4 Oct
4 Oct
4 Oct
S
SCS-CN M
Methodol
logy: Rec
cent Rese
earch Treends and Advance
ed Hydrological
App
plications
s
S. K. Mishra1, P.K. Singh2, an
nd S.A. Siddiqui3
BSTRACT
AB
The Soil Conservvation Service Curve
Th C Number (SSCS-CN) method is widely usedd for predictingg direct surface runoff from a given g rainfall
ammount. It is a coonceptual modell of hydrologic abstraction
a and requires basic descriptive
d inputs that are smooothly converted into numeric
vaalues (called ass curve number,, CN) which ref eflect the runofff potential of thhe watersheds. The
T method acccounts for the majorm runoff
prroducing watersshed characteristics, viz., soil typpe, land use/treaatment, surface condition, and antecedent
a moistture conditions (AMCs).
( The
m
method has witnessed myriad applications
ap all over the worldd through the sppectrum of the hydrology, andd even for the range r of the
hyydrologic probleems not originallly intended to soolve such as longg-term hydrologgic simulation, errosion and sedimmentation, waterr quality, and
suub-surface drainnage, potential evapo-transpirat
e ion & infiltratioon, and hydrograaph simulation. Recently,
R at the same time, the methodology
m
haas undergone thhrough a numbeer of structural & architecturall modifications dealing d with pottential maximum m retention (S)/C
CN vs AMC,
innitial abstractionn (Ia) vs storm duration
d (t), NEEH-4 Table vs AMC A a CN converssion methodologgies. Therefore, looking into
statistics, and
reecent advancemeents, improvemeents and vast appplications since its inception, thhis paper presents an advanced hydrological annd diagnostic
reeview on the diffferent aspects off the SCS-CN meethodology in thee field of hydroloogy.
K
Keywords: SCS-C
CN Method, Long
g-term Hydrologgic Simulation, Erosion
E and Seddimentation, Watter Quality, Curvve Number
Engineering Handbook (NEH) Section 4 (NEH-4): Hydrology success is often governed by the precision with which the
(SCS, 1985). values of CN and Ia are assigned, which indeed are most
sensitive but typically assumed constant over space and time.
The origin of the method was based on the proposal of
Previous researches have well established that even for the
Sherman (1949) on plotting direct runoff versus storm rainfall.
same location these values are highly changeable during a year
The subsequent work of Mockus (1949) focused on estimating
owing to factors like changes in land use, crop cover, crop
surface runoff for ungauged watersheds using information on
growth, land treatment etc. Recently the method has been
soil, land use, antecedent rainfall, storm duration and average
critically reviewed and diagnosed by various researchers for its
annual temperature. Andrews (1954) also developed a
structural inconsistencies by Mishra et al. (2004a), Michel et
graphical procedure for estimating runoff from rainfall for
al. (2005), and Sahu et al. (2007) and uses and limitations by
combinations of soil texture and type, the amount of vegetative
Ponce and Hawkins (1996) and Garen and Moore (2005).
cover and conservation practices. The association was referred
to as the soil-cover complex (Miller and Cronshey, 1989). DEVELOPMENTS IN CN ESTIMATION
Thus, the empirical rainfall-runoff relation of Mockus (1949) Before dealing with recent developments in CN estimation and
and the soil cover complex of Andrews (1954) constituted the various watershed characteristics that affect its estimation, it
basis for the SCS-CN method described in the SCS, NEH- 4 would be appropriate here to quote Hawkins (1975) that the
(USDA-SCS, 1985). errors in CN may have much more consequences on runoff
The method has been structurally diagnosed and critically estimation than errors of similar magnitude in storm rainfall P.
reviewed by several researchers worldwide for its enhanced This reflects the importance of accurate CN estimation for
performance without disfiguring its inherent simplicity. The modeling rainfall-runoff process. Major watershed
diagnostic works of Rallison (1982), Chen (1982), Ponce and characteristics such as soil type, land use/treatment classes,
Hawkins (1996), Mishra and Singh (1999; 2002a&b; hydrologic soil group, hydrologic condition and the most
2003a&b; 2004a&b), Michel et al. (2005), and Chung et al. important one antecedent moisture condition (AMC) play a
(2010) are noteworthy. Based on the works of Ponce and significant role in accurate CN estimation.
Hawkins (1996) and Mishra & Singh (2003a), it was The CN is a hydrologic parameter that relies implicitly on the
concluded that the SCS-CN method is a conceptual model of assumptions of extreme runoff events and represents a
hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall supported by empirical convenient representation of the potential maximum soil
data dedicated to estimate direct runoff volume based on a retention, S (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). The Curve Number
single numeric parameter CN. (CN) is used in the determination of S and values for the CN
for different landuse, soil types and soil moisture conditions
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF can be found in table (NEH-4). It has been observed that CN
SCS-CN METHODOLOGY will be the highest for the Poor, average for the Fair, and
Well established in hydrologic, agriculture, and environmental lowest for the Good hydrologic condition. Similarly, the
engineering, its popularity is rooted in its convenience, hydrologic soil group of a watershed significantly affects the
simplicity, authoritative origins, and responsiveness to four CN or the runoff potential of the watershed, and it increases as
readily available catchment properties: soil type, land the soil group changes from group A to group D, and vice
use/treatment, surface condition, and antecedent moisture
condition. The method
though appealing to many
practicing hydrologists
and watershed managers
by its overwhelming
simplicity, contains some
unknowns and
inconsistencies (Chen,
1982). Due to its origin
and evolution as agency
methodology, which
effectively isolated it
from rigors of peer
review, other than the
information contained in
NEH-4, which was not
intended to be exhaustive
no complete account of
the methods foundation is
available to date.
