 9/28

8.8 Photographs of a Radar Wind Profiler with a RASS and 

a Sodar with a RASS 11/28

8.9 Example Site Layout Diagram 15/28

8.10 Example Site Vista Diagram 16/28

9.1 DAS Rear Panel with 8-Channel Differential Analog Terminal Strip 3/9

9.2 DAS Rear Panel with RS-232 Signal Interface 4/9

9.3 A Comparison of Trends at Two Nearby Stations 8/9

9.4 A Comparison of Scalar and Vector Wind Direction 9/9

10.1 Generalized Data Validation and Verification Process Flow 2/13

10.2 Example of Meteorological Sensor Visual Check List 5/13

10.3 Graphic Example of Temperature vs. Relative Humidity 9/13

10.4 Graphic Example of Ozone vs. Temperature 10/13

10.5 Example of a Meteorological Data Screening Checklist 13/13

11.1 Climatronics AIO 5/6

11.2 Vaisala WTX510 6/6
Volume 4

Revision No:2.0

Date: 03/24/2008

Page x of x

x

Tables

Number Title Section Page

0-1 PAMS Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives 6/16

0-2 PAMS Calibration and Accuracy Criteria 7/16

0-3 NCore Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives 8/16

0-4 NCore Calibration and Accuracy Criteria 9/16

0.5 SLAMS/SPM (non-NCore) Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives 10/16

0.6 SLAMS/SPM (non-NCore) Verification/Calibration and Accuracy Criteria 10/16

0-7 PSD Measurement Quality Objectives 11/16

0-8 PSD Calibration and Accuracy Criteria 12/16

0-9 Modeling Application Measurement Quality Objectives 13/16

0-10 Modeling Application Calibration and Accuracy Criteria 14/16

0-11 National Weather Service Measurements Quality Objectives 15/16

0-12 Siting and Exposure for Meteorological Sensors 16/16

1-1 Description of Different Towers 1/17

1-2 Limits on Terrain and Obstacles Near Towers 15/17

2-1 Time Constant Effects 20/27

2-2 Proposed Audit Criteria for the Sonic Systems 23/27

8-1 Typical Specifications for Meteorological Remote Sensors 3/28

8-2 Characteristics of Radar Wind Profilers 8/28

8-3 Recommended Audit Criteria for Sodar, Radar Wind Profilers, and RASS 25/28

10-1 DAS Screening Techniques 6/13

11.1 Example Sonic Wind Sensors 1/6

11.2 Example Thermometers 2/6

11.3 Example Barometric Pressure Sensors 3/6

11.4 Example Pyranometers 3/6

11.5 Example Rain Gauges 4/6

11.6 Example Upper-Air Measurement Devices 5/6
Volume 4, Section 0 

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 01/20/2008

Page 1 of 16

0. Introduction

The purpose of the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Vol IV: 

Meteorological Measurements (hereinafter called Handbook) is to provide information and guidance for 

meteorologists (applied and research), State/Local/Tribal (SLT) air pollution agency staff who operate 

meteorological equipment, SLT data reviewers who need validation guidance, and users of 

meteorological data. Methods that objectively define the quality of measurements needed for the intended 

use of the data are described in this version of the Handbook.

This version of the Handbook follows two previous versions that, for their time, were groundbreaking 

documents and paved the way for the air pollution monitoring community to begin and to continue 

collecting valid meteorological data. The first version of this Handbook was published in 19831

, and it 

described the different meteorological systems that were available at that time. An updated version was 

published in 1990, with revisions and updates added in 1995.2 The second version discussed methods and 

the equipment used within those methods in much greater detail as well as the calculation of vector and 

sigma data in detail, information that was lacking in the first version. Later revisions included a section on 

upper-air measurements and an appendix on Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 

meteorological guidance. However, newer technologies have been developed since the second edition of 

the Handbook was published. This third version of the Handbook has a slightly different focus than the 

second version. This document is intended to be more “user friendly”—it will have as much practical 

information for those not trained to be meteorologists as those who are. This Handbook will discuss the 

practical uses and operation of meteorological equipment and data. Some of the very technical 

information has been removed or clarified, and illustrations have been updated. Internet links and 

references have been added throughout the document to allow the reader to research information quickly.

0.1 Contents of the Handbook

The first section of this Handbook describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Quality 

System (QS) and how it can be used to create a data collection system that gathers data of sufficient 

quality for its intended use. The tables of Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) in Section 0.2.2 will 

be useful to organizations planning meteorological monitoring programs. The tables will help users to 

quickly review the requirements of a particular program (i.e., PAMS versus NCore). If an agency is 

required to perform a particular type of monitoring, such as PAMS, Tables 0-1 and 0-9 clearly list all the 

MQOs and calibration and accuracy criteria so that the agency can make the right choices when 

purchasing or upgrading its equipment for a specific program.

► Section 1 focuses on meteorological towers, on which most equipment is mounted. The different 

types of towers and their application, including installation, setup, wiring, and lightning 

protection, are discussed in this section.

► Section 2 discusses wind speed and direction.

► Section 3 details temperature and temperature gradient.

► Section 4 deals with rainfall and precipitation.

► Section 5 illustrates relative humidity and dew point determinations.

► Section 6 discusses solar and total radiation.

► Section 7 discusses atmospheric pressure measurement.
Volume 4, Section 0 

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 01/20/2008

Page 2 of 16

► Section 8 describes upper-air systems, which include Radar Wind Profiler (RWP), Sodar (Sound 

Detection and Ranging) and RASS (Radio Acoustic Sounding Systems) instrumentation.

► Section 9 provides guidance on the advantages and disadvantages of analog and digital data 

acquisition.

► Section 10 provides a discussion of data validation and verification.

► Section 11describes up-and-coming instruments and “new technology” that may not be widely 

used during the writing of this document, but will make an impact in the years to come. 

Sections 2 through 8 describe the types of instruments currently available including information on

acceptance testing, installation and wiring; calibration and alignment; operation and maintenance; and 

auditing. Sections 9 and 10 are new to this version of the Handbook and describe meteorological data 

acquisition systems (DAS) and meteorological data validation and verification.

Please note there are three appendices with this Handbook. The first appendix is a technical systems audit 

form that QA and QC staff can use to document the operation of meteorological collection devices and 

their associated equipment. Appendix B contains examples of sensor calibration forms. Appendix C was 

provided by the State of Alaska staff, which graciously provided measurement methods validation tables 

for their operations. These validation tables are provided only as examples for other SLT agencies to 

consider for their own use or adaptation.

0.2 EPA Quality System

The EPA document, “Guidance for the Data Quality Objective Process”3 states, “EPA Order 5360.1 A2 

and the applicable federal regulations establish mandatory QS1 that applies to all EPA organizations and 

organizations funded by EPA.” The guidance document describes the requirements, logic, and reasoning 

for establishing a QS: “Organizations must ensure that data collected for the characterization of 

environmental processes and conditions are of the appropriate type and quality for their intended use and 

which environmental technologies are designed, constructed, and operated according to defined 

expectations.” Systematic planning is a key project-level component of the EPA QS. Components of the 

QS are shown in Figure 0.1.

EPA policy is based on the national consensus standard, ANSI/ASQC E4-1994, Specifications and 

Guidelines for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs, developed by 

the American National Standards Institute and the American Society for Quality. This document describes 

the necessary management and technical elements for developing and implementing a QS by using a 

tiered approach. The standard recommends documenting (1) each organization-wide QS in a Quality 

Management Plan (QMP) or Quality Manual (to address requirements of Part A: Management Systems of 

the standard) and (2) the applicability of the QS to technical activity-specific efforts in a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or similar document (to address the requirements of Part B: Collection 

and Evaluation of Environmental Data of the standard). EPA has adopted this tiered approach for its 

mandatory agency-wide QS. This document addresses Part B requirements of the standard for systematic 

planning for environmental data operations.

In accordance with EPA Order 5360.1 A2, EPA requires that environmental programs performed for or 

by the Agency be supported by data of the type and quality appropriate to their expected use. EPA defines 

 

1 QS: Quality System
Volume 4, Section 0 

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 01/20/2008

Page 3 of 16

environmental data as information collected directly from measurements, produced from models, or 

compiled from other sources such as databases or literature.

0.2.1 Data Quality Objectives

As stated in Section 0.2, EPA Order 5360.1 A2 requires that all EPA organizations (and organizations 

with extramural agreements with EPA) follow a systematic planning process to develop acceptance or 

performance criteria for the collection, evaluation, or use of environmental data. A systematic planning 

process is the first component in the planning phase of the project tier (see the bottom tier of Figure 0.1), 

while the actual data collection activities take place in the implementation phase. 

Figure 0.1 The EPA Quality System

Consensus

Standards

ANSI/ASQC E4

ISO 9000 Series

Internal EPA Policies

EPA Order 5360.1

EPA Manual 5360

External Policies

Contracts – 48 CFR 46

Assistance Agreements –

40 CFR 30, 31, and 35

EPA Program Policy

40 CFR 58 APPA

Policy Tier

Program Tier

Project Tier

Quality System 

Documentation

(e.g., QMP)

Supporting Systems Elements

(e.g., Procurements, 

Computer Hardware/Software)

Training/Communication

(e.g., Training Plan, 

Conferences)

Annual Review and Planning

(e.g. QA Annual Report and 

Work Plan 

System Assessments

(e.g., Quality System Audit)

PLANNING 

Conduct Study/Sampling

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

QA 

Project Plan

Systematic Planning

(e.g. DQO Process)

Data Verification and 

Validation

Technical 

Assessments

Data Quality 

Assessment

IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

Reporting

Defensible Products and Decisions

EPA QA 

&

Program Policies

Monitoring Org. 

Project Specific 

Quality System

Monitoring Org. 

Overall Quality 

System

Consensus

Standards

ANSI/ASQC E4

ISO 9000 Series

Internal EPA Policies

EPA Order 5360.1

EPA Manual 5360

External Policies

Contracts – 48 CFR 46

Assistance Agreements –

40 CFR 30, 31, and 35

EPA Program Policy

40 CFR 58 APPA

Policy Tier

Program Tier

Project Tier

Quality System 

Documentation

(e.g., QMP)

Supporting Systems Elements

(e.g., Procurements, 

Computer Hardware/Software)

Training/Communication

(e.g., Training Plan, 

Conferences)

Annual Review and Planning

(e.g. QA Annual Report and 

Work Plan 

System Assessments

(e.g., Quality System Audit)

PLANNING 

Conduct Study/Sampling

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures

QA 

Project Plan

Systematic Planning

(e.g. DQO Process)

Data Verification and 

Validation

Technical 

Assessments

Data Quality 

Assessment

IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

Reporting

Defensible Products and Decisions

EPA QA 

&

Program Policies

Monitoring Org. 

Project Specific 

Quality System

Monitoring Org. 

Overall Quality 

System
Volume 4, Section 0 

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 01/20/2008

Page 4 of 16

Systematic planning is a planning process based on the scientific method and includes concepts such as 

objectivity of approach and acceptability of results. Systematic planning is a common-sense, graded 

approach to ensure that the level of detail in planning is commensurate with the importance and intended 

use of the work and available resources. This framework promotes communication among all 

organizations and individuals involved in an environmental program. Through a systematic planning 

process, a team can develop acceptance or performance criteria for the quality of the data collected and 

for the quality of the decision. When these data are being used in decision making by selecting between 

two clear alternative conditions (e.g., compliance/non-compliance with a standard), the EPA’s 

recommended systematic planning tool is called the Data Quality Objective (DQO) Process. 

The DQO Process is a seven-step planning approach to develop sampling designs for data collection 

activities that support decision making. This process uses systematic planning and statistical hypothesis 

testing to differentiate between two or more clearly defined alternatives. 

Step 1. Define the problem

Step 2. Identify the problem

Step 3. Identify information needed for the decision

Step 4. Define the boundaries of the study

Step 5. Develop a decision rule

Step 6. Specify limits on decision errors

Step 7. Optimize the design for obtaining data

The DQO Process is iterative and allows the planning team to incorporate new information and modify 

outputs from previous steps as inputs for a subsequent step. Although the principles of systematic 

planning and the DQO Process are applicable to all scientific studies, the DQO Process is particularly 

designed to address problems that require making a decision between two clear alternatives. The final 

outcome of the DQO Process is a design for collecting data (e.g., the number of samples to collect, and 

when, where, and how to collect samples). 

The development and implementation of a quality system should be based on a “graded approach,” that is, 

the components and tools of a quality system (Figure 0.1) apply according to the scope and nature of an 

organization, program, or project and the intended use of its products or services. This approach 

recognizes that a “one size fits all” approach to quality management is not appropriate and that the quality 

system of different organizations and programs should (and will) vary according to the specific needs of 

the organization. For example, the quality expectations of a research program are different from those of a 

regulatory compliance program because the intended use of the products differs. The same applies to 

meteorological data. Meteorological data can be used for a variety of reasons. The EPA has set forth a 

number of regulatory programs to understand the effects that pollution has on the health of the population. 

These programs include PAMS, National Core (NCore), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), 

and comparison of pollution data to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Monitoring 

agencies that use this guidance document are strongly encouraged to understand their data objectives, 

perform the DQO Process, if needed, and use the Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) described in 

Section 0.2.2 if they are applicable to an agency’s program. 
Volume 4, Section 0 

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 01/20/2008

Page 5 of 16

When an agency or entity is monitoring for non-regulatory purposes (e.g., background concentrations, 

modeling applications, or exposure), these MQOs are recommended guidance. Meeting MQOs for nonregulatory meteorological monitoring is strongly advised.

0.2.2 Measurement Quality Objectives

Once DQOs are designated for a program or project, measurement indicators must be determined to 

understand if the DQOs are being met. Most SLT agencies that collect data do so to support programs, 

such as PAMS, NCore, or PSD, that are federally mandated or that need to meet federal requirements. 

However, other non-regulatory applications exist, such as modeling applications, state implementation 

plan development, and forecasting. These programs require different meteorological MQOs since the 

application is different (i.e., different DQOs). Many SLT agencies also utilize National Weather Service 

(NWS) data available from nearby airports. The MQOs of the NWS data are included in Table 0-9. 

Agencies that use NWS data can reference these MQOs. The following prescribed objectives are listed in 

the MQO tables:

► Measurement – Type of parameter needed to be collected

► Method – Recommended; however, other methods are available and newer technologies will be 

developed. For regulatory programs, any alternative methods that are employed must meet these 

minimum requirements or recommendations. 

► Reporting Units – Mandatory for regulatory programs (PAMS, PSD, and NCore); for nonregulatory programs, they are recommended only. 

► Recommended Operating Range(s) – Typically employed but are not required. 

► Detection Limits – Required for regulatory programs (PAMS, PSD, and NCore); the detection 

limit levels are mandatory. For non-regulatory programs, they are recommended only. 

► Minimum Sample Frequency – Recommended. 

► Raw Data Collection Frequency – Recommended. 

► Completeness – Required for regulatory programs (PAMS, PSD, and NCore); the levels of 

completeness are mandatory. For non-regulatory programs, they are recommended only. 

► Calibration – Recommended methods. Other methods may be employed; however, the levels of 

accuracy of other methods must meet the acceptance criteria. 

► Accuracy – Required for regulatory programs (PAMS, PSD, and NCore); the levels of accuracy 

are mandatory. For non-regulatory programs, they are recommended only.

► Representativeness - Table 0-10 summarizes the recommended siting and exposure for most 

meteorological instruments. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 16

Table 0-1 PAMS Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units

Operating 

Range Resolution

Minimum 

Sample 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection

Frequency

Completeness

Ambient Temperature Thermistor oC -20 to 40 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Relative Humidity Psychrometer/

Hygrometer

% 0–100 0.5% RH Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Barometric Pressure Aneroid 

Barometer

hPa 800 – 1100 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Wind Speed Cup, Blade or 

sonic anemometer

m/s 0.5 – 50.0 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Wind Direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Solar Radiation Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 – 1200 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

UV Radiation UV A and B 

Radiometer

Watts/m2 0 – 12 0.01 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Precipitation Tipping Bucket mm/hr 0 – 30 0.25 Hourly 1 minute 75% 

Upper-Air Meteorology

Temp

Relative Humidity

Direction

Wind speed

RWP, Sodar, 

RASS oC

%

Degrees

m/s 

0 – 35

0 –100

0 – 360

0 – 45 

2.0

5.0

10

0.5

4 profiles 

per day

Per sounding 75% 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 16

Table 0-2 PAMS Calibration and Accuracy Criteria

Measurement

Calibration Accuracy

Type Acceptance 

Criteria Frequency Type Acceptance Criteria Frequency

Ambient Temperature 3 pt. Water Bath with 

NIST-traceable

thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.5 oC Semi-Annually 3 pt. Water Bath With 

NIST-traceable

thermistor or 

Thermometer

±0.5 oC Annually

Relative Humidity NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or 

standard solutions 

±5% RH Semi-Annually NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or 

standard solutions

±5% RH Annually

Barometric Pressure NIST-traceable

Aneroid Barometer 

±1 hPa Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Aneroid 

Barometer 

±1 hPa Annually

Wind Speed NIST-traceable

Synchronous Motor

or CTS methoda

±0.2 m/s + 

5%

Semi-Annually NIST-traceable

Synchronous Motor

0.2 m/s + 

5%

Annually

Wind Direction Solar Noon, GPS or 

Magnetic Compass, 

CTS methoda

±5 degrees Semi-Annually Solar Noon, GPS, or 

Magnetic Compass

±5 degrees Annually

Solar Radiation NIST-traceable

Pyranometer

10 w/m3 

below 200 

w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 

±5%

Semi-Annually NIST-traceable

Pyranometer

10 w/m3 

below 200 

w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 

±5%

Annually

UV Radiation NIST-traceable

Radiometer

±5% Semi-Annually NIST-traceable

Pyranometer

±5% Annually

Precipitation Separatory funnel and 

graduated cylinder 

±10% of 

input 

volume

Semi-Annually Separatory funnel and 

graduated cylinder 

±10% of 

input 

volume

Annually

Upper-Air Meteorology

Temp

Relative Humidity

Direction

Wind speed

Tethered or Balloon 

Sonde with NISTtraceable Sensors2.0 oC 

5%

10 degrees

1 m/s

Semi-Annually Tethered or Balloon 

Sonde with NISTtraceable Sensors2.0 oC 

5%

10 degrees

1 m/s

Annually

a. Collocated Transfer System Method (CTS) for sonic anemometers. This method is described in detail in Section 2.72 – 2.74 of this Handbook. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 16

Table 0-3 NCore Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units

Operating 

Range Resolution

Minimum 

Sample 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection

Frequency

Completeness

(Required)

Ambient 

Temperature

Thermistor oC -30 – 50 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Relative Humidity Psychrometer/

Hygrometer

% 0 – 100 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Wind Speed Cup, prop or sonic 

anemometer

m/s 0.5 – 50.0 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Wind Direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 (540) 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Vector Data

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

DAS2Calculations

m/s

degrees

0 – 50.0

0 – 360 

0.1

1.0

Hourly

1 minute

1 minute

75%

(Optional)

Solar Radiation Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 – 1100 10 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Precipitation Tipping Bucket mm/hr 0 – 25 mm/hr 0.2 mm Hourly 1 minute 75%

Barometric Pressure Aneroid Barometer mb 600 – 1100 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 75%

 

2 DAS: Data Acquisition System
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 16

Table 0-4 NCore Calibration and Accuracy Criteria

Measurement

Verification/Calibration Accuracy

Type Acceptance 

Criteria Frequency Type Acceptance Criteria Frequency

Ambient 

Temperature

3 pt. Water Bath 

with NISTtraceable

thermistor or

thermometer

±0.5 oC SemiAnnually3 pt. Water Bath With 

NIST-traceable

thermistor or

thermometer

±0.5 oC Annually

Relative Humidity NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or

standards solution 

±7% RH Semi -

Annually

NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or

standards solution

±7% RH Annually

Wind Speed NIST-traceable

Synchronous 

Motor, CTS 

methoda

±0.25m/s ≤5m/s; 

5%>2m/s not to 

exceed 2.5m/s

SemiAnnuallyNIST-traceable

Synchronous Motor

0.25m/s 

≤5m/s; 

5%>2m/s 

not to 

exceed 

2.5m/s 

Annually

Wind Direction Solar Noon, GPS 

Magnetic 

Compass, CTS 

methoda

±5 degrees; 

includes 

orientation error

SemiAnnuallySolar Noon, GPS or 

Magnetic Compass

±5 degrees; 

includes 

orientation 

error

Annually

Solar Radiation NIST-traceable

Pyranometer

10 w/m3 below 

200 w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 ±5%

SemiAnnuallyNIST-traceable

Pyranometer

10 w/m3 

below 200 

w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 

±5%

Annually

Barometric 

Pressure

NIST-traceable

Aneroid 

Barometer 

±3 mb SemiAnnuallyNIST-traceable

Aneroid Barometer 

±3 mb Annually

Precipitation Separatory funnel

and graduated 

cylinder 

±10% of input 

volume

SemiAnnuallySeparatory funnel and 

graduated cylinder 

±10% of 

input 

volume 

Annually

a. This method is described in detail in Section 2.72 – 2.74 of this Handbook. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 10 of 16

Table 0-5. SLAMS/SPM (non-NCore) Meteorological Measurement Quality Objectives

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units

Operating 

Range Resolution

Minimum 

Sample 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection

Frequency

Completeness

Ambient 

Temperature

Thermistor oC -30 – 50 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Relative Humidity Psychrometer/

Hygrometer

% 0 – 100 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Wind Speed Cup, prop or sonic 

anemometer

m/s 0.5 – 50.0 0.2 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Wind Direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 (540) 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 75%

Table 0-6. SLAMS/SPM (non-NCore) Verification/Calibration and Accuracy Criteria

Measurement

Verification/Calibration Accuracy

Type Acceptance 

Criteria Frequency Type Acceptance Criteria Frequency

Ambient 

Temperature

3 pt. Water Bath with 

NIST-traceable

thermistor or

thermometer

±1.0 oC

Annually

3 pt. Water Bath With 

NIST-traceable

thermistor or 

thermometer

±1.0 oC Annually

Relative Humidity NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or

standards solution 

±10% RH Annually NIST-traceable

Psychrometer or

standards solution

±10% RH Annually

Wind Speed NIST-traceable

Synchronous Motor, 

CTS Method

±0.25m/s 

≤5m/s; 

5%>2m/s not 

to exceed 

2.5m/s

Annually NIST-traceable

Synchronous Motor

0.25m/s ≤5m/s; 

5%>2m/s not to 

exceed 2.5m/s 

Annually

Wind Direction Solar Noon, GPS 

Magnetic Compass, 

CTS Method

±5 degrees; 

includes 

orientation 

error

Annually Solar Noon, GPS or 

Magnetic Compass

±5 degrees; 

includes 

orientation error

Annually

This method is described in detail in Section 2.72 – 2.74 of this Handbook. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 11 of 16

Table 0-7 PSD Measurement Quality Objectives

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units

Operating 

Range Resolution

Minimum 

Sample 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection

Frequency

Completeness

Ambient Temperature Thermistor oC -30 – 50 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Vertical Temperature 

Difference

Thermistor oC -3 – 7 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Relative Humidity Psychrometer/

Hygrometer 

% 0 – 100 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Dew Point Psychrometer/

Hygrometer 

oC -30 – +30 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Barometric Pressure Aneroid Barometer Mb 600 – 1100 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Wind Speed Cup or sonic 

anemometer

m/s 0.5 – 50.0 0.25 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Wind Direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 (540) 1.0 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Solar Radiation Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 – 1300 10 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Vertical Wind Speed Vane or sonic 

anemometer

m/s -25.0 to 25.0 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Vector Data

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

Sigma Theta

Sigma W

DAS Calculations

m/s

degrees

degrees

m/s

0 – 50.0

0 – 360 

0 – 105

0 – 10 

0.1

1.0

1.0

0.1

Hourly

1 minute

1 minute

15 minute

1 minute

90%

Precipitation Tipping Bucket mm/hr 0 – 50 mm /hr 0.2 mm/hr Hourly 5 minute 90%
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 12 of 16

Table 0-8 PSD Calibration and Accuracy Criteria

Measurement

Calibration Accuracy

Type Acceptance 

Criteria Frequency Type Acceptance Criteria Frequency

Ambient Temperature 3 pt. Water Bath with NISTtraceable thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.5 oC Quarterly 3 pt. Water Bath With NISTtraceable thermistor or 

Thermometer

±0.5 deg. C Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals 

Vertical Temperature 

Difference

3 pt. Water Bath with NISTtraceable thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.1oC Quarterly 3 pt. Water Bath with NISTtraceable thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.1oC Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals 

Relative Humidity NIST-traceable Psychrometer 

or standard solutions 

±7% RH Quarterly NIST-traceable Psychrometer or 

standard solutions

±7% RH Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals 

Dew Point NIST-traceable Psychrometer 

or standard solutions 

±1.5oC Quarterly NIST-traceable Psychrometer or 

standard solutions

±1.5oC Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals 

Barometric Pressure NIST-traceable Aneroid 

Barometer 

±3 mb Quarterly NIST-traceable Aneroid 

Barometer 

±3 mb Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

Wind Speed NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor, CTS Methoda

±0.2 m/s Quarterly NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

Wind Direction Solar Noon, GPS Magnetic 

Compass, CTS Methoda

±5 degrees 

includes 

orientation error

Quarterly Solar Noon, GPS, or Magnetic 

Compass

±5 degrees 

includes 

orientation error

Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 months 

thereafter

Solar Radiation NIST-traceable Pyranometer 10 w/m3 below 

200 w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 ±5%

Quarterly NIST-traceable Pyranometer 10 w/m3 below 

200 w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 ±5%

Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

Vertical Wind Speed NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Quarterly NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

Vector Data

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

Sigma Theta

Sigma W

Voltmeter and Voltage 

Generator ±0.2 m/s

±5 degrees

±5 degrees

±0.2 m/s

Quarterly Voltmeter and Voltage Generator

±0.2 m/s

±5 degrees

±5 degrees

±0.2 m/s

Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

Precipitation Separatory funnel and 

graduated cylinder

±10% of input 

volume

Quarterly Separatory funnel and graduated 

cylinder

±10% of input 

volume

Within 60 days of 

startup and 6 month 

intervals

a. This method is described in detail in Section 2.72 – 2.74 of this Handbook. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 13 of 16

Table 0-9 Modeling Application Measurement Quality Objectives4

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units

Operating 

Range Resolution

Minimum 

Sample 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection

Frequency

Completeness

Ambient 

Temperature

Thermistor oC -40 – 60 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Dew Point 

Temperature

Psychrometer/

Hygrometer

oC -40 – 60 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Vertical 

Temperature Diff. 

Thermistor oC -5 – 15 0.02 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Barometric Pressure Aneroid Barometer mb 600 – 1100 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Wind Speed Cup, blade, or sonic 

anemometer

m/sec 0.5 – 50.0 0.1 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Wind Direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 (540) 0.5 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Solar Radiation Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 – 1300 10 Hourly 1 minute 90%

Upper-Air 

Meteorology

Temp

Direction

Wind speed

RWP, Sodar, RASS 

oC 

degrees

m/sec 

0 – 35

0 – 360

0 – 45 

1.0

10

1.0

15 minute/

Hourly 

Soundings

15 minute 90%

Vector Data

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

Sigma Theta

Sigma W

DAS Calculations

m/s

degrees

degrees

m/s

0 – 50.0

0 – 360 

0 – 105

0 – 10 

0.1

1.0

1.0

0.1

Hourly 1 minute 90%

Precipitation Tipping Bucket mm/hr 0 – 25 mm/hr 0.25 mm Hourly 1 minute 90%
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 14 of 16

Table 0-10 Modeling Application Calibration and Accuracy Criteria

Measurement

Calibration Accuracy

Type Acceptance 

Criteria Frequency Type Acceptance Criteria Frequency

Ambient Temperature 3 pt. Water Bath with NISTtraceable thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.5 oC Semi-Annually 3 pt. Water Bath With NISTtraceable thermistor or 

Thermometer

±0.5 oC Annually

Dew Point 

Temperature

NIST-traceable Psychrometer or 

standards solution 

±0.5 oC Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Psychrometer 

or standards solution

±0.5 oC Annually

Vertical Temp. Diff. 3pt. Water Bath with NISTtraceable thermistor or 

thermometer

±0.1 oC Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Psychrometer ±0.1 oC Annually

Precipitation Separatory funnel and graduated 

cylinder 

±10% of 

input volume

Semi-Annually Separatory funnel and 

graduated cylinder 

±10% of input 

volume

Annually

Wind Speed NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor, CTS methoda

±0.2 m/s Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Annually

Wind Direction Solar Noon, GPS, Magnetic 

Compass, CTS methoda

±3 – 5 

degrees

Semi Annually Solar Noon, GPS or Magnetic 

Compass

±3 – 5 degrees Annually

Solar Radiation NIST traceable Pyranometer 10 w/m3 

below 200 

w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 

±5%

Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Pyranometer 10 w/m3 

below 200 

w/m3 above 

200 w/m3 

±5%

Annually

Vertical Wind Speed NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Semi-Annually NIST-traceable Synchronous 

Motor

±0.2 m/s Annually

Upper-Air 

Meteorology

Temp

Direction

Wind speed

Tethered or Balloon Sonde with 

NIST-traceable Sensors

±0.2 oC 

±10 degrees

±1 m/s

Semi-Annually Tethered or Balloon Sonde 

with NIST-traceable Sensors

±0.2 oC 

±10 degrees

±1 m/s

Annually

Vector Data

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

Sigma Theta

Sigma W

Voltmeter and Voltage Generator

±0.2 m/s

±5 degrees

±5 degrees

±0.2 m/s

Semi-Annually Voltmeter and Voltage 

Generator ±0.2 m/s

±5 degrees

±5 degrees

±0.2 m/s

Annually

a. This method is described in detail in Section 2.72 – 2.74 of this Handbook. 
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 15 of 16

Table 0-11 National Weather Service Measurements Quality Objectives5

Measurement Method Reporting 

Units Operating Range Resolution Accuracy

Ambient 

temperature

Liquid in glass 

or electronic

oC -62 to -50

-50 to +50

+50 to +54

0.1

0.1

0.1

±1.1

±0.6

±1.1

Dew point 

temperature

Psychrometer oC -34 to -24

-24 to -01

-01 to +30

0.1

0.1

0.1

±2.2

±1.7

±1.1

Barometric 

pressure

Barometer in Hg 22 – 35 0.005 ±0.02

Wind speed and 

character

Cup or sonic 

anemometer

knots 2 to 90 1.0 ±1 up to 10

±10% above 10

Wind direction Vane or sonic 

anemometer

Degrees 0 – 360 10 ±5 when speed is ≥ 5 knots

Sunshine sensor Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 – 1200 1 minute ±10%

Cloud height Ceilometer feet 0 – 12,000 Height of Cloud Base ±3% 

Precipitation 

(liquid)

Tipping bucket in/hr 0 – 10 0.01 ±0.02 or 4% of hourly amount

Altimeter Altimeter in Hg 22 – 35 0.01 ±0.02
Volume 4, Section 0

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 16 of 16

Table 0.12 Siting and Exposure for Meteorological Sensorsa

Measurement Distance from 

Obstruction

Distance Above 

Ground

Recommended 

Group Cover Comments

Wind 

Speed/Direction 

10x the height 

of the 

obstruction

10 meters Grass or gravel The standard exposure of the wind instruments over

level, open terrain is 10 meters above ground

Temperature/Dew 

Point 

1.5x the tower 

diameter

1.25 to 2 meters Non-irrigated or 

un-watered short 

grass, or natural 

earth

The surface should not be concrete or asphalt or oilsoaked. Reflection from these surfaces may affect 

the performance of the sensor. 

Vertical 

Temperature 

Difference

1.5x the tower 

diameter

2 meters and 10 

meters

Non-irrigated or 

un-watered short 

grass, or natural 

earth

The surface should not be concrete or asphalt or oilsoaked. Reflection from these surfaces may affect 

the performance of the sensor. 

Solar Radiation 2 meters 2 to 10 meters No requirements Sensor should be free from obstructions above the 

plane of the sensor. It should be located so that 

shadows will not cast on the device. 

Barometric 

pressure

1meter 1 to 10 meters No requirements The location should have uniform, constant 

temperature, shielded from the sun, away from drafts 

or heaters

Precipitation 2x to 4x the 

obstruction 

height 

30 cm, minimum Natural 

vegetation or 

gravel

Asphalt or concrete should be avoided to avoid 

splashing the gage. The gage should be high enough 

to avoid it being covered by snow. 

a Note: More details on siting and exposure are available in the individual sections of this Handbook. Please see the installation section of each 

chapter for more information.
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 18

1. Tower Guidance and Siting

Meteorological towers support various types of meteorological equipment. There are many types of 

towers and several ways to install them. Proper installation and siting of towers determine the 

effectiveness of a system and ensure ease of maintenance and reliability. Note: climbing towers to 

perform maintenance tasks is hazardous; use all necessary precautions as outlined in agency-specific 

Health and Safety Plans (HASPs). 

This section focuses on stationary meteorological towers that are installed at permanent air monitoring 

sites. The different towers and the methods used to install them are described in the following sections.

1.1 Types of Towers

Numerous types of towers may be used to host a system. The type of tower that should be used will be 

determined by the location, the type of support structures available, and the desired height of the tower. In 

most cases, to accommodate wind speed/wind direction sensors, a meteorological tower must be able to 

reach a height of 10 m. Therefore, if a tower will be mounted on an existing structure, the structure should 

be measured first to determine what height the tower should be. Once the tower height has been 

determined, the tower type may be identified. The most common types of towers are listed in Table 1-1. 

Figures 1.1 through 1.5 illustrate tower examples. 

Table 1-1 Description of Different Towers

Type of Tower Advantages Disadvantages

Telescopic pole Inexpensive, good for 

applications of 10 m or less

Difficult to install, hard to align, 

hard to raise and lower

Triangular fixed Simple to wire, easy to align, 

mid-price range

Hard to raise and lower, difficult 

to QA and QC

Triangular adjustable (crank-up 

towers)

Simple to wire, easy to align, 

easy to raise and lower

Expensive, does not work well 

with delta-t temperature systems

Pneumatic Easy to raise and lower, good for 

mobile applications

Very expensive, not practical for 

stationary monitoring sites

Fold-Over

Single worker can access 

instruments without climbing, 

hand winch lowers upper section 

for quick access, easy to align, 

Expensive in comparison to tiltdown triangle towers
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 18

Figure 1.1 Telescopic Pole6 Figure 1.2 Triangular Fixed
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 18

Figure 1.3 Triangular Figure 1.4 Pneumatic7 Figure 1.5 Fold-Over8

Adjustable9

1.2 Installation and Setup

Installing and setting up a meteorological tower will vary greatly depending on the location of the tower. 

Some locations allow a tower to be anchored into the ground, while others do not. For example, if a tower 

is needed on the roof of a building, anchoring the tower by digging a hole and pouring a concrete base is 

not possible. Because there are so many installation scenarios, only the most common will be discussed in 

this document. It is recommended that all installation scenarios be considered before choosing a particular 

method. These scenarios are described in Sections 1.2.1 through 1.2.3. 

In addition to location variations, climate plays a large role in the installation process. For example, in a 

location that experiences freezing rain, extra support devices may be used to ensure the tower does not 

collapse due to the extra weight of the ice on the tower. 
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 18

1.2.1 Ground Installations

Ground installation is intended for free-standing 10-m aluminum triangular towers that will be installed 

on the earth’s surface in an area that does not experience severe/extreme weather conditions. Additional 

guy wires (wires that extend from the upper portion of the tower to the ground to provide additional 

support) and a larger concrete footing may be necessary depending on the circumstances of each 

installation, especially in climates that experience permafrost conditions. 

The procedure illustrated in Figure 1.610 explains, step by step, how to create a concrete footing, secure 

the tower base to the footing, erect the tower, and secure the tower using guy wires and other methods. 

For guidance on choosing a location and siting the tower, see Section 1.4.

Step 1. Dig a 3-ft x 3-ft 

x 4-ft deep hole. 

Approximately 1.5 

cubic yards of concrete 

will be needed to fill the 

hole. Rebar will also be 

needed for towers 

greater than 10 m in 

height.

Step 2. Place the tower’s 

base into the hole and 

ensure that all three base 

legs are lined up so that 

the tower may be 

lowered and raised 

without obstruction. Pour 

the concrete.

Step 3. (Perform this step while the concrete is 

setting up). It is very important to ensure that a 

triangular fixed tower is 

plumb. Use the bottom 

section of the tower to 

ensure proper 

positioning of the base 

by vertically placing a 

carpenter’s level on the 

leg of the tower. Crankup towers will require at 

least three people to 

perform this step.

Step 4. Allow sufficient time for the concrete to set 

up.

Step 5. Ensure the tower is 

completely assembled and attach 

three guy wires to the guy wire 

holes on the tower using the 

hardware included with the tower. 

If hardware is not included, use an 

anchor shackle fastener to secure 

the guy wires to the tower.

Figure 1.6 Ground Installation Procedure (Steps 1-5)
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 18

Step 6. Dig a 1-ft x1-ft x 1-ft hole for each guy wire. 

Ideally, holes should be approximately 25 ft from 

the tower’s base and should enter the earth at a 

45° angle. 

Step 8. Erect the tower. Secure the tower to the base. 

Attach the guy wires to the eyebolts and make any 

necessary adjustments. It is recommended that two 

people be present when raising and lowering a tower in 

a manner prescribed by an agency’s health and safety 

plan (HASP). Step 7. Pour concrete into the hole and insert a 

12-inch eyebolt. Let the concrete set

Figure 1.6 Ground Installation Procedure (Steps 6-8)

1.2.2 Roof Installations

Roof installation is intended for triangular towers that will be installed on an existing structure in an area 

that does not experience severe/extreme weather conditions. Roof installations differ from ground 

installations because there is no earth available to dig a footing. This procedure assumes that penetrating a 

roof’s surface is not permitted. However, if penetration is permitted, fastening the tower directly to the 

roof of the building will be much easier than creating a non-penetrating base. Additional guy wires and a 

larger base may be necessary depending on the circumstances of each installation. 

The procedure illustrated in Figure 1.710 explains, step by step, how to set up a non-penetrating base, 

secure the tower to the base, erect the tower, and secure the tower using guy wires and other methods. For 

guidance on choosing a location and siting the tower, see Section 1.4.

Step 1. Construct or purchase a 10-ft x10-ft support base. The support base should be made of 

wood or metal. The base should be constructed in a manner that is similar to a freight pallet. 

However, empty spaces should be left in the pallet 

to accommodate for sandbag placement. Also, the 

support base needs to be constructed so that the 

tower’s base can be properly mounted on the top of 

the support base.

Example support base

Figure 1.7 Roof Installation Procedure (Step 1)
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 18

Step 2. Use bolts to secure the tower’s base to 

the support base. It is very important that the 

tower is plumb. For 

triangular fixed towers, 

use the bottom section 

of the tower to ensure 

proper positioning of 

the base by vertically 

placing a carpenter’s 

level on the leg of the 

tower. Crank-up 

towers will require at 

least three people to 

perform this step.

Step 3. Ensure the tower is completely 

assembled and attach three guy wires to the 

guy wire holes on the tower using the hardware 

included with the tower. If hardware is not 

included, use an anchor 

shackle fastener to secure the 

guy wires to the tower. (Note: 

fewer than three guy wires 

may be used if the tower is 

fastened to a nearby structure 

by other means).

Step 4. Locate nearby structures or retaining walls that are rigid and strong. These structures may 

be used to host eyebolts for guy wire installation.

Figure 1.7 Roof Installation Procedure (Steps 2-4)
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 18

Step 5. Install eyebolts into nearby 

structures. The eyebolts need to be arranged 

so that the guy wires on the tower form a 

strait line from the tower. Because the 

availability of nearby structures may be 

limited, this step may be problematic.

(Top View of Tower)

Step 6. Erect the tower. Secure the tower to the 

base. Attach the guy wires to the eyebolts and 

make any necessary adjustments. It is 

recommended that two people be present when 

raising and lowering a tower in a manner 

prescribed by an agency’s health and safety plan 

(HASP).

