Water Resources Management

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 245–259 | Cite as

Romanian River Basins Lag Time Analysis. The SCS-CN Versus RNS Comparative Approach Developed for Small Watersheds

  • Mihai VodaEmail author
  • Constantin Adrian Sarpe
  • Anna Izabella Voda


Romanian policy makers have to perceive that human intervention on river basins land cover is influencing rainfall-runoff relation and the used methodology cannot accurately estimate watershed surface flow transformations. Global water cycles and energy fluxes understanding is leading to better predictions of land atmosphere interaction and local hydro-climates evolution. The water transfer time determination from rainfall to runoff needs accurate measurements of river basins hydrological parameters. Here, we analyzed and compared the lag time value results of two different methodologies (curve number and rational methodology) used for 54 Romanian small catchment areas study. The focus of this paper is the lag time evaluation and interpretation for an effective implementation of the best methodology approach in the Romanian geographical space. Our research in small river basins was developed using remote sensing technology maps, GIS and environmental datasets in combination with field work on every drainage basin in order to assess the specific morphological features and validate the land cover typology. We found that Soil Conservation Service - Curve Number (SCS-CN) method is widely used according to USA landscape features classification, but not necessarily applicable to Romanian river basins characteristics. Our results show how the official Romanian rational methodology national standard (RNS) can be improved and the limits of SCS-CN method.


Runoff SCS-CN method Rainfall Lag time Curve number Rational method 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest



  1. Birsan M-V et al (2012) Recent trends in streamflow in Romania (1976-2005). Romanian Rep Phys 64(1):275–280Google Scholar
  2. Bozzano F, Mazzanti P, Perissin D, Rocca A, De Pari P, Discenza ME (2017) Basin scale assessment of landslides geomorphological setting by advanced InSAR analysis. Remote Sens 9:267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chendes V et al (2014) Aspecte metodologice privind realizarea hartilor de risc la inundatii raportate in cadrul Directivei 2007/60/EC. Hidrotehnica 59:10–11Google Scholar
  4. Choi HI (2013) Application of a land surface model using remote sensing data for high resolution simulations of terrestrial processes. Remote Sens 5:6838–6856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deitch MJ, Docto M, Feirer ST (2016) A spatially explicit framework for assessing the effects of weather and water rights on streamflow. Appl Geogr 67:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diaconu C, Miță P (1997) Instrucțiuni pentru calculul scurgerii maxime în bazine mici. I.N.M.H, BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  7. Diaconu C, Serban P (1994) Sinteze si regionalizari hidrologice. Editura HGA, Bucuresti, pp 151–185. 973-98530-8-0Google Scholar
  8. Eilander D, Annor FO, Iannini L, van de Giesen N (2014) Remotely sensed monitoring of small reservoir dynamics: a Bayesian approach. Remote Sens 6:1191–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan F, Deng Y, Hu X, Weng Q (2013) Estimating composite curve number using an improved SCS-CN method with remotely sensed variables in Guangzhou. China Remote Sens 5:1425–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC (2009) Harmonized world soil database (version 1.1). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxembourg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  11. GEWEX (2017) Accessed 4 Apr 2017
  12. Grimaldi S, Petroselli A (2015) Do we still need the rational formula? An alternative empirical procedure for peak discharge estimation in small and ungauged basins. Hydrol Sci J 60(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimaldi S, Petroselli A, Tauro F, Porfiri M (2012) Time of concentration: a paradox in modern hydrology. Hydrol Sci J 57(2):217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimaldi S, Petroselli A, Romano N (2013) Green-Ampt curve number mixed procedure as an empirical tool for rainfall-runoff modelling in small and ungauged basins. Hydrol Process 27:1253–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Győri M-M, Haidu I, Humbert J (2016) Deriving the floodplain in rural areas for high exceedance probability having limited data source. Environ Eng Manag J 15(8):1879–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haidu I, Batelaan O, Crăciun AI, Domniţa M (2017) GIS module for the estimation of the hillslope torrential peak flow. Environ Eng Manag J 16(5):1137–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang M, Gallichand J, Wang Z, Goulet M (2006) A modification to the soil conservation service curve number method for steep slopes in the loess plateau of China. Hydrol Process 20:579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunink JE, Eekhout JPC, Vente JD, Contreras S, Droogers P, Baille A (2017) Hydrological modelling using satellite-based crop coefficients: a comparison of methods at the basin scale. Remote Sens 9:174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeon J-H, Lim KJ, Engel BA (2014) Regional calibration of SCS-CN L-THIA model: application for ungauged basins. Water 6:1339–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim U, Kaluarachchi JJ (2008) Application of parameter estimation and regionalization methodologies to ungauged basins of the upper Blue Nile River basin. Ethiopia J Hydrol 362:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kowalik T, Walega A (2015) Estimation of CN parameter for small agricultural watersheds using asymptotic functions. Water 7:939–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miţă P (2017) The runoff coefficient. Bucuresti, Romania, 204 p. ISBN 978-973-0-23486-2Google Scholar
  23. Miţă P, Muscanu M (1986) Small river basins runoff coefficients. Studii şi cercetări de hidrologie, Bucuresti, pp 45–58. 53Google Scholar
  24. Mustață I (1991) Instrucțiuni pentru calculul scurgerii maxime în bazine mici. I.N.M.H, BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  25. Musy A (1998) Hydrologie appliquée. H*G*A*, Bucuresti. 368 pGoogle Scholar
  26. Ordinul MMDD nr. 976 (2008) Torrential river basins identification methodology. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  27. Paudel GS, Thapa GB (2004) Impact of social, institutional and ecological factors on land management practices in mountain watersheds of Nepal. Appl Geogr 24(1):35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Posner A, Georgakakos K, Shamir E (2014) MODIS inundation estimate assimilation into soil moisture accounting hydrologic model: a case study in Southeast Asia. Remote Sens 6:10835–10859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reistetter JA, Russell M (2011) High-resolution land cover datasets, composite curve numbers, and storm water retention in the Tampa Bay, FL region. Appl Geogr 31:740–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarpe CA, Haidu I (2017) Temporal sampling conditions in numerical integration of hydrological systems time series. Geogr Tech 12(1):82–94Google Scholar
  31. Sarpe CA, Voda AI (2017) Small watershed hydrological models - lag time comparation. In: Horvath C, Croitoru AE, Guettler I, Man TC, Bartok B (eds) 3rd PannEx workshop on the climate system of the Pannonian basin. Cluj-Napoca, 20-21 March 2017, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  32. USDA-SCS (2004) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall. In: National Engineering Handbook, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Voda M, Sorocovschi V, Ratiu RF (2010) Global Warming, cap. Water Management Works in Tarnave River Basin, Romania, 685 p. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. Voda AI, Sarpe CA, Voda M (2018) Methods of maximum discharge computation in ungauged river basins. Review of procedures in Romania. Geogr Tech 13(1):130–137Google Scholar
  35. Xu J, Zhao Y, Zhong K, Ruan H, Liu X (2016) Coupling modified linear spectral mixture analysis and soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN) models to simulate surface runoff: application to the main urban area of Guangzhou, China. Water 8:550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young DF, Carleton JN (2006) Implementation of a probabilistic curve number method in the PRZM runoff model. Environ Model Softw 21:1172–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yu B, Rose WC, Ciesiolka CA, Cakurs U (2000) The relationship between runoff rate and lag time and the effects of surface treatments at the plot scale. Hydrol Sci J 45(5):709–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zégre NP, Maxwell A, Lamont S (2013) Characterizing streamflow response of a mountaintop-mined watershed to changing land use. Appl Geogr 39:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dimitrie Cantemir UniversityTargu MuresRomania
  2. 2.Romanian National Waters AdministrationTargu MuresRomania

Personalised recommendations