Though the technique is
versatile in its conceptual
as well as application
domain, the ultimate
Fig.1. Determination of CN for AMC I to AMC III using existing SCS-CN method
30
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
versa. Hawkins et al. (1985) found that the antecedent moisture than the rank-order method (Hjelmfelt, 1980) and the method
condition (AMC) is one of the most influential watershed suggested by Hawkins (1993). Recently, Mishra and Singh
characteristics in determining curve number (CN). (2006) investigated the variation of CN with AMC and
developed a new power relationship between the S (or CN)
Despite widespread use of SCS-CN methodology, the accurate
and the 5-day antecedent rainfall. The developed CN-AMC
estimation of CN is a topic of much discussion among
relationship is applicable to gauged as well as ungauged
hydrologists (Hawkins, 1978; Chen, 1982; Hjelmfelt, 1980;
watershed and eliminates the problem of sudden jump from
McCuen, 2002; Bonta, 1997; Ponce and Hawkins, 1996;
one AMC level to other.
Mishra and Singh, 1999; Mishra and Singh, 2002a; and Mishra
and Singh, 2006). Originally CNs were developed using daily In recent past few researchers have also considered watershed
rainfall-runoff records corresponding to the maximum annual slope in CN computations. The works of Sharpley & Williams
flows from gauged watersheds for which information on their (1990) and Huang et al. (2006) are noteworthy. Sharpley &
soils, cover, and hydrologic condition was available (SCS, Williams (1990) incorporated slope factor in CN estimation
1972). The rainfall (P)-runoff (Q) data were plotted on the assuming that CN2 obtained from the NEH Handbook (SCS
arithmetic paper having a grid of plotted curve number, as 1972) corresponds to a slope of 5%. The slope adjusted CN2
shown in Fig. 1. (CN2) were represented as:
The CN corresponding to the curve that separated half of the
plotted data from the other half was taken as the median curve CNII =
1
3
( )
(CNIII CNII ) 1 2e13.86 + CNII (2)
number for the watershed. Thus the developed cure numbers
represented the averages or median site values for soil groups, where is the soil slope in m/m. However, Huang et al. (2006)
cover, and hydrologic condition and corresponds to AMC II explored the applicability of the above equation and found that
(CNII). The upper enveloping curve was taken to correspond to the equation has limited applications and, as an improvement,
AMC III (CNIII) and the lower curve to AMC I (CNI). The they developed another set of equations for climatic and steep
average condition was taken to mean average response, which slope conditions observed in Loess Plateau of China. The
was later extended to imply average soil moisture condition modified CN2 can be expressed as:
(Miller and Cronshey, 1989).
322.79 + 15.63
Depending on 5-day antecedent rainfall, CNII is convertible to CN II = CN II (3)
CNI and CNIII using the relationships given by Sobhani (1975), ( + 323.52)
Hawkins et al. (1985), Chow et al. (1988), Neitsch et al.
However, the credibility of the above models needs to be
(2002), and Mishra et al. (2008) as given in Table 1 and
validated for other regions having similar climatic and slope
directly from the NEH-4 Tables (SCS, 1972 and Mishra &
conditions. From the above discussions, it can be concluded
Singh, 2003a) and these are applicable to ungauged
that there is still ample future scope of research for
watersheds. However, to estimate the CNII mathematically
improvements in CN estimation methods.
from the observed rainfall (P)-runoff (Q) data of a gauged
watershed, Hawkins (1993) suggested the following expression DEVELOPMENTS IN IA-S RELATIONSHIP
for S (or CN) computation as: The relationship between Ia-S has always been a topic of
[
S = 5 P + 2Q Q(4Q + 5P) ] (1)
discussions among researchers worldwide. Initially, Ia was not
a part of the SCS-CN model in its initial formulation, however,
as the developmental stages continued, it was included as a
Schneider & McCuen (2005) developed a new Log-normal fixed ratio of Ia to S (Plummer & Woodward, 2002). Because
frequency method to estimate curve numbers from observed P- of the larger variability, the Ia = 0.2S relationship has been the
Q data. The developed method was found to be more accurate focus of discussion and modification since its very inception.
Table 1: AMC Dependent CN Conversion Formulae
CN Conversion Formulae AMC I AMC III
CN II CN II
Sobhani (1975) CN I = CN III =
2.334 0.01334CN II 0.4036 + 0.005964CN II
CN II CN II
Hawkins et al. (1985) CN I = CN III =
0.427 + 0.00573CN
2.281 0.01281CN II II
4.2CN II 23CN II
Chow et al. (1988) CN I = CN III =
10 0.058 CN II 10 + 0.13CN II
20(100 CNII )
Neitsch et al. (2002) CNI = CNII CNIII = CNIIexp{0.0067 3(100 CNII )}
{100 CNII + exp[2.533 0.0636(100 CNII )]}
20(100 CNII ) CN II
Mishra et al. (2008) CNI = CNII CN III =
2.274 0.012754CNII 0.430 + 0.0057CNII
31
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
As an example, Aron et al. (1977) suggested 0.1 and SCS-CN method has also been successfully applied in some of
Golding (1979) provided values for urban watersheds the newer fields like water quality, metal partitioning, erosion
depending on CN as = 0.075 for CN 70, = 0.1 for and sedimentation, and irrigation scheduling.
70 < CN 80, and = 0.15 for 80 < CN 90. Ponce & A considerable amount of literature on the method has been
Hawkins (1996) suggest that the fixing of the initial abstraction published and the method has undergone through various
ratio at 0.2 may not be the most appropriate number, and that it stages of critical reviews several times (Rallison, 1980; Chen,
should be interpreted as a regional parameter. Hawkins et al. 1982; Ponce and Hawkins, 1996; and Mishra & Singh, 2003a).