Figure 1.7 Roof Installation Procedure (Steps 5-6)

1.2.3 Other Installations

Every site is unique and installation options will vary. Therefore, it is recommended that a site’s layout 

and available support structures be considered before commencing installation. Some unique installation 

methods are illustrated in the Figures 1.8 through 1.11 below. 

(a) (b)

Figure 1.8 (a) Fascia Board Support; (b) Fence Post Guy Wire Anchor
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 18

Figure 1.9 (a) Angle Iron Support—Expanded View; (b) Angle Iron

Support—Close-Up View
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 18

Figure 1.10 (a) Metal Wall Support—Telescopic Tower (Expanded View);

(b) Metal Wall Support—Telescopic Tower (Close-Up View)
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 10 of 18

Figure 1.11 (a) Expanded View Guy Wire Harness—Telescopic Tower;

(b) Close-Up View Guy Wire Harness—Telescopic Tower

1.2.4 Lightning Protection and Grounding

When tower setup is complete, ground rods and wires must be installed to protect the tower components 

from damage caused by lightning. The grounding mast mount should be installed on the tower mast above

the wind sensor crossarm. For ground installations, soil composition should be considered to determine 

the most beneficial grounding technique. Additional technical information about lightning grounding 

specifications can be obtained from the Lightning Protection Institute.(www.lightning.org)
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 11 of 18

The typical 10-m tower grounding kit consists of the following parts:

► Ground rod 

► Ground rod clamp

► Point

► Railing point bracket

► Grounding cable—8# copper or 4# aluminum (purchased separately)

► Horizontal support

► Mast mount

Whether the tower is installed at ground level or on a roof, the grounding kit components should be 

installed from the upper part of the tower to base level. The location of the point mast should be taken 

into consideration so as to not interfere with proper installation and alignment of the wind sensor 

crossarm. The grounding cable should be attached to the point base and fastened to the tower every 2 to 

3 feet to one of the pivoting legs of the tower. Isolating the ground cable on one leg of the tower is

advised to reduce the possibility of damage to sensors and signal conditioning equipment in the event of a 

strike. The grounding rod is driven into the ground at the base of the tower, leaving 3 inches of the rod 

above ground to which to fasten the rod clamp and cable. For roof installations, the cable should run 

down the side of the structure from the roof and into the earth’s ground (Figure 1.12). 

Figure 1.12 Lightning Protection Installation
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 12 of 18

1.3 Tower Wiring 

The tower wiring scheme depends to a large extent on the type of tower and instrumentation. Typically, a 

meteorological sensor signal cable runs from the sensor to the base of the tower. Outdoor-grade cable ties 

work well to fasten the signal cables to the tower. Signal cables should be installed, keeping in mind the 

potential disruption of signal cable placement during instrument audits and maintenance. If a tilt-down 

tower is used, the signal cable should be secured to one of the pivoting legs of the tower with sufficient 

slack at the tower base to avoid damaging the cable when the tower is raised or lowered. Some examples 

of signal cable installations provided in Figures 1.13 and 1.14 show signal cables secured at the base of a

tilt-down tower.

Figure 1.13 Signal Cable at Tower Base
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 13 of 18

Figure 1.14 Temperature Cable Installation and 

Expanded/Close-Up Views 

Triangular adjustable (crank-down) towers require that signal cable(s) be fastened to the guide holes at 

the end of each section of the tower to avoid damaging the cable when lowering or raising the tower. 

Figure 1.15 shows the cable guide-hole for an adjustable tower.
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 14 of 18

Figure 1.15 Wiring on a Crank-Down Tower

1.4 Tower Siting 

This section provides guidance on the siting and exposure of meteorological towers and sensors for the in 

situ measurement of primary meteorological variables.

As a general rule, meteorological sensors should be sited at a distance beyond the influence of 

obstructions, such as buildings and trees; this distance depends on both the variable to be measured and 

the type of obstruction. The other general rule is that the measurements should be representative of 

meteorological conditions in the area of interest. Secondary considerations, such as accessibility and 

security, must be taken into account, but should not compromise the quality of the data. In addition to 

routine quality assurance activities, annual site inspections should be made to verify the siting and 

exposure of the sensors. Approval for a particular site selection should be obtained from the permit 

granting agency prior to any site preparation activities or installation of any equipment.11

1.4.1 Representativeness

Site selection for tower placement should address the question, “Is the site (are the data) representative?” 

Representativeness is defined as “the extent to which a set of measurements taken in a space-time domain 

reflects the actual conditions in the same or different space-time domain taken on a scale appropriate for a 

specific application”. In general, the location of the tower should be representative of meteorological 

conditions in the “area of interest”.11

Proper site selection is critical to obtaining representative meteorological data. In order to minimize 

absolute error, site selection is much more important than proper placement of individual pieces of air 

monitoring equipment. Poor placement can cause wind direction errors of up to 180o and can cause major 

errors in any other meteorological variable, including wind speed, temperature, humidity, and solar 

radiation.
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 15 of 18

Proper siting is part of a total quality assurance program. Ideal siting may not always be attainable; in 

fact, in many urban areas where air quality studies are traditionally made, it will be impossible to find a 

site that meets air quality and meteorological siting criteria. It is incumbent upon an agency gathering data 

to carefully describe the meteorological siting deficiencies in a site and, if possible, quantify or at least 

evaluate the probable consequences of the siting deficiencies on the data. Additional information about 

siting of meteorological sensors in urban areas can be obtained from the WMO, Instruments and 

Observing Methods, Report No. 81, “Initial Guidance to Obtain Representative Meteorological 

Observations at Urban Sites”.

12

1.4.2 Meteorological Towers

Meteorological variables are frequently measured at more than one height. Towers are the most 

advantageous platforms for continuous measurement. Height restrictions can be a factor with 60m towers 

in areas close to airports.

Towers should be located in an open, level area (see Table 1-2) representative of the area. In terrain with 

significant topographic features, different levels of the tower may be influenced simultaneously by

different meteorological regimes. These guidelines are based on open-area criteria and, in certain 

situations, meeting these guidelines may be difficult. Such conditions should be documented well.

Table 1-2 Limits on Terrain and Obstacles Near Towers

Distance from Tower (m) Slope Between (%) Maximum Obstruction or 

Vegetation Height (m)

0 – 15 ±2 0.3

15 – 30 ±3 0.5 – 1.0 (most vegetation 

<0.3)

30 – 100 ±7 3.0

100 – 300 ±11 10 x obstruction height (must 

be less than the distance to 

obstruction)

Source: TVA 1977

Tower construction should be open grid, similar to that of most television and radio broadcast towers. 

Enclosed towers, stacks, water storage tanks, grain elevators, cooling towers, and similar structures 

should not be used. Towers must be rugged enough to be climbed safely to install and service the 

instruments. Folding or collapsible towers that enable servicing or calibration of instruments at ground 

level are desirable, but they must be sufficiently rigid to hold the instruments in the proper orientation and 

altitude during all seasonal weather conditions for that location.

Wind instruments should be mounted above the top of the tower or on booms projecting horizontally out 

from the tower. If a boom is used, it should support the sensor at a distance equal to twice the maximum 

diameter (or diagonal) of the tower away from the nearest point on the tower. The boom should project 

into the direction that provides the least distortion of the most important wind direction. In some cases, 

“most important” may involve more than one direction based on site-specific meteorological conditions. 

For example, a boom mounted to the east of a tower will provide the least distortion of northerly or 

southernrly winds. Two sets of instruments at each level may be appropriate, located on opposite sides of 

the tower. A simple automatic switch can facilitate the choice of which set of data to use. Orientation of 

the booms should be included in the tower setup documentation.
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 16 of 18

Temperature sensors

must be mounted on booms to hold them away from the tower, but a boom length equal to the diameter 

of the tower is sufficient. Temperature sensors should have downward-facing aspirated shields., 

preferably over grassy surface The booms must be strong enough so that they will not sway or vibrate 

excessively in strong winds. The best vertical location of temperature sensors on a tower is a point with a 

minimum number of diagonal cross-members and away from major horizontal cross members. Even with 

these precautions, data obtained while the wind blows from the sector transected by the tower may not be 

free from error.

Choosing a good location for tower placement is key to ensuring ease of maintenance. The location 

should permit unobstructed tower raising and lowering and particularly take into account how protruding 

meteorological equipment such as a temperature probe may be affected. The location should also allow 

placement of meteorological equipment at a proper distance from surrounding objects. Triangular towers, 

for example, may only be raised or lowered in one direction; and this limitation must be considered before 

installation. Figure 1.16 shows that maintenance considerations were made when a tower was installed. 

The tower is located so that it can be lowered between the gate opening of a chain-link fence. If the tower 

had been installed in any other direction, the tower would have rested on the fence and a ladder would 

have been required to gain access to the top of the tower. Figure 1.17 illustrates the use of Superstrut® 

metal framing attached to the shelter to support the tower. Using the shelter to support the tower at two 

heights eliminates guy wires.
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 17 of 18

Figure 1.16 Example of a Tower Location
Volume 4, Section 1

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 18 of 18

Figure 1.17 Example of a Tower Attachment
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 27

2. Wind Speed and Direction

2.1 Introduction

Most aspects of the task of monitoring wind at a particular site with an emphasis on quality assurance are 

discussed in this section. This section includes background information describing the nature of wind and 

the kinds of instruments commonly used to measure speed and direction. The important aspects of the 

operation of conventional anemometers and wind vanes are detailed. In addition, a discussion of the 

emerging use of sonic anemometers is included. The background and detailed information provided are 

necessary for two kinds of tasks. The first task is to collect valid data representative of the project 

objectives. The second task is to audit or judge how well the first task was performed within the goals or

regulations requiring the measurements.

Section 2.2 on instruments and specifications stresses the understanding of how common sensors work. 

That understanding is necessary before purchasing, installing and operating instruments. Specifications 

set the performance standards for an instrument or system. This section provides wind instrument 

definitions along with test methods that will enable the user to verify or judge the work of others who 

verify conformance to specifications.

Once the specifications are clearly understood, the process of purchasing and acceptance testing can be 

considered. Quality assurance is a vital aspect of defining the systems or instruments to be purchased and 

verifying their performance. Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) play the principal role in 

determining what system should be purchased. Once the wind system is chosen based on specifications, 

the installation can be planned and implemented. 

Calibration is the foundation of data validity. This important function may be practiced in a number of 

phases of the monitoring program. Documentation of calibration findings and methodology is vital. The 

use of inclusive calibration methods in field conditions is recommended. After a calibrated system has 

been installed, the routine performance of operational checks, preventive and corrective maintenance, and 

quality control operations begin. The documentation of calibration results, procedures, and field 

operations provides the framework to support data validity.

Performance audits document the accuracy and precision of a wind system and confirm that quality 

control procedures have been properly implemented. Comprehensive performance audit methods should 

be used to challenge the wind system. Recommended audit methods are described in detail in this section. 

All the details or background information that might be needed or desired is not included in this section; 

however, references are listed in Section 11. If the reader needs additional information or is curious about

peripheral subjects, the references will provide the answers or a start in search of the answer.

2.2 Types of Instruments and Specifications

Manufacturer’s specifications define performance criteria of wind instruments and systems needed to 

meet project objectives. Procurement specifications ensure that instrumentation will meet data and 

measurement quality objectives. Performance and procurement specifications provide the basis of 

inspection and testing when instrumentation is received at a site. Wind speed and wind direction are 

typically the most important parameters measured, and the specifications of the instrumentation used to 

measure them are the most complicated. 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 27

Project and application requirements vary. To make this handbook as specific as possible, the discussion 

will concentrate on requirements typically encountered for air quality monitoring, consistent with those 

presented in the On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications.11

These specifications in general meet the most demanding goals encountered in air monitoring. 

2.2.1 Cup Anemometer and Vane Systems

The cup anemometer has cups that relate the rate of rotation and the wind speed. The cup anemometer’s 

dynamic performance characteristics (starting threshold and distance constant) are density-dependent, but 

its transfer function (rate of rotation vs. wind speed) is independent of density. The cup is not very 

efficient and creates turbulence as the air flows through and around it. The cup anemometer is omnidirectional in a horizontal flow situation but exhibits a 

complicated reaction to vertical flow situations. It may 

indicate speed slightly greater than the total speed 

when the flow is not horizontal.13. Figure 2.114

illustrates a classic wind cup anemometer and vane 

system. The wind vane is perhaps the simplest of 

instruments. A fin is tied to a vertical shaft so that 

when force is applied to the area by the wind, it will 

turn the shaft, seeking a minimum force position. The 

relationship of the shape, size, and distance from the 

fin’s axis of rotation to the bearing assembly and 

transducer torque recommendations determines the 

starting threshold. These attributes of the fin area, 

along with its counterweight, determine the dynamic 

performance characteristics of overshoot (damping 

ratio) and delay distance (distance constant) of the 

direction vane. 

Vane design is of little importance if average wind direction is the only recommendation. If turbulence 

parameters are of interest, the design of the vane becomes important. The vane transducer is usually a 

potentiometer. It is common that the range of the sensor is 350° rather than the physically true 360°. The 

reason is related to the problem of a continuous range (a circle) with a discontinuous output (0 to n volts). 

Knowing how the transducer works is important if the performance of the wind vane will be challenged 

for QA purposes.

A special direction vane—the bi-vane—has a vertical range of 45 to 60 degrees in addition to the full 

azimuth circle. The additional range brings with it the need to neutralize gravity by having a perfectly 

balanced vane assembly. A bi-vane can be conditionally out of balance, which can happen when dew 

forms and then evaporates from the tail fins. The effect of this imbalance on threshold and performance is 

complicated. Bi-vanes are rarely used in air monitoring applications and will not be discussed further.

Figure 2.1 Cup and Vane System
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 27

2.2.2 Propeller Anemometer and Vane Systems

The propeller anemometer, Figure 2.215, is a more efficient 

shape. The helicoid propeller is so efficient that its transfer 

function can be specified from theory.16 It creates little 

turbulence because the air flows mostly through it. The 

propeller measures wind speed when it is oriented into the 

wind by a vane. Its errors from imperfect alignment with 

some mean vector are small and are nearly proportional to the 

cosine of the angle of misalignment.

Figure 2.2 Propeller Anemometer

2.2.3 Sonic Anemometers

Sonic anemometer systems are based on the principle that wind changes the transit time of a sound pulse 

across a fixed distance. Sonic systems can be designed in two dimensions for horizontal wind speed and 

direction as a replacement for the cup and vane or propeller units, or in three dimensions for both 

horizontal and vertical wind measurements. For those applications where the contribution of small eddies 

is important, sonic systems are an excellent choice. Sonic anemometers are being used in routine air 

monitoring networks; however, because they are based on newer technology, sonic anemometer systems 

are not as widespread as conventional systems. Because the measurements are based on a different 

principle, sonic systems can produce different results, and more comparisons with conventional systems 

are needed to understand these differences. As with any method in a routine air quality monitoring 

network, it is critical to perform an audit of a sonic system. Figures 2.3 and 2.415 show examples of sonic 

anemometer systems. 

Figure 2.3 2-D Sonic Anemometer Figure 2.4 3-D Sonic Anemometer
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 27

2.3 Acceptance Testing

The instrumentation procurement document, purchase order, or contract should be specific in terms of 

required performance specifications. “Required” in this context may only mean that an instrument meets 

the suggested or specified regulatory performance. Beyond the scope of this handbook is whether 

“necessary” relates to the application for which the data will be used.

There are two kinds of performance specifications: those that can be verified by simple inspection testing 

and those that require unusual test equipment and experience. The former should be tested and the latter 

certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer should have either performed tests on one or more 

samples of the model design or arranged for such tests to have been conducted by a calibration facility. In 

either case, a test report should be available for any purpose that requires the documentation. 

Acceptance testing procedures for checking sensor threshold, accuracy, distance constant, and overshoot 

are detailed in the 1995 version of the quality assurance handbook (Volume IV, Section 4.2.32

). Methods 

for performing acceptance testing are in many ways similar or even identical to those for calibrating the 

sensors. Thus, the following discussions on acceptance testing only summarize the methods. The section 

on calibration offers a more detailed discussion of the methods.

2.3.1 Wind Speed

2.3.1.1 Threshold

The key measurement for threshold is starting torque. Starting torque requires knowledge of the K value 

(cup or propeller aerodynamic shape constant), which should be available from the manufacturer.

2.3.1.2 Accuracy

The acceptance test for accuracy is the conversion of rate of rotation to output in units of wind speed. The 

transfer function, supplied by the manufacturer, should be in terms of revolutions per minute (rpm) versus

wind speed (m/s). The accuracy can be checked by turning the anemometer shaft at a few known rates of 

rotation to see if the system output compared to the predicted output is within the tolerance specification.

2.3.1.3 Distance Constant

The distance constant determination requires a special wind tunnel test and is beyond normal receiving 

inspection capability. This information should be provided by your manufacturer. 

2.3.2 Wind Direction

2.3.2.1 Threshold

The threshold acceptance test is a starting torque measurement. To relate the torque measured to wind 

speed and offset angle, a K value is required, either from the manufacturer or from an independent test. 

The torque measurement may be made with the vane assembly removed or with the vane assembly in 

place. If the latter is chosen, verticality is essential to negate any out-of-balance in the vane assembly 

from biasing the test. Also, there must be no air motion. Very small air motions will bias the test. A 

smoke puff should be used to ensure that the air is still and the inspector should refrain from breathing in 

the direction of the vane surface.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 27

2.3.2.2 Accuracy

The acceptance inspection is the best time to establish true non-linearity. The test using some circledividing fixture capable of fine resolution of one degree should be utilized to provide a record that can be 

referenced in future field spot-checks. Without such a test, it is difficult to prove wind direction sensor 

accuracy within three degrees 

The acceptance inspection cannot include orientation error with respect to the sensor siting to true north. 

There may be orientation fixtures, however, that assume that an optical centerline is parallel to the line set 

by an orientation pin. Field orientation may be based on the orientation of a crossarm with the assumption 

that the output angle when the vane is parallel to the crossarm is known. This assumption can be tested or 

the alignment fixture set in laboratory conditions to the desired output.

2.3.2.3 Delay Distance and Overshoot

These dynamic characteristics require a special wind tunnel test and their determination is beyond normal

acceptance inspection capability.

2.3.3 Measurement System

All the elements of a system of signal conditioners, recorders, and monitors will require checking for 

correct function. The receiving inspection should include testing these various sub-systems.

After the calibration inputs have been adjusted and the “output” has shown the system to be in calibration, 

a parallel analog recorder may show incorrect values. This event could be caused by an incorrect 

adjustment in the interface that drives the analog recorders from the output. 

2.4 Installation, Instrument Exposure, and Wiring

“The standard exposure of wind instruments over level, open terrain is 10 m above the ground”17; 

however optimum measurement height may vary according to data needs. Open terrain is defined as an 

area where the horizontal distance between the instrument and any obstruction is at least 10 times the 

height of that obstruction. An obstruction may be man-made (e.g., a building) or natural (a tree) 

(Figure 2.5). A wind instrument should be securely mounted on a mast that will not twist, rotate, or sway. 

If a wind instrument must be mounted on the roof of a building, it should be mounted high enough to be 

out of the wake of an obstruction. Roof mounting is not a good practice and should only be resorted to 

when absolutely necessary. Sensor height and its height above the obstructions, as well as the character of 

nearby obstructions, should be documented.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 27

Figure 2.5 Siting Wind Instruments—a 10-m Tower Located at Least 10 Times the Height of

Obstructions Away From Those Obstructions (Not to Scale).18

2.5 Calibration and Alignment 

Calibration qualifies as both a measurement and an adjustment, if necessary, of the performance of the 

wind system and its components. Manufacturers usually include in their manuals the details of all 

available calibration or adjustment points. The important consideration is how the system works as a 

whole. Since only parts of a system are adjustable, the relationship of these adjustments to the whole 

system must be known. This section focuses on documenting calibrations and methods to verify system 

response to subcomponent adjustments. 

Go to the following web links to view videos describing the procedures for calibrating a cup anemometer 

and vane system, and a propeller anemometer and vane system:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/cup-and-vane.wmv

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/aerovane.wmv

2.5.1 Wind Speed Calibration

Wind speed sensor bearings deteriorate, and that deterioration influences the performance of the sensors. 

While bearing deterioration can typically be identified by “feel”, true torque measurements for data 

validity are nevertheless required.

Calibration that challenges the entire system, except for the coupling or sensor reaction to wind, compares 

the rate of rotation of the anemometer shaft to output speed. The rate of rotation is generated by a 

synchronous or a direct current (DC) motor. The average rate of rotation of the motor must be known to 

convert the rotation rate to wind speed equivalency. The averaging period of the wind system must be 

known to challenge the system with a known wind speed equivalency within the averaging time period. It 

is recommended that the calibration be performed with the sensor installed on the tower. 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 27

Accuracy determination depends on both the method used in the challenge and the accuracy of the 

measurement of the input. Figure 2-6 illustrates one 

method of determining the accuracy of the propeller 

systems. The first step in calibrating a wind cup or 

propeller anemometer is to remove the vane or cup. 

All vane or cup anemometers will have a starting 

threshold value, which is generally very low, usually 

around 0.2 to 1.0 m/s. When the vane or cup is 

removed, the value should be recorded from the DAS. 

This recording should be checked against vendor 

specifications for starting threshold. A synchronous or 

DC battery-operated motor/controller should be 

attached to the propeller shaft. The motor in the 

illustration is attached to the propeller shaft by stiff 

tubing or a vendor-provided coupling. Once the motor 

is attached to the propeller shaft, the motor is turned 

on and allowed to spin the shaft. Care should be taken 

at this step so that the propeller shaft turns at exactly 

the same speed as the motor. Any drag will produce 

erroneous readings. Once the motor and controller 

shows the shaft is spinning at the correct speed, the 

DAS should be read and compared against the 

vendor-specified rpm versus rotation table. Next, the 

speed of the motor needs to be adjusted. The sensor 

needs time to adjust to the next calibration point before 

recording this value. After the wind speed sensor has been challenged at four to five speeds, the response 

of the sensor should be compared to the vendor-specified results at that speed. The responses should be 

within the MQOs that are detailed in Tables 0-1 through 0-9 in Section 0.2 .is manual. 

2.5.1.1 Wind Speed Sensor Threshold Testing 

Sensor starting threshold is a shaft bearing efficiency measurement only. If the wind speed sensor 

threshold value is above the vendor-recommended value, the instrument must be disassembled and the 

shaft bearings replaced. Starting thresholds are measured with a torque watch or a torque disk, with a 

range of 0.01 to 5.0 gram-centimeter (gm-cm). Figure 2.7 illustrates a torque disk for determining the 

starting threshold. A torque disk is a simple device that uses gravity to exert torque on the wind speed 

sensor. The torque disk has a center hole with threaded holes that radiate out from the center. The center 

hole is used to attach the torque disk to the propeller or cup anemometer shaft. The holes that radiate out 

from the center are utilized to attach screws of varying weights. First, the sensor is removed from the 

tower and brought inside a shelter where there are no wind influences. The sensor is placed on a level 

surface. Figure 2.8 shows the torque disk attached to the propeller shaft.

Figure 2.6 DC Motor Calibration.

Source: <http://www.youngusa.com>
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 27

Figure 2.7 Torque Disk Figure 2.8 Torque Disk in Testing Position

The following steps constitute the procedure to test the starting threshold of a propeller-type wind speed 

sensor:

► Place a 1-gm-cm screw in the first hole from the center on the torque disk.

► Orient the torque disk so that the screw is in a horizontal position.

► Release the torque disk and observe the response of the propeller shaft.

► If the screw moves from horizontal, the starting threshold is less than 1 gm-cm.

► If the screw does not move from horizontal, the starting threshold is greater than 1 gm-cm. The 

weight is either moved to a hole outward from the center to increase the torque or another weight 

is added.

► The procedure is repeated until the torque disk moves from horizontal determining the torque in 

gm-cm.

The torque formula is converted to provide the starting threshold speed by the following relationship:

u = (T / K)1⁄2 (2-1)

Where: u = starting threshold

T = torque (gm-cm)

K = aerodynamic constant

Starting threshold speed is calculated by using the following equation:

T = Ku2 (2-2)

Where: T = torque (gm-cm)

u2 = the square of the wind speed

K = the aerodynamic constant supplied by the manufacturer documentation

The wind speed starting threshold should be less than or equal to the manufacturer’s specifications for 

starting threshold.

The Waters torque watch is often used, Figure 2-9. The torque measurement requires some degree of care 

and skill. The torque watch has a square shaft which fits into a square hole in the connecting fixture. The 

torque watch is turned while holding its shaft in line with the anemometer shaft, without end loads. The 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 27

indicator is watched; when the anemometer shaft turns, the maximum reading is recorded. This process 

needs to include at least one full turn of the anemometer to be sure the maximum friction in the bearing 

assembly is encountered. The torque watch can measure in either clockwise or counterclockwise rotation 

of the anemometer shaft.

Figure 2-9 Waters Torque Watches: Low-Range 366, Medium Range 651, High Range 940.19

2.5.2 Wind Direction

2.5.2.1 Orientation

The largest source of error in a wind direction measurement is the wind vane orientation to true north. 

Orientation error is a fixed bias that can be removed from a data set. The method of wind vane orientation 

must be capable of 1o accuracy with 2o as the upper limit of the error. Two steps are necessary to achieve 

wind vane orientation:

► true north location must be determined accurate to <1 degree, and

► wind vane “reference position” must be fixed to true north accurate to <2 degrees.

2.5.2.2 Magnetic Declination Methods

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the deviation of magnetic north from true north on its 

topographic maps. Because the earth’s magnetic field is constantly changing, the magnetic deviation, or 

declination, is periodically updated when maps are revised, and the year of the applicable declination is 

shown on each map. Several maps from the USGS site illustrate the magnetic declination lines throughout 

the United States and North America. 

Figure 2.10 illustrates the magnetic declination lines for North America in 2000. Real-time magnetic 

declination can be obtained using the National Geomagnetism Program from the USGS web site

(http://geomag.usgs.gov/models). The National Geographic Data Center web site

(http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/magfield.shtml) allows the user to enter the longitude and 

latitude of a location to determine the actual declination.

The degree of magnetic declination is used to correct a magnetic compass reading to obtain true north. 

The magnetic compass reading is subject to errors due to aberrations in the local magnetic field. These 

aberrations could be due to soil types (high ferrous content) or ferrous metal debris buried underground. 

Given the correct magnetic declination and the absence of magnetic aberrations, compass readings are 

often incorrectly adjusted. Figure 2.10 shows that the line of zero declination runs from magnetic north 

through Lake Superior and across the western panhandle of Florida. Declination can be east, west, or 0o, 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 10 of 27

from your current position. At 0o declination, true north and magnetic north are aligned. For example, if 

magnetic declination at your position is 15oeast, then magnetic north is 15oeast of true, geographic north. 

Figure 2-11 shows true geographic north and magnetic north. To adjust for east declination, rotate 

graduated circle clockwise from the zero pin on your compass (Figure 2-12a). For west declination, rotate 

graduated circle counter-clockwise from the zero pin (Figure 2-12b). Magnetic declination of 0o, no 

adjustment is necessary (Figure 2-12c). 

Figure 2.10 Magnetic Declinations for the United States (source: 

<http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/topomaps/mag_dec.htm>

Figure 2.11 True Geographic 

North and Magnetic North

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.12 Adjusting for (a) East and (b) West Declinations; (c) No Adjustment for Magnetic 

Declination of 0°

2.5.2.3 Solar Methods 

Various solar methods to determine true north are an alternative to using magnetic declination 

corrections. Solar methods require determination of the exact location of the site and an accurate measure 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 11 of 27

of the true time and date. The precise location is used to calculate solar angles or to determine the time of 

solar noon (the time the sun crosses the north/south axis at the location of the tower). A hand-held Global 

Positioning Systems (GPS) unit should be used to determine the site location with accuracy sufficient to 

calculate solar angles.

The True Solar Noon (TSN) method uses solar noon time and a theodolite to establish the 180 degree 

direction from true north. The TSN method produces a 0 degree direction at some latitudes and times of 

the year. The theodolite base is locked at the true direction the instant the sun is in the cross hair of the 

theodolite and the time of TSN is reached. This direction provides a reference to true north by which a 

sensor may be aligned. An alternative method is to mark the end of a shadow that is cast by a vertical 

tower or pole at the exact time of solar noon. 

To simplify the solar method and remove the restriction of having to be at the site at the time of TSN, the 

azimuth angle of the sun can be calculated at the time the alignment is performed. A BASIC program 

developed by Blackadar,20 called ALMANAC, provided the ability to calculate the azimuth and elevation 

angles to the sun, moon, and other celestial objects when the latitude, longitude, year, month, and exact 

time of day are known. For the 1995 revision to the EPA quality assurance guidance,21 Lockhart extracted 

the subroutines from the Blackadar program that calculated the sun’s azimuth, elevation, and solar noon 

values based on the required inputs. The information from this revised program could then be compared 

to the magnetic azimuth measurements of the sun to calculate the local magnetic deviation at the point of 

measurement. Presently, a number of comparable programs can be found on the Internet. The U.S. Navy 

Observatory web site (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.html) offers a particularly easy program. 

This web site requests the date, location, and state in order to calculate the solar noon angles in ten-minute 

increments. 

The calculation methodology requires the following equipment:

► Transit- or tripod-mounted compass, accurate to at least 1 degree. The 1-degree accuracy meets 

the EPA wind system alignment of 5 degrees 

► Site location in latitude and longitude recorded from a hand-held GPS. An accuracy of about one 

minute is sufficient as long as the readings are not taken at the time of solar noon with high sun 

elevation angles.

► Accurate time standard, correct to the nearest 5 seconds (the handheld GPS provides such a time 

standard). At the time of solar noon, with high solar angles, the sun’s azimuth angle may change 

rapidly. For example, at an 88-degree elevation angle, the azimuth angle will change 7 degrees 

per minute of time when low solar angles and times well away from solar noon, the azimuth 

angle change is slower therefore, time accuracy is not as critical.

► A program to calculate the sun's azimuth direction at the time of measurement. 

The following step-by-step procedure describes the measurement of the alignment of a sensor relative to 

true north.

STEP 1 – MEASURE THE RELATIVE POINTING DIRECTION

Position a compass or transit to align the cross-hairs through the crossarm or alignment rod of the wind 

direction sensor. Note the indicated direction of the transit when it is aimed through the crossarm. 

Independently aligning the transit or compass to a known direction is not important because the crossarm 

and sun measurements are relative to each other. The measurement is the pointing angle of the alignment 

crossarm. This angle is called Apointing. Figure 2.13 illustrates a side view of the field setup. 

Figure 2.14shows the measurement using a magnetic pocket transit that allows the body to be rotated 

while the needle continuously points to magnetic north.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 12 of 27

Figure 2.13 Side View of the Placement of a Compass or Transit for

Measuring the Crossarm Direction

Figure 2.14 Top View Illustrating the Measurement of the Relative

Direction of the Crossarm

STEP 2 – MEASURE THE SUN'S RELATIVE AZIMUTH ANGLE

Without physically changing the ground location of the transit or compass, rotate the head to obtain a 

direct measure of the sun’s azimuth angle, as shown in Figure 2.15. Do not look directly into the sun; eye 

damage may result without suitable protection. If a “pocket transit” such as one made by Brunton is used, 

the mirror can be set to project the sun and the sighting points and lines on a white piece of paper or other 

flat object. Figure 2.16 shows the use of the Brunton transit to perform the projection. When the solar 

azimuth angle is identified, the exact time of the measurement is noted. This time is used to calculate the

actual azimuth angle to the sun. The measured angle is called Suncorrected.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 13 of 27

Figure 2.15 Measurement of the Relative Direction of the Sun

Figure 2.16 Projection of Sun’s Reflection Using a Brunton Pocket Transit

STEP 3 – CALCULATE THE SUN'S ACTUAL AZIMUTH ANGLE

Using the U.S. Navy Observatory web site22 calculator, calculate the true azimuth angle of the sun at the 

exact date, time, and location that the reading of sun’s azimuth angle was measured (Suncorrected). This 

angle is called Strue. 

STEP 4 – CALCULATE THE LOCAL DEVIATION

Calculate the local deviation by subtracting the uncorrected sun angle (Suncorrected) from the true sun angle 

(Strue). This difference is the local deviation (Dlocal.) (Equation 2-3):

Dlocal = Strue - Suncorrected (2-3)
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 14 of 27

STEP 5 – CALCULATE THE CROSSARM TRUE ALIGNMENT

Calculate the true pointing direction (Atrue) of the sensor crossarm or alignment rod using the uncorrected 

pointing angle (Apointing) and the calculated local deviation (Dlocal) (Equation 2-4):

Atrue = Apointing + Dlocal (2-4)

The calculated pointing direction is now referenced to true north based on the known azimuth angle of the 

sun.

STEP 6 – ALIGN THE WIND DIRECTION SENSOR

The wind direction vane is positioned parallel with the crossarm referenced to Atrue. The wind sensor 

housing is adjusted until the DAS wind direction reading equals Atrue. The wind sensor housing is locked 

into position to maintain alignment to true north.

2.5.2.4 Global Positioning System (GPS) Alignment Method

In May 2000, the Department of Defense removed the Selective Availability (SA) encoding on the GPS 

satellite constellation which increased the position accuracy of 12-channel GPS within 5 m to 10 m. This 

degree of accuracy of a GPS is capable of measuring the direction of travel, or bearing, over short 

distances.

The following steps describe the verification procedure of wind sensor alignment using a GPS:

► Establish a reference point 20 m to 30 m from the crossarm in line with the direction of the 

crossarm.

► At the crossarm reference point, turn on the GPS and allow the GPS to obtain a reference 

waypoint.

► Walk from the reference point to the ground location directly under the crossarm.

► The GPS display provides a bearing or direction of travel directly related to the crossarm 

direction.

► The procedure is repeated several times in directions toward and away from the crossarm ground 

location to assure the GPS bearings are consistently 180 degrees from each other. 

The accuracy of this method is about ±1 degree; therefore, the simple solar method could be replaced with 

an even simpler “walking” method.

2.5.2.5 System Accuracy

The system calibration of a wind vane can be checked on the tower by aiming the vane to and from 

known directions, such as a distant mountain peak or similar feature. If checks are made with respect to a 

mounted component, such as a crossarm, the orientation of the crossarm also needs to be checked. A 

single distant feature should be an orientation target that has a known bearing with respect to true north. 

Other targets can be secondary checks that challenge both the orientation and the performance of the wind 

direction transducer. For estimates using the 540 format, the targets should be reached after a clockwise 

revolution and then again after a counter-clockwise revolution to challenge both parts of the transducer.

Before the wind direction transducer is removed from the tower, documentation of the as-found reading 

with the vane aligned with the orientation target is essential. This single check provides the basis for data 

validity for the period beginning with the previous calibration record and ending with the as-found 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 15 of 27

reading. Wind data validity is based on a data set bracketed between two valid calibration checks. The 

first calibration check is termed “as left” and the second calibration check is termed “as found”. If the 

sensor has not been removed from the tower or the orientation adjusted, the “as-left” and “as-found” 

readings should be the same within ±2 degrees. If the accuracy of the two checks is not within 2 degrees, 

data quality is suspect, and further investigation is required to determine the cause and timing of the 

discrepancy. When the sensor is removed for calibration, replacement in a keyed fixture will cause the 

“as-left” value to be the same as the “as found”. If there is no keyed fixture, the full orientation procedure 

will be required to ensure the alignment of the crossarm and wind direction sensor.

A simple orientation procedure requires using a hose clamp to prevent the vane from turning. Tape that 

does not stretch is marginally useful. Stretchy tape like duct tape or electrician’s tape will only work on a 

calm day. The vane should be set so that the output is the correct value for the orientation target. If the 

angle of the orientation target is coincident with an error relative to the average error of 0 degrees, the 

output should reflect this error. For example, if an error of 2 degrees is noted at the orientation angle, the 

system reading should be 2 degrees higher than the bearing of the orientation target. Only in this way will 

the relative error of the sensor be distributed equally for true directions. The clamp should be tightened so 

the output is both correct and constant. The clamped sensor should be mounted on the tower and turned 

until the vane points at the orientation target. The vane should be clamped in place. The output should be 

verified that it is still correct before the vane clamp is removed.

2.5.2.6 Component Accuracy

The same comments about calibration circuits, parallel recorders, and panel meters that apply to wind 

direction also apply to wind speed, as mentioned in Section 2.5.1 above. With the sensor next to the 

signal conditioner (attached with either the operating cable or a suitable substitute) and with a fixture that 

holds known relative directions, the signal conditioner can be adjusted if required. The 540 offset voltage, 

if one is used, can be tested and adjusted. The output voltage versus position can be set. The open space in 

the potentiometer, if one is used, can be measured and adjusted for the open spot in the potentiometer.

A single potentiometer has an electrical range of 355 degrees with a mechanical range of 360 degrees. 

The transfer function of relative direction to voltage output is shown in Equation 2-5.

ө = 360 x V (2-5)

where: ө = angle (degrees)

V = output voltage (0 – 1 V scale)

The maximum “full scale” voltage output, set by shorting the potentiometer wiper to the high side of the 

potentiometer, is 1.000V (a small error will have been set into the system). The error will be +1.4 percent 

of the voltage reading; therefore, the potentiometer electrical range of 355 degrees results in a 360 degree 

DAS response. An electrical range of 180 degrees results in a 182.5 degree DAS response. The 

adjustment error added to the potentiometer linearity error is not acceptable. If the signal conditioner is 

set to a voltage output of 0.986V when the vane is set to 355 degrees, the DAS response with be 355 

degrees (360 x 0.986). At 180 degrees, the DAS response is 180 degrees (assuming no linearity error). All 

the error between 355 degrees and 360 degrees is in the 5 degree sector.2

The starting threshold of the wind vane is important to record accurate directions at low wind speed. The 

design of the vane along with the offset angle (or error tolerance, typically 10 degrees) provides a K 

value. The K value along with the starting torque of the vane assembly provides a threshold wind speed 

using the following equation: 

Starting Threshold = (t / K) 0.5 (2-6)
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 16 of 27

where the starting threshold is in m/s, and the torque (t) is gm-cm.

2.6 Operation and Maintenance

2.6.1 Operations

The important aspects of operations, from the standpoint of quality assurance, are planning and 

documentation. The purpose of operations is to acquire valid data. For wind measurements, acquisition of 

valid data requires frequent (weekly, if possible) visual examination of the sensors. This examination is 

not “hands-on”; it is simply a visual inspection of the active shapes, cups, propellers, and vanes to ensure 

no physical damage has occurred. Sensitive wind instruments can be damaged by hail and by birds. The 

nature of an analog recording or plot of collected data, if used routinely, will tell how the sensor is 

performing. Routine entries in the station log will provide the evidence of attention to support validity 

claims.

Calibrations are a part of operations. A member of the operating organization needs to become the 

“expert” on how the measurement system works and what it needs to continue “in control” performance. 

Regularly scheduled calibrations build the expertise and the documentation showing measurement 

accuracy. For a new installation, a calibration during the installation is necessary. A careful look at the 

first week of operation will reveal early failures. If no problems surface, a full calibration at the end of the 

first quarter is advisable. For some site environments and some applications, quarterly calibrations are 

recommended. Semi-annual calibration is the minimum frequency. If problems are found, they must be 

documented and corrected as quickly as possible. The PSD requirement for data collection is 90 percent, 

this does not permit much down time. The frequency of calibrations or calibration checks is ultimately 

determined by the performance of the instrument system. If problems occur, more frequent calibrations 

may be necessary.

2.6.2 Maintenance

2.6.2.1 Routine and Preventive Maintenance

The only routine maintenance required for a wind system should occur during routine calibrations. 

Sensors exposed to the elements need the application of cleaning and protective lubricants to their 

mounting hardware. When a sensor needs to be removed for close inspection or calibration and it cannot 

easily be removed because set screws or nuts are locked to their threads by corrosion, a failure in routine 

maintenance is probably the reason.

Preventive maintenance must at minimum follow the manufacturer’s recommendations. Considerable 

damage can result by ignoring this guidance. Sensitive wind sensors require specific care if the threshold 

is to be maintained.

