Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
To assess probable icing temperatures per month from measured data we used mixed distributions limited to be combinations of normal distributions N(μ, σ)_ The Pearson χ2 criterion denotes the probability that the data could have been drawn from the distribution_
| Month | Temperature °C | Pearson χ2 p-value | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| October | 0.6 | 0.88 | N(0.642105, 1.26088) |
| November | −6.9 | 0.99 | N(−6.9067, 2.52087) |
| −2.3 | N(−2.28275, 0.646585) | ||
| 0 | N(0.0306805, 0.759967) | ||
| 1.6 | N(1.65582, 0.205358) | ||
| December | −3.1 | 0.84 | N(−3.12821, 3.49842) |
| January | −18.2 | 0.079 | N(−18.2457, 4.54108) |
| −3.8 | N(−3.84678, 3.97783) | ||
| February | −9.5 | 0.56 | N(−9.56731, 2.44771) |
| −0.9 | N(−0.921769, 2.28932) | ||
| March | −1.4 | 0.22 | N(−1.42623, 2.60906) |
| April | −0.2 | 0.90 | N(−0.2, 1.34759) |
To determine the most probable icing temperatures from measured data we used mixed distributions limited to be combinations of normal distributions N(μ, σ)_ The Pearson χ2 criterion denotes the probability that the data could have been drawn from the distribution_
| Height m | Tempe-rature °C | Pearson χ2 p-value | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 110 | −21.2 | 0.73 | N(−21.2062, 0.353645) |
| −6.4 | N(−6.92617, 0.409879) | ||
| −0.6 | N(−0.38294, 1.95312) | ||
| 90 | −22.3 | 0.04 | N(−22.3468, 2.72057) |
| −3.7 | N(−3.71077, 3.79747) | ||
| 70 | −11.1 | 0.91 | N(−11.1222, 7.40277) |
| −0.4 | N(−0.373057, 2.2027) | ||
| 50 | −10.1 | 0.54 | N(−10.1285, 5.72445) |
| −1.3 | N(−1.26539, 1.89357) | ||
| 30 | −19.6 | 0.90 | N(−19.5834, 4.00944) |
| −7.9 | N(−7.93453, 2.19069) | ||
| −1.3 | N(−1.24393, 1.63284) | ||
| all | −9.4 | 0.00047 | N(−9.55811, 6.68105) |
| −1.2 | N(−1.12501, 2.04707) | ||