(2001) found that a value of = 0.05 gives a better fit to data Rallison (1980) provided detailed information about the origin
and would be more appropriate for use in runoff calculations. and evaluation of the methodology and highlighted major
Mishra & Singh (1999) suggested that the initial abstraction concerns to its application to the hydrology and water
component accounts for the short-term losses such as resources problems it was designed to solve and suggested
interception, surface storage and infiltration before runoff future research areas. Chen (1982) evaluated the mathematical
begins, and therefore, can take any non-negative value. and physical significance of methodology for estimating the
Mishra & Singh (2004b) developed criterion for applicability runoff volume.
of SCS-CN method based on runoff coefficient (C) and Though primarily intended for event-based rainfall-runoff
variation. They defined the applicability bounds for the SCS- modeling of the ungauged watersheds, the SCS-CN method
CN method as: 0.3; Ia* (=Ia/P) 0.35 and C 0.23. has been applied successfully in the realm of hydrology and
Considering the fact that P is an implicit function of watershed management and environmental engineering, such
climatic/meteorological characteristics, a more general non- as long-term hydrologic simulation (LTHS) (Williams and
linear Ia-S relation was developed by Jain et al. (2006a), LaSeur, 1976; Hawkins, 1978; Knisel, 1980; Woodward and
expressed as: Gburek, 1992; Pandit and Gopalakrishnan, 1996; Mishra and
Singh, 2004a; Michel et al., 2005; Jain et al., 2006a&b; Sahu
P et al., 2007; Kannan et al., 2008; Durbude et al., 2010; Sahu et
I a = S (4)
(P + S)
al., 2010; and Babu & Mishra, 2012), sediment yield modeling
(SYM) (Mishra and Singh, 2003a; Mishra et al., 2006b; Tyagi
where is a constant. Since Eq. (4) reduces to Ia = 0.2S for et al., 2008; and Singh et al., 2008; and Bhunya et al., 2010),
= 0.2 and = 0, and hence could be taken as a generalized metal partitioning (Mishra et al., 2004b&c), determination of
form of Ia-S relationship. The model resulting from the subsurface flow (Yuan et al., 2001), urban hydrology (Pandit
coupling of Eq. (4) with Eq. (6) (general form of SCS-CN & Gopalakrishnan, 1996 and Singh et al., 2013), water quality
method) for = 0.3 and = 1.5 were found to perform much (Ojha, 2012), rainwater harvesting (Kadam et al., 2012 and
better than the existing SCS-CN method (Eq. 13) for = 0.2. Singh et al., 2013). The method has also been successfully
applied in distributed watershed modeling (White, 1988;
Mishra et al. (2006a) developed a modified non-linear Ia-S Moglen, 2000; and Mishra and Singh, 2003a). A brief
relationship based on the hypothesis that Ia largely depends on description on few of these applications is being discussed here
initial soil moisture M, as: as follows.
S 2 (5) SCS-CN BASED LONG-TERM HYDROLOGIC
Ia =
(S + M ) SIMULATION (LTHS) MODELS
The generalized nature of the above equation can be seen as, This section discusses some of the important and widely used
for M = 0 or a completely dry condition, Eq. (5) reduces to Eq. LTHS models based on SCS-CN method.
(7), which is the basic Ia and S relationship. Therefore, it can Water Yield Model (Wym)
be concluded that the Ia-S relationship can be further refined Williams & LaSeur (1976) were probably the first to introduce
for an enhanced performance of the SCS-CN methodology. the concept of Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) procedure to
develop a Water Yield Model (WYM) based on the existing
HYDROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF SCS-
SCS-CN methodology. The model is based on the notion that
CN METHODOLOGY CN varied continuously with soil moisture, and thus
The SCS-CN method has witnessed myriad and variety of considering many values of CN instead of only three (CNI,
applications to the fields not originally intended, due to the CNII, CNIII). The model computes a soil moisture index
reason of its simplicity, stability and accountability for most depletion parameter that forces an agreement between the
runoff producing watershed characteristics: Soil type, land use measured and predicted average annual runoff. The model
treatment, surface condition, and antecedent moisture eliminates sudden jump in the CN-values while changing from
condition. Some of its critics suggest it to be obsolete, a one AMC to the other and requires simple inputs as: (i) CNII
remnant of outdated technology, and needs overhaul or estimate for the study watershed; (ii) measured monthly
outright replacement (Smith & Eggert, 1978 and Van-Mullem, runoff; (iii) daily rainfall; and (iv) average monthly lake
1989). However, recently Singh and Frevert (2002) edited a evaporation, and only outputs runoff volume. It can also be
book titled Mathematical Models of Small Watershed applied to the nearby ungauged watershed by adjusting the
Hydrology and Applications, in which at least 6 of the 22 curve number for the ungauged watershed in proportion to
chapters have mathematical models of watershed hydrology ratio of the AMC II curve number to the average predicted
based on SCS-CN approach. This reflects the robustness and curve number for the gauged watershed. However, the model
lasting popularity of SCS-CN methodology. Recently, the
32
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
utilizes an arbitrary assigned value of 20 inches for absolute amount of soil moisture in the soil profile during t period.
potential maximum retention Sb. The general expression of the The soil moisture budgeting was expressed as given in Eq. (25)
model is given in Table 2. which yields the antecedent moisture amount for the next
storm to modify S(t) for the next storm. The model obviates
Hawkins Model the sudden jumps in CN values, exclusively considers the soil
Hawkins (1978) developed continuous soil moisture moisture budgeting on continuous basis, evapotranspiration,
accounting (SMA) procedure by linking evapo-transpiration and watershed routing procedures. These characteristics make
(ET) and CN for use in continuous hydrologic simulation the model versatile. The developed model has been given in
model. The model uses the volumetric concept for accounting Table 2. They also expressed the evapo-transpiration ET(t), in
the site moisture on a continuous basis. The general expression terms of pan coefficient (PANC) and absolute maximum
of the model is given in Table 2. Hence, if (i) CNt for the first potential retention (Sabs) using Eq. (27).
time step and (ii) P, Q, and ET for the next time step (t) are
known, then Eq. (12) can be used to compute CNt+t for the SCS-CN based Time Distributed Runoff Model
next time step and sequentially the daily Q from Eq. (10). The Mishra & Singh (2004b) established the criterion for the
model accounts for the site moisture on continuous basis and applicability of SCS-CN method and extended the SCS-CN
thus eliminates the problem of sudden jump in CN. The model concept to derivation of a time distributed runoff model.
is easier to apply and the SMA procedure followed in model Further, they attempted to develop SCS-CN based infiltration
development is hydrologically sounder than WYM. model. The governing equations (Eqs. 28 a&b) of the
developed models are given in Table 2.