2.6.2.2 Corrective Maintenance

When a part fails or wears out, a new part usually must come from the manufacturer. The replacement 

may take a week or two depending on the part and the manufacturer. It is therefore prudent to have spare 

parts available to cover predictable failures. A component plug-in philosophy is the quickest way to 

correct failures. If a bearing or a potentiometer fails in a sensor, a new calibrated sensor is simply plugged 

in while the failed one is repaired. 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 17 of 27

The next level of spare-part strategy is the sub-component level. Critical and difficult-to-purchase parts 

should be stocked and used to repair sensors or circuit cards. Conventional sensor parts, typically bearings 

and direction potentiometers, will always need repair at some point. 

2.7 Auditing 

2.7.1 General Considerations

A performance audit is the determination of instrument system accuracy made with an independently 

selected method and by a person who is independent of the operating organization. To make this 

determination for wind measurements, knowledge of the input conditions imposed on the sensors is 

required. With knowledge of these input conditions, the transfer functions, and the system’s data handling 

method, the output can be predicted. The difference between the predicted output and the system output is 

the error of the system or its accuracy.

The methodology starts with ways of controlling and/or measuring input conditions. When controlled 

inputs are used—as should always be the case for starting thresholds, anemometer rate of rotation versus 

output, and relative vane position versus output—the accuracy of the output is easily determined. The 

accuracy of the anemometer transfer function is not a part of this determination. When the input 

conditions are not controlled, as with the collocated transfer standard (CTS) method, the accuracy 

determination has a larger uncertainty. The CTS method, however, challenges the anemometer transfer 

function. The best performance audit uses both methods when appropriate.

2.7.2 Wind Speed (Propeller or Cup Anemometer)

2.7.2.1 Sensor Control

Cup Anemometer 

This method compares the transfer function used with the system to the system’s output. The anemometer 

shaft is turned at a known rate of rotation and the output is observed. The means of turning the shaft and 

metering the rate of rotation are provided by the auditor and are completely independent of the operating 

system. This method does not challenge the transfer function. 

The torque measurement may be used as an indication of the bearing condition and, hence, the starting 

threshold of the anemometer. The time constant is of use if turbulence is measured.

The following procedure is used.

1. Remove the cup assembly.

2. Mount a coupler to the anemometer shaft. A one-eighth inch shaft is required. If the anemometer 

does not use that size or it is not accessible, an interface fitting is required.

3. Clamp the drive motor to the support column of the shaft so that the coupler is engaged with the 

drive wheel. Determine if the cup assembly turns the shaft in a clockwise or counter-clockwise 

direction, when viewed from above. 

4. Operate the drive motor from the transfer function at two speeds within the desired revolutions 

per minute (rpm). Use a time period synchronous with the system output. An average of one 

minute or longer is suggested. 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 18 of 27

This method requires that the system be operating with all cables in place. An rps of zero must be 

measured (or observed) with the anemometer in place, the cup assembly removed, and the shaft taped to 

ensure non-rotation. 

Fixed Axis Propeller

Similar to the cup anemometer method, the fixed axis propeller method compares the transfer function 

used with the system to the system’s output. A separate form is provided for the vertical component (W) 

because a different transfer function is often used for this direction than is used for wind speed (U) and 

output voltage (V). This method causes the propeller shaft to turn at a known rps while the output is 

observed. The means of turning the shaft and measuring the rate of rotation are provided by the auditor 

and are completely independent of the operating system. The method does not challenge the transfer 

function. The designation of clockwise and counter–clockwise is determined by the system being 

challenged. Differences are calculated by subtracting the audit challenge value from the system output. 

Arithmetic convention is followed, even though the minus sign is used as an indicator of direction. 

The torque measurement may be used as an indication of the bearing condition and, hence, the starting 

threshold of the propeller. The time constant is of use if turbulence is measured.

The following procedure is used.

1. Remove the propeller.

2. Mount a coupler to the propeller shaft. A one-eighth inch shaft is required. If the propeller does 

not use that size or it is not accessible, an interface fitting is required. 

3. Clamp the drive motor to the support column of the shaft so that the coupler is engaged with the 

drive wheel. 

4. Operate the drive motor in both a clockwise and counter-clockwise direction, when viewed from 

in front of the propeller.

5. Operate the drive motor at two speeds (find the desired rpm from the transfer function) that are 

important to the application of the wind speed data. Use a time period synchronous with the 

system output. An average of one minute or longer is required. 

This method requires that the system be operating with all cables in place. An rpm of zero must be 

measured (or observed) with the propeller shaft in place, the propeller removed, and the shaft taped to 

ensure non-rotation. Additional observations may be a motor-driven measured rate of rotation at 5 m/s or 

less to verify accuracy within 0.25 m/s and at least one rate of rotation greater than 5 m/s to verify 

accuracy of 5% or <2.5 m/s for the operating period of the system to ensure that the signal reaches the 

signal conditioners when the system is in the operating position.

2.7.2.2 Collocated Transfer System Method

The CTS method for comparing wind speed involves mounting a carefully calibrated anemometer in the 

vicinity of the subject anemometer being audited. The CTS should have NIST-traceable certificates. If the 

ASTM International method 10 for comparability is being used, the CTS needs to be within 10 m of the

subject anemometer in the horizontal and the lesser of 1 m or H/10, where H is the height above the 

ground in meters. It is important to site the CTS to be representative of the flow at the subject 

anemometer. Mutual interference should be minimized through siting and through editing out data where 

the direction shows the wind-passing through one to reach the other. The accuracy potential of the CTS 

method is based on data taken in 1982 at the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO) and published by 

Finkelstein et al.2 and Lockhart.23
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 19 of 27

The result of the CTS audit is the difference in speed calculated by subtracting the CTS speed from the 

subject speed. This method requires a sufficient number of simultaneous and independent differences. A 

detailed discussion of the required sample number size is provided in ASTM International.24 The

optimum duration of a CTS audit is 24 hours (one diurnal cycle). 

The CTS method provides a measure of accuracy that can be related to wind tunnel tests. Some field audit 

devices that claim this capability must be used with caution;25 however, the CTS method does not provide 

a measure of starting threshold. It is possible to get threshold data from a CTS audit if the CTS have a low 

threshold of 0.5 m/s, and if samples from the CTS sensors are found with periods in the 0.6 m/s to 1.6 m/s 

range.

2.7.3 Wind Direction (Vane)

2.7.3.1 Sensor Control 

The performance audit of a wind direction vane begins by determining the “as-found” orientation value. 

1. Align the vane with the distant orientation target.

2. Use field glasses or a theodolite to confirm the alignment of the vane with the orientation target. 

3. Hold or clamp the vane until a constant output exists for a few minutes. 

4. Record this value.

A wind vane’s controlled condition is its position relative to the sensor housing. Several ways exist to 

impose a series of known relative positions on the vane-sensor combination, however, their accuracy 

varies. It is critical to know the time constant of the direction circuit before starting the performance audit. 

Set the vane to a known direction, simulate a wind from 90 degrees, and hold the vane until the 90-degree 

(or voltage equivalent) output is steady. Then, move the vane quickly (< 1 s) to 270 degrees and measure 

the time constant of the system. Assume that a time constant of 3 s is measured. Table 2-1 shows the 

change in output angle and voltage (assuming a 540-degree format and 5V output) as a function of time.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 20 of 27

Table 2-1 Time Constant Effects

Time 

Constant 

(no.)

Time 

Angle 

(sec.)

Vane 

Angle 

(deg.)

Output

Angle 

(deg.)

Error 

(deg.)

(540@5) 

(volts)

Change 

(%)

0 0 090 090 0 0.833 0.0

0.2 0.5 270 106 164 0.981 9.0

1 3 270 204 66 1.889 63.2

2.3 6.9 270 252 18 2.333 90.0

3 9 270 261 9 2.417 95.0

4.6 13.8 270 268 2 2.483 99.0

6.9 20.7 270 270 0 2.498 99.9

Notice that in this example, a 150-degree shift requires waiting 20 seconds for the reading to be 

representative of the new position. If a 90-degree shift is used, then 14 seconds will provide an output 

within 1 degree of the final value. If time constants are greater than the known constant of the direction 

circuit, the operator should contact the manufacturer to discuss options to modify the circuit to a 

measuring time suitable for 60 Hertz noise filtering.

The least accurate method for challenging the relative position accuracy of a wind vane is to point the 

vane in various directions while it is still mounted on the tower. This can provide positions related to 

external objects rather than constant angle changes. It is estimated that the accuracy of this method is two 

to five degrees, with the exception of a parallel alignment. The tail vane can be located parallel to a 

crossarm to within one degree and held parallel on a calm day.

Another recommended method is to have the operating sensor be placed in an environmentally controlled 

room at the center of a template with radial lines every 60 degrees. With the 

sensor oriented to the template, the vane is moved and clamped when it is 

parallel to the radial line. Care should be taken to avoid parallax errors (i.e., 

non-parallel or non-perpendicular observations). The relative accuracy of this 

method is on the order of 1 degree.

A third method for challenging the relative position accuracy of a wind vane 

replaces the vane with a fixture capable of holding the shaft in position with 

respect to the sensor housing. Fixtures of this type can provide repeatable 

position accuracy within 0.1 degree. A different application of this precise 

method uses a theodolite base as the mount for the sensor. With the vane or 

vane restitute held in one position, the base is rotated in very accurate steps. 

Theodolite worm gear assemblies divide a circle in whole degrees and have 

vernier adjustments with 0.1 degree index marks far enough apart to allow 

easy interpolation to zero degrees.

Figure 2.1714 shows a linearity test fixture that accomplished the audit 

procedures described above with a repeatable position accuracy of one degree.

The audit report form2 should contain the transfer function used to convert 

output voltage to azimuth degrees. This may include a 540-degree format 

where azimuth values greater than 360 degrees are reduced by subtracting 360. 

The report form should also contain the challenge regression used by the 

selected wind vane audit method.

Figure 2.17 Linearity 

Test Fixture
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 21 of 27

The bearing to the orientation target should be independently challenged with a method capable of betterthan-compass accuracy. A theodolite is ideal for finding the bearing to other distant objects.

The last activity of the sensor control audit is to repeat the orientation test described above for the asfound value. The as-left value will represent any changes the operator may have made and the new 

orientation if the sensor was not keyed for orientation.

2.7.3.2 CTS Method

There is no technical need for a CTS audit of wind direction. No new information is added by this method 

to that gained in the sensor control method.2

2.7.4 Sonic Anemometers

2.7.4.1 Sensor Control

Using a sensor control method to audit sonic anemometers in the field achieves little. To verify a response 

of zero, the few control options available include placing a box over the anemometer or in some other 

way keeping the sensors from observing any air movement.

2.7.4.2 CTS Method 

For audits of sonic anemometer systems, some discussion is provided here, but field implementation of 

these techniques is very limited. Additionally, there are standards for testing and evaluation of the 

performance of sonic systems,26 but the methods described would not be practical for field 

implementation. However, these methods have been adapted for field audits and implemented in a routine 

air quality monitoring network in a cost-effective and timely manner.27 The focus of these demonstration 

audits was on the variables of wind speed and wind direction from the sonic anemometer; however, other 

variables (temperature, relative humidity, pressure, solar radiation, and UV radiation) were handled as 

well.

For the CTS demonstration audit, the objective is to directly compare a collocated mechanical sensor 

(such as a cup/vane or aerovane anemometer) with a sonic sensor system and evaluate the results against 

standard criteria. The following section discusses field tests performed by Baxter et al.27

To allow rapid deployment and retrieval of the audit package in the field, the sensor wiring of a data 

logger is converted from the screw type panel mount to a standard 25-pin connector used for computers. 

The required channels on the data logger were assigned specific pins in the connecting cable and a sevenconnector junction box was used as the main connector interface for multiple sensors. All numbered pins 

in the junction box were wired in parallel, which allowed a sensor to be plugged into any of the seven 

connectors and be operational. The assignments of power, ground, excitation, and signal lines were 

performed in the wiring of the pins in the cable for the individual sensors. The length of the main cable 

connection between the data logger and the interface was kept short to minimize electrical noise and

ground loop problems associated with the distances from common ground connections. 

Prior to the start of the demonstration audit program, the mechanical audit wind system was collocated 

with an RM Young Model 81000 sonic anemometer. Data were collected over a 72-hr period and 5-min 

horizontal scalar and vector averages of wind speed and wind direction were compared. The sensors were 

approximately 4 meters above roof height and 1 meter apart, making the sampling height less than ideal. 

Figure 2.18 shows the sensor mounting. Scatter plots for the scalar wind speed and unit vector wind 

direction data sets for wind speeds greater than 1.0 ms-1

, as measured on the mechanical sensor, are 

shown in Figures 2.19 and 2.20, respectively. The wind speed plot showed excellent agreement between 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 22 of 27

the sensors; the sonic anemometer averaged wind speeds 0.04 ms-1 higher than the mechanical sensor. 

The standard deviation of the differences was 0.07 ms-1

. Wind direction differences averaged 6 degrees 

with a standard deviation of 7 degrees. These results were higher than what is recommended by 

Lockhart;23 he indicates that the standard deviation of the differences for good agreement should be better 

than 2 degrees. It is suspected that two factors caused this higher difference: the shorter time duration 

(5 minutes versus Lockhart’s 20 minutes) and the less-than-ideal siting, which would induce more 

turbulence over the rooftop. It should also be noted that a regression of the measurement pairs for wind 

direction was not done because there were no wind directions less than 135 degrees observed on the 

mechanical sensor. Another comparison of mechanical and sonic sensor systems was reported by 

Robertson and Katz28; their results were similar to those given by Baxter et al.27—for 15-minute averages, 

the wind speed and direction results did not quite meet Lockhart’s criteria. 23

Figure 2.18 Sensor Mounting for the Testing and 

Evaluation of the Audit Wind Sensor Against a Sonic 

Anemometer

Figure 2.19 Wind Speed Plot Showing the Mechanical Sensor 

(AQ) vs. the Sonic Anemometer for Wind Speeds Greater 

Than 1 ms-1

Figure 2.20 Wind Direction Plot Showing the Mechanical 

Sensor (AQ) vs. the Sonic Anemometer for Wind Speed 

Greater Than 1 ms-1

y = 0.9857x + 0.0734

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Wind Monitor AQ (ms-1)

Sonic Anemometer (ms-1)

0

90

180

270

360

0 90 180 270 360

Wind Monitor AQ (°)

Sonic Anemometer (°)
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 23 of 27

Even with the observed differences above, the CTS method was to be used to audit multiple sonic 

systems in an air quality network. Based on the results of the available intercomparisons, proposed 

criteria for evaluation of the sonic sensors were developed; they are shown in Table 2-2. These criteria 

should be modified as more audit and comparison data from systems installed in air quality networks are 

collected.

Table 2-2 Proposed Audit Criteria for the Sonic Systems

Wind Variable Average Difference Standard Deviation 

of the Differences Qualifications

Speed

±0.25 ms-1 <5ms-1

or ±5% 

or <2.5ms-1 above 5ms-1

0.2 ms-1 Wind speeds greater than 1 ms-1

Direction ±5° 2° Wind speeds greater than 1 ms-1

Recommended procedures for the CTS audit of sonic anemometer systems are as follows. 

1. The site sonic anemometer systems should not be removed from the mounting tower during the 

audit process and all checks should be conducted with the sensors in place.

2. Assuming the towers have movable carriages, then the entire crossarm and mounting assembly 

can be lowered from the measurement height to the surface. Before lowering the sensor, its 

orientation relative to true north should be measured using either a solar method or alignment 

walked off using a hand-held GPS receiver. These methods are described in Sections 2.5.2.3 and 

2.5.2.4. Figure 2.21 shows a typical mounting of the audit system on the carriage structure.

3. The wind sensor should be placed on one end of the audit boom while the temperature/relative 

humidity sensor should be placed on the other end adjacent to the site sensors.

Figure 2.21 Typical Mounting of the Audit 

Sensors on the Site Tower

4. A zero point with no wind flow around the sensor can be established using a simple box lined 

with “egg-crate” type foam to absorb acoustic signals. This type of enclosure is a simple version 

of what is recommended in ASTM International (2001).26 To seal the box, additional foam can be 

placed in the opening around the bottom and around the mounting mast. The response of the 

sensor can then be observed over 5- to 10-minute periods and the wind speed and direction can be 

noted.

5. A collocated mechanical sensor can then be attached to the carriage on a separate cross-arm with 

the south-facing direction of the sensor aligned with the cross-arm. Once mounted and raised to 
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 24 of 27

the normal measurement height, the cross-arm direction can be measured and that direction used 

for the adjustment of the collected wind direction data to a true north alignment.

These procedures would allow field audits to be conducted on multiple stations over a several-day period. 

To aid in the efficiency of the audits, the audits should be performed for two days: this allows night-time 

meteorological data to be collected, providing a larger comparison database before it is moved to the next 

site.

2.8 Scalar, Vector and Sigma Calculations

2.8.1 Discussion of Calculation Methods

There are a number of commercially available data loggers that collect, process, and store wind speed and 

wind direction information. Wind direction data have traditionally provided a challenge to those who 

want to define an average of the circular function. The EPA has provided guidance for calculating wind 

direction in regulatory driven and other monitoring programs. These procedures have been incorporated 

in one form or another into the available data loggers as standard calculation algorithms. Since the release 

of the guidance in 1987, the scalar calculation has generally been accepted as a good estimate of the 

average wind direction. However, experiences gained in using data collection systems implementing both 

the original EPA scalar average calculation and the unit vector method has raised questions about the 

validity of the scalar method. 

To illustrate the problem with the original algorithm, and to better understand the behavior of it, a model 

was developed to generate test wind data and perform the wind direction calculations. One-second values 

comprising the test data were generated by specifying various characteristics about the desired data. 

These characteristics included the starting direction, the maximum direction swing during the hour, and 

the maximum rate of change from point to point. A random number generator was then used to create 

values that fit within the criteria. After the data set was generated, a specified number of 360-degree 

rotations were added to the set using rotation criteria such as direction and rate. Each of the generated 

data sets was then saved to a file for analysis by the wind direction calculation algorithms. 

Following the creation of the hourly wind data sets, each set was read by the model and average wind 

directions were calculated. The simple average wind direction was calculated using

(2-7)

where is the simple arithmetic average, is the azimuth angle of the wind vane for the ith sample, 

and is the number of samples used (3,600).

The scalar wind direction was calculated using the EPA algorithm

(2-8)

where: 

∑=

=

N

i

arith Ai N

A

1

1

Aarith Ai

N

AS

∑=

=

N

i

Di NAS

1

1
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 25 of 27

is the azimuth angle of the wind vane for the ith sample.

is undefined for and . 

The unit vector wind direction was calculated using

(2-9)

where:

(2-10)

(2-11)

is the resultant unit vector direction angle in meteorological coordinates. Values less than zero are 

corrected by adding 360 degrees. is the average v component (north/south) of the unit vector wind and 

is the average u component (east/west) of the unit vector wind. is the wind direction azimuth angle 

in degrees for sample i. For each of the test data sets the number of samples (N) was 3,600.

The simplest of the model test runs was to look at the calculations when no rotations were present. 

Multiple runs were made varying the allowance for rate of change, swings through north, and maximum 

swing during the 3,600-sample period. In each case, both the scalar and unit vector algorithms produced 

comparable results. 

Then, one 360-degree rotation was injected in the middle of the profile. Figure 2.22 shows a generated 

profile with the individual calculations from each of the wind direction algorithms. As shown in the 

figure, the scalar calculation produced erroneous results for the data set while the unit vector produced a 

reasonable average. The general agreement with the simple average was due to the selected range of 

values with no crossover in the north direction. 

Ai

Di =180 δ i i>1



















 − = − u

v Auv 1 90 tan

∑=

=

N

i

Ai Nv

1

sin( ) 1

∑=

=

N

i

Ai N

u

1

cos( ) 1

Auv

v

u Ai
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 26 of 27

Figure 2.22 Calculated Wind Direction Averages from a Simulated 3,600-

Sample Data Set

To evaluate why such significant differences occur between the scalar and unit vector methods, one needs 

to recognize that the scalar calculation adjusts the wind direction values in a manner to account for the 

360-degree circular function. If the difference between successive values is greater than ±180 degrees, 

then 360 degrees are added or subtracted to bring the result to the closest rotational direction. If a full 

360-degree rotation is experienced with the rotation rate less than 180 degrees per increment, then values 

outside ±360 degrees can exist in multiples of 360. During this rotation adjustment process, it is possible 

for equivalent directions with numerical values in multiples of 360 to be present in the same data set. 

When the final data set is averaged, these multiples then produce erroneous results. Furthermore, 

depending on when the shifts occur during the averaging period, the resulting effect can show erroneous 

results up to 180 degrees from a correctly interpreted average wind direction.

Based on the above discussion, a unit-vector algorithm should be used for calculating scalar wind speed 

and wind direction.

2.8.2 Stability Classes

Standard deviation (i.e., sigma values, result from how the samples are combined to estimate the 

statistical parameters. To audit these values, a determination of how the algorithm works and a method to 

challenge that process with a known input is required. This is also a functional way to document the 

impact of the signal conditioning time constant on the measurement of direction variability.

The challenge to the process should be realistic or at least within some realistic range. It must take into 

consideration the wave shape of the variable direction imposed on the system when calculating the true 

sigma value with which the output will be compared. The effective time constant of the direction system, 

calculated from the delay distance of the sensor and nominal wind speed important to air pollution 

applications, should define the maximum frequency used in the sigma challenge.

Wind Vane 

The relative performance of the wind vane shaft position transducer is determined with a linearity test 

fixture, part of which is mounted to the transducer body and part of which is mounted to the shaft in place 

of the vane.

The following procedures are used.
Volume 4, Section 2

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 27 of 27

1. Remove the wind vane assembly (vane, shaft, and counterweight). A one-eighth inch shaft is 

required to mount the linearity calibration disc to the sensor. If the sensor shaft is not one-eighth 

inches, an interface fitting is required.

2. Mount the linearity calibration disc on the vertical shaft of the senor.

3. Mount the clamp to the support column for the shaft so that the pin engages the disc and the disc 

is free to move when the pin is withdrawn. Figure 2.18 shows a sensor mounted on a linearity

fixture.

4. Set the fixture parts with the pin in the 180-degree slot.

5. Rotate the clamp until the sensor output indicates 180, either by equivalent voltage or digital 

printout. This is a position measurement; the challenge is constant and instantaneous values may 

be used However, the time constant needed for stable readings must be taken into account.

6. Rotate the disc to the following positions taking data at each degree marking: 120, 60, 360, 300, 

240, 180, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 60, 120, 180, and 240. This rotates the sensor shaft 420 

degrees counter-clockwise and then 480 degrees clockwise to test ‘540’ strategies for the angle 

discontinuity.

2.9 Estimating Accuracy and Precision

Appendix A.4 of 40 CFR 5829 contains equations and methods for estimating precision, and bias. These 

calculations can be utilized to understand the precision and bias of wind speed and wind direction. These 

equations can be applied to situation where one of the systems is considered the “primary” sampler, such 

as a cup/vane anemometer system. This section of 40 CFR 58 also has equations for collocated 

instruments where the operator does not have a “primary” sampling device. 

2.9.1 Summarized Data

Appendix 1 contains a meteorological systems audit evaluation form to be used as a guideline to evaluate

the operation and exposure of meteorological sensors and overall condition of a monitoring site.

Summarization schemes are many and preclude a full discussion here. The auditor should define the 

methods used and comment on the appropriateness of the methods in regards to the summarized data. 

There may be concurrent summarizations such as a scalar wind speed, a vector wind speed, and 

summarized wind direction. The accuracy of the data system should reflect estimated errors in case of an 

inappropriate summarization program.
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 6

3. Temperature and Temperature Gradient

Air temperature measurements are one of the simplest meteorological measurements, but accurate and 

representative measurements of air temperature require no less attention to quality than others. 

Temperature gradient measurements between two levels above ground on a tower demand greater 

accuracy and precision than measurements of temperature alone. Temperature gradient is commonly 

known as delta-temperature and is abbreviated ΔT.

High-quality, economical sensors based on electrical resistance that changes with temperature are readily 

available and adaptable to many data recording and display systems. The challenge is to place the sensors 

in suitable locations and provide proper protection from moisture, wind, and radiation energy 

interferences. ASTM International Standard Practice30 for atmospheric temperature measurements 

describes the types of shields needed to properly protect electrical sensors. Naturally ventilated shields 

can provide adequate protection for many simple air temperature measurements, but the additional 

accuracy required for ΔT measurement necessitates using mechanically aspirated shields to provide 

uniform airflow across the sensor in the shield. 

3.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications

The most popular method of air temperature measurement is using devices whose resistance changes with 

temperature—resistance temperature detectors (RTD), also known as Thermistor, or thermal resistors. 

Thermistors and platinum wires are readily included in resistance bridges that allow acceptably linear and 

accurate voltage measurement directly by modern data acquisition system (DAS) or temperatureindicating instruments. Thermistors are often incorporated into standard portable instruments that are used 

to check the operation of air temperature measuring devices used in the field setting. 

Thermistors are electronic semiconductors made 

from certain metallic oxides, such as nickel, 

manganese, iron, cobalt, copper, magnesium, 

titanium and other metals. Individual thermistor 

beads have non-linear properties relating 

temperature and resistance, but suitable 

combinations of beads can provide an adequately 

linear response. Platinum wire properties relating 

temperature and resistance (Figure 3.1) are 

considerably more linear than thermistors. Typical 

thermistors used in meteorological measurements 

are in the range of thousands of ohms range, 

compared to the platinum wires being in hundreds 

of ohms. This difference makes the electrical 

resistance in the cable connections from the sensor 

to the measurement point more sensitive for 

platinum wires than for thermistors. 

Figure 3.1 Example of a Platinum Wire 

Thermistor.

Source: <http://www.climatronics.com/>
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 6

In years before the routine use of RTD sensors, glass thermometers containing liquid were the standard 

instrument for air temperature measurements. Glass thermometers are still useful tools for testing RTD 

sensors, though the need for at least partial immersion in the medium containing the test RTD device and 

the fragility of the glass thermometers make them difficult to use in a field environment. More 

information about glass thermometers is available from ASTM International.31

The easy availability of reasonably priced on-site digital signal processing makes separate analog signal 

conditioning of temperature signals unnecessary. However, RTD sensors are components of bridge 

circuits that include fixed resistors and an excitation voltage to produce a measurable voltage signal. 

Equipment and system vendors are the best source of proper wiring and signal processing information. 

The required system accuracy for air temperature measurements described in EPA monitoring guidance32

is ±0.5 degrees C as described in most EPA guidance. . Hence, the reasonable accuracy expected from the 

air temperature sensor is ±0.3 degrees C. The temperature range over which this accuracy applies depends 

on the location and purpose of the measurements. Typical systems can meet this recommendation from -

30 to +50 degrees C, which is ample for many locations. 

Sensors used for ΔT measurements should have at least the same absolute accuracy, with two temperature 

sensors having a relative accuracy across the working range of the instruments of less than ±0.1 degrees 

C. Suitable pairing of thermistors with the same non-linear characteristics can provide the more rigorous 

relative accuracy needed for that measurement. 

The exposed temperature sensors and related equipment must be able to operate throughout the expected 

range of temperatures encountered at a site, including likely extreme values. In addition, ancillary 

equipment and related signal processing or recording equipment must be capable of operating in the range 

of temperatures corresponding to their location, such as in an instrument box or in a climate-controlled 

structure. 

When specifying cable length and the accessibility of the sensors, keep in mind that field QC procedures 

require removal of the sensor from the shield and its placement in a temperature bath while still connected 

in its normal configuration. 

3.2 Acceptance Testing

New equipment or equipment that is returned from maintenance or calibration by vendors located 

elsewhere should be checked for proper operation. Damage that could affect response can occur in 

shipping and handling. Simple checks for reasonable responses can be an adequate initial acceptance test; 

precautions identified in the formal field QC procedures (Section 3.4) should be observed when testing. A 

formal check is recommended during installation at the operating site. 

3.3 Installation and Wiring

Temperature sensors should be mounted over a plot of open level ground at least 9 m in diameter. The 

ground surface should be covered with non-irrigated or un-watered short grass or, in areas where grass 

does not grow, natural earth. Gravel surfaces are also acceptable. The surface must not be concrete or 

asphalt or oil-soaked. The standard height for climatological purposes is 1.25 m to 2 m, but different 

heights may frequently be required in air quality studies. For general purposes, the primary temperature 
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 6

sensor is mounted 2 m above ground level, with the inlet facing away, and at a distance of approximately 

1.5 times the tower diameter, from the tower.

The sensors should not be closer to obstructions, such as trees and buildings, than a distance equal to four 

times their height. They should be at least 30 m from large paved areas and not close to steep slopes, 

ridges, or hollows. Areas of standing water should also be avoided. Louvered instrument shelters should 

be oriented so that the door opens toward true north in the northern hemisphere. Motor-aspirated shields 

should also be oriented with the sensors toward true north in the northern hemisphere.

Proper planning will assure that the mounting hardware, cables, power supply, and so forth are all 

compatible and available. Planning also assures that an installation will proceed without difficulty. 

Purchasing equipment through a vendor who provides everything the system needs to readily attach 

cables can save considerable technical time and effort of having to fabricate mounting hardware and 

prepare cables. Additional lightning protection should be considered in areas where lightning occurs. 

Most temperature sensors do not require additional power beyond the excitation voltages in the bridge 

circuit, though motor-aspirated temperature shields require electrical power. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 are 

examples of naturally ventilated and motor-aspirated shields. Ambient temperature sensors must be 

shielded, otherwise, solar radiation will cause errors in readings. Shields can be powered by direct current 

(DC) fans operating on batteries recharged by solar panels or an alternating current (AC) trickle charging 

unit. Operating the system on DC, even when AC power is available, can reduce missing data periods

when electrical power is unavailable. 

Figure 3.2 A Naturally Ventilated Shield. 

Source: <http://www.youngusa.com/>

Figure 3.3 A Motor-Aspirated Shield. Source: 

<http://www.metone.com/>
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 6

A complete quality assurance plan will prescribe appropriate installation and testing procedures. These 

procedures are developed from manufacturer’s specifications and guidance and instrument exposure 

recommendations listed in monitoring guidance documents. 

3.4 Calibration

Calibrating a temperature measurement system consists of comparing the output of the device being 

calibrated to a known value, and determining if the difference is within acceptable tolerance limits. Most 

modern temperature measuring systems do not need adjusting to match known values if all components 

are working properly, so acceptance is pass or fail. Improper signal cable connections or signal processing 

instructions are more likely sources of problems producing unacceptable results than the sensors 

themselves. Additional information about standardized testing for resistance temperature measuring 

devices is available from ASTM International.33,34

Go to the following web link to view a video describing the procedures for calibrating a temperature 

monitoring system –

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/temperature.wmv

EPA guidance32 specifies a tolerance limit of the difference between known and observed values within 

±0.5 degrees C. Calibrations for pairs of ΔT sensors are discussed separately in this section. Calibrations 

should be made over as much of the measurement range encountered in operational service as possible. 

Typical sensors are designed for a range from -30 degrees C to +50 degrees C; most stations experience a 

lesser range.

Following manufacturer’s instructions and using the on-site signal processing method ensures that the 

calibration is representative of the device’s response. Note that some temperature probes may not be 

submersible. If this is the case, then follow the manufacturer’s calibration procedures. A step by step 

description of a water-submersible temperature sensor follows. 

1. The calibration test should be performed at three or more temperature levels spaced across the 

range of the sensor, such as 0 degrees C, 20 degrees C and 40 degrees C.

2. Prepare three test baths as stated in step 1. 

3. Remove the sensor from the shield. 

4. Place the probe and a NIST traceable temperature device in the water bath with the lowest point, 

a thermal mass in an ice slurry mixture. 

5. To reduce physical stress on the sensors, the probes should be allowed to reach equilibrium with 

room conditions when they are removed from one thermal mass and before subjecting them to 

another thermal mass. 

6. Record the temperature of the bath from the NIST traceable temperature device and the reading 

from the station temperature probe. 

7. Remove the NIST traceable temperature device and station temperature probe and place them in 

the 20 degree C water bath. Repeat steps 6 and 7. 

8. Remove the NIST traceable temperature device and station temperature probe and place them in 

the 40 degree C water bath. Repeat steps 6 and 7.
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 6

3.4.1 Temperature Environment

Producing stable temperature environments for both the standard device and the sensor that is being 

calibrated can be a challenge. To compare readings of both sensors at the same temperature, both sensors 

need to be immersed adequately in the same medium at a stable temperature for enough time to reach 

thermal equilibrium. Most meteorological sensor response times are fast enough that thermal equilibrium 

between the thermal environment itself, the standard, and sensor being calibrated can often be reached 

quickly; waiting a few minutes for a stable output indication from both sensors is necessary to ensure that 

equilibrium has been achieved. 

Most thermistor beads are covered in a metal sheath for physical protection. If this cover is not adequately 

sealed, it will not be suitable for immersion in a liquid temperature bath. Assuming that the sensor is not 

adequately sealed is the safer course. The recommended method for producing a stable temperature 

environment is to place the temperature probes in a thermal mass, such as a cylindrical aluminum block. 

A block about six inches long and four inches in diameter with holes drilled along the axis of the cylinder 

is large and heavy enough to accommodate typical temperature sensors. Minimizing the difference 

between the size of the holes and the diameter of the probes reduces the air around the probe; air at a 

temperature different from the thermal mass can affect the temperature of the sensor. The holes should be 

spaced the same distance from the outside; the holes should be nearly the length of the temperature probe 

to immerse the probe in the thermal mass. The mass can be drilled with various holes to accommodate 

different sensors, particularly when a ΔT system is being calibrated. 

The block is partially immersed in a water bath or ice slurry to reduce equilibration time and to minimize 

horizontal temperature gradients in the cylinder. The block should be placed in an insulated container to 

stabilize the temperature of the thermal mass and the temperature sensors. Placing the insulated container 

on a magnetic stirring table will reduce the time needed for the water bath to reach equilibrium. The ice 

slurry should be made from distilled water because the presence of foreign material can alter the freezing 

point of water. 

An alternative method is to place the standard and sensor being calibrated in a protective waterproof 

sheath. The sheath should be made of a thin material to allow for a sensitive response of the sensor to the 

surroundings, such as a water bath or ice slurry. This approach can reduce the response time, providing 

the water bath is in an insulated container and is at a reasonably stable temperature.

If the metal sheath properly protects the thermistor to allow immersion in a liquid temperature bath, the 

sensor and standard device should be simultaneously placed in a water bath. Drill holes in the top of a 

plastic insulated container to match the diameter of the respective probes. Place the plastic insulated 

container filled with water near 20 degrees C on a stirring table, place the sensor and standard device in 

the respective holes to allow simultaneous exposure to the water bath. Allow the water bath to reach 

equilibrium and record the stable sensor response from the DAS for comparison to the stable standard 

device response. Repeat this procedure using an ice bath near 0 degrees C and a warm water bath near 

40 degrees C.

For simple comparison tests at one ambient temperature level, an adequate result can often be achieved by 

placing the sensor of an electronic thermometer that is similar to the sensor of the system being checked 

inside the aspirated shield adjacent to the system sensor, taking care to minimize contact with the shield. 
Volume 4, Section 3

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 6

3.4.2 Delta-Temperature 

Modern ΔT systems have eliminated the step of requiring a separate analog signal conditioning system to 

produce a signal related to the temperature difference. A pair of simple temperature measurements made 

at the two (or more) vertical levels can be digitally processed within the on-site DAS to produce a ΔT 

result that is readily recorded with other measurements in an output data array. 

The recommended calibration technique is to place both sensors being calibrated in the same thermal 

environment, producing a known ΔT value of 0.0 degrees C. This test should be performed at the three 

temperature levels used for the absolute calibration of the temperature sensors to assure that the sensors’ 

responses are within tolerance of each other across the working range of the system. 

The challenge of ΔT calibration is to ensure that both temperature sensors are truly at the same 

temperature because the acceptable accuracy reading for ΔT measurements is.±0.1 degree C. The use of 

the insulated container and magnetic stirring table will result in the water bath reaching equilibrium. 

3.5 Operation and Maintenance

Modern temperature (and ΔT) measuring systems can be very reliable, but they still require occasional 

physical inspection and data-checking to ensure that the sensors are accurately measuring air temperature. 

The radiation shields can become clogged with dirt, vegetation, or small animals, so much so that airflow 

or electrical connections can be adversely affected. Changes to the airflow can be gradual, masking the 

problem when typical software algorithms search for spurious results. The frequency of the checks should 

be based on the environment of the system and operating experience. 

Another source of potential measurement interference that can be minimized with routine maintenance is 

the paint covering on the temperature shield. Most paint material degrades over time, producing a dull 

finish with reflective properties different from those of the fresh, shiny shield when it was new. Birds are 

notorious for contributing to the changes on the surface of the shields; routinely cleaning the droppings 

from the shield is advised. 

Changes in the fan motors providing aspiration to the shields can be monitored by measuring the current 

flow to the motors. Airflow through the shield can be sensed by switches, but false problem signals can 

be produced by unusual wind events that affect the airflow. 

3.6 Auditing 

Temperature and ΔT measurements should be included in routine performance and system audits at least 

once every six months. The performance audit should consist of challenging the temperature and ΔT 

sensors to three test environments at 0 degrees C, ambient temperature, and 40 degrees C using a water 

bath compared to a NIST-traceable temperature standard. The temperature, ΔT, and NIST-traceable 

temperature probes are simultaneously placed in a water bath until equilibrium is reached for each desired 

temperature range. The temperature sensor’s response is compared to the audit transfer standard response 

for each test atmosphere, and the ΔT response is recorded at the same time.

The recommended tolerance for an audit is the same as that for a calibration: ±0.5 degrees C for 

temperature and ±0.1 degrees C for ΔT.
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 6

4. Rainfall and Precipitation

Precipitation is defined as, “the total amount of precipitation which reaches the ground in a stated period 

is expressed as the depth to which it would cover a horizontal projection of the earth’s surface if there 

were no loss by evaporation or run-off and if any part of the precipitation falling as snow or ice were 

melted”.17 In any method of precipitation measurement, the goal should be to obtain a sample that is 

representative of the fall in the area. At the outset, it should be recognized that the extrapolation of 

precipitation amounts from a single location to represent an entire region is an assumption that is 

statistically questionable. A network of stations with a density suitable to an investigation is preferable. 

4.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications

There are two basic types of precipitation collectors: non-recording and recording.

4.1.1 Non-recording Rain Gauges

In its simplest form, a precipitation gauge consists of a 

cylinder, such as a can with straight sides, closed at one end 

and open at the other. The depth of the liquid in the can is 

measured with a measuring stick calibrated in subdivisions of 

centimeters or inches (Figure 4.1).

To obtain greater resolution, an NWS-specified standard 8-

inch gauge is constructed with a ratio of 10:1 between the area 

of the outside collector cylinder and the inside measuring 

tube. The funnel attached to the collector both directs the 

precipitation into the tube and minimizes evaporation loss. 

Amounts in excess of two inches of rainfall overflow into the 

outer can, and all liquid and melted precipitation 

measurements are made in the measuring tube with a 

measuring stick.

The automatic wet/dry precipitation collector

(Figure 4.2), available in several designs, 

represents a specialized non-recording 

instrument designed for programs involving the 

chemical and/or radioactive analysis of Figure 4.2 Automatic Wet/Dry Precipitation 

Collector

Figure 4.1 Cylinder Precipitation 

Gauge. Source:

<http://www.rap.ucar.edu>
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 6

precipitation. The collector is built with a sensor that detects the onset and cessation of precipitation and 

automatically releases a lid to open and cover the collector. In one design, the lid can be made to remain 

open during either wet or dry periods. Another model is fabricated with two collectors; the lid is made to 

cover one bucket during periods of rain and snow. In equipment designed for precipitation chemistry, the 

volume of water, in proportion to the constituents collected with the water, is important, so evaporation 

must be kept to a minimum.

4.1.2 Recording Rain Gauges

The two basic designs of recording gauges—the weighing-type gauge (Figure 4.3) and the tipping buckettype gauge (Figure 4.4)—are determined by their operating principles The former, when made to NWS 

Specification No. 450.2201, is the Universal Gauge, indicating use for both liquid and frozen 

precipitation. Options for the remote transmission of signals from this type of gauge are available. The 

standard NWS Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge is designed with a 12-inch collector funnel that directs 

precipitation to a small outlet directly over two equal compartments, or buckets, that tilt in sequence with 

each 0.01 inches of rainfall. The motion of the buckets causes a mercury switch closure. Normally 

operated on 6 VDC, the contact closure can be monitored on a visual counter and/or by one of several 

recorders. The digital-type impulse can also be used with computer-compatible equipment.

