Skip to main content
Log in

SCS-CN-Based Improved Models for Direct Surface Runoff Estimation from Large Rainfall Events

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study presents a procedure to estimate more accurate direct surface runoff from large rainfall (>25.4 mm)-runoff events. Improved models (M5-M7) are derived by coupling two concepts: (i) initial abstraction as 2% of the total rainfall and (ii) runoff coefficient = degree of saturation. Performance of ten different models including the original SCS-CN method (M1), Mishra and Singh 2002 (M2), Mishra et al. 2006 (M3), Ajmal et al. 2016 (M4), improved models (M5-M7) and their simplified forms (M8-M10) is evaluated using large (7687) number of rainfall events derived from 98 watersheds of USDA-ARS to assess the accuracy of runoff estimation. Quantitatively, it is assessed using seven performance indices, viz., R2, NSE, PBIAS, RMSE, NRMSE, RSR, and MAE; categories; and Ranking and Grading System (RGS). The resulting high values of R2, RSR, RGS, and lowest values of NSE, PBIAS, RMSE, NRMSE, and MAE for the improved models (M5-M7) reveal that improved models performed better than the existing models (M1-M4). Similarly, based on different performance categories, all improved models exhibited superior performance in most of the watersheds than did the existing models. Sensitivity analysis indicated CN to be the most sensitive parameter of the improved model. The proposed model is seen to have overcome the limitations of the original and its previous versions intended for large events and can thus be used for estimating runoff more accurately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adornado HA, Yoshida M (2010) GIS-based watershed analysis and surface run-off estimation using curve number (CN) value. J Environ Hydrol 18:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadisharaf E, Camacho RA, Zhang HX, Hantush MM, Mohamoud YM (2019) Calibration and validation of watershed models and advances in uncertainty analysis in TMDL studies. J Hydrol Eng 24(7):3119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajmal M, Khan TA, Kim TW (2016) A CN-based ensembled hydrological model for enhanced watershed runoff prediction Water 8, 20

  • Ajmal M, Moon G, Ahn J, Kim T (2015a) Investigation of SCS-CN and its inspired modified models for runoff estimation in south Korean watersheds. J Hydro-Environ Res 9(4):592–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2014.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajmal M, Waseen M, Ahn JH, Kim TW (2015b) Improved runoff estimation using event-based rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Manag 29(4):995–2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269015-0924-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltas EA, Dervos NA, Mimikou MA (2007) Technical note: determination of SCS initial abstraction ratio in an experimental watershed in Greece. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1825e1829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banasik K, Rutkowska A, Kohnová S (2014) Retention and curve number variability in a small agricultural catchment: the probabilistic approach. Water 6:1118–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck HE, De Jeu, RAM, Schellekens J, van Dijk AIJM, Bruijnzeel LA (2009) Improving curve number based storm runoff estimates using soil moisture proxies IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs 2, 250e259

  • Bondelid TR, McCuen RH, Jackson TJ (1982) Sensitivity of SCS models to curve number variation. Water Resour Bull, American Water Resources Association 18(1):111–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caletka M, Šulc Michalková M, Karásek P, Fučík P (2020) Improvement of SCS-CN initial abstraction coefficient in the Czech Republic: a study of five catchments. Water 12:1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candela A, Aronica G, Santoro M (2005) Effects of forest fires on flood frequency curves in a Mediterranean catchment. Hydrol Sci J 50:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CL (1982) An evaluation of the mathematics and physical significance of the soil conservation service curve number procedure for estimating runoff volume, Proc., Int. Symp. On rainfall-runoff modeling, water resources Publ., Littleton, Colo., 387–418

  • Cho SM, Lee MW (2001) Sensitivity considerations when modeling hydrologic processes with digital elevation model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:931e934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donigian A (2002) Watershed model calibration and validation: the HSPF experience. Proc Water Environ Fed 8(8):44–73. https://doi.org/10.2175/193864702785071796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimian M, Nuruddin AAB, Soom MABM, Sood AM, Neng LJ (2012) Runoff estimation in steep slope watershed with standard and slope-adjusted curve number methods pol. J Environ Stud 21(5):1191–1202

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu S, Zhang G, Wang N, Luo L (2011) Initial abstraction ratio in the SCSCN method in the loess plateau of China. Trans ASABE 54(1):163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garen DC, Moore DS (2005).Curve number hydrology in water quality modeling: uses, abuses, and future directions, J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(2):377–388

  • Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martineza GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modeling. J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 377(1–2):80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hameed HM (2017) Estimating the effect of urban growth on annual runoff volume using GIS in the Erbil sub-basin of the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Hydrology 4:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjelmfelt AT (1980) Empirical investigation of curve number technique. J Hydraul Div ASCE 106:1471–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu S, Fan Y, Zhang T (2020) Assessing the effect of land use change on surface runoff in a rapidly urbanized city: a case study of the central area of Beijing. Land 9:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao P, Xu D, Wang S, Yu Y, Han S (2015) Improved SCS-CN method based on storage and depletion of antecedent daily precipitation. Water Resour Manag 29:4753–4765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1088-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim NW, Lee J (2008) Temporally weighted average curve number method for daily runoff simulation. Hydrol Process 22(25):4936–4948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King KW, Balogh JC (2008) Curve numbers for golf course watersheds, T. ASAE 51:987–996

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal M, Mishra SK, Pandey A, Pandey RP, Meena PK, Chaudhary A, Jha RK, Shreevastava AK, KumarY (2016) Evaluation of the soil conservation service curve number methodology using data from agricultural plots. Hydrogeol J 25:151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1460-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JY, Kim NW, Kim TW. et al. (2019) Feasible ranges of runoff curve numbers for Korean watersheds based on the interior point optimization algorithm. KSCE J Civ Eng 23:5257–5265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-0901-9

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling L, Yusop Z, Yap WS, Tan WL, Chow MF, Ling JL (2020) A calibrated, watershed-specific SCS-CN method: Application to Wangjiaqiao watershed in the three Gorges Area, China. Water 12:60

  • Marquardt DW (1963)An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Soc Indust Appl math 11(2):431–441

  • McCuen RH, Knight Z, Gillian CA (2006) Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. J Hydrol Eng 11(6):597–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon SC (2006) Rainfall-runoff relationships for selected eastern U.S. forested mountain watersheds: testing of the curve number method for flood analysis. Technical rep., West Virginia division of forestry, Charleston, WV

  • Michel C, Andréassian V, Perrin C (2005) Soil conservation service curve number method: how to mend a wrong soil moisture accounting procedure? Water Resour Res 41(2): W02011

  • Mishra SK, Jain MK, Pandey RP, Singh VP (2003) Evaluation of AMC-dependant SCSCN-based models using large data of small watersheds. Water and Energy Int 60(3):13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra SK, Jain MK, Singh VP (2004) Evaluation of the SCS-CN-based model incorporating antecedent moisture. Water Resour Manag 18:567–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra SK, Singh VP (1999) Another look at the SCS-CN method, ASCE J Hydrol Eng 4(3):257–264

  • Mishra SK, Singh VP (2002) SCS-CN-based hydrologic simulation package. In: V.P. Singh and D.K. Frevert (eds.), mathematical models of small watershed hydrology and applications, water resources Publs., LLC, high-lands ranch, 391-464

  • Mishra SK, Singh VP (2003) Soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN) methodology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, ISBN 1-4020-1132-6

  • Mishra SK, Tyagi JV, Singh VP, Singh R (2006) SCS-CN-based modeling of sediment yield. J Hydrol 324(1–4):301–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN et al (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50:885–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN et al (2012) Hydrologic and water quality models: use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 55(4):1241–1247

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN et al (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: perfor370 mance measures and evaluation criteria. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 58(6):1763–1785

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalbantis I, Lymperopoulos S (2012) Assessment of flood frequency after forest fires in small ungauged basins based on uncertain measurements. Hydrol Sci J 57:52–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Sánchez J, Senent-Aparicio J, Segura-Méndez F, Pulido-Velazquez D, Srinivasan R (2019) Evaluating hydrological models for deriving water resources in Peninsular Spain. Sustainability 11(10):2872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102872

  • Plummer A, Woodward D E (2002) The origin and derivation of Ia/S in the runoff curve number system

  • Ponce VM, Hawkins RH (1996) Runoff curve number: has it reached maturity? J Hydrol Eng 1(1):11–19

  • Ritter A, Munoz-Carpena R (2013) Performance evaluation of hydrological models: statistical significance for reducing subjectivity in goodness-of-fit assessments. J Hydrol 480:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero P, Castro G, Gomez JA, Fereres E (2007) Curve number values for olive orchards under different soil management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(6):1758–1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutkowska A, Kohnová S, Banasik K, Szolgay J, Karabová B (2015) Probabilistic properties of a curve number: a case study for small polish and Slovak Carpathian basins. J Mt Sci 12(3):533–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahu RK, Mishra SK, Eldho TI (2012) Improved storm duration and antecedent moisture condition coupled SCS-CN concept-based model. J Hydrologic Eng ASCE 17(11):1173–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahu RK, Mishra SK, Eldho TI, Jain MK (2007) An advanced soil moisture accounting procedure for SCS curve number method. Hydrol Process 21(21):2872–2881. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahu RK, Mishra SK, Eldho TI (2010) An improved AMC-coupled runoff curve number model. Hydrol Process 24:2834–2839. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7695

  • Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott M (2000) Sensitivity analysis, probability and statistics series. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the swat model on a large RWER basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour As 37(5):1169–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4001688.2001.tb03630.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider LE, McCuen R H (2005) Statistical guidelines for curve number generation. J Irrig drain Eng, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9437(2005)131:3(282), 282–290

  • Schaefli B, Gupta. HV (2007) Do Nash values have value? Hydrol Process 21(15):2075–2080. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6825

  • SCS, (1956), (1971) Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, supplement a, section 4, chapter 10, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

  • Shi ZH, Chen LD, Fang NF, Qin DF, Cai CF (2009) Research on the SCS-CN initial abstraction ratio using rainfall-runoff event analysis in the three gorges area China. Catena 77:1e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh PK, Gaur ML, Mishra SK, Rawat SS (2010) An updated hydrological review on recent advancements in soil conservation service curve-number technique. J Water Clim Chang 1(2):118–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh PK, Mishra SK, Berndtsson R, Jain MK, Pandey RP (2015) Development of a modified SMA based MSCS-CN model for runoff estimation. Water Resour Manage 29:4111–4127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1048-1

  • Soulis KX (2018) Estimation of SCS curve number variation following forest fires. Hydrol Sci J 63:1332–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulis KX, Valiantzas JD (2012) Identification of the SCS-CN parameter spatial distribution using rainfall-runoff data in heterogeneous watersheds. Water Resour Manag 27(6):1737–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart D, Canfield E, Hawkins RH (2012) Curve number determination methods and uncertainty in hydrologic soil groups from semiarid watershed data. J Hydrol Eng 17:1180–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedela NH et al (2012) Runoff curve number for 10 small forested watersheds in the mountains of the eastern United States. J Hydrol Eng 17:1188e1198

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessema SM, Lyon SW, Setegn SG, Mörtberg U (2014) Effects of different retention parameter estimation methods on the prediction of surface runoff using the SCS curve number method. Water Resour Manag 28:3241–3254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0674-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Mishra SK, Singh A, Singh PK, Verma RK (2017) An enhanced SMA based SCS-CN inspired model for watershed runoff prediction. Environ Earth Sci 76:736 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Mishra SK, Verma RK (2020b) Improved runoff curve numbers for large watersheds of the United States. Hydrol Sci J 65:2658–2668. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1832676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Singh A, Mishra SK, Singh PK, Verma RK (2018) Efficacy of slope-adjusted curve number models with varying abstraction coefficient for runoff estimation. Int J of Hydrol and Technol 8(4):317–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Singh PK, Mishra SK, Singh VP, Singh V, Singh A (2020a) Activation soil moisture accounting (ASMA) for runoff estimation using soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN) method. J Hydrol 589:125114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voda M, Sarpe CA, Voda AI (2019) Romanian river basins lag time analysis. The SCS-CN versus RNS comparative approach developed for small watersheds. Water Resour Manag 33:245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2100-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walega A, Michalec B, Cupak A, Grzebinoga M (2015) Comparison of SCS-CN determination methodologies in a heterogeneous catchment. J Mt Sci 12:1084–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-015-3592-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, LaSeur WV (1976) Water yield model using SCS curve numbers. J Hydr Div ASCE 102:1241–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan X, Huang M-L (2004) ArcCN-runoff: an ArcGIS tool for generating curve number and runoff maps. Environ Model Softw 19(10):875–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Water Resource Development and Management (WRD&M), IIT Roorkee for providing the necessary facilities to carry out this study.

Availability of Data and Materials

The data used in this study is free of cost available to U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Services (USDA-ARS) Water Database (http://www.ars.usda.gov/arsdb.html).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

R. K. Verma: Writing-original draft, Formal analysis. S. Verma: Investigation Writing-review, Analysis. S.K. Mishra: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing-review & editing. A. Pandey: Visualization, Writing-review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravindra Kumar Verma.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent to Publish

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verma, R.K., Verma, S., Mishra, S.K. et al. SCS-CN-Based Improved Models for Direct Surface Runoff Estimation from Large Rainfall Events. Water Resour Manage 35, 2149–2175 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02831-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02831-5

Keywords

Navigation