Annual Storm Runoff Coefficient (ASRC) Model
Pandit and Gopalakrishnan (1996) developed a continuous Michel SCS-CN (MSCS-CN) Model
simulation technique, for computing annual pollutant loads Michel et al. (2005) reviewed SMA procedure that lies behind
using annual storm runoff coefficient (ASRC) and degree of SCS-CN method and pointed out severe inconsistencies in the
perviousness/ imperviousness of watershed, using existing treatment of antecedent moisture conditions in SCS-CN
SCS-CN method. The model is very simple and specifically procedure and proposed a sounder methodology. They
useful for small urban watersheds characterized by the percent hypothesized that the SCS-CN model is valid not only at the
imperviousness. The technique is cost-effective since the end of the storm but at any instant along a storm. Their
continuous simulations can be performed on spread sheets, and findings are based on an analysis of the continuous soil
requires easily available daily rainfall data from a nearby moisture accounting (SMA) procedure implied by the SCS-CN
climatological station. However, it allows sudden jumps in CN equation. Their SMA procedure is based on the notion that
values, ignores evapo-transpiration, drainage contribution, and higher the moisture store level, higher the fraction of rainfall
watershed routing. The general expression of the model is will be converted into runoff.
given in Table 2. It involves the following steps (Mishra and
They developed a procedure that is more consistent from SMA
Singh, 2004a):
viewpoint, by introducing the term V0, the initial soil moisture
1. Determine the pervious curve number for AMC II, store level. MSCS-CN model eliminates initial abstraction (Ia)
and introduces a new parameter Sa (Sa=Ia+V0) to compute the
2. Determine the directly connected impervious area of the
direct runoff. The developed MSCS-CN model with new
urban watershed according to SCS (1956),
insight in SMA procedure is given in Table 2.
3. Estimate the daily runoff depth for both pervious and
impervious areas separately using Eq. (13), Enhanced SCS-CN (ESCS-CN) Model
Jain et al. (2006b) developed ESCS-CN model for long-term
4. Determine the actual AMC based on the previous 5-day hydrologic simulation by incorporating the storm duration and
rainfall and modify CN using Eqs. (14 and (15) such that a non-linear relation for initial abstraction (Ia). They also
it does not exceed 98, and proposed a continuous moisture content using a 5-day
antecedent rainfall (P5) relation instead of the existing discrete
5. Calculate the yearly storm runoff depth by summing the
relationship. The expression of ESCS-CN model is given in
runoff for each day.
Table 2.
Versatile MS-SCS-CN (VMS-SCS-CN) Model
Sahu et al. Model
Mishra & Singh (2004a) developed a four parameter VMS-
Sahu et al. (2007) developed a continuous hydrologic
SCS-CN model to remove the inconsistencies and complexities
simulation model for long-term hydrologic simulation using
associated with the existing models of long term hydrologic
SCS-CN method. They found that the antecedent or initial soil
simulation such as Water Yield Model (WYM) (William and
moisture (V0) depends not only on P5 but also on S. The
LaSeur, 1976), Hawkins model (Hawkins, 1978), ASRC model
dependency on S is based on the fact that the watershed with
(Pandit and Gopalakrishnan, 1996), Mishra et al. (1998)
larger retention capacity S must retain higher moisture
model, and MS model (Mishra and Singh, 2002a). They
compared to the watershed with lesser S for a given P5. V0
described the water balance equation of Mishra and Singh
depends not only on the antecedent 5-day precipitation (P5),
(2002) by discretizing them for time (t) using Eq. (22) and
which is the basis for three AMCs in the SCS-CN method, but
modified the SCS-CN runoff equation of Mishra and Singh
also on S. Considering Sa = S in consistence with the MSCS-
(2002) as in Eq. (23).
CN model and using other suitable assumptions, they derived
The dynamic infiltration (Fd), occurred during t period was Eqs. (35) to (38) for different conditions. These expressions
computed using Eq. (24), which represents an increase in the are given in Table 2.
33
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
S + (S + Sa V0 )P (31)
Jain et al. (2006b) ( Pc I ad )(Pc I ad + M ) M = P5
model Q= ; Pc>Iad, (34)
(Pc I ad + M + S) where; = coefficient; P5=antecedent 5-day precipitation amount; Po=
Q=0, otherwise (33) observed rainfall; Pc=adjusted rainfall, Iad=adjusted initial abstraction; tP
P t =mean storm duration, tP = storm duration, , =coefficients.
I ad = S c ; Pc = Po P
Pc + S tP
Sahu et al. (2007)
Model
For V00 S a P5 , V0 = V00 + P5 V00 = S
(38)
(35)
For Sa-P5<V00<Sa, V00 - old moisture level available on 5 days before the onset of rainfall, and
(P + V00 S a )2 - model parameters ranging from 0 to 1.
V0 = V00 + P5 5 - model parameters ranging from 0 to 1.
P5 + V00 S a + S
(36)
For Sa V00 Sa+S, then,
(S + S a V00 )2
V0 = V00 + P5 2
S + (S + S a V00 )P5
(37)
Sahu-Mishra- (P I a )(P I a + M) , if P>Ia, Q=0, (P S0 )S0
Q=
Eldho (2010)
(P I a + S 0 ) M = 5 , for P5 > S0 (41)
model
otherwise (39) (P5 S0 ) + S0
I a = (S 0 M ) and
M = 0, for P S0
(40)
Babu & Mishra (P I a )(P I a + M ) S abs = S + M
(2012) model Q= , Pc>Ia, Q=0, (44)
(P I a + M + S) where, Sabs = constant quantity for a watershed irrespective of storms.
otherwise (42) M = P5Sabs
I a = (S abs M ) where, = proportionality coefficient.