Some new automatic gauges that measure precipitation without moving parts are available. These gauges 

use devices such as capacitance probes, pressure transducers, and optical or small radar devices to provide 

electronic signal that is proportional to the precipitation equivalent.

Figure 4.3 Universal-Weighing Gauge Figure 4.4 Tipping Bucket Without the Shield

4.1.3 Instrument Characteristics

The recording-type gauge records rainfall begin and end times and measures the rate of fall. The 

universal-weighing gauge incorporates a chart drum that is made to rotate either by an eight-day springwound clock or a battery-powered clock. Recent developments include a unit with a quartz crystal 

mechanism and gear shafts for a wide range of rotation periods from a half-day to one month.
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 6

The weighing gauge is sometimes identified by the name of its designer (Fergusson) and comes with one 

of two recording mechanisms. In the single traverse unit, the pen moves from the base of the drum to the 

top, typically a water equivalent of 6 inches. In a dual traverse unit, the pen moves up and then down for a 

total of 12 inches of precipitation. A variation of the weighing gauge, a “high capacity” design with dual 

traverse, will collect as much as 760 mm or 30 inches.

To minimize the oscillations incurred by the influence of strong winds on the balance mechanisms,

weighing gauges are fitted with a damper immersed in silicone fluid. By incorporating a potentiometer in 

the mechanism, the gauge is capable of providing a resistance or, with another refinement, a voltage 

proportional to the amount of precipitation collected. Linearity of response is usually a factory adjustment 

involving the use of calibrated weight to simulate precipitation amounts. Despite manufacturer’s 

specifications, it is doubtful that the gauge can resolve 0.01 inches, especially when the bucket is nearly 

empty.

In the tipping-bucket gauge, the balance of the buckets and the leveling of the bucket frame are critical. 

Low voltage at the gauge is imperative for reasons of safety. Power is typically 6 VDC. The signal is 

provided by a switch closure each time the bucket assembly tips (0.01 inches of rainfall per bucket). Rain 

rates are calculated from an event recorder with pens energized sequentially to improve resolution. The 

tipping bucket (a mechanical device) takes time to tilt from one position to the next. When the rate of fall 

is high, spillage occurs and the unmeasured precipitation falls into the reservoir. When greater accuracy is 

needed, the collected water is measured manually and excess amounts are allocated proportionately in the 

record. Accessories – Windshields and Heaters

Measurement accuracy for all types of gauges is influenced by exposure more than by variation in design. 

Windshields represent an essential accessory to improve the catch of precipitation, especially snow under

windy conditions. The improved Alter design, made of 32 free-swinging but separated leaves supported

1/2 inch above the level of the gauge’s collecting orifice, is an effective way to improve the catch. In a 

comparison of shielded and unshielded 8-inch gauges at a wind speed of 5 mph, the efficiency of the 

unshielded gauge decreases by 25 percent, and at 10 mph, the efficiency of the gauge decreases by 

40 percent.

35

In below-freezing conditions when the catch in a 

gauge is snow or some other form of solid 

precipitation, the collector/funnel of non-recording 

gauges and the funnel in recording gauges must be 

removed. Some instruments are available with 

built-in heater elements that are thermostatically 

controlled. An effective heater for conditions that 

are not too severe is an incandescent lamp installed 

in the housing of the gauge. Caution should be 

exercised because too much heat will result in 

evaporative loss. 

Figure 4.5 Example of an Alter Wind Shield 
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 6

4.1.4 Precipitation Data Recommendations

In research studies, especially those related to acid rain, the instrument used most frequently is the 

automatic precipitation collector with one or two collecting buckets and a cover to prevent evaporation. In 

operational activities, the choice is the weighing gauge or the tipping-bucket gauge. For climatological

surveys, the choice might include both recording and non-recording type gauges. The use of a windshield 

is recommended to minimize errors that result from windy conditions if the application requires 

maximum accuracy. The precipitation measurement made at air quality monitoring stations is frequently 

used for descriptive purposes or for episodic analysis. If effort is required to achieve accuracy levels that 

are greater than the manufacturer’s specifications for electrical recording gauges, then a 10 percent

tolerance limit may be adequate.

4.1.5 Procurement

Purchasing a suitable precipitation measuring system requires specifying the type of system that fits the 

data application and the accuracy consistent with that application. A variety of gauges are available 

commercially. In general, NWS-specified standards result in the fewest problems. For example, numerous 

8-inch gauges are available, but those conforming to NWS specifications are made only of brass and 

copper, are more durable, and are reported to rupture less frequently under extended freezing conditions 

than those made of galvanized steel.

The procurement of a weighing- type gauge should include a tripod mounting base as well as a set of 

calibration weights. For locations that are not readily accessible or locations with heavy precipitation, the 

bucket of the weighing gauge should have an overflow tube. If time resolution is not important, drumtype, recording rain gauges can be obtained with monthly rather than weekly mechanisms. The tippingbucket gauge must be equipped with a heater for use when precipitation is frozen.

4.2 Acceptance Testing

Except for visual inspection, non-recording gauges do not require acceptance testing. The weighing 

gauges should be assembled and given a quick “bench-top” calibration check with standard weights or a 

measured volume of water. In addition, the clock mechanism supplied with the gauge should be checked 

for at least a couple of days, preferably a week. The tipping bucket gauge should also be bench-tested, 

primarily to be certain that the bucket mechanism assembly is balanced and that the switch is operational.

4.3 Calibration

Bench calibrations should follow the manufacturer’s recommendation. The electrical output gauge or the 

drum recording gauge measures weight, whether total weight in the case of the weighing gauge or 

increments of weight in the case of the tipping-bucket gauge. Density of water is assumed so the weight 

can be expressed in units of volume or depth assuming the area of the collector opening. Calibrations of 

the measurement apparatus can be based on the introduction of known volumes of water. The area of the 

collection surface must be known so that the volume collected can be expressed as a depth. For example, 

an 8- inch collector may feed a tipping bucket which tips when 7.95 cc of water has arrived. If this 

volume of water represents 0.01 inches of rainfall, the effective collection area must be 48.51 square 

inches, using the following calculations:
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 6

7.95 cc = 0.485 in.3 = 0.01 in. * 48.51 in.2 (4-1)

If the area is a circle, the diameter should be 7.86 inches.

(48.51/π)

1/2 = 3.93 in. radius (4-2)

For rate-sensitive systems such as the tipping bucket, the rate of simulated precipitation should be kept 

constant to achieve 1 tip every 15 seconds. Calibrations require properly leveled weighing systems

(gauges) whether on the bench or in the field.

Go to the following web link to view a video describing the procedures for calibrating a tipping bucket 

rain gauge: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/tipping-bucket.wmv.

4.4 Operation and Maintenance

4.4.1 Installation

The support, or base, of any gauge must be firmly anchored, preferably on a level surface so that the sides 

of the gauge are vertical and the collector is horizontal. The collector can be checked with a carpenter’s

level placed at two intersecting positions. The level of the bucket assembly on the tipping bucket gauge is 

also critical and should be checked along its length and width.

The gauge should be shielded from the wind but not placed in an area where there will be excessive 

turbulence caused by the shield. For example, a good location is an opening in an orchard or grove of

trees where the wind speed near the ground is reduced by the canopy effect. A location open but for a few

trees would be less desirable because of strong eddies that can be caused by the trees. Obstructions to the 

wind should not be closer than two to four times the obstruction height from the instrument. In open 

areas, a wind shield such as that specified by the NWS should be used. The ground surface around the 

rain gauge may be natural vegetation or gravel. It should not be paved so as to avoid splashing the gauge. 

The gauge should be mounted a minimum of 30 cm (approximately 1 foot) above the ground and should 

be high enough that it will not be covered by snow.

After the weighing gauge is installed, the silicone fluid should be poured into the damping cylinder as 

required. The hygroscopic ink-filled pen of the drum recording type is inked to less than capacity because 

the ink expands with increasing humidity and can easily spill over the chart. The final calibration check 

with standard weights or suitable substitute should be made.

To check the operation of the tipping bucket, a known quantity of water equivalent to 10 tips should be 

placed in a separatory funnel. The separatory funnel is adjusted to allow the water to flow into the tipping 

bucket at a rate of 1 tip every 15 seconds. It may be necessary to adjust the set screws, which act as limits

to the travel of the tilting buckets. Adjustment is required if there is a 10 percent or greater error or if 

greater accuracy is needed.

4.4.2 Field Operation of a Precipitation Measurement System

Calibration checks for weighing and tipping bucket gauges using the techniques described above are 

recommended at six-month intervals. Non-recording gauges, whether used alone or in a network, should 
Volume 4, Section 4

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 6

be read daily at a standard time. Although the weighing gauge is used for liquid and frozen precipitation, 

it requires special attention during winter operations. The funnel must be removed when snow is 

expected, and the bucket must be charged with an antifreeze—24 oz of ethylene glycol mixed with 8 oz 

of oil. The weight of this mixture represents the baseline for which precipitation amounts are to be noted. 

The bucket should be emptied and recharged when necessary, at about 5 inches in the universal gauge. 

Antifreeze mixture classified as hazardous should be disposed of properly. All operational activities 

should be recorded in the station log.

4.4.3 Preventive Maintenance

Possible leaks in the measuring tube or the overflow container of the gauge can be easily checked. The 

receptacles, partially filled with water colored with red ink, can be placed over a piece of newspaper. This 

procedure is especially applicable to clear plastic 4-inch gauges which are more easily damaged. Repairs 

can be performed by soldering an 8-inch gauge and by applying a solvent to the plastic gauge.

A number of pens, some with greater capacity than others, can be used with the universal gauge. All

gauges require occasional cleaning by a good soaking and wiping in a mixture of water and detergent. 

The chart drive is another source of problems; but they can sometimes be avoided by lubricating the clock 

drive for the environmental conditions expected. Keeping spare clocks in stock is good practice.

Routine visual checks of the performance of weighing-type gauges should be made every time there is a 

chart change. The time and date of change and site location should be documented. Routine maintenance 

should include inking the pen and winding the clock. Battery-powered chart drives will require periodic 

replacement of batteries based on the manufacturer’s recommendations.

The tipping bucket funnel and tipping apparatus should be checked and cleaned, if necessary, during each 

site visit. The tipping apparatus should be checked for proper operation at each site visit by manually 

tipping the apparatus at least 10 times and confirming that the 10 tips were recorded by the recording 

device. All preventive maintenance activities should be noted in the log book.

4.5 Auditing

Audits of precipitation measuring systems every six months are adequate. The irregular occurrence of 

precipitation makes the use of a certified transfer standard impractical. The performance audit should 

depend on challenging the gauge with amounts of water known to an accuracy of at least 1 percent of the 

total used. This method determines the measurement system accuracy but not the collection efficiency of 

the gauge in natural precipitation. For tipping bucket gauges, a rate of less than one inch per hour should 

be used and an amount which will result in a minimum of 10 tips. For weighing gauges, using calibration 

weights to challenge the weighing mechanism is more convenient rather than using of the quantities of

water necessary for full-scale testing.
Volume 4, Section 5

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 4

5. Relative Humidity and Dew Point Determination

Of the many atmospheric variables describing water vapor content in the atmosphere, relative humidity is 

the most common for routine monitoring programs. Relative humidity is the ratio (percent) of actual 

vapor pressure of moist air to the saturation vapor pressure at the same temperature. Dew-point 

temperature (or dew point) is the temperature to which a moist air parcel must be cooled to achieve 

saturation over water at constant pressure and water vapor content. The corresponding temperature with 

respect to ice is the frost point. 

Dew point measurement was more reliable than relative humidity measurement before the invention of 

modern hygrometers. Dew point measurement equipment is now more expensive and often requires more 

electric power and routine maintenance than is practical for remote stations. 

5.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications

The discussion of relative humidity instrumentation is limited to equipment most frequently used for 

routine environmental monitoring and/or standards used to test monitoring equipment. As with 

temperature measurement, relative humidity instruments measuring in outside air must be protected from 

solar and terrestrial radiation, precipitation, and wind influences. Hence, relative humidity sensors, similar 

to temperature sensors, are typically mounted in naturally or mechanically aspirated shields. Examples of 

these shields can be seen in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. Another examples is shown in Figure 5.1 below. An 

example of a combination relative humidity/temperature probe is illustrated in Figure 5.2. 

Figure 5.1 A Motor-Aspirated RH Shield.

Source: <http://www.youngusa.com/>

Figure 5.2 A Typical RH Probe. 

Source: <http://www.metone.com/>

5.1.1 Electrical hygrometer 

Advances in electronic manufacturing have provided the meteorological community with alternatives to 

chilled-mirrors, wet-bulb thermometers, and wire-wound salt-coated bobbins. The resistance and 

capacitance of thin hygroscopic films on modern hygrometers are affected by the presence of moisture. 

Measurement circuits provide the instrument output with scaled voltages and readouts of atmospheric 

moisture content. Corresponding temperature measurement is included within the instruments to calculate 

the results expressed in variables other than actual moisture content.
Volume 4, Section 5

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 4

Subtle differences in the type of sensor can create measurement advantages for certain moisture content 

levels.

36 Capacitive and resistive sensors respond better to relative humidity than to dew point. 

Specifications for both types of sensors are similar. Capacitive sensors are most linear at low humidity 

levels and can tolerate condensation, although calibration shifts can occur. Resistive sensors are most 

linear at high humidity levels and cannot tolerate condensation, although some have automatic protection 

from saturation conditions. Dew point impedance sensors use a slightly different element; they measure 

absolute rather than relative humidity. The sensors are covered by membranes that are readily porous to 

moisture, although the membranes thermally insulate the sensor, causing some lag time in measurement. 

Electrical hygrometers are considerably less expensive than some other automated relative humidity 

measurement methods and are readily adaptable to portable, hand-held units suitable for temporary 

measurements and transfer standard use. 

5.1.2 Chilled mirror 

Dew point (or frost point) can be measured directly using thermoelectric cooling and precise temperature 

measurement and control. A mirror surface is cooled until dew (or frost) forms on the surface. The 

temperature of the mirror surface is measured, and that measurement is the dew (frost) point temperature. 

The engineering aspects of airflow, temperature control, and optical identification have been refined in 

modern equipment. Optical identification improvements have reduced the occurrences of mistaking 

contamination on the mirror for condensed moisture, but mirror cleaning remains a necessary activity for 

reliable dew point measurement. 

An excellent reference for chilled-mirror measurements of dew point and frost point is the ASTM 

International Standard D4230.33 This standard includes analytic expressions for saturation vapor pressure 

as functions of temperature and relative humidity, which can be used to convert between these variables. 

5.1.3 Psychrometer 

The psychrometer contains two identical thermometers—dry-bulb and wet-bulb. Dry-bulb temperature is 

air temperature. Wet-bulb temperature is the temperature of an air parcel if cooled adiabatically (no 

external heat transfer) at constant pressure to saturation by evaporation of water into the parcel. The wetbulb thermometer has a small cotton cover on the thermometer’s bulb; the cover is soaked in distilled 

water and spun around, or otherwise ventilated, until the reading stabilizes at the wet-bulb temperature. 

ASTM International Standard E33737 covers psychrometer measurements and the associated calculations 

of other humidity variables. Engineers still use wet-bulb temperature for heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning calculations. 

5.2 Acceptance Testing

After equipment is newly installed or returned from maintenance or calibration by vendors located 

elsewhere, it is prudent to check the equipment for proper operation. Damage can occur in shipping and 

handling that can affect the response. Simple checks for reasonable responses can be adequate initial 

acceptance testing; precautions identified in the formal field check should be observed during testing. The 

formal check is recommended during installation at the operating site. 
Volume 4, Section 5

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 4

5.3 Installation and Wiring

Relative humidity and dew point sensors should be mounted over a plot of open level ground at least 9 m 

in diameter. The ground surface should be covered with non-irrigated or unwatered short grass or, in areas 

where grass does not grow, natural earth. The surface must not be concrete or asphalt or oil-soaked. The 

standard height for climatological purposes is 1.25 m to 2 m, but required heights may frequently be 

different in air quality studies.

The sensors should not be closer to obstructions, such as trees and/or buildings, than a distance equal to 

four times their height. They should be at least 30 m from large paved areas and not close to steep slopes, 

ridges, or hollows. Areas of standing water should also be avoided. Louvered instrument shelters should 

be oriented so that the door opens toward true north in the northern hemisphere. Motor-aspirated shields 

should also be oriented with the sensors toward true north in the northern hemisphere.

Proper planning assures that the mounting hardware, cables, power supply, and so forth are all compatible 

and available and helps an installation proceed without difficulty. Purchasing equipment through a vendor 

who provides everything the system needs to readily attach cables can save considerable technical time 

and effort of having to fabricate mounting hardware and prepare cables. Additional lightning protection 

should be considered in areas where lightning occurs.

Most relative humidity sensors do not require additional power beyond the excitation voltages in the 

bridge circuit, although motor-aspirated temperature shields require electrical power. Shields can be 

powered by direct current (DC) fans operating on batteries being recharged by solar panels or an 

alternating current (AC) trickle charging unit. Operating the system on DC, even when AC power is 

available, can reduce the missing data periods when electrical power is unavailable. 

A complete quality assurance plan will prescribe appropriate installation and testing procedures. These 

procedures are developed from manufacturers’ specifications and guidance and instrument exposure 

recommendations listed in monitoring guidance documents. For general purposes, the relative humidity 

sensor is mounted 2 m above ground level, with the inlet facing away, and at a distance of approximately 

1.5 times the tower diameter, from the tower. Influences from nearby artificial or natural moisture sources 

can adversely influence relative humidity measurement so that it will not be representative of the 

surrounding area. 

5.4 Calibration

Calibrating a relative humidity measurement system consists of comparing the output of the device being 

calibrated to a known value and determining if the difference is within acceptable tolerance limits. 

Modern relative humidity measurement systems may include software calibration adjustment capability. 

The quality assurance plan for the monitoring program should offer guidance about when to make 

adjustments and when to leave an instrument in the as-found mode. An essential factor in obtaining two 

comparable relative humidity measurements is that the sensors be reasonably close to the same 

temperature. The basic sensor measurement is molecular water vapor. Data displays in relative humidity 

and dew point involve algorithms that include temperature, so two sensors at significantly different 

temperatures would provide different output values for the same moisture exposure.

Go to the following web link to view a video describing the procedures for calibrating a relative humidity 

and dew point monitoring system: <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/met/temperature.wmv>.
Volume 4, Section 5

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 4

EPA guidance4 specifies a tolerance limit of the difference between known and observed values within 

±1.5 degrees C in terms of dew-point temperature. For relative humidity values less than about 

40 percent, the acceptable dew point difference translates to a relative humidity value smaller than most 

instruments can provide. Hence, a two-tier system of an acceptable relative humidity of ±7 percent when 

less than 40 percent and using the recommended dew point difference above that level can provide 

consistent criteria across the range of relative humidity levels. 

Calibration tests performed in the field using the full system for relative humidity measurement and signal 

processing used during routine operation reduce testing uncertainty, although the trade-off can be the 

difficulty in providing a stable humidity environment at a field site. The calibration test should be 

performed at three or more humidity levels spaced across the range of the sensor within the range of the 

environment producing the stable atmosphere. The typical calibration ranges are 35 percent, 50 percent, 

75 percent, and 90 percent, respectively.

ASTM International Standard E10438 describes methods to produce stable humidity levels using aqueous 

salt solutions. These solutions are sensitive to temperature, so reliable tests in an exposed location can be 

difficult. Small commercial chambers capable of maintaining preset humidity levels can provide the 

stable environment needed for calibration checks across a range of conditions. The need for temperature 

stability often necessitates using these chambers in a reasonably well-controlled environment.

The high accuracy and quality of hand-held sensors provides a readily available resource for field tests of 

relative humidity systems, providing the tests can be made in reasonably stable atmospheric conditions.

5.5 Operation and Maintenance

Modern relative humidity measurement systems can be very reliable systems, but they still require regular 

physical inspection and data-checking to ensure that the sensors are accurately measuring the relative 

humidity of the air. The radiation shields can become clogged with dirt, vegetation, or small animals, so 

much so that airflow or electrical connections can be adversely affected. Changes to the airflow can be 

gradual, masking the problem when typical software algorithms search for spurious results. The 

frequency of the checks should be based on the environment of the system and operating experience. 

Checks of the shields typically are the same as those for the corresponding temperature measurement. The 

protective screen covering the relative humidity element has a tendency to become clogged, especially if 

the aspirated shield is in need of cleaning. Routine inspection of the protective screen is necessary. If the 

protective screen is dirty or clogged, it should be replaced with a clean spare screen. 

5.6 Auditing 

Relative humidity measurements should be included in routine performance and system audits at sixmonth intervals. The performance audit can consist of a simple one-point check against a hand-held 

relative humidity measuring standard; however, a more complete challenge of the relative humidity 

sensor using standard salt solutions or a portable humidity chamber is recommended. Using an electric 

cooler can create a sufficiently stable environment in which to conduct a three-point relative humidity 

audit using standard salt solutions referenced to a NIST-traceable transfer standard. Another option for 

conducting the in situ relative humidity audit is to use a battery-powered, portable humidity generator to 

produce multiple humidity ranges.
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 9

6. Quality Assurance of 

Solar Radiation Measurements

6.1 Introduction

Solar energy is the driving force behind large-scale atmospheric motion. Many air pollution specialists 

consider the measurement of solar radiation secondary to wind and temperature measurements; however,

solar radiation is directly related to atmospheric stability. It is measured as total incoming global 

radiation, as outgoing reflected and terrestrial radiation, and as net total radiation.

39 Solar and/or net 

radiation data are used (1) to determine atmospheric stability for calculating various surface-layer 

parameters, (2) in dispersion modeling for estimating convective (daytime) mixing heights, and (3) for 

modeling photochemical reactions.

4 Solar radiation refers to the electromagnetic energy in the solar 

spectrum (0.10 to 4.0 μm wavelength). The solar spectrum comprises ultraviolet light (0.10 to 0.40 μm), 

visible light (0.40 to 0.73 μm), and near-infrared radiation (0.73 to 4.0 μm). Net radiation includes both 

solar radiation (also referred to as short-wave radiation) and terrestrial or long-wave radiation. The sign of 

the net radiation indicates the direction of the flux (a negative value indicates a net upward flux of 

energy).

6.2 Solar Radiation 

The sun generates about 3.9x1026 Watts of energy. This energy is radiated into space uniformly. Radiation 

decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the Sun. The solar constant (So) is the average energy 

per unit area of solar radiation falling on the surface of a sphere of radius R around the Sun (see 

Equation 6-1).

So = E/(4π R2) = 1370 W/m2 (6-1)

Where

R = the distance between the Earth and Sun, ~150,000,000 km

E = Total Solar Energy 3.9x1026W

W/m2 = Watts/meter2

The solar “constant” actually fluctuates and the energy the planet receives varies with the seasonal change 

in the Earth/Sun distance. If one astronomical unit (AU) is the average Earth/Sun distance, then the 

amount of solar radiation reaching Earth varies according to Equation 6-2.

Smax = So/(1 - e)2 = So/(1.017)2 = 1417 W/m2 (6-2)

Smin = So/(1 + e)2 = So/(0.983)2 = 1324 W/m2 

Where e is the eccentricity (a measure of departure from a circle) of Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Earth’s eccentricity varies. The current value is about 0.017. The maximum and minimum values vary 

slightly more than 3 percent from the mean. Earth is closest to the Sun in early January and receives the 

maximum amount of radiation during this time. The minimum amount of radiation is received about six 

months later.
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 9

Visible, infrared (IR), and ultraviolet light (UV) and heat are important constituents of solar radiation. 

The Sun's energy is distributed over a broad range of the electromagnetic spectrum. It behaves 

approximately like a “blackbody” radiating at a temperature of about 5,800 degrees Kelvin. Its maximum 

output is in the green-yellow part of the visible spectrum. Figure 6.1 illustrates the energy versus 

wavelength of light emitted by our Sun. 

Figure 6.1 Solar Irradiance Versus Wavelength of Light Emitted by the Sun

Radiation is not emitted by the Sun in a uniform manner. Irregularities result from processes in the Sun's 

interior and on its surface.

Quantitatively, solar radiation is described in units of energy flux, usually W/m2

. When measured in 

specific, narrow wavelength bands, solar radiation may be used to evaluate such air pollution indicators as 

turbulence and an indicator of photochemical processes. This section describes instruments that measure 

broadband radiation and sunshine duration. Specifications, acceptance testing, installation, calibration, 

operations/maintenance, and auditing procedures are described for the different instrument types.

6.3 Types of Instruments

Instruments used to measure the transmission of sunlight through Earth’s atmosphere fall into two 

categories: instruments that measure radiation from the entire sky (pyranometers) and instruments that 

measure only direct solar radiation (pyrheliometers). For each instrument category there are two 

measurement methods: thermal (i.e., thermopiles) and photovoltaic detectors.

6.3.1 Pyranometers

Pyranometers are instruments that measure solar radiation received from a hemispherical section of the 

atmosphere. A pyranometer measures solar radiation, including the total Sun and sky shortwave radiation 

on a horizontal surface. Pyranometers that measure net total radiation are termed net radiometers. Most 

pyranometers incorporate a thermopile as a sensor. Some use a silicon photovoltaic cell as a sensor. The 

precision spectral pyranometer (PSP) is made by Eppley Laboratories (see Figure 6.2) and has two 
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 9

hemispherical domes designed to measure Sun and sky radiation on a horizontal surface in defined 

wavelengths. 

Figure 6.2 Eppley Pyranometer PSP

The Eppley Model PSP pyranometer is a widely used “first class” reference instrument as defined by the 

World Meteorological Organization. This instrument is about 15 cm in diameter. The sensor is under the 

hemispherical glass dome. The glass is specially formulated to transmit solar radiation over a wide range 

of wavelengths. Figure 6.3 is an illustration of the Eppley pyranometer. 

Figure 6.3 Illustration of an Eppley Pyranometer
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 9

Because pyranometers measure solar radiation from the sky, it is imperative that monitoring sites have a 

360o view of the horizon, without significant obstacles. Corrections can be made for some obstructions 

but, the clearer the horizon is, the more accurate measurements will be. 

A less obvious recommendation is that pyranometers have excellent “cosine response” to direct sunlight. 

If sunlight has intensity Io when the Sun is directly above a horizontal surface (zenith angle of 0o), then 

the intensity Iz at some other zenith angle z is a function of the angle (Equation 6-3). 

Iz = Iocos(z) (6-3)

If an ideal detector on a horizontal surface is illuminated by direct light, then its response should be 

proportional to the cosine of the zenith angle of the light source.

Pyranometers usually do not have perfect cosine response. Cosine response corrections can be determined 

and applied for a direct light source, but this issue becomes much more complicated under partly cloudy 

skies, when the radiation incident on a detector is an unknown combination of direct sunlight and diffuse 

sky radiation, as is the case for full-sky solar radiation. 

High-quality reference pyranometers, such as the Eppley pyranometer shown in Figure 6.3, use

thermopiles, which are collections of thermocouples. Thermocouples consist of dissimilar metals placed 

together or joined. At the interface of the thermocouple are two dissimilar metals with different electronic 

valence configurations. They produce a small current proportional to their temperature. When thermopiles 

are appropriately arranged and coated with a dull black finish, they serve as nearly perfect “black body”

detectors that absorb energy across the range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ideally, the response of the 

thermopile sensor in the pyranometer is proportional to the cosine of the angle of the solar beam and is 

constant at all azimuth angles. This characteristic is known as the Lambert Cosine Response, an important 

characteristic of pyranometers.

Most net radiometers now available commercially are made with a small disc-shaped thermopile covered 

by polyethylene hemispheres. In most units the material used for shielding the element from the wind and 

weather is very thin and is transparent to wavelengths of 0.3 to 60 μm. Until recently, the internal 

ventilation and positive pressure required to maintain the shape of the hemispheres of net radiometers was 

considered critical; however, new designs have eliminated this problem. 

The LiCor pyranometer (Figure 6.4) is a popular thermopile radiometer with a silicon photovoltaic 

detector mounted in a fully cosine-corrected miniature head. The current output is directly proportional to 

solar radiation.

The NovaLynx pyranometer (Figure 6.5) operates on the principle of temperature difference created by

light absorption of light material (white) and dark material (black) when exposed to solar radiation. The 

temperature difference is proportional to the radiation intensity. 
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 9

Figure 6.4 LiCor Pyranometer Figure 6.5 NovaLynx Pyranometer

6.3.2 Pyrheliometers 

A pyrheliometer is an instrument that measures the intensity of direct solar radiation at normal incidence. 

In other words, it measures the direct radiation from the Sun, not total or incident solar radiation. 

Pyrheliometers work on the same physical principles as pyranometers, i.e., using thermopiles to create a 

current that can be measured by an electronic circuit. 

A number of different vendors manufacture pyrheliometers. Perhaps the most common pyrheliometer is 

the Eppley Normal Incidence Pyrheliometer (Figure 6.6).

A pyrheliometer is mounted in a solar tracker, or equatorial mount, automatically tracking the Sun as it 

moves across the sky. In contrast, a pyranometer is mounted facing the zenith (i.e., facing a point on the 

celestial sphere directly above the observer). Figure 6.7 shows an example of a solar tracker. The solar

tracker must be placed in a location that has line of sight of the horizon

Figure 6.6 Eppley Normal Incidence 

Pyrheliometer Figure 6.7 Eppley Solar Tracker
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 9

6.4 Specifications

When purchasing a solar radiation measurement system, match the data recommendations to the 

instrument selection. Refer to Tables 0-1 through 0-9 to match the sensor performance with the type of 

sensor needed for your circumstance. The measurement quality objectives and calibration/auditing 

recommendations are detailed in those tables. Specify the required performance on the purchase order. Be 

sure to note which test method you will use to verify performance and test the instrument after receipt.

Class 2 sensors (as defined by the World Meteorological Organization) offer the advantage of providing 

data comparable to those collected at National Weather Service stations and at key Department of Energy 

(DOE) locations. Specified sensors should be commercially available and meet the technical 

recommendations established by the measurement quality objectives detailed in Tables 0-1 through 0-9. 

ASTM International standards are available.24 When purchasing a recorder or data acquisition system

(DAS), your agency should match the calibration factor or sensitivity of the sensor to the readout 

equipment. Note that the signals from pyrheliometers (in contrast to pyranometers) require zero-offset 

capability to accommodate both negative and positive voltage outputs. 

6.5 Acceptance Testing

Physical inspection of the relatively fragile pyranometers and pyrheliometers should be done immediately 

after delivery of an instrument. Upon delivery, a pyranometer or pyrheliometer should be accompanied by 

a calibration certificate that states that the instrument has been calibrated to a NIST-traceable radiometer. 

Be sure that the calibration data have been received and that these data correspond to the serial number of 

the instrument. Storage of calibration information at the main office and in the field will prove helpful 

when instrument calibration needs to be checked. A quick determination can be made indoors as to 

whether the sensor is operating by exposing the sensor to the light of a tungsten lamp. It may be necessary 

to place the instrument fairly close to the lamp. Covering the sensor for several hours will ensure that the 

system is not “dark counting”. Zero response confirms that the sensor baseline response is acceptable and 

the sensor can be used to collect data. If the sensor response is greater than zero, the sensor should not be 

used to collect data and the manufacturer should be contacted.

6.6 Installation, Instrument Exposure, and Wiring

The site selected for an upward-looking pyranometer should be free from any obstruction above the plane

of the sensor and should allow easy access for cleaning and maintaining the instrument. It should be 

located so that shadows will not be cast on the device and away from light-colored walls or other objects 

likely to reflect sunlight. A flat roof is usually a good choice; but if such a site is not possible, a rigid 

stand with a horizontal surface some distance from buildings or other obstructions should be used. A site 

survey of the angular elevation above the plane of the radiometer surface should be made through 

360 degrees. 

The same procedures and precautions should be followed for net radiometers that are both upward- and 

downward-facing. Figure 6.8 shows a net radiometer. However, the net radiometer must be supported on

an arm extending from a vertical support about 1 m above the ground. Except for net radiometers with 

heavy-duty domes, which are installed with a desiccant tube in series with the sensor chamber, most other 

hemispherical net radiometers require the positive pressure of a gas, usually nitrogen, to both maintain the 

shape of the polyethylene domes and purge the area surrounding the thermopile. Some of the more 
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 9

popular net radiometers incorporate internal purging with nitrogen and external ventilation with 

compressed dry air through holes on the frame. The compressed air supply minimizes fogging and 

condensation.

Figure 6.8. Net Radiometer

Precautions must be taken to avoid subjecting net radiometers to mechanical shock during installation. 

They should be installed securely and leveled using the circular spirit level attached to the instrument. Net 

radiometers are difficult to mount and to maintain free of vibration. Pyranometers of the Moll-Gorzynski 

design, manufactured by Kipp & Zonen (www.kippzonen.com), are oriented so that the emerging leads 

face north. This minimizes solar heat on the electrical connections of an instrument that is not temperature 

compensated. The thermopiles of these instruments should be oriented so that the long side of the 

thermopile points east and west.

40 The cable used to connect the pyranometer to the readout device, 

recorder, or integrator should be between 16 and 20 gauge and made of shielded, waterproofed 

2-conductor copper wire. The sensor, shield, and readout device should be connected to a common 

ground. Potentiometric milivolt recorders are to be used with most high-impedance, low-signal 

radiometers. Cable lengths of 300 m or more are practical.

6.7 Calibration

Pyranometers and net radiometers should be subjected to field calibration checks on two consecutive 

cloudless days. These checks involve a side-by-side comparison of the on-site reporting sensor to a 

transfer standard sensor of similar design (it is recommended that it be the same make to eliminate any 

bias). The transfer standard sensor must have a NIST-traceable calibration within a year of the date of the 

calibration. If a side-by-side calibration is not possible, the device must be returned to the manufacturer or 

to a laboratory that has facilities to check the calibration. Pyranometers and net radiometers should be 

calibrated once every six months. Any indication of discoloration or peeling of a blackened surface or of 

scratches on the hemispheres of a pyranometer warrants recalibration and/or service.

Calibrating the recorder or integrator is an easy task. The standard method involves the use of a precision 

potentiometer to impress known voltages into the circuit. The linearity of the readout instrument may be 

checked by introducing a series of voltages covering the full scale, checking first up-scale and then downscale. Adjustments should be made as necessary. In the absence of a precision potentiometer, it may be 

possible to introduce a calibrated millivolt source capable of checking the up-scale and down-scale 

responses of the recorder. Integrators can be checked the same way, except that the input value must also 

be timed.
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 9

The self-calibrating Absolute Cavity Pyrheliometer (Figure 6.9), Model HF, has been a reference standard

level device for many years. The sensor consists of a balanced cavity receiver pair attached to a circular 

wire-wound and plated thermopile. The blackened cavity receivers are fitted with heater windings which 

allow for absolute operation using the electrical substitution method, which relates radiant power to 

electrical power in international system (SI) units. The forward cavity views the direct beam through a 

precision aperture. The precision aperture area is nominally 50 mm4 and is measured for each unit. The 

rear receiver views an ambient temperature blackbody. The Model HF radiometer element with baffle 

tube and blackbody fit into an outer tube which acts as the enclosure of the instrument. The Model AHF 

has an automatic shutter attached to the outer tube.

Figure 6.9 Absolute Cavity Pyrheliometer

The operation of the cavity radiometer and the measurement of the required parameters are performed 

using an appropriate control box. The control functions include setting of the calibration heater power 

level, activation of the calibration heater, selection of the signals to be measured, and control of the meter 

measurement functions and ranges. The measured parameters include the thermopile signal, the heater 

voltage, and the heater current which is measured as the voltage drops across a 10-Ohms precision 

resistor. The instrument temperature may also be measured using an internally mounted thermistor. The 

meter resolution of 100 mV allows for a thermopile signal equivalent in radiation to approximately 0.1 

W/m2.

6.8 Operations and Maintenance

As part of the quality assurance program, a field calibration check of the solar radiation sensor should be 

performed at least once every six months according to the procedures outlined in Tables 0-1 through 0-9. 

The data should be inspected for a reasonable diurnal pattern and the absence of dark counting. Where 

strip chart or digital printers are used, daily time checks are desirable to confirm proper time sequence of 

the chart or printer. Frequency of data retrieval will depend upon program objectives; but even for 

climatological programs, data should be collected monthly. All operational activities during a site visit 

should be logged.
Volume 4, Section 6

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 9

6.8.1 Preventive Maintenance

All types of radiometers require frequent cleaning to remove any material deposited on the surface that 

may intercept the radiation. Ideally, this operation is daily. The outer hemisphere should be wiped clean 

and dry with a lint-free soft cloth and alcohol. Any scratching of the surface will alter the transmission 

properties of the glass, so cleaning must be done with care. If frozen snow, glazed ice, hoarfrost, or rime 

ice is present, an attempt should be made to remove the deposit carefully with warmed cloths.

Should the internal surface of a pyranometer’s outer hemisphere become coated with moisture, it can be 

cleaned by carefully removing the outer hemisphere on a dry day and allowing the air to evaporate the 

moisture, then checking the desiccant. If removal of a hemisphere exposes the thermopile element, 

extreme care should be taken because it is fragile and easily damaged. About once each month, the 

desiccant installed in most pyranometers should be inspected. Whenever the silica gel drying agent is pink 

or white instead of blue, it should be replaced or rejuvenated by drying it out on a pan in a 135 degrees C 

oven. The level alignment should be checked after each servicing of the pyranometer, or at least monthly. 

Significant errors can result from misalignment. 

Pyrheliometers require maintenance more frequently than pyranometers. It is necessary to replace the 

polyethylene domes in pyrheliometers as often as twice a year or more before the domes become 

discolored, distorted, or cracked. More frequent replacement is necessary in polluted environments due to 

accelerated degradation of plastic hemispheres when exposed to pollutants. A daily maintenance schedule 

is essential to check on the proper flow of gas in instruments that are inflated and purged with nitrogen. 

All maintenance activities should be recorded.

6.9 Auditing 

Installation of a certified transfer standard (CTS) is the only practical means of conducting a performance 

audit on a solar radiation system. The CTS must have the spectral response and exposure equivalent to the 

on-site sensor being audited. One diurnal cycle will establish an estimate of accuracy sufficient for most 

air quality monitoring applications. If one diurnal cycle is not possible, the audit should be conducted 

several hours prior to and after the peak solar radiation at the time of the audit. The CTS and the on-site 

solar radiation sensor should be covered to determine the zero response of each instrument. If the 

meteorological site is equipped with a DAS, the CTS should be interfaced with a spare channel and the 

DAS initialized to represent the accurate full scale and zero values of the CTS. Data from the CTS and the 

on-site solar radiation sensor should be reported as daily integrated values, hourly integrated values, and 

average intensity per hour to provide a meaningful comparison. An audit frequency of at least six months 

is recommended.
Volume 4, Section 7

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 5

7. Quality Assurance for Atmospheric Pressure Measurements

The atmospheric pressure on a given surface is the force per unit area exerted by virtue of the weight of 

the atmosphere above. The pressure is thus equal to the weight of a vertical column of air above a 

horizontal projection of the surface, extending to the outer limit of the atmosphere.12

7.1 Units and Scales

The basic unit for atmospheric pressure measurements is the Pascal (Pa). It is accepted practice to add the 

prefix “hecto” to this unit when reporting pressure, making the hectopascal (hPa), equal to 100 Pa, the 

preferred terminology. This is largely because one hPa equals one millibar (mb), the formerly used unit.

The scales of all barometers used to measure atmospheric pressure should be graduated to hPa. Some 

barometers are graduated in millimeters (mm Hg) or inches of mercury (in. Hg) under standard 

conditions. Under these standard conditions (0 degrees C, 760 mm Hg), a column of mercury having a 

true scale height of 760 mm Hg exerts a pressure of 1,013.250 hPa.

The following conversion factors apply:

1 hPa = 0.750 mm Hg

1 in. Hg = 33.863 hPa

1 mm Hg = 0.039 in. Hg

Where 1 in. = 25.4 mm, the following conversion factors are obtained:

1 hPa = 0.029 in. Hg

1 in. Hg = 33.863 hPa

1 mm Hg = 0.039 in. Hg 

7.2 Types of Instrumentation

For air quality and meteorological purposes, atmospheric pressure is generally measured with mercury, 

aneroid, or electronic barometers. Most, if not all of the atmospheric pressure sensors available provide 

analog or serial output that is directly interfaced with a data acquisition system.

A mercury barometer measures the height of a column of mercury that is supported by the atmospheric 

pressure. It is a standard instrument for many climatological observation stations, but it does not afford 

automated data recording.

An aneroid barometer consists of two circular disks bounding an evacuated volume. As the pressure 

changes, the disks flex, changing their relative spacing which is sensed by a mechanical or electrical 

element and transmitted to a transducer.

Most electronic barometers of recent design use transducers which transform the sensor response into a 

pressure-related electrical quantity in the form of either analog or digital signals. Current digital 

barometer technology employs various levels of redundancy to achieve long-term stability and accuracy 

of the measurements. One technique is to use three independently operating sensors under centralized 
Volume 4, Section 7

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 5

microprocessor control. Even higher stability and reliability can be achieved by using three completely 

independent barometers, incorporating three sets of pressure transducers and microprocessors. Each 

configuration has automatic temperature compensation from internal-mounted temperature sensors. Triple 

redundancy ensures excellent long-term stability and measurement accuracy, even in the most demanding 

applications.12 Figure 7.1 depicts an electronic barometer with three independent transducers. 

Figure 7.1 Electronic Barometer. Source: 

<http://www.vaisala.com/businessareas/instruments/products/barometricpressure/ptb220>

7.3 Acceptance Testing

New barometers and barometers that have been sent to vendors for maintenance or calibration should be 

checked for proper operation upon receipt. Damage can occur during shipping and handling that could 

affect response. The barometric pressure reading from a new or repaired barometer should be compared to 

the reading from a CTS barometer such as a portable electronic barometer. Figure 7.2 shows a portable 

digital barometer. To ensure proper operation of a station barometer, multiple pressure readings from the 

station barometer and the CTS barometer should be compared over a period of several days. The readings 

should be made with both barometers at the same height and in similar environmental conditions. An 

electronic barometer with a mean difference from the CTS that exceeds 0.25 hPa should be regarded as 

unserviceable and returned to the calibration facility for recalibration.

Figure 7.2 Portable Digital Barometer. Source: 

<http://www.vaisala.com/businessareas/instruments/products/barometricpressure/ptb220ts>
Volume 4, Section 7

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 5

7.4 Installation and Instrument Exposure

The location of a barometer should be carefully considered in order for the equipment to accurately 

measure atmospheric pressure. A barometer should be placed in a location

► That has uniform, constant temperature

► That has good general lighting but is shielded from direct sunshine

► That is away from drafts and heaters

► Where it will have a solid, vertical mounting

► Where it will be protected against rough handling

Wind can cause dynamic changes in air pressure, therefore causing barometric readings to be inaccurate. 

Fluctuations from wind are superimposed on the static pressure and, with strong and gusty wind, may 

amount to 2 or 3 hPa. It is usually impractical to correct for such fluctuations because the “pumping” 

effect on the mercury surface is dependent on both the direction and force of the wind, as well as on the 

barometer’s location. Thus the “mean value” will not represent the true static pressure. More information 

on wind effects is found in Liu and Darkow.41

It is possible to overcome the effect of wind to a very large extent by inserting a static head between the 

exterior atmosphere and the inlet port of the sensor. Details concerning the principles of operation of 

static heads can be found in several publications.42,43 The cistern of a mercury barometer must be made 

airtight except for a lead to a special head exposed to the atmosphere and designed to ensure that the 

pressure inside is true static pressure. Aneroid and electronic barometers usually have simple connections 

to allow for the use of a static head which should be located in an open environment not affected by the 

proximity of buildings.

Air conditioning may create a significant pressure differential between the inside and outside of a room. 

Therefore, if a barometer is to be installed in an air conditioned room, it is advisable to use a static head 

with the barometer that will couple the barometer to the air outside the building.

Figure 7.3 shows a small vented environmental enclosure (NEMA 4X) for applications where another 

suitable shelter is not available. Figure 7.4 shows a tower-mounted barometer with a pressure port to 

minimize dynamic pressure errors caused by wind.
Volume 4, Section 7

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 5

Figure 7.3 NEMA 4X Enclosure. Source: 

<http://www.climatronics.com/pdf/products/sensors/102270.pdf>

Figure 7.4 Tower-Mounted Barometer with Pressure Port. Source: <http://www.youngusa.com>

7.5 Calibration

Electronic barometers should be returned to a calibration facility annually for calibration. Upon receipt of 

a barometer at a meteorological station a comparison test should be run. Pressure readings from an 
Volume 4, Section 7

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 5

electronic barometer should be compared to pressure readings from a CTS over a period of several days. 

The readings should be taken with both barometers at the same height, when the wind is less than 

12 m s-1, and when the pressure is either steady or changing by less than 1 mb. An electronic barometer 

with a mean difference from the CTS that exceeds 0.5 mb should be regarded as unserviceable and

returned to the calibration facility for recalibration.

Every six months, readings from an electronic barometer collected over several consecutive hours should 

be compared to readings from a CTS under similar circumstances; a mean difference should be 

established. If the mean difference is more than 3 mb, the station barometer should be returned to the 

manufacturer for calibration.

7.6 Operation and Maintenance

A barometric sensor should meet the specifications listed in the MQO tables in Section 0. The minimum 

reporting resolution should be 0.1 mb. The data should be at least hourly averaged referenced to local 

standard time representing the actual hour the data were recorded. If the hourly average does not represent 

the actual hour, then the data need to be flagged and noted so later comparisons will be accurate.

Routine maintenance procedures should include physical integrity checks of NEMA 4 enclosures to 

ensure proper ventilation. Signal cables should be in good condition. Indoor sensors should be dusted to 

prevent dust accumulation on the sensors.

7.7 Auditing

Performance audits should be conducted once a year. A performance audit should entail a comparison of 

atmospheric pressure sensor readings to a CTS. The elevation settings on the CTS and the sensor should 

be equivalent to eliminate elevation bias. Pressure readings should be compared once per hour for the

duration of time the auditor is on site and a mean difference should be calculated. Audit result acceptance 

criteria for pass-fail should be ≤3 mb.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 28

8. Quality Assurance for Ground-Based 

Remote Sensing Devices

Over the past few years, developments in remote sensing technology have made it possible to obtain 

three-dimensional wind velocity (u, v, w) and virtual air temperature (Tv) profiles with the precision and 

accuracy suitable for regulatory applications. Three types of commercially available remote sensors exist: 

Sodar (Sound Detection And Ranging), which uses acoustic pulses to measure horizontal and vertical 

wind profiles; radar (Radio Detection And Ranging), which uses electromagnetic (EM) pulses to measure 

horizontal and vertical winds; and RASS (Radio Acoustic Sounding System), which uses both acoustic 

and EM waves to measure Tv. These remote sensors can also provide estimates of the height of the mixed 

layer and elevated inversions by measuring the parameters listed here. Detailed descriptions of these 

instruments are included in this section.

Wind. Upper-air wind speeds and wind directions are vector-averaged measurements. None of the 

measurement systems described in the following sections provides a means to measure winds as scalar 

quantities, as is done with cup and vane sensors mounted on an instrumented tower. The vertical beam of 

the remote sensor can measure vertical velocity. Upper-air wind data comprise either point measurements 

(radiosondes) or volume averages (remote sensors). The altitude at which the winds are reported is 

assumed to be the midpoint of the layer over which the winds are averaged. Averaging periods for upperair wind data also vary depending on the instrument system used. The averaging interval for winds 

measured by Sodars and radar profilers is typically 15-60 minutes.

Virtual Temperature. Upper-air temperature measurements are most commonly obtained using National 

Weather Service (NWS) radiosonde sounding systems. Radiosonde temperature measurements are point 

measurements. RASS measures the Tv of the air rather than the dry-bulb temperature (T). The Tv of an air 

parcel is the temperature that dry air would have if its pressure and density were equal to those of a parcel 

of moist air, and thus Tv is always higher than the dry-bulb temperature. Under hot and humid conditions, 

the difference between Tv and T is usually on the order of a few (2-3) degrees C; at low humidity, 

differences between Tv and T are small. Given representative moisture and pressure profiles, temperature 

can be estimated from the Tv measurements. RASS temperature measurements are volume averages with 

a vertical resolution comparable to that of the wind measurements reported by the remote sensing systems 

(i.e., 60-100 m).

Mixing Height. For the purposes of this guidance, mixing height is defined as the height of the layer 

adjacent to the ground over which an emitted or entrained inert non-buoyant tracer will be mixed (by 

turbulence) within a time scale of about one hour or less.44 Mixing heights can be estimated using 

reflectivity profiles from the radar wind profiler and Sodars. In addition, RASS Tv profiles can be used to 

estimate mixing heights using the Holzworth method.

45 An in-depth discussion of mixing heights from 

remote sensors can be found in EPA meteorological monitoring guidance for regulatory modeling 

applications.4

Turbulence. Some Sodars report wind turbulence parameters. In using these parameters, one must 

remember that Sodars measure the vector components of the wind. Furthermore, there may be significant 

differences in time and space between the sampling of the components so that any derived variables using 

more than one component may be affected by aliasing. Thus, the derived turbulence parameters from 

Sodars are generally not the same parameters that models expect for input. Numerous studies have been 

performed comparing Sodar-based turbulence statistics with tower-based turbulence statistics. Findings 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 28

from these studies have generally shown that measurements of the standard deviation of the vertical 

component of the wind speed (σw) are in reasonable agreement, while the standard deviation calculations 

incorporating more than one component (e.g., σθ) are not.

46

8.1 Types of Instruments and Specifications

Meteorological remote sensing devices provide measurements without disturbing the environment. In 

addition, remote sensing measurements are not restricted to a given height as are in situ and tower-based 

measurements. More importantly, data obtained from a remote sensor is represented as a spatial, or more 

specifically, a volume average as shown in Figure 8-1. This is a significant difference from the in situ 

measurements, which are measured directly. This difference has significant implications for calibrations 

and audits of upper-air measurement systems in Subsections 8.4 and 8.6.

Figure 8.1 Schematic Showing the Differences Between In-Situ (Point) and Remote Sensor 

(Volume) Measurements 

Ground-based meteorological remote sensors have been designed to measure vertical profiles of wind 

velocity and Tv. The development and evolution of these devices over the last several decades have 

followed two similar but distinct paths: one based on acoustics and the other on EM radiation. Wind 

velocities acquired by Sodar are based on the atmospheric effects on the propagation of acoustic energy, 

Tower Tall tower Tethersonde Remote Sensor

10 m

100 m

1000 m

10000 m

Point

Measurement

Volume

Average

Tower Tall tower Tethersonde Remote Sensor

10 m

100 m

1000 m

10000 m

Point

Measurement

Volume

Average
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 28

while radars are based on the atmospheric effects on the propagation of electromagnetic energy. Profiles 

of Tv are obtained by RASS, which combines acoustic and EM technologies. Table 8-1 provides a 

summary of typical specifications for the three major types of meteorological remote sensing devices. 

Table 8-1 Typical Specifications for Meteorological Remote Sensors

Specification12 Mini-Sodar Sodar Radar Wind 

Profiler RASS

Parameters measured a u,v, w, Zi u,v, w, Zi u,v, w, Zi Tv

Frequency 3–5 KHz l–3 KHz 915 MHz

2 KHz 

(sound)c

915 MHz 

(radar)c

Minimum height (m) b 5–15 10–30 90–120 90–120

Maximum height (m) b 100–300 200–2000 1500–4000 500–1500

Vertical resolution (m) 5–20 5–100 60–100 60–100 a u, v, w are the three components of wind; Zi is the height of the elevated inversion layer; and Tv is virtual air 

temperature.

b Actual altitude coverage will depend on instrument condition and configuration, atmospheric conditions, and siting 

characteristics.

c RASS requires both sound and radar technologies. Thus you can add a RASS system to a Sodar by adding a radar, or 

add RASS to a radar wind profiler by adding a sound source.

The general components and theory of operation with Sodars and radar wind profilers are very similar. 

These systems have a transmitter to emit the signal, an antenna for transmitting signals, and a receiver to 

detect a returned signal, and system electronics and software to control the remote sensor. As shown in 

Figure 8.2, these remote sensors operate by transmitting a signal (sound for Sodar and EM for radar wind

profilers) at a known frequency. The signal is sent to the antenna and transmitted upward where it is then 

scattered by the atmosphere. A small portion of the transmitted signal is scattered back toward the 

antenna (called backscattering). The receiver measures three properties of the returned signal: (1) the 

arrival time of the signal which indicates the height (i.e., range), (2) the strength of the backscattered 

signal, and (3) the Doppler shift, which is the frequency difference between the transmitted and received 

signals and is directly related to the velocity along the transmitted direction (i.e., beam).
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 28

Figure 8.2 Schematic Showing the Transmitted and Received Signals From Sodars, 

Radar Wind Profilers, and RASS

Sometimes periodic clutter, or interferences by sources such as bugs, birds, or low-flying aircraft, etc., 

can bias the return signal. These erroneous values are removed by sophisticated algorithms and the 

remaining data are averaged to provide a profile of measurements. These averages are usually computed 

for time periods of 10 minutes to 1 hour, depending upon the data recommendations of a particular study 

and the instruments used.

To compute the wind speed and wind direction, these remote sensors transmit signals along a vertical 

beam and two (or four) oblique beams (off vertical by 12o to 30o) (Figure 8-3). To create these separate 

beams, individual antennas are physically tilted in different directions or a phase-array antenna 

electronically creates vertical and oblique beams. The beam width typically ranges from 2 degrees to 

15 degrees. Note that these beams are not perfectly formed as shown in the simplistic schematic, but they 

include side lobes, or weaker beams, at other angles (Figure 8-4). Sometimes signals returned from the 

side lobes can bias the measurements.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 28

Figure 8.3 Schematic Showing the Vertical and Oblique 

Beams (Vaisala)

Figure 8.4 Schematic Showing a Beam Pattern for an Oblique Beam and its 

Associated Side Lobes (Vaisala)

Oblique beam

Side 

lobes
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 28

The beams are typically, but not necessarily, oriented at right angles to one another. Ideally, one is 

directed toward the East or West so that the u component of the horizontal wind velocity can be 

determined while the other is directed toward the North or South for the v component. The actual 

orientation of the beams can be toward any direction and is typically decided based on site-specific 

factors. The mean horizontal and vertical wind velocity components (u, v, and w) can be computed using 

the following equations:

(8-1)

(8-2)

(8-3)

where oblique beam 1 has a zenith angle θx and azimuth Φx; oblique beam 2 has a zenith angle θy and 

azimuth Φy, and are at right angles to each other; and Vx, Vy, and Vz are the measured radial velocities.

Normally in calculating the mean wind, time averaging is used to eliminate the effect of variations in the 

vertical velocity. Some systems correct for mean vertical wind if other than 0 m/s. This is useful, and 

sometimes required, in situations where the average vertical wind may not be zero (i.e., in complex 

terrain).

The following subsections in this section describe the theory of operation for the various types of 

profiling systems that are commercially available, with an emphasis on system specifications. Subsections 

follow on installation procedures and acceptance testing techniques to ensure that acquired data are 

reliable and representative of atmospheric conditions. The inherent problems of calibration procedures 

and performance audits are discussed in detail. Standard operating procedures, maintenance schedules, 

and quality control (QC) issues are also discussed.

8.1.1 Doppler Sodar

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, remote sensing techniques focused on the development of an acousticbased wind profiling system, commonly known today as a Sodar. Now these commercially available 

Sodars are operated for the purpose of collecting upper-air wind measurements for a wide variety of 

applications. Sodars consist of an antenna(s) that transmit and receive acoustic signals. A monostatic 

system uses the same antenna for transmitting and receiving, while a bi-static system uses separate 

antennas. The difference between the two antenna systems determines whether atmospheric scattering by

temperature fluctuations (in mono-static systems), or by both temperature and wind velocity fluctuations 

(in bi-static systems) is the basis of the measurement. The vast majority of Sodars in use are of the 

monostatic variety due to their more compact antenna size, simpler operation, and generally greater 

altitude coverage. Figure 8.5 shows the beam configurations of monostatic and bistatic systems.

( )

( )

( )

( ) 





























 −  + −



 



















 − = − y

y

y z y

x

x

Vx Vz x V V

u φ θ

θ

φ θ

θ

sin

cos

sin

sin

cos

sin

( )

( )

( )

( ) 





























 −  + −



 



















 − = − y

y

y z y

x

x

Vx Vz x V V

v φ θ

θ

φ θ

θ

cos

cos

sin

cos

cos

sin

w= −Vz
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 28

Figure 8.5 Schematic Showing a Monostatic and Bistatic Sodar System

The horizontal components of wind velocity are calculated from the radially measured Doppler shifts. 

The tilt angle, or zenith angle, is generally 15 degrees to 30 degrees and the horizontal beams are typically 

oriented at right angles to one another. Since the Doppler shift of the radial components along the tilted 

beams includes the influence of both the horizontal and vertical components of the wind, a correction for 

the vertical velocity should be applied in systems with zenith angles less than 20 degrees. In addition, if 

the system is located in a region where expected vertical velocities may be greater than about 0.2 m/s,

corrections for the vertical velocity should be made regardless of the beam’s zenith angle.

The vertical range of Sodars is approximately 0.2 to 2 kilometers (km) and is a function of frequency, 

power output, atmospheric stability, turbulence, and, most importantly, the noise environment in which a 

Sodar is operated. Operating frequencies range from less than 1,000 Hz to over 4,000 Hz, with power 

levels up to several hundred watts. Due to the attenuation characteristics of the atmosphere, higher power, 

lower frequency Sodars will measure to higher altitudes. This greater range comes with a trade-off of 

coarser vertical resolution when compared to the higher frequency Sodars that provide finer vertical 

resolution measurements. Some Sodars can be operated in different modes to better match vertical

resolution and range to the application.

Another important performance specification for upper-air instrument systems is the data recovery rate. 

Data recovery is usually calculated as the ratio of the number of observations actually reported at a 

sampling height to the total number of observations that could have been reported so long as the 

instrument was operating (i.e., downtime is usually not included in data recovery statistics and is treated 

separately). Data recovery is usually reported as percent as a function of altitude. Altitude coverage for 

upper-air data is often characterized in terms of the height up to which data are reported 80 percent of the 

time, 50 percent of the time, etc. Data recovery of Sodars is highly variable and is dependant on 

atmospheric conditions at the various sampling heights. With Sodars and radars, it is common to have 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 28

several levels of invalid or missing data, usually because there are few targets available for scattering at 

those levels. 

Sodar systems should include available options for maximizing the intended capabilities (e.g., altitude 

range, sampling resolution, averaging time) of the system and for processing and validating the data. 

Sodar manufacturers usually have software subroutines that perform a variety of quality assurance/quality 

control (QA)/QC and display functions. It is important to purchase QA/QC software that provides an 

extra level of data validation, but one must still assure that valid meteorological data are not filtered out. 

Software is also available for estimating mixing height and vertical and horizontal turbulence parameters. 

Figure 8.6 illustrates different types of Sodar instruments. The selection of an installation site(s) should be 

made in consultation with the manufacturer and should consider issues associated with the operation of 

the Sodar instrument. Training should be obtained from the manufacturer on data validation and the 

installation, operation, and maintenance of the instrument. Additional information on these issues is 

provided in Section 8.3.

Figure 8.6 Pictures of Different Types of Sodars: (a) Mini-Sodar (Phased Array), (b) MultiAxis Sodar, (c) Phased-Array Sodar (Flat Horizontal Antenna Array)

8.1.2 Radar Wind Profiler

The principles behind the radar wind profiler are similar to Sodar except radars use EM waves to sense 

turbulent fluctuations in the atmosphere. Because EM signals do not attenuate (dissipate) as quickly as 

sound waves, radars have greater vertical range than Sodars. Like Sodars, radar wind profilers have 

different operating frequencies and corresponding range and resolution specifications (Table 8-2). The 

guidance provided herein is focused only on boundary layer radar wind profilers. Examples of this 

instrument are shown in Figure 8.7.

Table 8-2 Characteristics of Radar Wind Profile

Specification Boundary Layer Mid-tropospheric Tropospheric

Frequency class 1000 MHz (915 MHz) 400 MHz 50 MHz

Antenna size (m2) 3-6 120 10,000

Peak power (kw) 0.5 40 250

Range (km) 0.1 – 5 0.2 – 14 2 – 20

Resolution 60-100 250 150-1,000

a b c
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 28

Figure 8.7 Photographs of Types of Radar Wind Profilers: (a) Phased-Array System and 

(b) Fixed-Axis Antenna System

Radar wind profilers operate using principles similar to those used by Doppler Sodars, except that EM 

signals are used rather than acoustic signals to remotely sense winds aloft. Figure 8.3 shows an example 

of the geometry of a radar wind profiler. In the illustration, the radar can sample along each of five 

beams: one is aimed vertically to measure vertical velocity, and four are tilted off-vertical and oriented 

orthogonally to one another to measure the horizontal components of the air's motion. A radar wind 

profiler includes subsystems to control the radar's transmitter, receiver, signal processing, and RASS (if 

provided).

Detailed information on profiler operation has been provided by van de Kamp and Ecklund et.al.;

47,48 a

brief summary of the fundamentals is provided in the following. The source of the backscattered energy 

(radar “targets”) is small-scale turbulent fluctuations that induce irregularities in the radio refractive index 

of the atmosphere. The radar is most sensitive to scattering by turbulent eddies whose spatial scale is onehalf the wavelength of the radar, or approximately 16 centimeters (cm) for a 915-MHz radar wind 

profiler.

A profiler’s (and sodar’s) ability to measure winds is based on the assumption that the turbulent eddies 

that induce scattering are carried along by the mean wind. The energy scattered by these eddies and 

received by the profiler is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy transmitted. However, if sufficient 

samples can be obtained, then the amplitude of the energy scattered by these eddies can be clearly 

identified above the background noise level, and the mean wind speed and direction within the volume 

being sampled can be determined.

The radial components measured by the tilted beams are the vector sum of the horizontal motion of the air 

toward or away from the radar and any vertical motion present in the beam. Using appropriate 

trigonometry, the three-dimensional meteorological velocity components (u, v, and w), wind speed, and 

wind direction are calculated from the radial velocities with corrections for vertical motions. A boundarylayer radar wind profiler can be configured to compute averaged wind profiles for periods ranging from a 

few minutes to an hour.

Boundary-layer radar wind profilers are often configured to sample in more than one mode. For example, 

in a “low mode,” the pulse of energy transmitted by the profiler may be 60 m in length. The pulse length 

determines the depth of the column of air being sampled and thus the vertical resolution of the data. In a 

“high mode,” the pulse length is increased, usually to 100 m or greater. The longer pulse length means 

that more energy is being transmitted for each sample, which improves the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 

a b
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 10 of 28

the backscattered signal. Using a longer pulse length increases the depth of the sample volume and thus 

decreases the vertical resolution in the data. The greater energy output of the high mode increases the 

maximum altitude to which the radar wind profiler can sample, but at the expense of coarser vertical 

resolution and with an increase in the altitude at which the first winds are measured. When radar wind 

profilers are operated in multiple modes, the data are often combined into a single overlapping data set to 

simplify post processing and data validation procedures.

The operating frequencies of all EM devices, including radars, are regulated by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC). The allocated frequency for radar wind profilers for general use in 

the United States is 915 MHz, however, other permitted operating frequencies do exist. Before operating 

a radar wind profiler, the user must have a valid frequency allocation authorization. For non-government 

operators in the United States this frequency allocation can be obtained from: Federal Communications 

Commission; Experimental Radio Services; P.O. Box 358320; Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5320. Government 

operators should request approval from the corresponding National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration branches.

Data recovery of radars, like Sodars, is a function of atmospheric conditions and is highly variable. With 

radar wind profilers, it is common to have several levels of invalid or missing data. This is typically due 

to a lack of humidity and insufficient levels in the refractive index in the atmosphere at those heights. 

During precipitation events, radars measure the fall velocity of the precipitation instead of the air velocity. 

In these instances, radars may appear to be generating reasonable wind estimates, but the measurements 

can be biased by the precipitation. Typical data recovery rates range from about 50 percent to near 90 

percent and are variable from hour to hour depending on atmospheric conditions.

8.1.3 Radio Acoustic Sounding System (RASS)

The operation principle behind RASS is that Bragg scattering occurs when acoustic energy (i.e., sound) is 

transmitted into a radar beam such that the wavelength of the acoustic signal matches the half-wavelength 

of the radar. As the frequency of the acoustic signal is varied, strongly enhanced scattering of the radar 

signal occurs when the Bragg match takes place. When this occurs, the radar can measure the propagation 

speed of the sound pulse. Thus, the speed of sound as a function of altitude can be measured, from which 

Tv profiles can be calculated. The Tv of an air parcel is the temperature dry air would have if its pressure 

and density were equal to those of a sample of moist air. If not corrected in software, vertical motions can 

affect RASS Tv measurements. As a rule of thumb, an atmospheric vertical velocity of 1 m/s can alter a Tv

observation by 1.6 degrees C. 

RASS can be added to a radar wind profiler or to a Sodar system as shown in Figure 8.8a. When RASS is 

added to a radar profiler, three or four vertically pointing acoustic sources (equivalent to high-quality 

stereo loud speakers) are placed around the radar wind profiler’s antenna. Electronic subsystems are 

added that include the acoustic power amplifier and the signal-generating circuit boards. The acoustic 

sources are used only to transmit sound into the vertical beam of the radar, and are usually encased in 

noise suppression enclosures to minimize nuisance effects that may bother nearby neighbors or others in 

the vicinity of the instrument. 

When RASS is added to a Sodar, as shown in Figure 8.8b, the necessary radar subsystems are added to 

transmit and receive the radar signals and to process the radar reflectivity information. Since the wind 

data are obtained by the Sodar, the radar needs only to sample along the vertical axis. The Sodar

transducers are used to transmit the acoustic signals that produce the Bragg scattering, which allows the 

speed of sound to be measured by the radar.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 11 of 28

The vertical resolution of RASS data is determined by the pulse length(s) used by the radar. RASS 

sampling is usually performed with a 60- to 100-m pulse length. Because of atmospheric attenuation of 

the acoustic signals at the RASS frequencies used by boundary layer radar wind profilers, the altitude 

range that can be sampled is usually from 0.1 to 1.5 km, depending on atmospheric conditions (e.g., high 

wind velocities tend to limit RASS altitude coverage to a few hundred meters because the acoustic signals 

are blown out of the radar beam). 

RASS is an optional component of an RWP or Sodar system. The power output of the acoustic source 

should be kept as high as possible to obtain measurements from the highest altitudes possible.

Figure 8.8 Photographs of (a) a Radar Wind Profiler with a RASS and (b) a Sodar with a RASS

8.2 Acceptance Testing

Acceptance testing should be designed to determine if newly purchased or installed equipment is 

performing according to the manufacturer's specifications. The acceptance test is crucial for remote 

sensors since data cannot be easily verified by simple tests. Shortly after the installation and startup of an 

instrument, a system and performance audit should be performed. These audits will provide information 

for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the performance of the system, as well as the adequacy 

of the standard operating procedures (SOPs) used for collection, processing, and validation of the data. To 

best ensure that the data collected is of known quality, and that potential problems are identified early, it 

is recommended that the initial audit be performed within 30 days of the start-up date.

For meteorological remote sensors, an acceptance test should include an intercomparison of data from the 

system to be tested with data from acceptable in situ sensors on a tall tower, tethersonde, Sodar, 

radiosonde, or other remote sensing or measurement system. The test should include the comparisons of 

data at a minimum of three levels and over a range of meteorological conditions.

Intercomparisons are best performed using collocated meteorological information from tall towers or 

other upper-air sensors. In the absence of these collocated data sources, nearby upper-air data from the 

NWS radiosonde network, the NOAA profiler network, aircraft reports, National Center for 

Environmental Prediction (NCEP) high resolution mesoscale analyses, or other upper-air data can be 

used. It is important to have an individual trained in the interpretation of the data perform a thorough 

review of at least several days of data. The qualitative check is not meant to evaluate whether the data 

meet the manufacturer’s data specifications, but is intended to identify problems such as
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 12 of 28

► component failures;

► incorrect or improper operating/sampling parameters;

► antenna azimuth angles specified improperly or incorrectly measured; and

► siting problems (active and passive interfering noise sources).

The obvious difficulty encountered in trying to quantify the performance of a remote sensor is that one 

must assume the “true” state of the atmosphere is known and, therefore, the degree of agreement between 

profiler observations and reference values provided by independent measurement systems can be 

determined.2 Under the best of circumstances, this requires an assumption of homogeneity and 

stationarity in the atmosphere during the period in which the intercomparisons are performed. Given the 

techniques currently available for obtaining data for intercomparisons, a measure of uncertainty is 

introduced into any data set used to evaluate the remote sensor’s performance. Sources of this uncertainty 

include

► Differences in intercomparison data sets due to meteorological variability, spatial separation of 

measurements, temporal separation of measurements, different sampling techniques and data 

reduction protocols, and/or outside sources of interference (e.g., radio frequency interference, 

ground clutter, etc.);

► Instrument errors; and

► Random errors.

An important assumption in the acceptance test (and performance audits) is to design and perform tests in 

such a way that the uncertainties due to all but the last two sources of error, namely instrument errors and 

random errors, will be minimized. If this goal can be met, then the results of the intercomparison tests will 

better reflect the real performance of the remote senor.

We emphasize the concept of “estimating” the accuracy of these remote sensors because a reference 

instrument capable of providing “true” values of the meteorological variables measured by these 

instruments does not exist. Uncertainties can be introduced in the data sets being compared by 

meteorological variability, different sampling protocols, and other environmental and operational factors. 

For example

► Radiosondes provide a quasi-instantaneous measurement of winds and temperatures, while the 

profiler is usually configured to produce data averaged over 15-60 minutes. Changes in 

meteorological conditions during the averaging period (e.g., wind shift associated with a frontal 

passage) will be reflected in the profiler data but may not be represented in the radiosonde 

observations.

► A profiler samples the column of air directly above the instrument, while a radiosonde drifts with 

the mean wind. Horizontal gradients in the winds or temperatures over the volume of air sampled 

by the radiosonde may not be represented in the profiler data.

► Even with the radar wind profiler and collocated Sodar, their respective geometries and sampling 

configurations can introduce uncertainties into the data sets when there are in-homogeneities

between the volumes of the atmosphere each is sampling.

The test methods listed here can be used to perform an acceptance test and are designed to minimize 

differences caused by these and other factors. The seven basic steps to performing a quantitative 

intercomparison are
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 13 of 28

1. Plan to conduct the intercomparison under a variety of atmospheric conditions (during stable, 

convective, and transitional boundary layers and weak, moderate, and strong winds).

2. Configure the instruments to make comparable measurements so that uncertainties due to 

meteorological variability, sampling techniques, and data reduction protocols are minimized. 

Alternatively, post-processing may be required to average the data so that the time and/or space 

(altitude) scales of the two data sets are comparable.

3. Ensure the comparison instrument does not interfere with the remote sensor (e.g., tethersonde in 

the beam of the Sodar or radar).

4. Document the weather conditions during the intercomparison by logging standard hourly 

observations, including current weather, ceiling, sky-cover, ambient temperature, wind speed and 

wind direction.

5. Collect enough samples so that the conditions of interest are well represented.

6. Perform quality control screening on all data to be used in the intercomparisons. All observations 

should be brought to Level 1 validation before quantitative tests are performed.

7. Compute comparison statistics shown here and compare the results with those criteria listed in 

Table 8-2.

The following statistics can be used to compare profiler observations to other data sets and to estimate the 

performance of the profiler. We recommend that these parameters be computed for the ensemble of the 

data and as a function of altitude.

Systematic difference24 used as a measure of the relative accuracy of the instrument:

(8-5)

where = number of observations

= i th observation of the sensor being evaluated

= i th observation of the “reference” instrument

Operational comparability2422, or the rms difference between the remote sensor and comparison 

measurements, used as a measure of the uncertainties in the comparisons.

(8-6)

These statistical calculations should be performed on both the vector and component values along the 

remote sensor antenna axes. Computations are made along the antenna axes to help identify any antennaspecific issues such as reflections or active noise sources.

Some general guidelines for making data as similar as possible include

► The data from the tethersonde or tower should be broken down into their u and v components. At 

the end of this sampling period, the components should be averaged and the resultant vector wind 

speed and wind direction calculated.

= ∑( − ) 1 Pa,i Pb,i

n

d

n

Pa,i

Pb,i

( ) 1 2 Pa,i Pb,i

n

c = ∑ −
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 14 of 28

► At some sites it may be possible to use NWS radiosonde data to perform an acceptance test. This 

test is somewhat more difficult to perform but will provide the data required to complete the test. 

The radiosonde should be within 20 km of the remote sensing site, in simple terrain, and in the 

same meteorological regime as that of the remote sensing instrument. The comparison should 

include a data time series long enough to have a large sample for every meteorological condition 

experienced at the site, and only data captured during similar meteorological regimes at both sites 

should be used in the comparison. Data at higher elevations should be used for the comparison 

since it is less influenced by local surface features.

► All wind data used in the intercomparisons should receive quality control screening.

► Sample during non-precipitating conditions. There may be large discrepancies in winds measured 

during precipitation because the radar profilers will measure the fall velocity associated with the 

precipitation, which in turn will be used to extract the horizontal components from the vertical 

velocities.

► With radiosondes, match the wind averaging interval you specify in the radiosonde data 

acquisition system to the balloon's ascent rate so that the radiosonde data are averaged over a 

volume that approximates as closely as possible the volume sampled by the radar wind profiler 

and RASS. For example, a 3-m/s ascent rate and a 30-second wind averaging period will produce 

radiosonde data averaged over layers 90 m deep, which can then be compared to profiler data 

with a 100-m vertical resolution. 

► To maximize RASS altitude coverage and to minimize uncertainties between the RASS and 

radiosonde data sets due to meteorological variability and spatial in-homogeneities in the 

atmosphere, select sampling conditions characterized by light winds (e.g., wind speeds less than 

5 m/s) and good vertical mixing.

► To minimize uncertainties created by temporal differences between the RASS and radiosonde 

measurements, launch the balloon at the beginning of the RASS sampling period. To minimize 

spatial differences, launch the balloon as close to the RASS as possible.

8.3 Installation and Siting

The following subsections provide information on installation issues related to QA/QC concerns. In 

general, it is recommended that the installer follow guidance provided in “On-Site Meteorological 

Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications”,4 Section 3.0, and vendors’ instructions. In 

general, installation procedures for all these remote sensors include the following:

► Determine the latitude, longitude, and elevation of the site using a GPS instrument. The WGS84 

coordinate system49 is recommended.

► Measure the orientation of antennas of the Sodar or radar profiler with respect to true north. Use 

the solar siting technique or the GPS techniques discussed in Sections 2.5.2.3 and 2.5.2.4. 

► The site should be documented as follows:

 Photographs should be taken in sufficient increments to create a documented 360o panorama 

around the antennas. Additionally, pictures should be obtained of the antenna installation, 

shelter and any obstacles that could influence the data.

 Photographs should be taken of the instrument, site, shelter, and equipment and computers 

inside the shelter.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 15 of 28

 A detailed site layout diagram should be prepared that identifies true north and includes the 

locations of the instrument, shelter, other equipment, etc. An example of such a diagram is 

shown in Figure 8.9. Additionally, it is recommended that the site layout diagram include the 

electrical and signal cable layout, and the beam directions of any remote sensor. 

 A vista table should be prepared that documents the surroundings of the site in 30o 

increments. Vistas for the beam directions, if they are not represented by the 30o views (±5o), 

should be included. The table should identify any potential passive and active noise sources 

in each direction, and the approximate distance and elevation angle above the horizon to the 

objects. An example is shown in Figure 8.10.

VISTA, ORIENTATION, AND LEVEL AUDIT RECORD

Date: January 3, 1996 Site Name: 5

Key Person: Jon Sitetech Project: ABC

Instrument: Radar Wind 

Profiler

Latitude: 31°10’25”

Model Number: GEN-1500 Longitude: 91°15’33”

Serial Number: 1234 Elevation: 172m

Software Version: 3.95

Rotation angle Direction::

System: 147°true Beam 1 146°

Measured: 146°true Beam 2: 236°

Difference: 1°

Firing order: W,beam 1, beam 2

Array Level <0.5° Declination: 11°east (solar verification)

AZIMUTH ANGLE (DEG)

Magnetic True

Terrain 

Elevation Angle 

(deg) Features/Distance

0 12 Building and power lines at ~300m

30 19 Stack at 150-200m

60 22 Power pole at 10m, <5° beyond

90 4 Low trees and bushes at 10 m

120 15 Power lines at 200-300m

150 4 Trees at 30-40m

180 0 Looking out over the lake

240 <2 Looking out over the lake, can see 

land

270 <2 Looking out over the lake, can see 

land

300 3 Trees an telephone pole at 100m

330 14 Light pole at 25m. Buildings at 

~250m.

Figure 8.9 Example Site Layout Diagram
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 16 of 28

Figure 8.10 Example Site Vista Diagram

Listed below are some key issues to consider when siting upper-air systems.

Representative location. Sites should be located where upper-air data are needed to characterize the 

meteorological features important to meeting the program objectives. Panoramic photographs should be 

taken of the site to aid in the evaluation of the data and preparation of the monitoring plan. Data collected 

at sites in regions with local geographic features such as canyons, deep valleys, etc., may be 

unrepresentative of the surrounding area and should be avoided, unless such data are needed to resolve 

the local meteorological conditions. Measurements made in complex terrain may be representative of a 

much smaller geographic area than those made in simple homogeneous terrain. See Thuillier (1995)50 for 

a discussion of the influence of terrain on siting and exposure of meteorological instrumentation.

Site logistics. 

► Adequate power should be available for the instrument system as well as an environmentally 

controlled shelter that houses system electronics, and data storage and communication devices. 

► The site should be in a safe, well lit, secure area clear of obstacles with level terrain and sufficient 

drainage. The site should allow adequate room for additional equipment that may be required for 

calibrations, audits, or supplementary measurements.

► A fence should be installed around the equipment and shelter to provide security, and appropriate 

warning signs should be posted as needed to alert people to the presence of the equipment.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 17 of 28

► A remote data communications link (e.g., dedicated leased line, standard dial-up modem line, 

Internet link, or satellite Internet) should be installed at the monitoring site.

Collocation with surface meteorological measurements. Several advantages can be gained by locating an 

upper-air site with or near an existing meteorological monitoring station. For instance, collocated data can 

be used for data validation purposes and for performing reasonableness checks (e.g., do surface winds 

roughly agree with near-surface upper-air winds, surface temperatures with near-surface RASS 

measurements).

Instrument noise. Sodar and RASS generate noise that can disturb nearby neighbors. Depending on the 

type of Sodar or RASS instrument, power level, frequency, acoustic shielding around the system, and 

atmospheric conditions, the transmitted pulse can be heard from tens of meters up to a kilometer away. 

An optimum site is one that is isolated from acoustically sensitive receptors.51

Passive interference/noise sources. Objects such as stands of trees, buildings or tall stacks, power lines, 

towers, guy wires, vehicles, birds, or aircraft can reflect Sodar or radar signals and contaminate the data. 

Not all sites can be free of such objects, but an optimum site should be selected to minimize the effects of 

such obstacles. If potential reflective “targets” are present at an otherwise acceptable site, the beams of 

the instrument should be aimed away from the reflective objects. In the case of Sodars, locating the 

antennas so that there are no direct reflections from objects will help minimize potential contamination. In 

the case of the radar profiler, it is best to aim the antennas away from the object and orient a phased-array 

antenna’s corners so they are pointing toward the objects. As a rule of thumb, sites with numerous objects 

taller than about 15o above the horizon should be avoided. The manufacturers of the remote sensing 

equipment should be contacted regarding software that may be available to identify and minimize the 

effects of these passive noise sources.