(45)
(43)
35
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
alternative to the empirical coefficients/constant based method These parameters were introduced, along with -PCN and -
used for the purpose. Recently, Kadam et al. (2012) identified ADP, where ADP is the antecedent dry period similar to the
the potential sites to construct rainwater harvesting structures AMC. Based on these parameters analogous relationships were
coupling SCS-CN method with GIS and remote sensing. It was developed as given Table 3. In an another attempt, Mishra et
found that that the SCS-CN method adopted deciphers the al. (2004c) further suggested a new partitioning curve number
more precise, accurate and ability to process large catchment (PCN) approach for partitioning heavy metals into dissolved
area than other methods. and particulate bound forms in urban snow melt,
rainfall/runoff, and river flow environments on the basis of an
SCS-CN Based Erosion, Sedimentation and Water analogy between SCS-CN method based infiltration and metal
Quality Models sorption processes.
Sediment yield is defined as the total sediment outflow from a
watershed or a drainage basin, measurable at a point of USLE-SCS-CN Model
reference and in a specific period of time (ASCE, 1970). This For the first time, Mishra et al. (2006b) coupled the popular
section briefly discusses some of the recently developed and widely used models of SCS-CN method and universal soil
models based on SCS-CN method for erosion, sedimentation loss equation (USLE) for modeling rain-storm generated
and metal partitioning in hydrological and environmental sediment yield from a watershed. The coupling is based on
engineering. As discussed previously, most of the computer three hypotheses: (i) the runoff coefficient (C) is equal to the
based sedimentation simulation models such as AGNPS degree of saturation (Sr); (ii) the potential maximum retention
(Young et al., 1989), CREAMS (Knisel, 1980), SWRRB (S) can be expressed in terms of the USLE parameters, and
(Arnold et al., 1990), SWAT (Neitsch et al., 2002), EPIC (iii) the sediment delivery ratio (DR) is equal to the runoff
(Sharpley & Williams, 1990) and GWLF (Haith & Shoemaker, coefficient (C). The expressions of the model for various
1987) use the SCS-CN method as a component model for conditions are given in Table 3.
runoff estimation, however, the SCS-CN method has not
Time Distributed Sediment Yield Model
witnessed many applications in the field of erosion & sediment
A time distributed sediment yield model was developed by
yield and environmental engineering, despite some noteworthy
Tyagi et al. (2008) utilizing the SCS-CN based infiltration
works of Mishra and Singh (2003a), Mishra et al. (2006b),
model for computation of rainfall-excess rate, and the SCS-
Tyagi et al. (2008), Singh et al. (2008), and Bhunya et al.
CN-inspired proportionality concept for computation of
(2010). In the recent past, an interesting review paper by Garen
sediment-excess. Finally, for computation of time distributed
& Moore (2005) titled Curve Number Hydrology in Water
sediment yield (sediment graphs), the sediment-excess was
Quality Modeling: Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions was
routed to the watershed outlet using a single linear reservoir
widely appreciated by the water quality modelers. Hence, it
technique. The general expression of the model is given in
can be stated that the SCS-CN method is still a central tool
Table 3.
available to the scientific community with its broad
applicability. Conceptual Sediment Graph Model
New conceptual sediment graph models were developed by
Metal Partitioning Analog (MPA) Models
Singh et al. (2008) based on coupling of popular and
Mishra et al. (2004b) employed the basic proportionality
extensively used methods, viz., Nash model (Nash, 1957)
concept of the SCS-CN method for partitioning 12 metal
based instantaneous unit sediment graph (IUSG), SCS-CN
elements, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ni, Mn, Fe, Cr, Mg, Al, Cu, and Na
method, and Power law (Novotny and Olem, 1994). The
between dissolved and particulate bound form. In order to
models for different conditions are given in Table 3. The
apply this metal partitioning analogy, two parameters, the
proposed models are useful in computation of sediment graph
potential maximum desorption ( ) (Eq. 47) and the as well as total sediment yield and can be successfully applied
partitioning curve number (PCN) (Eq. 48) are postulated as for ungauged conditions as well. The models can be very
analogous to the SCS-CN parameters S and CN, respectively. useful for computing dynamic pollutant loads in water quality
Y=
(P 0.2S)A
P + 0.8S
(ii) Incorporation of antecedent moisture (V0)
Y=
(P I + V )A
a 0
(P Ia + S + V0 )
(50)
Taking Ia = 0.2S which is a standard practice:
Y=
(P 0.2S + V0 )A
(P 0.8S + V0 )
(iii) Incorporation of initial flush (If = 1A)
(1 1 )(P I a + V0 )A
Y= + 1
(P I a + S + V0 )
(51)
for Ia = 0.2S
(1 1 )(P 0.2S + V0 )A
Y= + 1
(P 0.8S + V0 )
where Y = sediment yield; A =the potential maximum erosion; P =total rainfall; S = potential
maximum retention; V0 = initial soil moisture; Ia = initial abstraction coefficient; and If = initial flush
coefficient.
SCS-CN Time Distributed Sediment
A S2
Yield
Yt = 1 2
(i f c )
(P + S S)
(Tyagi et al., 2006) Pt
(52)
where A is the potential maximum erosion of the watershed dependent on the soil properties and
storage capacity (S); and Pt is the rainfall amount during time interval t; i is the rainfall intensity and
fc is the final infiltration rate.
SCS-CN Based Sediment Graph The sediment graph models (SGM) for four different cases, depending on the number of model
Model (SGM) parameters, and these are designated as SGM1 through SGM4, respectively. For SGM1, both the initial
(Singh et al., 2008) soil moisture V0 and initial abstraction Ia are assumed to be zero, i.e. V0 = 0 and Ia = 0. For SGM2, V0
= 0, but Ia 0. For SGM3, V0 0 and Ia = 0. Finally, for SGM4, V0 0 and Ia 0. The governing
general expression of the above models is given as:
(t / tps) ns 1
Qs(t ) = AAw [(kt + V0 / S) /(1+ kt + V0 / S)] (ns 1) ns / tps(ns)[(t / tps)e
]
(53)
where Qs(t) = sediment yield rate (Ton/h); A = potential maximum erosion; Aw = watershed area;
and =coefficient and exponent of power law; k = infiltration decay coefficient; and ns is the number
of reservoirs.
SCS-CN Based Water Quality Model 1000 R
CN ;
10 R 1 R input
for RBF
(Ojha, 2012) (54)
where R = output/input = input/(input+S)
Finally the filtrate quality can be computed using the following expression as:
Ce vf C0 CN
R ;
C0 1000 10CN vf C0 CN
(55)
where Ce = filtrate (effluent) quality, C0 = influent quality and vf = flow velocity
modelling if the sediment transports the pollutants that are Modified Long-Term Hydrologic Simulation Advance
toxic at high concentrations, requiring determination of peak, Soil Moisture Accounting (MLTHS ASMA) Model
rather than average sediment flow rate. The expressions of the Jain et al. (2012) proposed modified long-term hydrologic
model for various conditions are given in Table 3. simulation advance soil moisture accounting (MLTHS ASMA)
model by suitably amalgamating the advanced soil moisture
37
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
accounting (ASMA) procedure, the modified subsurface water resources assessment related studies through coupling
drainage flow concept, and curve number (CN)based model with the latest GIS and remote sensing techniques
for simulating daily flows. The proposed model uses the
ASMA procedure both for surface and sub-surface flows. In REFERENCES
this model, the direct surface runoff is computed using the 1. Andrews, R. G. (1954). The use of relative infiltration
modified formulations of SCS-CN method given by Michel et indices in computing runoff (unpublished). Soil
al. (2005) and Durbude et al. (2011). The sub-surface drainage Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas, p. 6.
flow is modeled using a new formulation on the basis of the 2. Arnold, J. G., Williams, J. R., Griggs, R. H. & Sammons,
concept of Yuan et al. (2001). N. B. (1990). SWRRBA Basin Scale Simulation Model
Water Quality Model for River Bank Filtration for Soil and Water Resources Management. A&M Press,
Ojha (2012) explored the potential of the SCS-CN approach in Texas.
water quality modeling of the river bank filtration (RBF) 3. Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Srinivasan, R., King, K.W.,
process using a theoretical framework through relating the 1996. SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool. USDA-
curve number (CN) with the filtration/kinetic coefficient (K) ARS, Grassland, Soil andWater Research Laboratory,
and the input applied to the system. The CN was found to be Temple, TX. Aron G, Miller A C and Lakatos D F. (1977).
dependent on travel time between source water and the Infiltration formula based on SCS curve numbers. Journal
abstraction well in addition to the influent concentration. For of Irrigation and Drainage Division. ASCE. 103(4): 419-
very low or very high values of influent concentration, the 427.
curve number exhibits an asymptotic variation approaching
100 and 0, respectively. The governing equations of the 4. ASCE (1970). Sediment sources and sediment yields. J.
postulated theory are given in Table 3. The salient features of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 96 (HY6), 1283 1329.
the study were found as: 5. Babu, P. S. and Mishra, S.K. (2012). Improved SCS-CN
(i) CN is related with the performance (output to input Inspired Model. J. Hydrologic Engg., 17(11), pp. 1164
ratio, R) of a water quality system. The simulation of 1172.
filtrate quality (R) using filtration coefficient (), 6. Bhunya, P. K., Jain, S. K., Singh, P. K. & Mishra, S. K.
kinetic coefficient, and CN is equivalent to each (2010). A simple conceptual model of sediment yield.
other as these are all interrelated. Water Resources Management, 24(8) 16971716.
(ii) For flow through porous media, CN is dependent on 7. Bonta, J. V. 1997 Determination of watershed curve
the filtration coefficient/kinetic coefficient. number using derived distributions. J. Irrigation &
Therefore, CN is dependent on all the parameters that Drainage Engg., 123 (1), 234238.
influence the filtration/kinetic coefficient such as
8. Boszany, M. (1989). Generalization of SCS curve number
filtration velocity, medium properties and the
method. J. Irrigation & Drainage Engg., 115 (1), 139
distance between source water and abstraction point,
144.
and the source water quality.
9. Central Ground Water Board (2000). Guide on artificial
CONCLUSION recharge to ground water prepared by central ground
Within the tremendous literature available on applications of water board. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of
SCS-CN methodology in surface water hydrology, a relevant India, New Delhi.
work dealing with its origin, theoretical and historical
background, nature, advantages and limitations, issues 10. Chen C L. (1982). Infiltration formulas by curve number
pertaining to structural foundation, including the CN vs AMC procedure. Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 108(7):
variation, Ia vs S and storm duration dependence, CN vs SMA 828-829.
procedure, and advanced applications of methodology 11. Chow V T, Maidment D R and Mays L W. (1988). Applied
including the areas other than originally intended was Hydrology. New York. Mc-Graw-Hill.
presented and discussed critically for their merits and demerits.
12. Chung, W., Wang, I., and Wang, R. (2010). Theory based
Following explorative and diagnostic discussions, it can be SCS-CN method and its applications. J. Hydrologic Engg.,
stated that the SCS-CN methodology has been applied through 15(12), 1045-1058.
the spectrum of hydrology ranging from runoff and flood
estimation to water quality and erosion & sedimentation. It is 13. Durbude, D. G., Jain, M. K. and Mishra, S. K. (2011).
observed that the methodology has gone under rigors of the Long-term hydrologic simulation using SCS-CN based
peer review and modifications by incorporating soil moisture improved soil moisture accounting procedure.
accounting (SMA) procedures, storm duration (t), non- linear Hydrological Processes, 25, 561-579.
Ia-S relation, slope factors, etc. Looking into current trends of 14. Garen, D. and Moore, D. S. (2005). Curve number
advanced applications as well as sound hydrological re- hydrology in water quality modeling: use, abuse, and
structuring of the SCS-CN methodology, there is always ample future directions. J. American Water Resources
scope for further refinements to enhance its wider applicability Association, 41 (2), 377388.
in the field of erosion & sedimentation, groundwater,
environmental engineering, urban hydrological studies, and
38
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
15. Golding, B. L. (1979). Discussion of runoff curve numbers 30. Kannan N, Santhi C, Williams J R and Arnold J G. (2008).
with varying soil moisture. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE 105 Development of a continuous soil moisture accounting
(IR4), 441442. procedure for curve number methodology and its behavior
with different evapotranspiration methods. Hydrological
16. Grayson, R.B., Moore, I.D., McMahon, T.A. (1992).
Processes, 22, 2114-2121.