Active interference/noise sources. For Sodars, noise sources such as air conditioners, roadways, industrial 

facilities, animals, and insects will degrade the performance of Sodar systems.51 If proximity to such 

sources cannot be avoided, then additional acoustic shielding may help minimize the potentially adverse 

effects on the data. In general, noise levels below 50 decibels (dBA) are considered to be representative of 

a quiet site, while levels above 60 dBA are characteristic of a noisy site. For radar wind profilers and 

RASS, radio frequency (RF) sources such as radio communications equipment and cellular telephones 

may have an adverse effect on performance. A radio frequency scanner is helpful for identifying these 

sources.

Licenses and ordinances. Before operating a remote sensor, it is recommended that all applicable 

recommendations for operation of equipment be addressed. For example, to operate a radar wind profiler 

or a RASS, an FCC license is required. For radiosonde and tethersonde sounding systems, a Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) waiver may be required. Local noise ordinances may limit the operation 

of Sodar or RASS instruments. Some of these requirements may take several months to address and 

complete.

Surveying candidate locations. Prior to final site selection, a survey is recommended to identify audio 

sources52 and RF sources that may degrade system performance. Additionally, panoramic photographs 

should be taken to aid in the evaluation of the candidate site and for the preparation of the monitoring 

plan. As part of the survey, appropriate topographic and other maps should be used to identify other 

potential sources of interference, such as roadways and airports.

Specific installation procedures for each instrument are presented in the following sections.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 18 of 28

8.3.1 Sodar

Siting of Sodars can best be accomplished by vendors or experienced users. The complexities of Sodars

provide a challenge to the user who must optimize the conditions favorable for Sodar technology while 

still making use of available sites in a given study area.

A problem may exist at some potential monitoring sites due to the presence of passive and active noise 

sources. It is extremely important to determine if the proposed sampling site has any potential for 

producing fixed echoes (a passive noise source). These fixed echoes are often due to the energy contained 

in the side lobes of the emitted acoustic pulse. These fixed echoes may have the effect of biasing the 

computed wind components u, v, and w. Printing a facsimile chart sometimes reveals the presence of 

fixed echoes. This should be performed shortly after system setup, and repeated seasonally to aid in 

determining if fixed echoes exist. Some fixed echoes may be avoided by constructing an acoustically 

absorbing shelter around the Sodar antennas. These shelters are designed to absorb most of the energy 

released in the side lobes, minimizing the potential for reflections. 

Additional guidance includes the absence of obstructions in a 110o arc centered on the vertical axis or a 

40° arc centered on each beam. In addition, if the system is to be installed near a building, the antennas 

should be oriented off the corners of the building. If the building does intercept the sound wave, the wave 

will be reflected away from the Sodar due to the acute angles of the building's wall. Some manufacturers 

provide software routines that can detect fixed echoes and eliminate them from the consensus output.

All attempts should be made to avoid fixed echoes; however, if a limited number of sites are available and 

all have a possibility of producing fixed echoes, then the fixed echo detection software should be used to 

eliminate the problem. Special attention should be used during the acceptance test, described in 

Section 8.2, to determine if the fixed echo rejection routines are working properly.

The antenna does not necessarily have to point in one of the cardinal directions (i.e., north, south, east, or 

west). System software allows the Sodar to be set up in almost any direction, allowing the installer to 

point the beams away from obstacles that might interfere with the signal. For example, if the Sodar is to 

be set up near a tower, the antenna should be oriented so the beams point away from the tower,

Another type of interference, active interference, occurs from objects that emit noise, such as local 

automobile traffic, nearby construction, overhead aircraft, etc. Any acoustic source that emits its energy 

near the transmission frequency of a Sodar has the potential to interfere with and degrade data quality. 

This type of interference is more difficult to detect because it tends to be seasonal, sporadic, or random in 

nature. This problem can be reduced by installing acoustic absorbing shelters around the Sodar antenna 

like those shown in Figure 8.6. A simple test to determine if a problem exists at a given site is to set up 

the Sodar and turn off the transmitter. Analysis of received energy will determine if the presence of active 

interfering noise exists. If interferences from active sources are detected, it is recommended that the Sodar

be moved to an alternate site. The vendor or an experienced Sodar operator should be consulted during 

the installation process to decrease the chance of contamination of these data.

8.3.2 Radar Wind Profiler

As with a Sodar, careful siting will result in a site that has minimal interferences that can cause data 

problems. The vendor or an experienced radar wind profiler operator should be consulted during the 

installation process to decrease the chance of contamination of these data.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 19 of 28

Signal returns from “ground clutter” may bias the radar wind profiler data. Trees, power lines, busy roads, 

and even terrain features can produce erroneous data due to reflected EM signals. Severe ground clutter 

often degrades the signal enough to render data in the first few reported levels useless. As with Sodars, 

radar beams have side lobes that emit energy to around 70° from vertical (Figure 8.4). These side lobes 

cause a higher degree of interference than Sodars because radar return signals are typically very weak, so 

small amounts of energy reflected back to the receiver may cause large errors in the estimates of wind.

Therefore, radars should be setup away from tall buildings, power lines and other obstructions that may 

be a potential source of interference. The radar wind profiler should also be situated in an open area (e.g.,

an airport), or on top of a small hill or building to decrease the potential for ground clutter contamination. 

The antenna does not necessarily have to point in the cardinal directions (i.e., north, south, east, or west). 

System software should allow the radar to be set up in almost any direction, allowing the installer to point 

the beams away from obstacles that might interfere with the signal. For example, if the radar is to be setup 

near a tower, the antenna should be oriented so the beams point away from the tower.

8.3.3 Radio Acoustic Sounding System

The user of a radar/RASS should follow the guidelines for installing a radar, as specified in Section 8.3.2. 

Contamination from external acoustic sources is only a minor problem, but should be avoided as outlined 

for Sodars in Section 8.3.1. If a Sodar/bistatic radar is being used to measure Tv, then the installer should

follow the guidelines for installing a Sodar, with the addition of meeting the recommendations for 

installing a radar profiler.

8.4 Calibration

A calibration involves measuring the conformance to or discrepancy from a specification for an 

instrument and an adjustment of the instrument to conform to the specification. In this sense, other than 

directional alignment checks of the antenna(s), a true calibration of the Sodars, radar wind profilers, and 

RASS instruments described in this document is difficult. Due to differences in measurement techniques 

and sources of meteorological variability, direct comparison with data from other measurement platforms 

is not adequate for a calibration. Instead, a calibration of these sensors consists of test signals and 

diagnostic checks that are used to verify that the electronics and individual components of a system are 

working properly. Other than antenna misalignment, results from these calibrations should not be used to 

adjust any data.

System calibration and diagnostic checks should be performed at six-month intervals, or in accordance 

with the manufacturer's recommendations, whichever is more frequent. The alignment of remote sensing 

antennas, referenced to true north, should be verified at six-month intervals.

Recent advances in instrumentation for auditing of Sodar instruments53 have led to the development of a 

transponder that can simulate a variety of acoustic Doppler-shifted signals on certain Sodars. This 

transponder can be used to verify the calibration of the soar’s total system electronics and, in turn, 

validate the overall system operation in terms of wind speed and altitude calculations. However, such a 

check should not be considered a “true” calibration of the system since it does not consider other factors 

that can affect data recovery. These factors include the system signal-to-noise ratio, receiver amplification 

levels, antenna speaker element performance, beam steering and beam forming for phased-array systems, 

and overall system electronic noise.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 20 of 28

For the radar wind profiler and RASS systems, there are no simple means at present to verify the accuracy 

of the Doppler-shifted signals in the field other than to perform an intercomparison of data with some 

other measurement system. Instead, calibrations of radar wind profiler and RASS systems are performed 

and checked at the system component level. These checks should be performed in accordance with the 

manufacturer's recommendations. Like some Sodar systems, the radar systems use both software and 

hardware diagnostics to check the system components.

8.5 Operation, Maintenance, and Quality Control

Sodars, radar wind profilers, and RASS have automated operating systems and generally require minimal 

input from the user. Variables such as vertical range, vertical resolution, averaging times, and power 

output may be adjusted if needed, but most of the system operations are automatic. Users should follow 

the vendor’s instructions for operation and maintenance.

Like all monitoring equipment, upper-air instruments require various operational checks and routine 

preventive maintenance. The instrument maintenance manuals should be consulted to determine which 

checks to perform and their recommended frequency. The quality and quantity of data obtained will be 

directly proportional to the care taken in ensuring that the system is routinely and adequately maintained. 

The site technicians who will perform preventive and emergency maintenance should be identified. The 

site technicians serve a crucial role in producing high quality data and thus should receive sufficient 

training and instruction on how to maintain the equipment. Some general issues related to operational 

checks and preventive maintenance should be addressed in the QAPP, including

► Identification of the components to be checked and replaced

► Development of procedures and checklists to conduct preventive maintenance 

► Establishment of a schedule for checks and preventive maintenance

► Identification of persons (and alternates) who will perform the checks and maintenance

► Development of procedures for maintaining spare components that need frequent replacement 

Listed here are some key items to be included in the operational checklists for each of the different types 

of remote sensors. The list is not comprehensive, but should serve as a starting point for developing a 

more thorough set of instrumentation checks:

► Safety equipment (first aid kit, fire extinguisher) should be inventoried and checked.

► Computers should be routinely monitored to ensure adequate disk space is available, and 

diagnosed to ensure integrity of the disk.

► A visual inspection of the site, shelter, instrument and its components should be made.

► Data should be backed up on a routine basis.

► If the remote sensors are operated during the winter, procedures for snow and ice removal should 

be developed and implemented, as needed.

► The clock time of the instruments should be monitored, and a schedule for updating the clocks 

established, based on the timekeeping ability of the instrument.

► The antenna level and orientation of Sodar, radar wind profiler, and RASS systems should be 

verified periodically.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 21 of 28

► The inside of the antennas/enclosures of the Sodar, radar wind profiler, and RASS systems should 

be inspected and any leaves, dust, animals, insects, snow, ice, or other materials removed. Since 

the antennas are open to precipitation, drain holes are provided to allow water to pass through the 

bottom. These holes should be periodically inspected and cleaned.

► Cables and guy wires securing the equipment should be checked to ensure that they are tight and 

in good condition.

► Antenna cables and connections should be inspected for signs of damage due to normal wear, 

moisture, or animal activities.

► For Sodar systems, the site technician(s) should listen to ensure that the system is transmitting on 

all axes and in the correct firing sequence. For three-axis systems, this is accomplished by 

listening to each antenna. For phased-array systems, this can be accomplished by standing away 

from the antenna in the direction of each beam and listening for relatively stronger pulses.

► The integrity of any acoustic enclosures and acoustic-absorbing materials should be inspected. 

Weathering of these items will degrade the acoustic sealing properties of the enclosure and reduce 

the performance.

► For a radar profiler with RASS, acoustic levels from the sound sources should be measured using 

a sound meter (ear protection is required) and readings should be compared with manufacturer's 

guidelines.

► After severe or inclement weather, the site should be visited and the shelter and equipment should 

be inspected. 

SOPs should be developed that are specific to the operations of a given instrument and site. The purpose 

of an SOP is to spell out operating and QA procedures with the ultimate goal of maximizing data quality 

and data capture rates. Operations should be performed according to a set of well-defined, written SOPs 

with all actions documented in logs and on prepared forms. SOPs should be written in such a way that if 

problems are encountered, instructions are provided on actions to be taken. At a minimum, SOPs should 

address the following issues:

► Installation, setup, and checkout

► Site operations and calibrations

► Operational checks and preventive maintenance

► Data collection protocols

► Data archiving

► Key contacts

Some general guidelines for operation and maintenance include

► Wind data should be stored in their original component values (along the antenna axes), in 

addition to the storage of the calculated vector quantities. If the system does not support this 

mode, it is recommended that this quantity be recalculated during the validation process. This

guideline will also be useful when the wind direction may be in question. 

► Statistics about the quality of data averages (e.g., number of valid return intensities, consensus 

numbers, and standard deviation of component values) should also be stored. This information 

may be useful in detecting instrumentation problems.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 22 of 28

► In addition to storing the averaged wind or Tv data, it is recommended that users store the raw

forms of data so they can be reprocessed.

► The hard-disk drive is used for storing data; it should be checked as often as is necessary to 

ensure there is enough available storage.

► In the first few weeks after installation, the data should be checked on a daily basis to determine 

if the system is working properly. Time series plots of all variables should be produced and 

analyzed by a meteorologist or other qualified professional. This step is important for detecting 

any bias or anomalies in the data set. It is usually at this point that active and passive 

interferences are detected. 

► All inspections and maintenance activities should be documented in a site log book.

► After the site operator determines the system to be operating adequately, data should be plotted 

and checked on a weekly or more frequent basis to monitor the system performance.

Maintenance should include biweekly checks of the instrument, site, shelter, and electronics.

All operational checks and preventive maintenance activities should be recorded in logs and/or on 

appropriate checklists (electronic and/or paper), which will become part of the documentation that 

describes and defends the overall quality of the data produced.

If problems are found, a corrective action should be taken and reported. A corrective action program must 

have the capability to discern errors or defects at any point in an upper-air monitoring program. It is an 

essential management tool for coordination, QC, and QA activities. A workable corrective action program 

must enable the identification of problems, establish procedures for reporting problems to the responsible 

parties, trace the problems to the source, plan and implement measures to correct the problems, maintain 

documentation of the results of the corrective process, and resolve each problem. The overall 

documentation associated with the corrective action and reporting process will become part of the 

documentation that describes and defends the overall quality of the data produced. A sample correction 

form can be found in the EPA’s Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems.54

Systematic routines used to inspect these data provide a level of QC. These QC checks should be

performed by a technician, meteorologist, or other qualified professional who is familiar with these 

instruments. When a problem is found, a discrepancy report should be issued that notifies the users of the 

problem.

Studies performed to date have indicated that the upper-air measurement systems described in this 

document can reliably and routinely provide high quality meteorological data. However, these are 

complicated systems and, like all such systems, are subject to sources of interference and other problems 

that can affect data quality. Users should read the instrument manuals to obtain an understanding of 

potential shortcomings and limitations of these instruments. If any persistent or recurring problems are 

experienced, the manufacturer or someone knowledgeable about instrument operations should be 

consulted.

Sodar data can be rendered problematic by the following:

► Passive noise sources (also called fixed echo reflections). Passive noise occurs when nearby 

obstacles reflect the soar’s transmitted pulse. Depending on atmospheric conditions, wind speed, 

background noise, and signal processing techniques, the fixed echoes may reduce the velocity 

measured along a beam(s) or result in a velocity of zero. This problem is generally seen in the 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 23 of 28

resultant winds as a rotation in direction and/or a decrease in speed at the affected altitude. Some 

manufacturers offer systems that have software designed to detect fixed echoes and minimize 

their influence. To further decrease the effect of the fixed echoes, additional acoustic shielding 

can be added to the system antenna.

► Active noise sources (ambient noise interference). Ambient noise can come from road traffic, 

fans or air conditioners, animals, insects, strong winds, etc. Loud broad-spectrum noise will

decrease the SNR of the Sodar and decrease the performance of the system. Careful siting of the 

instrument will help minimize this problem.

► Unusually consistent winds at higher altitudes. Barring meteorological explanations for this 

phenomenon, the most common cause is a local noise source that is incorrectly interpreted as a 

“real” Doppler shift. These winds typically occur near the top of the operating range of the Sodar. 

To identify this problem, allow the Sodar to operate in a listen-only mode without a transmit 

pulse to see if winds are still reported. In some cases, it may be necessary to make noise

measurements in the specific operating range of the Sodar to identify the noise source. This may 

be performed by collecting sound samples and analyzing them with appropriate spectral software.

► Reduced altitude coverage due to debris in the antennas. In some instances, particularly after a 

precipitation event, the altitude coverage of the Sodar may be significantly reduced due to debris 

in the antennas. In three-axis systems, drain holes may become plugged with leaves or dirt and 

water, snow, or ice may accumulate in the antenna dishes. Similarly, some of the phased-array 

antenna systems have the transducers oriented vertically and are open to the environment. 

Blocked drain holes in the bottom of the transducers may prevent water from draining. Regular 

maintenance can prevent this type of problem.

► Precipitation interference. Precipitation, mostly rain, may affect the data collected by Sodars. 

During rainfall events, the Sodar may measure the fall speed of drops, which will produce 

unrealistic winds. In addition, the sound of the droplets hitting the antenna can increase the 

ambient noise levels and reduce the altitude coverage.

► Low signal-to noise-ratio (SNR). Conditions that produce low SNR can degrade the performance 

of a Sodar. These conditions can be produced by high background noise, low turbulence, and 

near-neutral lapse rate conditions. 

Data from radar wind profiler systems can be affected by several problems, including the following:

► Interference from migrating birds. Migrating birds can contaminate radar wind profiler signals 

and produce biases in the wind speed and direction measurements.55 Birds act as large radar 

“targets”, so that signals from birds overwhelm the weaker atmospheric signals. Consequently, 

the radar wind profiler measures bird motion instead of, or in addition to, atmospheric motion. 

Migrating birds have no effect on RASS. Birds generally migrate year round along preferred 

flyways, with the peak migrations occurring at night during the spring and fall months.56 Vendors 

have software to minimize the influence of migrating birds on radar wind profiler data.

► Precipitation interference. Precipitation can affect the data collected by radar profilers operating 

at 915 MHz and higher frequencies. During precipitation, the radar profiler measures the fall 

speed of rain drops or snow flakes. If the fall speeds are highly variable during the averaging 

period (e.g., convective rainfall), a vertical velocity correction can produce erroneous data.

► Passive noise sources (ground clutter). Passive noise interference is produced when a transmitted 

signal is reflected off an object instead of the atmosphere. The types of objects that reflect radar 

signals are trees, elevated overpasses, cars, buildings, airplanes, etc. Careful siting of the 

instrument can minimize the effects of ground clutter on the data. Both software and hardware 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 24 of 28

techniques are also used to reduce the effects of ground clutter. However, under some 

atmospheric conditions (e.g., strong winds) and at some site locations, ground clutter can produce 

erroneous data. Data contaminated by ground clutter can be detected as a wind shift or a decrease 

in wind speed at affected altitudes. Additional information is provided by Brewster and 

Gaynor.47,57

► Velocity folding or aliasing. Velocity folding occurs when the magnitude of the radial component 

of the true air velocity exceeds the maximum velocity that the instrument is capable of measuring, 

which is a function of sampling parameters.58 Folding occurs during very strong winds (>20 m/s) 

and can be easily identified and flagged by automatic screening checks or during the manual 

review.

RASS systems are susceptible to several common problems including the following: 

► Vertical velocity correction. Vertical motions can affect the RASS virtual temperature 

measurements. Virtual temperature is determined by measuring the vertical speed of an upwardpropagating sound pulse, which is a combination of the acoustic velocity and the atmospheric 

vertical velocity. If the atmospheric vertical velocity is non-zero and no correction is made for the 

vertical motion, it will bias the temperature measurement. As a rule of thumb, a vertical velocity 

of 1 ms-1 can alter a virtual temperature observation by 1.6 degrees C. 

► Potential cold bias. Recent inter-comparisons between RASS systems and radiosonde sounding 

systems have shown a bias in the lower sampling altitudes.59 The RASS virtual temperatures are 

often slightly cooler (-0.5 to -1.0oC) than the reference radiosonde data. 

8.6 Auditing

A system audit is intended to independently assess the QAPP and how it is being implemented. A 

performance audit is a direct challenge to the performance of the instrument. Audits of upper-air 

instrumentation pose some interesting challenges to verifying their proper operation. While system audits 

can be performed using traditional system checks and alignment and orientation techniques, performance 

audits of some instruments require unique, and sometimes expensive, procedures. In particular, unlike 

surface meteorological instrumentation, the upper-air systems cannot be challenged using known inputs 

such as rates of rotation, orientation directions, or temperature baths. Recommended techniques for both 

system and performance audits of the upper-air instruments are described here. These techniques have 

been categorized into system audit checks and performance audit procedures for Sodars, radar profilers, 

and RASS. Performance audits should be performed 30 days after installation and annually thereafter.

Results from the performance evaluation should be compared with evaluation criteria to assess whether 

the comparisons are reasonable. Typical criteria for the comparisons are provided in Table 8-3. 

Comparison results in excess of the criteria do not necessarily mean that the remote sensor data are 

invalid. In making the assessment, it is important to understand the reasons for the differences. Reasons 

may include unusual meteorological conditions, differences due to sampling techniques and data 

reduction procedures, insufficient number of samples, or problems or limitations in one or both 

instruments. Both the reasons for, and the magnitude of, the differences as well as the anticipated uses of 

the data need to be considered in determining whether the observed differences are significant. 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 25 of 28

Table 8-3 Recommended Audit Criteria for Sodar, Radar Wind Profilers, and RASS

Variable Systematic Difference Operational Comparability

u, va ±1 m/s 2 m/s

Wind speeda ±1 m/s 2 m/s

Wind directiona ±10° 30°

RASS temperature ±1°C 1.5°C

a The wind speed and wind direction criteria apply to data when the wind speeds are greater than 2 m/s. 

8.6.1 System Audits of Remote Sensors

System audits of a remote sensor should include a complete review of the QAPP, any monitoring plan for 

the station, and the station’s SOPs. The system audit will determine if the procedures identified in these 

plans are followed during station operation. Deviations from the plans should be noted and an assessment 

made as to what effect the deviation may have on data quality. To ensure consistency in the system audits, 

a checklist should be used.

A routine check of the monitoring station should be performed to ensure that the local technician is 

following all SOPs. In addition to specific checks recommended by the vendor, the following items 

should be checked:

► The antenna and controller interface cables should be inspected for proper connection. If multiaxis antennas are used, this will include checking for the proper direction of the interface 

connections.

► Orientation checks should be performed on the individual antennas, or phased-array antenna. The 

checks should be verified using solar siting or the GPS method when possible (see 

Sections 2.5.2.3 and 2.5.2.4). The measured orientation of the antennas should be compared with 

the system software settings of the system. The antenna alignment should be maintained within 

2o, which is consistent with wind direction vane alignment criteria.

► For multi-axis antennas, the inclination angle, or zenith angle from the vertical, should be verified 

against the software settings and the manufacturer's recommendations. The measured zenith angle 

should be within o of the software setting in the data system. 0.5

► For phased-array antennas, and for the vertical antenna in a multi-axis system, the level of the 

antenna should be within o of the vertical. 0.5

► For multi-axis Sodar systems, a separate distinct pulse, or pulse train in the case of frequencycoded pulse systems, should be heard from each of the antennas. In a frequency-coded pulse 

system there may be a sound pattern that can be verified. The instrument manual should be 

checked to see if there is such a pattern.

► The controller and data collection devices should be checked to ensure that the instruments are 

operating in the proper mode and that the data being collected are those specified by the SOPs.

► Station logbooks, checklists, and calibration forms should be reviewed for completeness and 

content to ensure the entries are commensurate with the expectations in the procedures for the 

site.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 26 of 28

► The site operator should be interviewed to determine his/her knowledge of system operation, 

maintenance, and proficiency in the performance of QC checks.

► The antenna enclosures should be inspected for structural integrity that may cause failures as well 

as for any signs of debris or animal or insect nests that may cause drainage problems in the event 

of rain or snow.

► Preventive maintenance procedures should be reviewed for adequacy and implementation.

► The time clocks on the data acquisition systems should be checked and compared to a standard of 

2 minutes.

► The data processing procedures and the methods for processing the data from sub-hourly to 

hourly intervals should be reviewed for appropriateness.

► Data collected over a several-day period should be reviewed for reasonableness and consistency. 

The review should include vertical consistency within given profiles and temporal consistency 

from period to period. For radar wind profilers and Sodars, special attention should be given to 

the possibility of ground clutter (i.e., fixed echoes) and/or active noise source contamination in 

the data.

8.6.2 Sodar Performance Audit

A performance audit of a Sodar should use a responding device (see Baxter, 1994, for a description53) 

and/or a data intercomparison. A responding device independently assesses the ability of the instrument to 

correctly interpret test signals that represent known wind speeds. The responding device emits a fixed 

audio frequency at a known time that is received by the Sodar’s antenna. When the Sodar receives the 

signal, it interprets the audio frequency as a Doppler shift. If the Sodar is operating properly, it should 

correspond to a known velocity. The timing of the signal is used to verify that altitude is interpreted 

properly. This type of performance audit tests the complete processing of a known signal through all 

Sodar system components.

Since a Sodar works on the principle of measuring winds on a component basis, the audit data should be 

evaluated on that basis. Audit results for a properly operating Sodar should be within 0.2 m/s on a 

component basis using a responding device. Audits using such a device should be performed over at least 

three averaging intervals and simulated over a range of normally observed wind speeds.

The responding checks cannot verify that beam steering is being done properly by a phased array Sodar. 

Since there are no simple techniques for field verification of the beam angles, it is recommended that a 

comparison of the Sodar data with an independent measurement technique be made to assess the 

reasonableness of the measurements. This will help identify any major problems with the system such as 

improper acoustic beam steering, antenna alignment, etc. The comparison can be made using collocated 

adjacent tower data, radiosondes, a tethered balloon, an anemometer kite system, another remote sensor, 

or a balloon sounding system. It is recommended that such comparisons include a minimum of five data 

collection intervals when at least two different wind regimes are evident. Section 8.2 provides the 

procedures for intercomparing data from two different sensors, and Table 8-3 provides comparison 

criteria.
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 27 of 28

8.6.3 Radar Wind Profiler Performance Audit

At present, performance audits of radar wind profilers rely on comparisons to collocated or nearby upperair measurements to evaluate the performance of the system. Various types of comparison instruments 

can be used: tall towers, Sodars, radiosondes, and other balloon techniques. A tethered balloon can be 

used, but care should be taken to ensure that it does not interfere with the radar data. Since it is important 

to have confidence in the reference instrument, it must also have an independent verification of operation. 

Section 8.2 provides the procedures for intercomparing data from two different sensors.

Audits using a Sodar (either multi-axis or phased-array) should be performed with the Sodar collocated 

with the profiler system and configured to collect data using similar temporal and spatial averaging 

periods. The Sodar should be operated for at least 24 hours with the height coverage overlapping the radar 

wind profiler data for at least four sampling altitudes. The philosophy behind this approach is that the 

operational principles of the profiler are consistent throughout its vertical range, so that “good” 

comparisons at the lowest range gates should indicate acceptable performance at higher altitudes as well. 

In comparing the data sets, it is important to process the Sodar data in the same manner as the profiler 

data. This means vertical velocity corrections may be needed to the Sodar data as well as vertical volume 

averaging of the Sodar range gates to make them comparable with the profiler range gates. In addition, 

the averaging periods of the two systems need to be consistent. When a RASS is in operation, it is likely 

the Sodar data will be contaminated and should not be included in the average.

A quick review of the Sodar and radar data should be made prior to dismantling the Sodar to ensure 

adequate coverage of overlapping data. If needed, additional periods of data collection (up to 72 hours or 

more) may be required to attain confidence that the systems are both operating correctly and that the 

collected data are adequate to characterize the performance of the radar. The key is to have adequate data

to obtain confidence in the measurement comparison.

Performance audits using a radiosonde system should include at least three soundings collected over the 

diurnal cycle so that a variety of stability conditions are encountered. A radiosonde sounding provides 

vertical coverage over the full operating range of the radar. Its drawbacks include the lack of spatial 

consistency as the balloon travels away from the radar site, as well as the instantaneous profile from the 

balloon, as opposed to the time-integrated averaged data produced by the radar.

When comparing data from two different upper-air remote sensors, it is important to average the data 

from the audit sensor so that the time steps and range gates are similar. In addition, it is important to 

process the wind data along each antenna radial to provide information that can more easily diagnose 

problems that may be caused by phasing or antenna related problems. The systematic differences at all 

levels should be about ±1 m/s for the u and v components calculated along the antenna beams—±1 m/s 

for wind speed and ±10o for wind direction. Comparabilities should be better than ±2 m/s for speed and 

±30o for direction, as discussed in Table 8-3.

To conduct performance audits using an adjacent tall tower, at least one measurement level on the tower 

must fall within the profiler’s sample volume. Data should be compared for at least 24 hours, after which 

the statistics should be comparable with the criteria in Table 8-3.

If differences exceed the tolerances indicated above or the data quality objectives of the program, then it 

is important to try to understand why the differences occurred before assuming there is a problem with the 

Sodar or profiler. The reasons may lie in unusual meteorological conditions and/or be due to different 

sampling techniques and data reduction protocols used by the reference instrument. If differences exist, 

both data sets should be examined carefully to determine the cause of the differences. If a problem is 
Volume 4, Section 8

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 28 of 28

identified, users should determine if it is an isolated problem only affecting a few data points or a 

systematic problem affecting all of the data. Additional intercomparisons may be needed to resolve the 

differences.

8.6.4 RASS Performance Audit

As with the radar wind profiler, performance audits of RASS rely on a comparison to a reference 

instrument. The recommended method is to use a balloon sounding system to measure the variables 

needed to calculate Tv (i.e., pressure, temperature, and relative humidity). At least three soundings should 

be made for an audit during different times of the day to evaluate the performance of the system under 

different stability conditions. Soundings should be launched while the RASS is operating to avoid 

potential differences between the measurements caused by meteorological variability. Data collected from 

the radiosonde should be volume averaged into intervals consistent with the RASS averaging volumes, 

and values compared on a level-by-level and overall basis. When both the RASS and radiosonde systems 

are operating properly, the systematic difference should be within ±1 degrees C and with an operational 

comparability of 1.5 degrees C, as listed in Table 8-3.
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 9

9. Data Acquisition Systems and Meteorology

9.1 Introduction

This section provides information about Data Acquisition Systems (DAS), a term signifying systems that 

collect, store, summarize, report, print, calculate, or transfer data. The transfer is usually made from an 

analog or digital format to a digital medium. However, with “new generation” systems, DAS and most 

meteorological sensor manufacturers offer a digital option that allows the digital signal to go directly 

from the sensor to the DAS. EPA recommends that SLT agencies consider migrating from analog-todigital (A/D) to digital-to-digital (D/D) data transfer. Reasons will be discussed in this section. 

DAS have been available to air quality professionals since the early 1980s. Previous to DAS, 

meteorological data could only be recorded on strip chart recorders, which had some drawbacks: 

► Manual reduction of data from the strip charts.

► Ink “bleed” that obscured accurate readings.

► Ink delivery systems that ran dry, hence, loss of data.

► Large amounts of paper needing storage.

► If ink did not dry completely, charts adhering to each other, thus obscuring the readings. 

Simpler analog systems utilize the electrical output from a transducer to directly drive the varying pen 

position on a strip chart. For some variables, such as wind run (total passage of wind) and precipitation, 

the transducer may produce a binary voltage (either “on” or “off”) which is translated into an event mark 

on the strip chart. Most SLT agencies either have migrated away from strip chart recorders or only use 

these devices in backup operations. 

The first DAS were single- and multi-channel systems that collected data on magnetic media. These 

media were usually hand-transferred to a central location or laboratory for downloading to a central 

computer. The advent of digital data transfer from the stations to a central location diminished the need to 

hand-transfer meteorological data. In addition, since DAS had rapid scan rate capability (i.e., once per 

second or less), data collected could also be converted quickly to vector or sigma data. This allowed end 

users (i.e., modelers) to input additional data into complex models to understand transport of pollution 

downwind of sources. 

9.2 DAS Data Acquisition in Analog Layout – Signal Conditioning

Many analog systems and virtually all digital systems require a signal conditioner to translate the 

transducer output into a form that is suitable for the remainder of the DAS. This translation may include 

amplifying the signal, buffering the signal (which in effect isolates the transducer from the DAS), or 

converting a current (amperage) signal into a voltage signal.

9.3 Instrument Connectivity

Technological advances in DAS and meteorological sensors provide analog or digital interface of sensor 

signals to the DAS. The A/D and D/D options are discussed in the following sections. 
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 9

9.3.1 Analog-to-Digital Conversion

A key component of any digital DAS is the A/D converter. The A/D converter translates the analog 

electrical signal into a binary form that is suitable for subsequent processing by digital equipment. In most 

digital DAS, a single A/D converter is used for several data channels through the use of a multiplexer. 

The rate at which the multiplexer channel switches are opened and closed determines the sampling rates 

for the channels. All channels need not be sampled at the same frequency. 

Figure 9.1 shows a DAS rear panel with sensor analog signal cable attached to an 8-channel differential

input terminal strip. The meteorological sensor has a DC voltage potential that is proportional to the 

specific measurement being recorded. Most meteorological instruments’ outputs are in the 0-1 or 

0-5 VDC range. The A/D converter basically performs the following functions during the analog 

conversion process:

► The voltage is measured by the multiplexer which allows voltages from many instruments to be 

read at the same time.

► The multiplexer sends a signal to the A/D converter which changes the analog voltage to a low 

amperage digital signal.

► The A/D converter send signals to the central processing unit (CPU) that directs the digital 

electronic signals to a display or to the random access memory (RAM) which stores the shortterm data until the end of a pre-defined time period.

► The CPU then transfers the data from the RAM to the storage medium which can be magnetic 

tape, computer hard-drive, or computer diskette.

► The computer storage medium can be accessed remotely or at the monitoring location.

Data transfer can occur via modem to a central computer storage area or printed out as hard copy. In some 

instances, data can be transferred from one storage medium to another storage medium (e.g., hard drive to 

a diskette or tape). Due to varying voltages and analog system connections, interferences and voltage 

“leakage” can occur, which can cause errors. Following is a list of some A/D concerns. 

► In high sensitivity applications, the signal exists at the bottom of the usable voltage range, and the 

data stream may be affected by noise.

► The A/D range may be limited to 10 bit (1024 steps) in some cases.

► A/D calibrations may be required to “match” sensor output to DAS input readings.
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 9

Figure 9.1 DAS Rear Panel with 8-Channel 

Differential Analog Terminal Strip

9.3.2 Digital Connectivity 

D/D transfer has several advantages:

► Multiple data types can be transferred with a single connection.

► Single cable interface reduces clutter at the DAS rear panel. 

► Ground loops are eliminated to improve data integrity.

► A/D calibrations are not required.

► There is additional flexibility in tracking signal over-range conditions.

► Digital systems are sensitive to changes in sensor firmware and output formats.

Figure 9.2 shows DAS rear panel with RS-232 signal interface. 
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 9

Figure 9.2 DAS Rear Panel with RS-232 Signal Interface

9.4 Data Communication

Depending on the type of system, there may be several data communication links. Typically the output 

signals from the transducers are transmitted to the on-site recording devices directly via hardwire cables. 

For some applications involving remote locations, the data transmission may be accomplished via a 

microwave telemetry system or telephone lines with a dial-up or dedicated line modem system. Also, 

wireless internet connection is available for real-time communication with the site DAS. 

9.5 Sampling Rates

The recommended sampling rate for a digital DAS depends on the end use of the data. Substantial 

evidence and experience suggest that 360 data values evenly spaced during the sampling interval will 

provide estimates of the standard deviation to within 5 percent or 10 percent.2 Estimates of the mean 

should be based on at least 60 samples to obtain a similar level of accuracy. Sometimes fewer samples 

will perform as well, but no general guide can be given for identifying these cases before sampling; in 

some cases, more frequent sampling may be required.

If single-pass processing is used to compute the mean scalar wind direction, the output from the winddirection sensor (wind vane) should be sampled at least once per second to ensure that consecutive values 

do not differ by more than 180 degrees. The sampling rate for multi-point analog recorders should be at 

least once per minute. Chart speeds should be selected to permit adequate resolution of the data to achieve 
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 9

the system accuracies recommended in Section 0.2.2. The recommended sampling rates are minimum 

values; the accuracy of the data will generally be improved by increasing the sampling rate.

9.6 Meteorological Data Generated by DAS 

A number of parameters are generated by state-of-the-science DAS: 

► Wind speed (WSV or vector), wind direction (WDV or vector)

► Wind direction standard deviation (sigma theta)

► Standard deviation of the vertical wind speed (sigma W)

► Standard deviation of the vertical wind direction (sigma phi)

► Wind speed and direction averages (WSA and WDA)

Specific equations are used in the calculation of these variables. These equations are defined in the 

following subsections. Generally, the data will be calculated on a 1-second scan rate, but reported as an 

hourly value averaged from the 3,600 1-second values. 

9.6.1 WSV and WDV Calculations60

The hourly calculations for WSV and WDV provide a vector average of all the instantaneous samples of 

wind direction (WDi) and instantaneous wind speed (WSi) sampled each hour. The following equations 

are used.

[ ( )]

N

WS sin WD

U

N

i

∑ i i

=

∗

= 1

(9-1)

[ ( )]

N

WS cos WD

V

N

i

∑ i i

=

∗

= 1

(9-2)

FLOW

V

U WDV  +



 



 = arctan

(9-3)

Where:

(9-4)

Where

U = the east-west component

V = north-south component of the wind

























 →> 

 



 − →

 →< 

 



 + →

= 0 0

0 0

180 arctan 180

180 arctan 180

V

U

V

U

FLOW

( ) 2

1 2 2 WSV = U +V
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 9

N = the number of instantaneous samples

The signs (positive or negative) of U and V are used to place WDV in the proper sector. Equation 9-3 

assumes that the angle returned by the ArcTan function is in degrees.

The unit vector approach to computing mean wind direction is similar to the vector mean described above 

except that the east-west and north-south components are not weighted by the wind speed. Using the unit 

vector approach, equations 9-5 and 9-6 become 

= − ∑sin(WD ) NU 1

(9-5)

= − ∑cos(WD ) NV 1

(9-6)

The unit vector mean wind direction is

FLOW

V

U WDV  +



 



 = arctan

(9-7)

where

In general, the unit vector result will be comparable to the scalar average wind direction and may be used 

to model plume transport.

9.6.2 Standard Deviation of Wind Direction (sigma theta)

Sigma theta (σθ) is collected for the sole purpose of estimating lower atmospheric stability. The suggested 

stability calculation method is detailed in EPA, 2002. Sigma theta can be calculated from the 

instantaneous wind direction values using the basic definition of standard deviation.

( )





























−

−

=

∑=

1

1

1 2

N

WD WDA

N

i

/

i

σ θ

(9-8)

It has been suggested that the upper limit of sigma theta should be limited to 103.9 degrees. Sigma theta 

calculated over 60 minutes is influenced by the changing wind direction during the hour. For this reason, 

it is recommended that four 15-minute sigma theta calculations be combined to provide a “1-hr” value for 

the purpose of selecting a Pasquill-Gifford stability class. The following method describes how the hourly 

values should be calculated. 

























 →> 

 



 − →

 →< 

 



 + →

= 0 0

0 0

180 arctan 180

180 arctan 180

V

U

V

U

FLOW
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 9

1 2 2

60

2

45

2

30

2

15

1 4

/

A( ) A( ) A( ) A( )

A( hr )















 + + +

− = σ σ σ σ

σ

(9-9)

Where each equation is a 15-minute deviation of the wind direction. 

for example is calculated between 00 and 15 minutes.

Several methods for calculating the standard deviation of the wind direction were evaluated by Turner 

(REF); a method developed by Yamartino (REF) was found to provide excellent results for most cases. 

The Yamartino method is shown in equation 9-10: 

arcsin( )[ . . ] A

3 σ σ ε 1 0 1547ε = θ = + (9-10)

where

1 2 2 2

1

/

. sin(WD ) cos(WD ) 

  



 



 ε = − +

9.6.3 Standard Deviation of the Vertical Wind Speed (sigma W)

The standard deviation of the vertical component of the wind speed is

1 2 2

1

2

1

1 1

/

N

i i

N

w w

N

w

N 





























 



 





σ = Σ − Σ (9-11)

9.6.4 Standard Deviation of the Vertical Wind Direction (sigma phi)

Sigma phi (σφ) is another method for estimating lower atmospheric stability. The suggested stability 

calculation method using sigma phi is detailed in Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory 

Modeling Applications.

4

WSA

ω

θ

σ

σ = (9-12)

Equation 9.12 yields sigma phi (σφ) in units of radians and must be converted to degrees:

Sigma phi (degrees) = Sigma phi (radians) x 57.2958

9.7 Identification of Data Acquisition Calculation Issues

If a problem with the monitoring system is suspected, an examination of long-term data trends can help 

validate the data or troubleshoot the system. Problems with the sensor, signal conditioner, and data logger 

may be detected using the following analyses: 

2 σ A(15X )

2 σ A(15)
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 9

► Time series plots comparing parameters at a variety of stations (see Figure 9.3).