Physically based hydrologic modelling 2. Is the concept
realistic? Water Resources Research 28, 26592666. 31. Knisel, W. G. 1980 CREAMS: a field-scale model for
chemical, runoff and erosion from agricultural
17. Haith, D. A. & Shoemaker, L. L. (1987). Generalized
management systems. Conservation Research Report No.
watershed loading functions for streamflow nutrients, J.
26, South East Area, US Department of Agriculture,
American Water Resources Association, 23, 471478.
Washington, DC
18. Hawkins R H. (1978). Runoff curve number with varying
32. McCuen, R. H. (2002). Approach to confidence interval
site moisture. J. Irrigation and Drainage Engg., 104(4):
estimation for curve numbers. J. Hydrologic Engg. 7 (1),
389-398.
4348.
19. Hawkins, R. H. (1993). Asymptotic determination of runoff
33. Michel C, Vazken A and Charles P. (2005). Soil
curve numbers from data. J. Irrigation and Drainage
conservation service curve number method: how to mend
Engg. 119 (2), 334345.
among soil moisture accounting procedure? Water
20. Hawkins, R. H. 1978 Runoff curve numbers with varying Resources Research, 41(2), 1-6.
site moisture. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE 104 (IR4), 389
34. Miller, N. & Cronshey, R. (1989). Runoff curve numbers,
398.
the next step, Proc. Int. Conf. on Channel Flow and
21. Hawkins, R. H., Hjelmfelt, A. T., Jr. & Zevenbergen, A. W. Catchment Runoff. University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
(1985). Runoff probability, storm depth and curve VA.
numbers. J. Irrigation and Drainage Engg., 111 (4), 330
35. Mishra S K and Singh V P. (2004b). Validity and
340.
extension of the SCS-CN method for computing infiltration
22. Hawkins, R. H., Woodward, D. E. & Jiang, R. (2001). and rainfall-excess rates. Hydrological Processes, 18,
Investigation of the runoff curve number abstraction ratio. 33233345.
Paper presented at USDA-NRCS Hydraulic Engineering
36. Mishra S K and Singh VP. (1999). Another look at the
Workshop, Tucson, Arizona.
SCS-CN method. J. Hydrologic Engineering, 4(3): 257
23. Heaney, J.P., Huber, W.C., Nix, S.J. (1976). Storm water 264.
management model: level I-preliminary screening
37. Mishra, S. K. & Singh, V. P. 2006 A re-look at NEH-4
procedures, EPA Rep. No. 66/2-76-275. U.S. Environ.
curve number data and antecedent moisture condition
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Cincinnati, Ohio
criteria. Hydrol. Process. 20, 27552768.
24. Hjelmfelt, A. T., Jr. (1980). Empirical investigation of
38. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P. (2002a). SCS-CN method:
curve number technique. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 106 (9),
Part-I: Derivation of SCS-CN based models. Acta
14711477.
Geophysica Polonica, 50(3): 457477.
25. Huang, M., Gallichand, J., Wang, Z. & Goulet, M. (2006).
39. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P. (2002b). SCS-CN-based
A modification to the soil conservation service curve
hydrologic simulation package in V. P. Singh and D. K.
number method for steep slopes in the Loess Plateau of
Frevert (eds), Mathematical Models in Small Watershed
China. Hydrological Processes, 20, 579589.
Hydrology, Water Resources Publications, Littleton,
26. Jain, M. K., Mishra, S. K., Babu, S. & Singh, V. P. Colo., Chap.13, 391464.
(2006b). Enhanced runoff curve number model
40. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P. (2003a). Soil conservation
incorporating storm duration and a nonlinear IaS
service curve number (SCS-CN) methodology. Kluwer,
relation. J. Hydrologic Engg. 11 (6), 631635.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ISBN: 1-4020-1132-6.
27. Jain, M. K., Mishra, S. K., Babu, S. & Venugopal, K.
41. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P. (2003b). SCS-CN method:
(2006a). On the IaS relation of the SCS-CN method.
Part-II: Analytical treatment. Acta Geophysica Polonica,
Nord. Hydrol. 37 (3), 261275.
51(1), 107123.
28. Jain, M.K., Durbude, D.G., and Mishra, S.K. (2012).
42. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P. (2004a). Long-term
Improved CN-Based Long-Term Hydrologic Simulation
hydrological simulation based on soil conservation
Model. J. Hydrologic Engg. 17 (11), 12041220.
service curve number. Hydrological Processes, 18(7),
29. Kadam, A.K., Kale, S.S., Pande, N.N., Pawar, N.J., and 12911313.
Sankhua, R.N. (2012). Identifying potential rainwater
43. Mishra, S. K., Jain, M. K., and Singh, V. P. (2004a).
harvesting sites of a semi-arid, basaltic region of western
Evaluation of SCS-CN based models incorporating
India, using SCS-CN method, Water Resources
antecedent moisture. J. Water Resources Management, 18,
Management, 26, pp. 2537-2554.
567-589.
39
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
44. Mishra, S. K., Jain, M. K., Babu, P. S., Venugopal, K. & (ed. V. P. Singh). Water Resources Pub., P.O. Box 2841,
Kaliappan, S. 2008 Comparison of AMC-dependent CN- Littleton, CO.
conversion formulae. Water Resour. Manage. 22, 1409
58. Rallison, R. E. (1980). Origin and evaluation of the SCS
1420.
runoff equation. Proc. Symp. Watershed Management,
45. Mishra, S. K., Sahu, R. K., Eldho, T. I. & Jain, M. K. ASCE, Idaho, 912924.
(2006a). An improved IaS relation incorporating
59. Ramasastry, K. S. & Seth, S. M. (1985). Rainfall-runoff
antecedent moisture in SCS-CN methodology. Water
Relationships. Rep. RN-20, National Institute of
Resources Management, 20, 643660.
Hydrology, Roorkee, India.