► Scatter plots of data, such as Figure 9.4. This type of plot can be used to compare data offsets.

► Wind rose plots. A significant change in wind rose plots may indicate a problem with the 

monitoring system. Minor variations in annual wind roses are expected due to inter-annual 

meteorological variation. For example, a misalignment of the wind direction sensor may be 

detected using this analysis.

► Examination of the database to determine minimum and maximum values. For, example, longterm wind direction minimum and maximum values are expected to be close to 0 and 360 for 

most stations. 

Figure 9.3 is a comparison of trends at two stations near each other. Ratios between parameters are 

typically expected to remain consistent over the long term. A significant change in the ratio between 

parameters or a change in the inter-annual pattern may indicate a problem with a monitoring system. For 

example, a significant change is indicated the middle of the Figure 9.3 time series plot. When reviewing 

these charts, minor inter-annual variability in parameters should also be expected.

Figure 9.3 A Comparison of Trends at Two Nearby Stations

Figure 9.4 is a comparison of hourly scalar and vector wind direction data for two time periods at a 

monitoring station. This type of plot may illuminate characteristics of the wind direction calculation. The 

characteristic of the 2000-2002 time period is very different from the 2004-2006 time period, indicating 

that a significant change occurred in the vector calculation. The wind direction vector for 2004-2006 does 

not display samples in the range 0 to 10 degrees, which also indicates a potential problem with the vector 

calculation. In addition, few observations were reported between 340 degrees and 20 degrees, which also 

may be an indicator of potential problem with the vector calculation.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan-00

May-00

Sep-00

Jan-01

May-01

Sep-01

Jan-02

May-02

Sep-02

Jan-03

May-03

Sep-03

Jan-04

May-04

Sep-04

Jan-05

May-05

Sep-05

Ozone (ppb)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Ratio of Site B to Site A

Site A

Site B

Ratio
Volume 4, Section 9

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 9

Figure 9.4 A Comparison of Scalar and Vector Wind Direction

Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 13

10. Meteorological Data Validation 

and Verification

Data review, verification, and validation are techniques used to accept, reject, or qualify data in an 

objective and consistent manner. Verification can be defined as confirmation by examination and 

objective evidence that specified recommendations have been fulfilled. Validation can be defined as 

confirmation by examination and objective evidence that the particular recommendations for a specific 

intended use are fulfilled. It is important to describe the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data 

item has met its quality specifications as described in an organization’s QAPP. This section describes the 

techniques used to make these assessments with a focus on meteorological parameters. 

In general, these assessment activities are performed by persons implementing the environmental data 

operations as well as by personnel “independent” of the operation, such as the organization’s QA 

personnel, and at some specified frequency. The procedures, designated personnel, and frequency of 

assessment should be included in an organization’s QAPP. These activities should occur prior to 

submitting data to the final repository in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) and before they are utilized in 

models or forecasts. The following areas of discussion should be considered during verification or 

validation processes.

10.1 General Approach 

How closely a measurement represents the actual environment at a given time and location is a complex 

issue that must be considered during development of the sampling design. Each sample should be checked 

for conformity to the specifications, including type and location (spatial and temporal). By noting the 

deviations in sufficient detail, subsequent modelers and other data users will be able to determine the 

data’s usability under scenarios different from those included in project planning. 

Ambient air pollution data and meteorological data are linked. Pollution either forms chemically in the 

atmosphere or it is the result of a process. Photochemical pollutants, such as ozone and sulfates, are 

generally produced over a period of time. Ozone forms by the interaction of VOCs and NOx under the 

right meteorological conditions when low wind speeds, variable wind directions, and relatively high 

temperatures are present. 

Other pollutants are generated by point and area sources. Winds, a meteorological variable, can transport 

pollutants great distances from their sources to affect populated areas. There are several examples of the 

interaction of ambient air pollution and meteorology in Section 10.4 of this document. Therefore, if 

possible, meteorological data should be validated and verified at the same time as pollution data, 

not separately. 

Figure 10.1 is a simplified illustration of a typical validation and verification process. Three distinct 

columns are illustrated in this schematic. The left column shows the “levels of data”. These levels of data 

are described in detail later in Section 10.1.1. The central column is a visualization of the data flow from 

meteorological sensors to the AQS. The right column illustrates the type of verification or validation that 

usually occurs during the process. The numbers in parentheses reference the section numbers in this 

document. 
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 13

Figure 10.1 Generalized Data Validation and Verification Process Flow

Level 0

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Met 

Sensors

DAS

On Site 

Computer

Central 

Database 

(Initial)

AQS

Visual 

Inspection 

(10.2.1)

Level of 

Data

Data 

Flow

Type of 

Review

Central 

Database 

(Final)

DAS Data 

Verification 

(10.2.2)

Graphic Analysis 

(10.4.3)

Manual Review 

(10.3)

Data Base 

Screening 

(10.4.5)

Final 

Evaluation 

(10.4.6)

Comparison 

Program 

(10.4.4)

Level 0

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Met 

Sensors

DAS

On Site 

Computer

Central 

Database 

(Initial)

AQS

Visual 

Inspection 

(10.2.1)

Level of 

Data

Data 

Flow

Type of 

Review

Central 

Database 

(Final)

DAS Data 

Verification 

(10.2.2)

Graphic Analysis 

(10.4.3)

Manual Review 

(10.3)

Data Base 

Screening 

(10.4.5)

Final 

Evaluation 

(10.4.6)

Comparison 

Program 

(10.4.4)
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 13

10.1.1 Levels of Validation

Generally, there are four “levels” of air quality and meteorological data validation. These levels are

defined by Mueller and Watson61 and Watson et al.62 When a data set has undergone a level of review, it 

passes on to the next level. The process is used to determine the validity of the data.

► Level 0 validated data are essentially raw data obtained directly from the DAS in the field. 

Level 0 data have been reduced and possibly reformatted, but are unedited and un-reviewed. 

These data have not been adjusted for known biases or problems that may have been identified 

during preventive maintenance checks or audits. These data may be used to monitor instrument 

operations on a frequent basis but should not be used for regulatory purposes.

► Level 1 data validation involves quantitative and qualitative reviews for accuracy, completeness, 

and internal consistency. Quantitative checks are performed by DAS software screening programs 

(see Section 10.2.2), and qualitative checks are performed by meteorologists or field staff who

manually review the data for outliers and problems. Quality control flags are assigned, as 

necessary, to indicate the data quality. Data are only considered validated at Level 1 after final

audit reports have been issued and any adjustments, changes, or modifications to the data have 

been made.

► Level 2 data validation involves comparisons with independent data sets. This function includes, 

for example, making comparisons to other meteorological or ambient pollution data or upper-air 

measurement systems.

► Level 3 data validation involves a more detailed analysis and final screening of the data. The 

purpose of the final step is to verify that there are no inconsistencies among the related data (such 

as problems with scalar and vector data or problems consistent with temperature and its related 

relative humidity). Graphics programs may be run to examine the overall consistency among 

related data (i.e., checking diurnal patterns against other parameters or reviewing strip charts for 

final analysis). 

10.2 Data Verification Methods

Data verification is defined as the confirmation by examination and objective evidence that specified 

recommendations have been fulfilled. These recommendations should be included in the organization’s 

QAPP and in SOPs. The data verification process involves two basic steps: visual inspection and analysis 

and verification performed by DAS. Both techniques are needed to verify meteorological data. Each is 

described in the following sections. 

10.2.1 Visual Data Verification 

Some meteorological data can be verified visually. For example, under windy conditions, the cup 

anemometer and vane system at a monitoring station should move. Rainfall can be measured. Other visual 

verification techniques, which include inspections, can be technical systems audits (internal or external) 

or frequent inspections by field operators. Several questions might be asked during a visual verification 

process:
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 13

1. Is the equipment performing correctly? Individual checks such as electronic checks, zero checks, 

and other assessments must have been acceptably performed and documented.

2. Did the equipment and its performance pass an initial visual inspection? A station operator 

should look at the meteorological equipment during a site visit. If the wind speed cups are 

spinning and the vane is responding to wind, does the motion correlate to a reasonable value? 

Does the measured temperature appear to be “fairly accurate”? If the weather is warm enough to 

work without a coat, is temperature above 10 degrees C. Is it clear or overcast? If it is clear, the 

assumption might be that solar radiation would be relatively high. Many environmental samples 

can be flagged (qualified) during the periodic visual inspection.

3. Part of the verification process is a review of the meteorological data and the current weather over 

a period of time. It is important that the station operator review the data collected from the last 

visit. A quick visual inspection may reveal some anomalies that do not match other parameters. 

For example, if an operator sees a high humidity value in the DAS, does it have a corresponding 

relatively high temperature value. If the interactions of the meteorological parameters are 

understood, general conclusions can be drawn. A quick look at the tabular data may illustrate 

anomalies that can be studied during the validation process. 

Figure 10.2 is an illustration of a local air pollution agency’s monitoring station meteorological sensor 

checklist. This example lists items that must be checked by the station operator every time that he/she 

visits the site. A discussion of the items on the checklist follows: 

► Tower Check. The tower check is a visual inspection of each sensor on the meteorological tower. 

Each time an operator visits, he/she should look every external instrument. Cups, vanes, 

temperature shields, and NEMA 4 enclosures should be checked for damage or possible blockage 

by animals or debris. 

► Wind Check. The wind speed and direction are estimated by the operator and marked on the 

form. Once this estimation is performed, the operator notes the reading from the DAS. Do the 

estimates and the readings match reasonably? The values recorded by the operator should be 

checked against the strip chart recorder. Do they match? 

► Temperature Check. A sling, motorized psychrometer should be operated, and the temperature 

and relative humidity should be checked against the DAS reading. 

► Sky Check. Recording sky conditions helps to determine whether the solar and UV radiation 

values are relatively accurate. Other useful checks are to visually check for passing clouds. If 

clouds obscure the sunlight, UV and solar radiation values should drop quickly. If the operator 

arrives early in the morning, solar radiation values will increase slowly over an hour’s time, 

verifying that the sensor is working.

► Rainfall Check. The tipping bucket rain gage should be checked to determine if the funnel 

opening is free of debris; if not, the funnel should be cleaned. The relay switch on the gauge 

should be checked by manually tipping the bucket apparatus 10 times; that the DAS recorded the 

equivalent of 10 tips should be confirmed. The rainfall channel on the DAS must be taken “offline” prior to performing the manual check to avoid recording erroneous rainfall data and returned 

to “on-line” status after completion of the manual check.

► Barometric Pressure. The barometric pressure reading should be checked for reasonableness with 

the local NWS or a reliable second barometer. The hourly data from the DAS should reflect a 

rising or falling barometer based the advances of high or low pressure frontal passages
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 13

Figure 10.2 Example of Meteorological Sensor Visual Check List 

 Weekly Quality Control Check Sheet

 Meteorological Instruments

 Site ___________________________________________ Month/Year ________________________________

 Site Number ___________________________________ Technician _________________________________

Date:

Tower Check: Crossarm aligned with north?

WS cups okay?

WD vane okay?

VWS propeller okay?

T & RH shield okay?

Solar radiation okay?

UV radiation okay?

Wind Check: WS estimate (1)

WS DAS (m/s) mps mps mps mps mps mps

WS Chart % % % % % % %

WD estimate (2) (deg) deg deg deg deg deg deg

WD DAS (deg) deg deg deg deg deg deg

WD Chart % % % % % % %

Temperature Check: T dry (deg C) degC degC degC degC degC degC

T wet (deg C) degC degC degC degC degC degC

RH % calculation (3) % % % % % %

Temp. DAS (deg C) degC degC degC degC degC degC

RH % DAS % % % % % %

Sky Check: Sky condition (4)

SRD DAS (mly/10)

UV DAS (mly)

All comments must be noted in the station log.

(1) WS estimate (3) Calculated RH

 C = calm (0-1 mps) From graph

 L = light (1-3 mps) on reverse side

 M = moderate (4-6 mps)

 S = strong (> 6 mps) (4) Sky condition (choose 1 or more)

 CLR (clear) F (fog)

(2) WD estimate PC (partly cloudy) S (smog)

 N, NE, E, SE CLDY (cloudy) H (haze)

 S, SW, W, NW OVC (overcast) R (rain)

Reviewed by _________________________________________________ Date _________________________________
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 13

10.2.2 Data Verification Performed by DAS

In the late 1980s, DAS became available to the air pollution monitoring community. These early systems 

could collect voltage data (analog information) and convert those data to a digital format. Later DAS 

versions had the ability to take instant readings from wind instruments and calculate the vector and sigma 

(i.e., the standard deviation) of wind data. Some DAS have been programmed with the ability to sense out 

of the ordinary changes in the signal that humans would not be able to detect. These types of verification 

techniques can be extremely useful because the program can “sense” a change in operating conditions 

when or even before equipment fails. It is strongly recommended that these DAS verification checks be a 

part of the data acquisition routine and examined by station operators and data validation staff. Listed 

below are data verification questions that should be considered to allow the DAS to perform automated 

verification checks.

► Did the value exceed the DAS maximum reading limit?

► Did the value exceed the DAS minimum reading limit?

► Did the value exceed the maximum rate of change?

► Does the data have high alarm limit?

► Does the data have a low alarm limit?

► Does the data have a floor limit? 

► Does the data need to have a percentage of valid readings to be considered valid?

► Is there a ceiling limit to the data?

► Does the data need to be interpolated? If so, is it linear? 

► Does the system have a minimum detectable limit?

Commercially available DAS should have the capability to assign alarm limits for instantaneous and 

hourly values. This is important because rapid changes may not be flagged for instantaneous values, but 

could be flagged for an hour value and vice versa. Some of the information that is referenced in the table 

should be set by annual or even quarterly averages. These values also can be refined with time.

Table 10-1 provides recommended automated screening limits on DAS; assuming the wind speed system 

operating range is 0–50 m/s, with a starting threshold of 0.2 m/s.
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 7 of 13

Table 10-1 DAS Screening Techniques

Parameter Value Comments

Maximum reading 50 m/s This is the maximum instantaneous reading possible for your 

system

Minimum Reading 0.2 m/s This is the minimum instantaneous reading possible for your 

system because your threshold is 0.2 m/s

Maximum Rate of 

Change 10 m/s Winds generally increase gradually, for a particular site, you would not expect winds to change this quickly 

High Alarm Limit 40 m/s This is gale force winds. You would expect damage to sensor 

or site. 

Low Alarm Limit 0.2 m/s Same as starting threshold

Floor Limit 0.5 m/s This value is lowest average that you would expect for one 

hour

Percent Valid Readings 75% Most data should be valid 75% of the time

Ceiling Limit 30 m/s This value is highest average that you would expect for one 

hour

Linearity 1.00+/- 1% You would expect your sensor to be within 1% accuracy. 

Minimum Detectable 

Limit 0.2 m/s This is the same as the starting threshold. 

10.3 Manual Review Methods

Figure 10.1 shows four types of validation procedures: manual review, graphic analysis, comparison, and 

database screening. Both manual and computer-oriented systems require individual reviews of all data 

tabulations. This initial step should be performed by the station operator and later by data validation staff. 

It is recommended that the data be printed out at the monitoring station and reviewed by the site operators 

every time they visit the station or at the end of the month. New DAS allow station operators to print the 

data in a tabular format. These tables can also provide summary data, i.e., highest, lowest and average 

values. The purpose of manual inspection is to spot unusually high (or low) values (outliers) that might 

indicate a gross error in the data collection. 

Manual review of data tabulations also allows detection of uncorrected drift in the zero baseline of a 

meteorological sensor. Zero drift may be indicated when the daily minimum values tend to deviate 

(increase or decrease) from the expected minimum value over a period of several days. Usually, winds in 

the early morning hours (3 a.m. to 4 a.m.) are light and variable, solar radiation is at its lowest values, and 

temperatures generally drop which may result in zero baseline drift from temperature, solar radiation, and 

wind speed sensors. 

In an automated data processing system, procedures for data validation can be incorporated into the basic 

software. As noted in Section 10.2.2, the computer can be programmed to scan data for extreme values, 

outliers, or ranges. These checks can be further refined to account for time of day, time of week, and other 

cyclic conditions. Questionable data values flagged on the data tabulation may or may not indicate 

possible errors. The station operator should check all the data flagged by the DAS data verification 

program and investigate whether the data flagged should remain flagged. In some cases, extreme 

meteorological conditions can occur rapidly, and the data may actually reflect real values. For example, if 

a thunderstorm moves through an area, winds can be recorded as calm but reach 20-30 m/s within 
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 8 of 13

seconds. This extreme value could be flagged by a DAS verification program. The station operator should 

note such examples and alert the data validation staff that these data actually reflect conditions. 

10.3.1 Calibration Data Review

Calibration of instruments and equipment must be performed periodically as referenced in the MQOs 

tables in Section 0.2.2 in this document. The associated data should be reviewed by station operators and 

data validation staff. The following questions should be answered:

► Were the calibrations performed within an acceptable time prior to generation of data?

► Were they performed in the proper sequence?

► Were the proper number of calibration points performed?

► Were they performed using standards that “bracketed” the range of reported measurement results?

► Were acceptable linearity checks and other checks made to ensure that the measurement system 

was stable when the calibration was performed?

10.4 Data Validation Methods

Data validation is a routine process designed to ensure that reported values meet the quality goals of 

environmental data operations. A progressive, systematic approach to data validation must be used to 

ensure and assess the quality of data. The purpose of this step in the process is to detect, compare, and 

perform a final screening on all data values. Any final data that may not represent actual meteorological 

conditions at the sampling station will be detected at this stage. Effective data validation procedures 

usually are handled independent of the procedures of initial data verification, that is, by different 

computer systems and staff. Note in Figure 10.1 that the validation process is performed on the data set at 

the location of the central database. It is important that data validation staff be independent of station 

operations personnel. These procedures can be performed automatically; SAS®, Microsoft Excel®, or 

Visual Basic program languages can be scripted to perform these tests. Several local agencies have 

employed these techniques quite effectively. 

If data assessment results clearly indicate a serious response problem with the sensor, the agency should 

review all related information to determine whether the meteorological data, as well as any associated 

assessment data, should be invalidated. For example, if a temperature sensor fails a calibration or audit, 

the relative humidity data, which are calculated from the ambient temperature data, must be invalidated as 

well. In addition, in the relationship between wind vector and scalar data, if wind speed average data (or 

wind direction average data) are considered invalid, then the vector data for both wind speed and 

direction data must also be invalidated since the vector data use both wind speed average and direction for 

the calculations. 

Some problems that may escape detection during an audit (a wind vane that occasionally sticks) are often 

easily identified during data validation. Data validation should be performed by a person with appropriate 

training in meteorology who has a basic understanding of local meteorological conditions and the 

operating principles of the instruments.
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 9 of 13

10.4.1 Preparatory Steps

Steps preparatory to data validation should include the daily transfer of raw data (e.g. 1-minute or 1-hour 

average data files) to a central data processing facility and the transfer of raw data files to create an edited 

database. The raw data files should be stored separately to insure data integrity. Backup copies of the data 

should be prepared and maintained on-site and off-site.

10.4.2 Validation Procedures

All necessary supporting material, such as audit reports and site logs, should be available for Level 2

validation. Access to a daily weather archive should be provided for use in relating suspect data to local 

and regional meteorological conditions. Questionable data, such as data flagged in an audit, manual 

review, or DAS screening program, should be corrected or invalidated during Level 2 data validation. 

10.4.3 Graphic Analysis 

Graphing data can be a quick method of visualizing the data relative to other parameters. Graphs can 

show longer term trends and relationships that are difficult to see when data validation staff are looking at 

large amounts of tabular data. Figures 10.3 and 10.4 illustrate the relationship between different 

parameters. 

Figure 10.3 illustrates the relationship of relative humidity to ambient temperature. During the time

period, there was an inverse relationship between the two parameters. By graphing the data, these trends 

are clear. 

Figure 10.3 Graphic Example of Temperature vs. Relative Humidity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

9/1/2005 12:00

9/2/2005 0:00

9/2/2005 12:00

9/3/2005 0:00

9/3/2005 12:00

9/4/2005 0:00

9/4/2005 12:00

% RH/Temp Deg. C

TEMP (2M) (degc) 

EPA's Burden's Creek Station, NC RH (%) 
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 10 of 13

Figure 10.4 illustrates the relationship of ozone to ambient temperature during the period. As the

temperature increased with time, ozone also increased. Both sets of data illustrate a diurnal nature.

Figure 10.4 Graphic Example of Ozone vs. Temperature 

10.4.4 Comparison Program

A useful data validation method is to compare the difference between successive meteorological data

values. Logic dictates that rapid changes in values in a 1-hr reporting period would normally not be 

expected. When the difference between two successive values exceeds a predetermined value, the data in 

question can be flagged. 

Another useful tool is a comparison of data from one monitoring location with a nearby meteorological 

collection station. Randomly selected values should be manually compared with other available, reliable 

data (such as data obtained from the nearest NWS observing stations). Several hours out of every five

days should be randomly selected. To account for hour-to-hour variability and the spatial displacement of 

the NWS station, a block of several hours may be more desirable. All data selected should be checked 

against corresponding measurements at the nearby station. In addition, monthly average values should be 

compared with climatological norms, as determined by the NWS from records over a 30-year period. If 

discrepancies are found which can not be explained by the geographic difference in the measurement 

locations or by regional climatic variations, the data should be flagged as questionable.

10.4.5 Data Screening

Screening procedures generally include comparisons of measured values to upper and lower limits; these 

limits may be physical, such as an instrument threshold, or may be established based on experience or 

historical data. Other types of procedures employed in screening include assessments based on the rate of 

EPA's Burden's Creek Station, NC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

9/1/2005 12:00

9/2/2005 0:00

9/2/2005 12:00

9/3/2005 0:00

9/3/2005 12:00

9/4/2005 0:00

9/4/2005 12:00

ppb/temp deg. C

O3-API (ppb) TEMP (2M) (degc) 
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 11 of 13

change of a variable (data that change too rapidly or not at all are flagged as suspect) and assessments 

based on known physical principles relating two or more variables (e.g., the dew point should never 

exceed the dry-bulb temperature).

Screening is an iterative process in which range checks and other screening criteria are revised as 

necessary based on experience. For example, an initial QA pass of a data set using default criteria may 

result in flagged values which, upon further investigation, are determined to be valid for a particular site. 

In such cases, one or more follow-up QA passes using revised criteria may be necessary to clearly 

segregate valid and invalid data. 

10.4.5.1 Data Screening Qualifiers 

This section lists a number of qualifiers that should be used to determine reasonableness, completeness, 

accuracy, and representativeness of a meteorological database. The Sample Meteorological Data 

Screening Checklist, Figure 10.5, should be used to document the data screening results. 

► Was the 75 percent data recovery criterion met? 

► Do wind speed vector and wind direction vector have same data recovery rate? Wind speed and 

wind direction vectors are interdependent; when one is invalid, the other should also be invalid. 

Wind speed and wind direction vectors interdependence and other items are easily verified using 

the database. 

► For meteorological multi-point calibration, was the wind speed slope equal to l ± 0.05m/s? 

Review any meteorological calibration forms. The slope of the wind speed calibration should be 

within ±0.05 of 1.00. The intercept should be within ±0.3 m/s.

► Was the wind direction (WD) average within ±5 degrees? All wind direction values should be 

within 5 degrees of true north, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, respectively.

► Was the vertical wind speed (VWS) maximum difference < 0.3m/s? VWS points should be

within 0.3 m/s of true.

► Was the temperature maximum difference less than <l

o

C? Temperature sensor response should 

be within ±1.0 degrees C of CTS response. The audit and calibration criteria are essentially the 

same and represent the accuracy recommendations of temperature data. Temperature data 

collected with sensors that fail to meet audit and calibration criteria must be corrected or 

invalidated. Temperature data can be corrected using correction factors derived from the most 

recent calibration results.

► Was vector wind speed less than or equal to scalar wind speed? Spot check the monthly 

summaries of vector wind speed and average wind speed to verify that vector wind speed is 

always less than or equal to average wind speed. In most cases, the values should be very close to 

each other. If a discrepancy exists, resolve it by reviewing the 1-minute average data from the 

electronic strip chart graphs (if available). 

► Are average wind direction and vector wind direction comparable? Spot check the monthly 

summaries of vector wind direction and average wind direction values. The values should be 

within 5 to 10 degrees of each other. If a large discrepancy exists, the sigma theta for the period 

should also be high. 

► Are sigma W and vertical wind speed comparable? A preliminary check should show that low 

(near zero) sigma W values were accompanied by low vertical wind speed values. The inverse 

may not be true.
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 12 of 13

► Are sigma V and WS*sin(sigma theta) comparable? Check a few of the sigma v values, 

concentrating on the high values. A more reliable algorithm is:

(sigma v)2 = WSA2 - WSR2 

Estimated and reported values should usually compare to within 10 percent of each other. 

► Are there any hand-reduced sigma or vector data? Hand-reduced sigma and vector data are

invalid.

► Do sigma theta values and wind direction chart scatters coincide? In general, the higher the

scatter, the higher the sigma. A more quantitative comparison can be made for any sigma 

parameter by estimates of the range of the scatter for the hour divided by 4. This calculation 

should be made occasionally during the review for both sigma theta and sigma W. 

► Is the zero offset for wind speed correct? The chart trace should have a zero offset built in,

corresponding to about 0.5 m/s in order to verify chart-to-data comparison accuracy.

► Are wind speed noise/bearings at threshold speeds? To avoid data bias, wind speed data should 

only be invalidated if the problem is considered significant enough to invalidate data that is near 

the threshold. The agency should determine how much data is not valid.

► Do wind speed vector (WSV) and wind direction vector (WDV) have the same data recovery 

rates?

► Are average WD and vector WD comparable?

► Does wind speed average (WSA) affect wind speed vector (WSV), wind direction vector (WDV), 

sigma phi, and sigma v?

► Does WDA affect WDV, WSV, sigma theta, and sigma y?

10.4.6 Final Evaluation 

Data flagged by the DAS screening and comparison programs should be evaluated by personnel with 

meteorological expertise. Reasons for changes in the data resulting from the validation process should be 

documented. If system problems are identified, corrective actions should also be documented. Edited data 

should continue to be flagged so that their reliability can be considered in the interpretation of the results 

of modeling analyses for which the data are used.

Flags can be used in the field and at the data management center to signify data that may be suspect due 

to calibration or audit failure, special events, or failed QC limits. When calibration problems are 

identified, data produced between the suspect calibration event and subsequent recalibration should be 

flagged. Because flag combinations can be overwhelming and cannot always be anticipated, an 

organization needs to review these flag combinations to determine whether single values or values from a 

site over a particular time period should be invalidated. Procedures for screening data for possible errors 

or anomalies should also be implemented. When calibration problems are identified, data produced 

between the suspect calibration event and any subsequent recalibration should be flagged to alert data 

users.
Volume 4, Section 10

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 13 of 13

Meteorological Data Screening Checklist

Monitoring Station____________

Month/Year__________________ 

Data Screening Questions 

________Was percent data recovery criteria met (i.e., greater than 75%)

________Do WSV & WDV have same data recovery?

________Do WSV and WDV have same hour invalid?

________Review missing data summary

________Review site logs.

________Multipoint calibration: WS slope = l±0.05 m/s, WD average difference = ±5 degrees

________VWS maximum difference <0.3m/s, T maximum difference <l degree C?

________Are all calibrations documented?

________Vector WS ≤ Average WS?

________Compare average WD to vector WD?

________Sigma phi calculation OK?

________Compare sigma W vs. VWS?

________Compare sigma V vs. WS*sin(sigma theta)?

________Any hand reduced sigma or vector data?

________Check dependent parameters: 

________WSA affects WSV, WDV, sigma phi, sigma V

________WDA affects WDV, WSV, sigma theta, sigma V

________VWS affects sigma W, sigma phi

Strip Charts (paper or digital) 

____Random check of all meteorological parameters – (chart vs. data) 

____Random check of all calibrations - (chart vs. data)

____ Do sigma theta values and WD chart scatters coincide? Zero offset for WS OK? 

____Check WS noise/bearings at threshold speeds

Figure 10.5 Example of a Meteorological Data Screening Checklist
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 6

11. New Technologies

Some of the latest technologies in meteorological sensors are described in this section. Examples of 

sensors from a variety of manufacturers are also provided. This summary of new technologies is not 

exhaustive, and mention of any manufacturers does not represent an endorsement of their products or 

services.

11.1 Wind – Anemometers

Sonic anemometers have been used by the research community for several years. Sonic anemometers 

measure components of the wind vector by determining the effect of the wind on transit times of acoustic 

pulses transmitted in opposite directions across known paths. Wind speed will increase or decrease the 

speed of sound depending on whether it is a tail wind or a head wind. Measuring the speed of sound in 

both directions along that one axis allows the wind speed to be calculated. A two-axis or three-axis 

sensor can then be used to calculate horizontal or horizontal plus vertical wind speed and wind direction. 

Table 11.1 lists a few examples of sonic anemometers.

Table 11.1 Example Sonic Wind Sensors

Manufacturer Model Accuracy Resolution Range

Data 

Output 

Rate

Power 

Supply 

Requirements

Gill 

Instruments

WindMaster/

WindMaster Pro

1% or 1.5%

wind speed

0.5° or 2° wind 

direction

0.01 m/s 

wind speed

0.1° or 1° 

wind 

direction

0-65 m/s 

wind speed

0-359° wind 

direction

32Hz or 

40 Hz

9-30 VDC, 

55mA @ 12 

VDC

Belfort

Belfort 

WindObserver II 

Ultrasonic

±2% wind speed

±2° wind 

direction

0.01m/s

wind speed

1° wind 

direction

0-65 m/s 

wind speed

0-359° wind 

direction

1 Hz, 2 

Hz, 4 Hz, 

5 Hz, 8 

Hz, 10 Hz

9-30 VDC, 

14mA @ 12 

VDC

RMYoung 81000

±1 % (1-30 m/s) 

±3% 

(30-40 m/s) wind 

speed

±2° (1-30 m/s)

±5° (30-40 m/s) 

wind direction

0.01 m/s 

wind speed 

0.1° wind 

direction

0-40 m/s 

wind speed

0-360° wind 

direction

4-32 Hz 12-24 VDC 

110 mA

Vaisala WXT510

±0.3 m/s or 

± 3%, whichever 

is greater 

(0-35 m/s)

±5% 36-60 m/s)

0.1 m/s wind 

speed

1° wind 

direction

0-60 m/s 

wind speed

0-360° wind 

direction

1 Hz

5-30 VDC 

3 mA @ 

12 VDC

Climatronics AIO

±0.5 m/s or 5% 

whichever is 

greater

0.1 m/s wind 

speed

1° wind 

direction

0-50 m/s 

wind speed

0-360° wind 

direction

1 Hz 10-18 VDC 

50 mA
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 6

11.2 Temperature – Thermometers

Temperature measurements have not changed in the past several years. However, one company, Yankee 

Environmental Systems, Inc., has taken a modified four-wire Standard Platinum Resistance Thermometer 

(SPRT) and mounted it in an aspirated, triple-walled aluminum radiation shield that has a worst-case, fullsun, and radiation error of less than 0.05°C. Table 11.2 shows the details of this sensor.

Table 11.2 Example Thermometers

Manufacturer Model Accuracy Range Power Supply 

Requirements

Yankee Environmental 

Systems, Inc. PMT-2005 ±0.05°C ±50°C 11-14 VDC, 1.3 A

Vaisala WXT510 ±0.2°C ±50°C 5-30 VDC, 

3 mA @ 12 VDC

Climatronics AIO ±0.3°C at 20° -52 °C to +60°C 10-18 VDC 50 mA

11.3 Pressure – Barometers

Climatronics

Climatronics Corporation introduced a new barometric pressure sensor based on a stable transducer 

utilizing nano-technology, resulting in a linear and repeatable sensor with low hysteresis. The sensor 

produces digital and analog signals that do not require signal conditioning. The sensor’s microcontroller 

applies a NIST-traceable temperature correction to the readings from the pressure sensor maximizing 

accuracy over a broad operating temperature range. Table 11.3 summarizes Climatornics’ barometric 

pressure sensor specifications.

PSI/Weston Aerospace

PSI/Weston Aerospace introduced a high-accuracy digital barometer. The PSI/Weston Aerospace 

vibrating cylinder air pressure transducer is designed to measure absolute air pressure using the vibrating 

element principle, providing a frequency output from which pressure is computed. The pressure is 

applied to a thin-walled metal cylinder, which is set into motion at its natural frequency by 

electromagnetic drivers. As the air pressure inside the cylinder changes, the resonant frequency of the 

cylinder also changes. This frequency is detected by electromagnetic pick-up coils that feed it back to the 

drive circuitry so as to maintain the resonant state. The “new” resonant frequency can then be equated to 

the absolute pressure. During manufacture, the transducer is calibrated by measuring the resonant 

frequency (time period) and diode voltage (temperature) across a matrix of 77 data points (11 pressures, 7 

temperatures), covering the full working pressure and temperature ranges. Table 11.3 lists the details of 

the PSI/Weston Aerospace digital barometer.
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 6

Table 11.3 Barometric Pressure Sensors

Manufacturer Model Accuracy Range Power Supply 

Requirements

Climatronics Corporation P/N 102663 ±0.35 mb @ 25°C 600-1100 mb 6-16 VDC, 

10 mA @ 12 V

PSI/Weston Aerospace DPM 7885-1A <±1.1 mb 600-1150 mb 11-18 VDC

Vaisala WXT510 ±0.5 hPa (0 to +30°C)

±1 hPa (-52 to +60°C) 600-1100 hPa 5-30 VDC 3 mA @ 12 VDC

Climatronics AIO, ±0.35 hPa 600-1100 hPa 10-18 VDC,

50 mA

11.4 Solar Radiation – Pyranometers

Pyranometer technology has not changed in the past several years. However, Kipp & Zonen and 

Hukseflux released some new designs.

Kipp & Zonen

Kipp & Zonen released a two-component net radiometer called the CNR2. The design of this instrument 

features separate outputs for short-wave (solar) and long-wave (atmospheric and terrestrial) radiation. The 

glass domes and silicon windows protect the thermopile detectors from environmental factors, are easy to 

clean, and minimize the effects of wind and rain. The CNR2 is designed for continuous outdoor use, and 

the operating temperature from -40°C to 80°C ensures that it can be used even in remote locations. Both 

short-wave and long-wave outputs supply a voltage proportional to, and generated by, the measured 

radiation. Therefore, the CNR 2 requires no power supply. The CNR2 specifications are listed in Table 

11.4.

Hukseflux

Hukseflux introduced a new pyranometer, the SR11, that measures the solar radiation flux incident on a 

plane surface in W/m2 from a 180-degree field of view (also called “global” solar radiation). Employing 

two glass domes, certain measurement errors are reduced, in particular thermal offsets, so that a high 

measurement accuracy can be attained. The detailed specifications of the SR11 are shown in Table 11.4.

Table 11.4 Example Pyranometers

Manufacturer Model Sensitivity Range Power Supply Requirements

Kipp & Zonen CNR2 <10% (daily total) 310-2800 nm (pyranometer), 

4.5-42 μm (pyrogeometer)

0-50 mV (pyranometers)

±5 mV (pyrogeometer)

Hukseflux SR11 15 μV/Wm-2 0-2000 W/m2 Unknown
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 6

11.5 Precipitation – Rain Gauges

Two new precipitation-measuring technologies are currently available. 

Luft

The Lufft technology involves a radar rain sensor that works with a 24-GHz Doppler radar, which is used 

to measure the speed of precipitation droplets. The precipitation amount is calculated using the 

correlation between droplet size and speed. The specifications of the Lufft R2

S are listed in Table 11.5.

Yankee Environmental Systems

Another new technology is the TPS-3100 Hotplate from Yankee Environmental Systems. About five 

inches in diameter, the sensor head consists of two isolated plates warmed by electrical heaters. During 

storms, it measures the rate of rain or snow by how much power is needed to evaporate precipitation on 

the upper plate and keep its surface temperature constant. The second plate is positioned directly under 

the evaporating plate and heated to the same temperature as the top, factoring out cooling from the wind. 

With no moving parts, the all-electronic TPS-3100 sensor avoids problems associated with traditional 

volumetric or weighing rain gauges. It works equally well in snow and rain conditions. Liquid 

equivalent rates are calculated from real time measurements and output in real time. The specifications of 

the TPS-3100 are listed in Table 11.5.

Table 11.5 Example Rain Gauges

Manufacturer Model Resolution Range Power Supply Requirements

Lufft R2S 0.01 mm/m2 0.3-5 mm 10-15V, 100 mA

Yankee Environmental Systems TPS-3100 0.1 mm/hr 0-50 mm/hr 110/220 VAC, 50/60 Hz

Vaisala WXT510 0.1 mm/hr 0-200 mm/hr 5-30 VDC, 3 mA @ 12 VDC

11.6 Upper-Air Measurements

Some emerging technologies to measure aloft meteorological conditions include the Doppler lidar and the 

microwave radiometer. 

Vaisala and Lockheed Martin

The Doppler lidar is a laser radar that can determine the radial velocity of the air (velocity toward or away 

from the laser beam) by measuring the frequency shift of the returning light that was scattered by 

atmospheric aerosols. Most lidar signals are blocked by clouds and greatly attenuated by polluted air. 

Table 11.6 lists some specifications of two autonomous lidars.

Kipp & Zonen

A microwave radiometer (MWR) measures the thermal radiation of the atmosphere at different elevation 

angles. Unique algorithms are used to retrieve the air temperature profile up to 1000 m above the 

instrument. Table 11.6 lists the specifications for the Kipp & Zonen MTP5 MWR.
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 6

Table 11.6 Example Upper-Air Measurement Devices

Manufacturer Model Type Accuracy Range Range 

Resolution

Power Supply 

Requirements

Vaisala CL31 Pulsed 

stationary lidar

Greater of ±1% 

or ±5 m

0-7.5 km 5 m 100/115/230 

VAC

Lockheed 

Martin

WindTracer Pulsed scanning 

lidar

± 30% of actual 

backscatter 

coefficient

400 m-12 km 30-40 m unknown

Kipp & 

Zonen

MTP5-HE microwave 

radiometer 

(MWR)

±0.3°C (±0.8°C 

for inversion) @ 

0-500 m, ±0.4°C 

(±1.2°C for 

inversion) @ 

500-1000m

0-1000 m 50 m to 

120 m 

depending 

on height

110/220 VAC

11.7 Multiple Parameter Weather Sensor

Combining sonic wind technology with innovations to improve other sensors, manufacturers are offering 

instruments capable of measuring essential parameters in one compact unit.

Climatronics

The Climatronics All-In-One (AIO) compact weather station, shown in Figure 11.1, is the next-generation 

weather instrument that measure temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and 

barometric pressure in a single compact unit. The AIO uses an internal flux gate compass for automatic 

alignment of wind direction to magnetic north for quick deployment. The AIO specifications and 

literature are posted at http://www.climatronics.com and shown in Tables 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3. 

Figure 11.1 Climatronics AIO
Volume 4, Section 11

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 6 of 6

Vaisala

The Vaisala Weather Transmitter WXT510, shown in Figure 11.2, is a compact and lightweight multisensor instrument that measures wind speed and direction, liquid precipitation, barometric pressure, 

temperature, and relative humidity all in one transmitter. TheWXT510 specifications are posted at 

http://www.vaisala.com and shown in Tables 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, and 11.5. 

Figure 11.2 Vaisala WXT510
Volume 4, Section 12

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 1 of 5

12. References

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Quality assurance handbook for air pollution 

measurement systems. Volume IV, meteorological measurements"; EPA/600/4-90-003, out of 

print, Report prepared by the Office of Research and Development, Atmospheric Research and 

Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 1983.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Quality assurance handbook for air pollution 

measurement systems. Volume IV, meteorological measurements"; EPA/600/R-94/038d, Report 

prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1995.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidance for the data quality objectives process (QA/G4)"; EPA 240/B-06/001, Guidance document prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2006.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Meteorological monitoring guidance for regulatory 

modeling applications"; EPA-454/R-99-005, Guidance document prepared by the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2000.

5. National Weather Service. "Instrument requirements and standards for the NWS surface 

observing programs"; NWSI 10-1302, 2005.

6. Stealth telescoping poles. GeoData Systems Management, Inc., 2007. Available at: 

<http://www.geodatasys.com/pole1.htm>.

7. QTM Mast. Clark Masts, 2007. Available at: <http://www.clarkmasts.com/qtm_masts.php>.

8. MF-1300 series fold-over towers. Glen Martin Enterprises, 2007. Available at: 

<http://www.glenmartin.com/industrial/pg31.htm>.

9. T-175 Towers (standard duty aluminum crank-up towers). Aluma Tower Company, 2007. 

Available at: <http://www.alumatower.com/new/PDFs/standard%20bro%20SD%20405.pdf>.

10. Installation instructions, towers and bases. Climatronics Corporation, 2006. Available at: 

<http://www.climatronics.com/Web%20Manuals/MC33%20Tower.pdf>.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Meteorological monitoring guidance for regulatory 

modeling applications"; Document EPA-454/R-99-005, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2000.

12. World Meteorological Organization. Guide to meteorological instruments and methods of 

observation; Draft seventh edition ed.; Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization; 

Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

13. MacCready, P. B. "Wind speed measurements in turbulence", J. Appl. Meteor. 1966, 5, 219-225.
Volume 4, Section 12

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 2 of 5

14. Wind mark III wind sensor. . Climatronics Corporation, Equipment specifications prepared by 

Climatronics Corporation, Bohemia, NY, , 2002. Available at: 

<http://www.climatronics.com/pdf/products/sensors/wind_mark3.pdf>.

15. Meteorological instruments, wind sensors. R.M. Young Company, 2006. Available at: 

<http://www.youngusa.com>.

16. Gill, G. C. "The helicoid anemometer", Atmosphere 1973, 11(4), 145-155.

17. Environmental towers. Aluma Tower Company, 2007. Available at: 

<http://www.alumatower.com/new/environmental.html>.

18. Campbell Scientific, Inc. "Weather station siting and installation tools"; App. Note Code: 4-S, 

Application notes prepared by Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan, UT. 1997.

19. Torque watches by Waters. Deterco, Inc., 2007. Available at: 

<http://www.deterco.com/products/Data%20Instruments/datainstruments.htm>.

20. Blackadar, A. F. Almanac for a weather station; Heldref Publications; Washington, D.C., 1985.

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Quality assurance handbook for air pollution 

measurement systems. Volume IV - meteorological measurements." EPA/600/R-94/038d, 

Appendix A prepared by the Office of Research and Development, Atmospheric Research and 

Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 1995.

22. Sun or moon altitude/azimuth table. U.S. Naval Observatory, 2006. Available at: 

<http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php>.

23. Lockhart, T. J. "Accuracy of the collocated transfer standard method for wind instrument 

auditing", J. Atmos. And Oceanic Technol. 1989, 6, 715-723.

24. ASTM Standard D4430-00(2006). "Standard practice for determining the operational 

comparability of meteorological measurements"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on 

Meteorology, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2006.

25. Lockhart, T. J. "Some cup anemometer testing methods", J. Atmos. And Oceanic Technol. 1985, 

2, 680-683.

26. ASTM Standard D6011-96(2003). "Standard test method for determining the performance of a 

sonic anemometer/thermometer"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on Meteorology, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2003.

27. Baxter, R. A.; Yoho, D. L.; Durkee, K. R. "Quality assurance audit program for surface and 

upper-air meteorological measurements in the South Coast Air Basin of California". In 

Proceedings, Proceedings of the American Meteorological Society's 83rd Annual Meeting, 12th 

Symposium on Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Long Beach, CA, February 8-

11, 2003.
Volume 4, Section 12

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 3 of 5

28. Robertson, J. H.; Katz, D. I. "Climatronics' novel sonic anemometer". In Proceedings, 

Proceedings of the 9th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, 

January 28-February 2, Atlanta, GA, 1966.

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Ambient air quality surveillance; quality assurance 

requirements for SLAMS, SPMs and PSD; air monitoring calculations for data quality 

assessment"; Federal Register, Vol. 59 at page 41628; 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A.4, August 12. 

1994.

30. ASTM Standard D6176-97(2003). "Standard practice for measuring surface atmospheric 

temperature with electrical resistance temperature sensors"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on 

Meteorology, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2003.

31. ASTM Standard E1-05. "Standard specification for ASTM liquid-in-glass thermometers"; 

prepared by Committee E20.05 on Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers and Hydrometers, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2005.

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Ambient monitoring guidelines for prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD)"; EPA-450/4-97-007, Report prepared by Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

1987.

33. ASTM Standard D4230-02e1. "Standard test method of measuring humidity with cooled-surface 

condensation (dew-point) hygrometer"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on Meteorology, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2002.

34. ASTM Standard E1137/E1137M-04. "Standard specification for industrial platinum resistance 

thermometers"; Committee E20.03 on Resistance Thermometers, ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA 2004.

35. Weiss, L. L. "Relative catches of snow in shielded and unshielded gauges at different wind 

speeds", Mon. Wea. Rev. 1961, 89.

36. National Physical Laboratory. A guide to the measurement of humidity; Institute of Measurement 

and Control and National Physical Laboratory London, England, 1996.

37. ASTM Standard E337-02. "Standard test method for measuring humidity with a psychrometer 

(the measurement of wet- and dry-bulb temperatures)"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on 

Meteorology, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2002.

38. ASTM Standard E104-02 "Standard practice for maintaining constant relative humidity by means 

of aqueous solutions"; prepared by Committee D22.11 on Meteorology, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA. 2002.

39. ASTM E816-05. "Standard test method for calibration of pyrheliometers by comparison to 

reference pyrheliometers"; prepared by Committee G03.09 on Radiometry, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA. 2005.
Volume 4, Section 12

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 4 of 5

40. Latimer, J. R. Radiation measurement; The Secretariat, Canadian National Committee for the 

International Hydrological Decade, 1972.

41. Liu, H.; Darkow, G. "Wind effect on measured atmospheric pressure", J. Atmos. And Oceanic 

Technol. 1989, 6(1), 5-12.

42. Miksad, R. "An omni-directional static pressure probe", J. Meteor. Society of Japan 1976, 15, 

1215-1225.

43. U.S. Weather Bureau Manual of barometry (WBAN); First ed.; U.S. Government Printing Office; 

Washington, D.C, 1963.

44. Beyrich, F. "Mixing height estimation from Sodar data - a critical discussion", Atmos. Environ.

1997, 31, 3941-3953.

45. Holzworth, G. "Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential for urban air pollution throughout the 

contiguous United States"; Publication No. AP-101, prepared by the Office of Air Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1972.

46. Gaynor, J. E. "Accuracy of Sodar wind variance measurements", Int. J. Remote Sens. 1994, 15, 

313-324.

47. van de Kamp, D. W. "Profiler training manual #2: quality control of wind profiler data"; Report 

prepared for the National Weather Service Office of Meteorology by NOAA/WPL, Boulder, CO. 

1988.

48. Ecklund, W. L.; Carter, D. A.; Balsley, B. B. "A UHF wind profiler for the boundary layer: brief 

description and initial results", J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1988, 5, 432-441.

49. The WGS84 System. Rizos, C., Satellite Navigation & Positioning Laboratory, University of New 

South Wales, Australia, 1999. Available at: 

<http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/214.htm>.

50. Thuillier, R. H. "The influence of instrumentation, siting, exposure height, and temporal 

averaging methodology on meteorological measurements from SJVAQS/AUSPEX", J. Appl. 

Meteor. 1995, 34, 1815-1823.

51. Crescenti, G. H. "The degradation of Doppler Sodar performance due to noise: a review", Atmos. 

Environ. 1998, 32, 1499-1509.

52. Crescenti, G. H. "Examples of noise interference on Doppler Sodar performance". In 

Proceedings, Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Meteorological Observations and 

Instrumentation: Phoenix, AZ, January 11-16, , 1998.

53. Baxter, R. A. "Development of a universal acoustic pulse transponding system for performance 

auditing of Sodars". In Proceedings, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Acoustic 

Remote Sensing and Associated Techniques of the Atmosphere and Oceans, Boulder, CO, 

October, 1994, pp 3-35-33-40.
Volume 4, Section 12

Revision No: 2.0

Date: 01/20/08

Page 5 of 5

54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Quality assurance handbook for air pollution 

measurement systems. Volume I, a field guide to environmental quality assurance"; EPA/600/R94/038a, report prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

1994.

55. Wilczak, J. M.; Strauch, R. G.; Weber, B. L.; Merritt, D. A.; Ralph, F. M.; Jordan, J. R.; Wolfe, 

D. E.; Lewis, L. K.; Wuertz, D. B.; Gaynor, J. E.; McLaughlin, S.; Rogers, R.; Riddle, A.; Dye, 

T. "Contamination of wind profiler data by migrating birds: characteristics of corrupted data and 

potential solutions", J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1995, 12(3), 449-467.

56. Gauthreaux, S. A., Jr. "The flight behavior of migrating birds in changing wind fields: radar and 

visual analyses", Amer. Zool. 1991, 31, 187-204.

57. Gaynor, J. E. "Siting guidance for boundary layer meteorological profilers", Presented at Air & 

Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on Air Toxics, Durham, NC, 1994

58. Miller, P. A.; Schlatter, T. W.; van de Kamp, D. W.; Barth, M. F.; Weber, B. L. "An unfolding 

algorithm for profiler winds", J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1994, 11, 32-41.

59. Riddle, A. C.; Angevine, W. M.; Ecklund, W. L.; Miller, E. R.; Parsons, D. B.; Carter, D. A.; 

Gage, K. S. "In situ and remotely sensed horizontal winds and temperature intercomparisons 

obtained using Integrated Sounding Systems during TOGA COARE", Atmos. Phys. 1996, 69, 49-

61.

60. Baxter, R. A. "Evaluation of t he wind data collected using different USEPA approved calculation 

algorithms ", Presented at the 9th Symposium on Meteorological Observations and 

Instrumentation, Charlotte, NC, March 27-31, 1995

61. Mueller, P. K.; Watson, J. G. "Eastern regional air-quality measurements. Volume 1, Section 7"; 

EPRI-EA-1914-Vol.1, final report prepared for Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., 

Concord, MA, by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 1982.

62. Watson, J. G.; Lioy, P. J.; Mueller, P. K. "The measurement process: precision, accuracy, and 

validity". In Proceedings, Proceedings, Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric 

Contaminants; 7th ed.; Hering, S. V., Ed.; American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH, 1989, pp 51-57.
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 1 of 8

Appendix A

Meteorological Systems Audit Evaluation Form

This appendix contains a meteorological systems audit evaluation form to be used as a guideline to 

evaluate the operation and exposure of meteorological sensors and overall condition of a monitoring site.
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 2 of 8

Meteorological Systems Audit Evaluation Form

This site systems audit form can be used as a guideline to evaluate the operation and exposure of 

meteorological sensors and overall condition of a monitoring site. System audits should be performed on 

a yearly basis.

I. On Site Equipment and Location

A. Meteorological Parameters On-site

 

Parameter Manufacturer Model # Serial # Range

1. Are there any required parameters which are not monitored?_______

2. Are any methods and equipment unacceptable?__________

3. Are any operating ranges improper?_____________

4. Are there any significant differences between instrumentation on site and the monitoring 

plan?__________

5. What is the GPS coordinates for this monitoring site ____________N _____________W

 6. Does the site have an AQS Site Code? _________________

 7. What is the magnetic Declination at this site?_______________

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 3 of 8

B. Auxiliary Equipment

Type

 

Manufacturer Model # Serial #

Calibration

Date

DAS System

Chart Recorder 

Chart Recorder 

Meteorological 

Tower 

Monitor Shelter 

Computer 

Power Conditioner

WS motors 

Compass 

Thermometer 

Psychrometer 

Precipitation Gauge

Solar Radiation 

Comments.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 4 of 8

II. Instrument Height and Exposure

A. Meteorological Distance 

Parameter Distance

Meets Regulations

Yes No

1. Height of WS sensor above ground 

2. Height of WD sensor above ground 

3. Height of VWS sensor above ground 

4. Distance to nearest obstacle

5. Is exposure outside 10X obstruction height 

5a. Are instruments on a rooftop? 

5b. Is exposure 1.5X height above the roof?

6. Arc of unrestricted flow? 

7. Height of temperature sensor above ground 

8. Distance of temperature sensor from obstacles

9. Is the distance 4X from obstruction height? 

10. Arc of unrestricted air flow 

11. Distance to nearest paved road 

12. Is temperature sensor shielded/motor aspirated?

13. Height of precipitation gauge above structure

14. Distance to nearest obstacle

15. Is exposure outside 2-4X obstruction height?

16. Height of solar radiation above structure

17. Distance to nearest obstacle 

18. Will solar radiation sensor fall within a shadow 

19. Height of dew point sensor above structure

20. Distance to nearest obstacle

21. Is exposure outside 2-4X obstruction height

22. Is temperature sensor below representative terrain?

23. Is temperature sensor pointed downward?

Are there any significant differences between on-site 

equipment and the monitoring plan?

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 5 of 8

III. Operations

A. Meteorological Equipment

Parameter Yes No

1. Are all WS, WD sensors operational?

2. Is the temperature probe and aspirated shield operational?

3. Is precipitation gauge operational and clean? 

4. Is dew point sensor operational? 

5. Is meteorological tower perpendicular to the ground? 

6. Are all booms level? 

7. Are all cables secure? 

8. Are connections clean and rust-free? 

9. Are vanes/cups/propellers intact? 

10. Are serial numbers available? 

11. Are WS/WD bearings free?

12. Is the solar radiation sensor operation?

13. Are the chart traces clear and easily read?

14. Are all chart recorders times correct? 

15. Is DAS operational? 

16. Are the sigma values being collected?

17. Are vector values being collected?

18. Is the printer functional?

19. Is hard copy data printout available?

20. Are torque tests being performed on WS/WD sensors?

21. Overall, is the site well maintained? 

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 6 of 8

B. Auxiliary Equipment

Parameter Yes No

1. Is the A/C unit operational? 

2. Is the shelter temperature system operational? 

3. Is the shelter temperature recorded?

4. Is the shelter temperature maintained at 20-30oC?

5. Is the shelter and outside surroundings clean? 

6. Does modem work?

7. Does telephone work? 

8. Is the site secure? 

9. Overall, is meteorological and auxiliary equipment well maintained? 

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

C. Procedures

Parameter Yes No

1. Are the station logs present? 

2. Are the station logs up to date? 

3. Are station logs detailed? 

4. Are routine checklists used?

5. Are the routine checklists detailed?

6. Are the calibration forms present? 

7. Are the calibration forms detailed? 

8. Are the EPA guidelines present? 

9. Are QA/QC manuals present? 

10. Is the monitoring plan present? 

11. Is the site technician knowledgeable of meteorological equipment 

operation? 

12. Are the strip charts annotated each visit? 

13. Are charts annotated with date and time? 

14. Are sensor calibrations performed every six months? 

15. Does the site technician have a working knowledge of EPA guidelines? 

16. Does the site technician have working knowledge of QAPP?
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 7 of 8

Parameter Yes No

17. Does the site technician have a working knowledge of Monitoring Plan?

18. Does the monitoring plan have site ID forms? 

19. Does the monitoring plan have site map and photos? 

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

D. Preventive Maintenance

Parameter Yes No

l. Is preventive maintenance discussed in the QA/QC plan?

2. Are field operators given special training for preventive maintenance?

3. Is the training re-enforced?

4. Review preventive maintenance worksheets or logs acceptable?

5. Please provide the frequency of calibration for the following:

6. Are parts and tools available to site operators?

7. List any persistent problems with equipment.

8. Are preventive maintenance log books maintained?

9. Does senior staff or management review the logs?

10. Does data processing staff review the logs?

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

E. Chain of Custody

D. Chain of Custody

1. Review paper work for chain of custody from field to data processing. ________________

2. How is data stored? _________________________________________________________

3. How often is the data logger dumped?________________ By Whom?_________________
Volume 4, Appendix A

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07 

Page 8 of 8

IV. Overall Comments

Parameter Yes No

1. Overall, is the station well maintained?

2. Overall, is the data quality good?

3. Are QA/QC maintained?

4. Is site and equipment in good working order?

5. Overall, is the site technician well trained?

6. Overall, do meteorological patterns agree with topography?

7. Are the met readings reasonable for large scale meteorological patterns?

8. Is the meteorological sensors’ exposure correct? 

(i.e., Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, or Regional?)

Comments:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 4, Appendix B

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 12/22/07

Page 1 of 3

Appendix B

Examples of Meteorological Sensor Calibration Forms 

This appendix contains examples of meteorological calibration forms for field use.
Volume 4, Appendix B

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 2 of 3

Environmental Protection Agency

Meteorological Calibration/Audit Form

Site Name/Location_________________

Station Operator________________

Auditor________________________

 Date: __________________________

 GPS Coordinates__________________

Wind Speed Sensor

Instrument Make/Model _______ Serial Number Range___________

 Audit Device Make/Model_____________Serial Number______________Range___________ 

 

 Torque Test ________g-cm

Audit Point 

(rpm)

Audit Value 

(m/s)

DAS 

Response 

(m/s)

Difference 

(m/s)

Chart 

Response 

(m/s)

Difference 

(m/s)

Pass/Fail?

0

Wind Direction Sensor

Instrument Make/Model _______ Serial Number Range_____________

 Audit Device Make/Model_____________Serial Number______________Range___________ 

 Magnetic Declination______deg. Torque Test ________g-cm Cross Arm Reference ______deg. 

Audit Point 

(deg)

DAS Response 

(deg)

Difference 

(deg)

Chart Response 

(deg)

Difference (deg) Pass/Fail?

Comments
Volume 4, Appendix B

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 3 of 3

Environmental Protection Agency

Meteorological Calibration/Audit Form

 Site Name/Location_________________ 

 Station Operator________________

Auditor_______________________ 

Date: _________________________

 GPS Coordinates________________

Atmospheric Temperature Sensor

Instrument Make/Model _______ Serial Number Range___________

 Audit Device Make/Model_____________Serial Number______________Range___________ 

 Type of Aspirator________________

Audit Point 

(deg. C)

Audit Value 

(deg. C)

DAS 

Response 

(deg. C)

Difference 

(deg. C)

Chart 

Response 

(deg. C)

Difference 

(deg. C)

Pass/Fail?

Relative Humidity Sensor

Instrument Make/Model _______ Serial Number Range______________

 Audit Device Make/Model_____________Serial Number______________Range___________ 

Dry Audit Point 

(deg)

Value Pass/Fail?

Dry Temp 

(Thermometer) 

Dry Temp 

(DAS)

Wet Temp. 

(Thermometer)

RH (Calculated)

RH Reported

(DAS)

Comments

Date
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 4 of 12

Appendix C

Meteorological Measurement Methods Validation Criteria

[From the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Quality]

The Meteorological Measurement Methods Validation Criteria should be used for the following purposes:

• To provide a "look-up" table of all the significant quality control criteria important for the proper implementation of the Meteorological 

Measurement methods, and

• As a tool for validating Meteorological Measurement data.

In order to accomplish both objectives the quality control criteria are organized into the following

three classes/tables:

1. Critical Criteria Table, 

2. Operational Evaluations Table, and

3. Systematic Issues Table.

Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples were placed on the first table. Observations that do 

not meet each and every criterion on the Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for not 

doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise. The 

cause of not operating in the acceptable range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce the likelihood that 

additional samples will be invalidated.

Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection system are included on the second table, the 

Operational Evaluations Table. Violation of a criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider 

other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or 

group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality control information demonstrates otherwise. 

The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated or justified.

Finally, those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not usually impact the validity of a sample or group of 

samples are included on the third table, the Systematic Issues Table. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If the 

data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 5 of 12

attainment decision.
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 6 of 12

CRITICAL CRITERIA TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptable Range Frequency

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R99-005 Feb 

2000

EPA 

Regulation 

& Guidance

ADEC 

AM&QA 

QAPP

Method Measurement Method Characteristics

Reporting 

Units

Range Accuracy Resolution Starting 

Speed

Distance 

Constant

Sampling 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection 

Frequency

Wind Speed

(WS)

Cup, blade, or 

heated sonic 

anemometer

m/s 0.5 m/s –

50 m/s

± 0.2 

m/s 

0.25 m/s ≤ 0.5 m/s ≤ 0.5 m @ 

1.2 kg/m3 hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 1 

& 8, Chapter 5 

Sec 1 & 2 

Chapter 8 Sec 1

QA Handbook

Vol IV Section 

0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 

0-5, 0-6

Section 7 

Table A8

Vertical WS

(VWS)

-25 m/s –

+25 m/s

± 0.2 

m/s

0.1 m/s ≤ 0.25 

m/s

≤ 0.5 m @ 

1.2 kg/m3 hourly 1 minute All Data

Damping 

Ratio

Delay 

Distance

WD (azimuth 

& elevation

Vane or heated 

sonic anemometer

Degrees 

(°)

1° – 360° 

or 540° 

± 5 

degrees

1.0 degree ≤ 0.5 m/s @ 

10 degrees

0.4 to 0.7 @ 

1.2 kg/m3 hourly 1 minute All Data ≤ 0.5 m @ 

1.2 kg/m3

Time 

Constant

Spectral 

Response

Ambient Temp Thermistor 

10m – 2m

Degrees

Celsius 

(°C)

-40°C to 

+40°C 

± 0.5°C 0.1°C ≤ 1 

minute hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 3 & 8,

Chapter 3 Sec 6 

Chapter 5 Sec 1 

& 2 Chapter 8 

Sec 1

Section 7 

Table A8

Vertical Temp 

Difference (ΔT)

-40°C to 

+40°C

± 0.1°C 0.02°C ≤ 1 

minute hourly 1 minute All Data

Dew Point 

Temperature

Psychrometer/

Hygrometer %

°C -40°C to 

+40°C

± 1.5°C 0.1°C ≤ 30 

minutes hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 4 & 8, Chapter 

5 Sec 1 & 2

Relative 

Humidity/

% 0 – 100% ± 7% 0.5 % ≤ 30 

minutes hourly 1 minute All Data

Barometric 

Pressure (BP)

Aneroid 

Barometer

mb 950 mb to 

1050 mb Hg

± 3 mb Hg

(0.3 kPa)

0.5 mb Hg hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 6 

& 8, Chapter 5 

Sec 1 & 2
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 7 of 12

CRITICAL CRITERIA TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptable Range Frequency

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R99-005 Feb 

2000

EPA 

Regulation 

& Guidance

ADEC 

AM&QA 

QAPP

Solar Radiation Pyranometer Watts/m2 0 - 1300 ± 5% of 

observed

10 W/m2 5 seconds 285 nm to 

2800 nm hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 7 & 8, Chapter 5 

Sec 1 & 2

Precipitation Tipping Bucket 

(with Alter type 

windscreen & 

heater)

mm H20 0 – 50 

mmH20/hr

± 10% of 

observed or 

± 0.5

0.3 mm H20 hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 2 Sec 5 

& 8, Chapter 5 

Sec 1 & 2

Method Measurement Method Characteristics (continued)

Reporting 

Units

Range Accuracy Resolution Sampling 

Frequency

Raw Data 

Collection 

Frequency

Vector Data

WS

DAS Calculation m/s 0 – 50.0

m/s

± 0.2 

m/s

0.1 m/s hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 4 Section 

6 Chapter 8

QA Handbook 

Vol IV Section 

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 

Vector Data 0-5, 0-6

WD

DAS Calculation Degrees 

(°)

0 - 360° ± 5° 1.0° hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 4 Section 

6 Chapter 8

sigma theta 

(σθ)

DAS Calculation 

SD of azimuth 

angle of WD

Degrees 

(°)

0 - 105° ± 5° 1.0° hourly 15 minute All Data Chapter 4 Section 

6 Chapter 8

Section 7 

Table A8

sigma phi (σw) DAS Calculation 

SD of vertical 

component of WS 

m/s 0 – 10 m/s ± 0.2 

m/s

0.1 m/s hourly 1 minute All Data Chapter 4 Section 

6 Chapter 8

Section 7 

Table A8

Radiation 

Range

Flow 

Rate

Radiation 

Error

Type Estimates of Means Estimates of Variance

Motor aspirated temp radiation shield 

(T, Δ,T RH/Dew Point )

-100 to 

1300 W/m2

≥ 3 m/s < 0.2°C Chap 2 Sec 3 & 4 

Chapter 8 Sec 1

Data Acquisition 

System (DAS)

Microprocessorbased digital

1/min for hourly mean

(60 samples/hour)

6 samples/minute for 

hourly variance

(360 samples/hour)

Chapter 4 

Section 6 

Chapter 8

Reporting 

Intervals
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 8 of 12

CRITICAL CRITERIA TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptable Range Frequency

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R99-005 Feb 

2000

EPA 

Regulation 

& Guidance

ADEC 

AM&QA 

QAPP

All parameters Hourly average Quarterly All Chapter 5

Section 1 Section 7

Data 

Completeness

All parameters Valid data 

capture

≥75 % Hourly G

Chapter 5

Sections 3 & 4

QA Handbook 

Vol IV Section 

0

Tables 0-3, 

0-4, 0-5, 0-6

Section 7

18 AAC 

50.010 (PSD Quality 

Monitoring)

Valid data 

capture

≥ 90% hourly data, joint collection of WS, WD , and stability (SRDT, σθ, or σw 

depending upon model selection)

Quarterly 

(4 consecutive 

quarters)

G

Calibration

WS, VWS Multi-point 

Calibration

5 points including zero, 2 m/s and 3 additional evenly spaced upscale points 

covering expected wind speeds for the site

All test points ≤ ± (2 m/s + 5% of observed)

WS bearing torque threshold ≤ PSD quality sensor’s manufacturer’s specs

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G

Chapter 5

QA Handbook 

Vol IV , All 

Sections and 0

Tables 0-3, 

0-4, 0-5, 0-6

Section 7 

MQO Table

A8

WS/WD Sonic 

Anemometer

Multi-point 

Calibration

Multipoint calibration via wind tunnel by manufacturer Initially,

1/year 

thereafter

WD, VWD Multi-point 

Calibration

Alignment to True North + linearity test points at:

0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°, 360°

Alignment ≤ ± 5°

Linearity (All Points) ≤ ± 3° (included in ≤ ± 5° above)

WD bearing torque threshold ≤ PSD quality sensor’s manufacturer’s specs

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G

Chapter 5

Chapter 8 
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 9 of 12

CRITICAL CRITERIA TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptable Range Frequency

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R99-005 Feb 

2000

EPA 

Regulation 

& Guidance

ADEC 

AM&QA 

QAPP

Temp Multi-point 

Calibration

Minimum 3 point calibration representative of min avg low to max avg high 

temps for the location. (e.g., -30°C, 0°C, +30°C)

Each point ≤ ±0.5°C of NIST Traceable Standard

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

ΔT Multi-point 

Calibration

Side-by-side calibration of 10m and 2m temp probes with a 

Minimum 3 point calibration representative of min avg low to max avg high 

temps for the location. (e.g., -30°C, 0°C, +30°C)

Each point ≤ ±0.5°C of NIST Traceable Standard

and

10m sensor ≤ ±0.1°C of 2 m sensor at all points 

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

RH/Dew point Multi-point 

Calibration

Factory multi-point calibration followed by on-site 1-point verification of RH/DP 

sensor against NIST Traceable RH Standard (±2% RH accuracy)

RH sensor ≤ ± 7% of RH Standard

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

Solar 

Radiation 

(SR)

Multi-point 

Calibration

Factory multi-point calibration followed by on-site zero check with opaque cover 

1-point verification against in-cert. First Class collocated Pyranometer 

SR sensor ≤ ± 5% of First Class Pyranometer

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter 

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

Barometric 

Pressure 

(BP)

Multi-point 

Calibration

Factory multi-point calibration followed by on-site 1-point verification against 

pressure standard of known quality (see pressure std. min requirements) 

BP sensor ≤ ± 3 mb (0.3 kPa)

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

Precipitation Multi-point 

Calibration

Minimum 3 point calibration

Each point ≤ ± 10% of measured H20 input, or

≤ ± 5 mm H20

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook 

Vol IV Sec 4 

and Sec 0

Tables 0-3, 

0-4, 0-5, 0-6

MQO Table, 

Table A8

Section 16

Vector 

Data/DAS 

(WS, WD, σθ, 

σw) 

Multi-point 

Calibration

Calibrate/check DAS voltage input against sensor inputs 

WS , σw ≤± 0.2 m/s

WD ≤± 5°

Initially,

1/6 

months 

thereafter

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook 

Vol IV Sec 9 

and Sec 0

Tables 0-3, 

0-4, 0-5, 0-6
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 10 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

Siting & Exposure Criteria

All met 

parameters

Representativeness Site must be representative for the intent of 

the monitoring scale , No prescribed 

quantitative criteria See references

All All Chapter 3 Sec 1 QA Handbook Vol 

IV , Section 10-6

All met 

parameters

Probe Siting See references for specific siting criteria 

for simple, complex, coastal and urban 

terrain locations

All All Chapter 3 Sec 2 & 3

Calibration/Audit Standards

WS/ VWS WS standard

Sonic Anemometers

calibrated @ factory 

NIST Traceable Synchronous motor, or

Series of NIST Traceable constant speed motors 

to generate WS in range of 2 m/s thru 50 m/s

Purchase,

recalibrate 1/year or 

at frequency 

dependent upon use 

G QA Handbook Vol IV 

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 

0-6

Section 2

Sections 16

WS/WD Collocated Transfer Standard 

(CTS) for sonic anemometer 

audits

CTS must be cup/vane or aerovane 

anemometer that is calibrated on-site with 

standards/personnel independent from 

routine operator/calibration staff and 

equipment/standards. CTS must meet all 

PSD quality criteria

Purchase,

Calibrate CTS on 

site prior to 

conducting each site 

audit, and

CTS collocated for 

72 hr minimum

G

WD/VWD WD Standard Alignment to True North 

• Solar Noon method, and or

• Transit & Compass, map, and site 

magnetic declination, or

• GPS accuracy ≤3 meters with lock on 

minimum 3 satellite signals

Linearity

Linearity wheel with evenly spaced 

preset markings, e.g., 0°, 45°, 90°, 

135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°, 360°

Purchase,

recalibrate 1/year or 

at frequency 

dependent upon use

G
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 11 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

Temperature Thermister • measurement range -50°C to + 40°C

• Accuracy ≤±0.2°C NIST traceable certified 

over -30°C to +30°C

• Resolution ≤±0.1°C

Purchase,

recertify 1/year or 

per NIST/ASTM 

certification 

frequency

G QA Handbook Vol IV 

Section 3, and 

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 

0-6

RH/Dew 

Point

RH meter or

Assman Style Psychrometer 

RH meter

NIST Traceable Standard ± 2% RH

Assman Style Psychrometer

with matched pair NIST Traceable/ASTM 

Thermometers with measurement Resolution 

0.1° C each and appropriate temp range

No Sling Psychrometer Acceptable

Purchase,

recertify 1/year or per 

NIST traceable 

certification 

frequency

G QA Handbook Vol IV , 

Section 5 and 

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 

0-6

Solar 

Radiation

NIST Traceable Pyranometer First Class Pyranometer

Measurement range

Measurement resolution

Measurement accuracy

Purchase,

recertify 1/year or 

per NIST traceable 

certification 

frequency

G QA Handbook Vol IV 

Section 6, and

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6

Sections 16

Barometric 

Pressure

NIST Traceable Aneroid 

Barometer

Measurement accuracy ± 1mb, 

Measurement resolution 0.1 mb, 

Measurement range 950 – 1050 mb

Purchase,

verify 1/year against

NWS-FAA or NIST 

Traceable Std. or per 

NIST traceable 

certification 

frequency

G QA Handbook Vol IV 

Section 7, and

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6

Precipitation Separatory funnel, 

graduated cylinder, and

deionized water

Volumetric Glassware

Calibrated (50ml or 100 ml, 1 ml divisions), 

and 

Deionized H20

Purchase G QA Handbook Vol IV 

Section 5, and

Section 0

Tables 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6

Visual QC Checks-Field

Sky Check Note & Record sky conditions (cloud 

cover, temp/WS/WD, etc estimates)

Each site visit G QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 10.2

WS WS sensor Moving freely, no visual damage Each site visit G
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 12 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

WD WD sensor Moving freely, no visual damage Each site visit G

Temperature, 

ΔT

Temperature sensors and aspirated 

temperature shields

No visual damage or obstruction, 

Motor in aspirated shield working

Each site visit G

SR Solar Radiation Sensor Radiometer/pyranometer face clear of 

dirt/debris/snow

Each site visit G

BP Pressure sensor No visual damage or obstruction Each site visit G

RH RH sensor, aspirated shield S Each site visit G

Precipitation Precipitation sensor No visual damage or obstruction, free of 

ice and snow, Heater working

Each site visit G

DAS Data Acquisition System DAS time ≤ 1 minute NIST Alaska 

Standard aaTime1

Each site visit G

Data Screening Criteria

WS/ VWS Hourly Recorded WS 0 m/s ≥ WS ≤ 25 m/s0,

WS varies ≥ 0.1 m/s/3 consecutive hours,

WS varies ≥ 0.5 m/s/12 consecutive hours, or

per site specific climatology criteria

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8,Table 8-4 QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 10.4

WD/VWD Hourly Recorded WD 0°≥ WD ≤ 360°,

WD varies ≥ 1°/3 consecutive hours, or

per site specific climatology criteria 

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8,Table 8-4

Temperature Hourly Recorded Ambient 

Temperature

Local record low≥ Temp≤ local record high,

Temp ≤ 5°C from previous hourly record,

Temp varies ≥ 0.5°C/12 consecutive hours, or

per site specific climatology criteria

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8,Table 8-4

10m – 2 m 

ΔT

Hourly Recorded 10m – 2m 

Temperature Difference

Day time ΔTemp < 0.1°C/m,

Night time ΔTemp > -0.1°C/m,

-3.0°C > ΔT < 5.0°C, or

Per site specific climatology criteria

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8, Table 8-4
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 13 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

RH/Dew 

Point

Hourly Recorded Relative 

Humidity

Dew Pont Temp ≤ Amb Temp for time period,

Dew Pont Temp < 5°C change from previous 

hour,

Dew Pont Temp≥ 0.5°C from previous hour, 

and

Dew Pont Temp < Ambient Temp for 12 

consecutive hrs.

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8, Table

Solar 

Radiation

Hourly Recorded Solar 

Radiation

Night time SR = 0,

Day time SR < max SR for date and latitude

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8, Table

Barometric 

Pressure

Hourly Recorded Barometric 

Pressure

BP < 1050 mb (sea level),

BP > 945 mb (sea level), or

Per site specific climatology criteria

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8, Table

Precipitation Hourly Recorded 

Precipitation

Note: Develop site specific climatology 

criteria for each season

1/week or more 

frequent

G Chapter 8, Table

Maintenance

WS/VWS Sensor bearings Replace 1/6 months G

WD/VWD Sensor Bearings Replace 1/6 months G

SR Per manufacturer’s recommendations Per manufacturer’s 

recommendations

G

DAS Data Acquisition System 

(internal battery back-up)

Check Battery Back-up, Replace as needed 1/6 months G

Bias/Accuracy

WS, VWS Performance Audit 5 points including zero, 2 m/s and 3 additional 

evenly spaced upscale points covering expected 

wind speeds for the site

Audit points ≤ ± (2 m/s + 5% of observed)

WS bearing torque threshold ≤ PSD quality 

sensor’s manufacturer’s specs

G

Chapter 5

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 2.7

Section 7 MQO Table

A8
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 14 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

WS/WD 

(Sonic 

Anemometer)

Performance Audit Collocated for min 72 hrs with on-site 

calibrated cup/vane or aerovane anemometer 

CTS

WS criteria

• ≤±0.2 m/s + 5% observed CTS

• SD of differences ≤±0.2 m/s

• Qualifications WS > 1 m/s

WD criteria

• ≤±5° observed CTS

• SD of differences ≤± 2°

• Qualifications WS > 1 m/s

NCore/SLAMS

1/year

SPM

1/yr (suggested)

PSD

Every sensor Within 

30 days of start-up 

and 

1/6 months 

thereafter

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 2.7.3.2 CTS 

Method

WD, VWD Performance Audit Alignment to True North + linearity audit 

points at:

0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°, 

360°

Alignment ≤ ± 5°

Linearity (All Points) ≤ ± 3° (included in 

≤ ± 5° above)

WD bearing torque threshold ≤ PSD quality 

sensor’s manufacturer’s specs

G

Chapter 5

Chapter 8 

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 2.7

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16

Vector 

Data/DAS 

(WS, WD, σθ, 

σw)

Performance Audit WS , σw ≤± 0.2 m/s

WD ≤± 5°

G QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 2.8

Temp Performance Audit Minimum 3 point audit

representative of min avg low to max avg 

high temps for the location. (e.g., -30°C, 

0°C, +30°C)

Each point ≤ ±0.5°C of NIST Traceable 

Standard

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 3.6

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 15 of 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptance Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA Regulation & 

Guidance

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

ΔT Performance Audit Side-by-side audit of 10m and 2m temp 

probes with a Minimum 3 point audit

representative of min avg low to max avg 

high temps for the location. (e.g., -30°C, 

0°C, +30°C)

Each point ≤ ±0.5°C of NIST Traceable 

Standard

and

10m sensor ≤ ±0.1°C of 2 m sensor at all 

points

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 3.6

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16

RH/Dew point Performance Audit 1-point audit of RH/DP sensor against 

NIST Traceable RH Standard (±2% RH 

accuracy)

RH sensor ≤ ± 7% of RH Standard

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 5

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16

Solar 

Radiation 

(SR)

Performance Audit 1-point audit against in-cert. First Class 

Pyranometer 

SR sensor ≤ ± 5% of First Class

Pyranometer

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 6

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16

Barometric 

Pressure 

(BP)

Performance Audit 1-point audit against pressure standard of 

known quality (see pressure std. min 

requirements) 

BP sensor ≤ ± 3 mb (0.3 kPa)

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 7

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16

Precipitation Performance Audit Minimum 3 point audit

Each point ≤ ± 10% of measured H20 

input, or

≤ ± 5 mm H20

G Chapter 5

Chapter 8

QA Handbook Vol IV

Section 4

MQO Table, Table

A8

Section 16
Volume 4, Appendix C

Revision No: 1.0

Date: 03/2008

Page 16 of 12

SYSTEMATIC ISSUES TABLE – METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT METHODS

S - single instrument hourly value, G - group of hourly values from 1 instrument

Parameter Criteria Acceptable Range Frequency 

Samples 

Impacted

EPA -454/R-99-005

Feb 2000

EPA QA 

Handbook 

Volume IV

ADEC AM&QA 

QAPP

Data Completeness

All Met 

Parameters

> 75% NCore, SLAMS, SPM quarterly G

QC Checks

DAS Clock/timer Verification < ± 1 minute. Each site visit 

weeks

G

Bias/Accuracy

All Met 

parameters

Technical Systems Audit NCore/SLAMS/SPM networks 1/3 years. G QA Handbook Vol 

IV

Section 10 & 

Appendix A

PSD Within 1 month 

of start-up and 

annually 

thereafter

G
30

\

This page intentionally left blank
31

TECHNICAL REPORT DATA

(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)

1. REPORT NO.

EPA-454/B-08-002

2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume IV: 

Meteorological Measurements

5. REPORT DATE : January, 2007

 

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) Dennis Mikel, et. al.. 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

 

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

EPA/200/04

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT

This is the fourth volume of the EPA’s Quality Assurance Handbooks that describes meteorological instruments and 

systems. This Handbook describes the different types of instruments that are currently available. The Handbook 

discusses how to install, calibrate, audit and operate the different systems. The latter part of the document explains the 

process for validation and verification of meteorological data. 

 

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group

Quality Assurance Handbook 

Meteorological Measurements

Ambient Air Monitoring

Air Pollution control

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Release Unlimited

19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)

 Unclassified

21. NO. OF PAGES

191

20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)

 Unclassified

22. PRICE

EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
32

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division

Research Triangle Park, NC

Publication No. EPA-454/B-08-002

March 2008