46. Mishra, S. K., Sansalone, J. J. & Singh, V. P. (2004b).
60. Reshmidevia, T.V., Janab, R., Eldho, T.I. (2008).
Partitioning analog for metal elements in urban rainfall-
Geospatial estimation of soil moisture in rain-fed paddy
runoff overland flow using the soil conservation service
fields using SCS-CN-based model. Agricultural Water
curve number concept. J. Environmental Engg., 130 (2),
Management, 95, 447457.
145154.
61. Sahu, R. K., Mishra, S. K. and Eldho, T. I. (2010). An
47. Mishra, S. K., Sansalone, J. J., Glenn, D. W., III & Singh,
improved AMC-coupled runoff curve number model.
V. P. (2004c). PCN based metal partitioning in urban
Hydrological Processes, 21(21): 2834-2839.
snow melt, rainfall/runoff, and river flow systems. J.
American Water Resources Association, 40 (5), 1315 62. Sahu, R. K., Mishra, S. K., Eldho, T. I. and Jain, M. K.
1337. (2007).An advanced soil moisture accounting procedure
for SCS curve number method. Hydrological Processes,
48. Mishra, S. K., Tyagi, J. V., Singh, V. P., and Singh, R.
21, 2827-2881.
(2006b). SCS-CN based modeling of sediment yield. J.
Hydrology, 324, 301-322. 63. Schneider, L. E. & McCuen, R. H. (2005). Statistical
guidelines for curve number generation. J. Irrigation &
49. Mishra, S.K., Singh, R.D., and Nema, R.K., (1998). A
Drainage Engg., 131 (3), 282290.
modified SCS-CN method for watershed modeling, Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Watershed Management and Conservation, 64. SCS (1972). Hydrology National Engineering Handbook,
Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, India, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation
Dec. 810 Service, USDA, Washington, DC.
50. Mockus, V. (1949). Estimation of total (peak rates of) 65. SCS 1985 National Engineering Handbook. Supplement A,
surface runoff for individual storms. Exhibit A of Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation Service, USDA,
Appendix B, Interim Survey Report Grand (Neosho) River Washington, DC.
Watershed, USDA, Dec. 1.
66. Sharpley, A. N. & Williams, J. R. (1990). EPIC
51. Moglen, G. E. (2000). Effect of orientation of spatially Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model
distributed curve number in runoff calculations. Journal Documentation. US Department of Agriculture Technical
of American Water Resource Association, 36, 1391-1400. Bulletin No. 1768. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
52. Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Williams, J. R.
& King, K. W. (2002). Soil and Water Assessment Tool 67. Sherman, L. K. (1949). The unit hydrograph method. In
(SWAT): Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000. Texas Physics of the Earth (ed. O. E. Meinzer), 514525. Dover
Water Resources Institute, College Station, Texas, TWRI Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
Report TR-191.
68. Shi, Zhi-Hua, Chen, Li-Ding, Fang, Nu-Fang, Qin, De-
53. Ojha C.S.P. (2012). Simulating turbidity removal at a Fu, and Cai, Chong-Fa (2009). Research on the SCS-CN
river bank filtration site in India using SCS-CN initial abstraction ratio using rainfall-runoff event
approach. J. Hydrologic Engg., 17(11), 1240-1244. analysis in the Three Gorges Area, China. Catena, pp. 1-
7.
54. Pandit, A. and Gopalakrishnan, G. (1996). Estimation of
annual storm runoff coefficients by continuous simulation. 69. Singh, P. K., Bhunya, P. K., Mishra, S. K. & Chaube, U.
J. Irrigation and Drainage Engg., 122(4): 211-220. C. (2008). A sediment graph model based on SCS-CN
method. J. Hydrology, 349, 244255.
55. Plummer, A. & Woodward, D. E. (2002). The origin and
derivation of Ia/S in the runoff curve number system. 70. Singh, P.K., Yaduwanshi, B.K., Patel, S, and Ray, S.
Available at the NRCS website: (2013). SCS-CN based quantification of potential of
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/quality/common/tech rooftop catchments and computation of ASRC for
paper/don1.pdf rainwater harvesting. Water Resources Management, 27
(7), 2001-2012.
56. Ponce, V. M. and Hawkins, R. H. (1996). Runoff curve
number: Has it reached maturity? J. Hydrological Engg., 71. Singh, V. P. & Frevert, D. K. (2002). Mathematical
1(1): 1119. Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications.
Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO.
57. Rallison, R. E. & Miller, N. (1982). Past, present, and
future. In Proc. Int. Symp. Rainfall-Runoff Relationship
40
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
72. Smith, R.E., and Eggert, K.G. (1978). Discussion to 77. Williams, J. R. and LaSeur, V. (1976). Water yield model
infiltration formula based on SCS cure number by G. using SCS curve numbers. J. Hydraulic Engg., 102(9),
Aron, A.C. Miller, and D.F. Lakatos. J. Irrig. And Drain. 1241-1253.
Div., ASCE, 104(4), 462-463.
78. Woodward, D. E. and Gbuerek, W. J. (1992). Progress
73. Sobhani, G. (1975). A review of selected small watershed report ARS/SCS curve number work group. Proceedings
design methods for possible adoption to Iranian of ASCE Water Forum. ASCE, New York, 378-382.
conditions. MS Thesis, Utah State University, Logan,
79. Young, R. A., Onstad, C. A., Bosch, D. D. & Anderson, W.
Utah.
P. (1989). AGNPS: a nonpoint-source pollution model for
74. Tyagi, J. V., Mishra, S. K., Singh, R. & Singh, V. P. evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil & Water
(2008). SCS-CN based time distributed sediment yield Conservation, 44 (2), 168173.
model. J. Hydrology, 352, 388403.
80. Yuan, Y., Mitchell, J. K., Hirschi, M. C. and Cooke, R. A.
75. Van-Mullem, J. A. (1989). Runoff and peak discharges C. (2001). Modified SCS Curve Number Method for
using Green-Ampt model. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 117 (3), predicting sub surface drainage flow. Transaction of the
354370. ASAE. 44(6): 1673-1682.
76. White, D. (1988). Grid-based application of runoff curve
numbers. J. Water Resources Planning and Management,
114(6), 601-612.
41