Water Resources Management

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 37–62 | Cite as

Field Applicability of the SCS-CN-Based Mishra–Singh General Model and its Variants

  • S. K. Mishra
  • M. K. Jain
  • P. K. Bhunya
  • V. P. Singh
Article

Abstract

The general soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN)-based Mishra and Singh (Mishra and Singh, 1999, J. Hydrologic. Eng. ASCE, 4(3), 257–264) model and its eight variants were investigated for their field applicability using a large set of rainfall-runoff events, derived from a number of U.S. watersheds varying in size from 0.3 to 30351.5 ha, grouped into five classes based on the rainfall magnitude. The analysis based on the goodness of fit criteria of root mean square error (RMSE) and error in computed and observed mean runoff revealed that the performance of the existing version of the SCS-CN method was significantly poorer than that of all the model variants on all the five data sets with rainfall ≤ 38.1 mm. The existing version showed a consistently improved performance on the data with increasing rainfall amount, but greater than 38.1 mm. The one-parameter modified SCS-CN method (a = 0.5 and λ = a median value) performed significantly better than the existing one on all the data sets, but far better on rainfall data less than 2 inches. Finally, the former with λ = 0 was recommended for routine field applications to any data set.

Keywords

agriculture research service ars water database curve number initial abstraction coefficient soil conservation service SCS-CN method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benjamin, J. R. and Cornell, C. A., 1970, Probability Statistics and Decisions for Civil Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bhunya, P. K., Mishra, S. K., and Ronny Berndtsson, 2003, ‘Discussion on estimation of confidence interval for curve numbers,’ J. Hydrologic Eng. ASCE, 8(4), 232–233.Google Scholar
  3. Bonta, J. V., 1997, ‘Determination of watershed curve number using derived distributions,’ J. Irrigation Drainage Eng. ASCE, 123(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
  4. Bosznay, M., 1989, ‘Generalisation of SCS curve number method,’ J. Irrigation Drainage Eng. A.S.C.E., 115(1), 139–144.Google Scholar
  5. Hawkins, R. H., 1993, ‘Asymptotic determination of runoff curve numbers from data,’ J. Irrigation Drainage Eng. ASCE, 119(2), 334–345.Google Scholar
  6. Hawkins, R. H., Woodward, D. E., and Jiang, R., 2001, ‘Investigation of the Runoff Curve Number Abstraction Ratio,’ Paper presented at USDA-NRCS Hydraulic Engineering Workshop, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  7. Hjelmfelt, A. T., Jr., 1991, ‘Investigation of curve number procedure,’ J. Hydraulic Eng. 117(6), 725–737.Google Scholar
  8. McCuen, R. H., 1982, A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods,Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  9. McCuen, R. H., 2002, ‘Approach to confidence interval estimation for curve numbers,’ J. Hydrologic Eng. 7(1), 43–48.Google Scholar
  10. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P., 1999a, ‘Another look at the SCS–CN method,’ J. Hydrologic. Eng. ASCE 4(3), 257–264.Google Scholar
  11. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P., 1999b, ‘Behaviour of SCS-CN method in C-Ia*-λ spectrum,’ Proceedings “Hydrologic Modeling”, International Conference on Water, Environment, Ecology, Socio-economics, and Health Engineering, Seol National University, Korea, 18–21 October, pp. 112–117.Google Scholar
  12. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P., 2003a, Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) Methodology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1132–1136.Google Scholar
  13. Mishra, S. K. and Singh, V. P., 2003b, ‘SCS-CN method’ Part-II, Analytical treatment,’ Acta Geophysica Polonica 51(1), 107–123.Google Scholar
  14. Mishra, S.K., Singh, V. P., Sansalone, J. J., and Aravamuthan, V., 2003, ‘A modified SCS-CN method: Characterization and testing,’ J. Water Resources Manage. 17(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  15. Mockus, V., 1949, ‘Estimation of Total (peak rates of) Surface Runoff for Individual Storms,’ Exhibit A of Appendix B, Interim Survey Report Grand (Neosho) River Watershed, USDA, December 1.Google Scholar
  16. Ponce, V. M. and Hawkins, R. H., 1996, ‘Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity?,’ J. Hydrolog. Eng. ASCE 1(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  17. SCD, 1972, Handbook of Hydrology, Soil Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  18. Schramm, G, Fenton, R. W., Moore, J. L., Hughart, D., and Moore, G. R., 1974, ‘Decision making under uncertainty: Economic evaluation of streamflow forecasts,’ Final Report to the Office of Water Resources Research,U.S. Department of Interior, The University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104.Google Scholar
  19. Soil Conservation Service, 1956, 1964, 1971, 1985, 1993, Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Yevjevich,V., 1972, Probability and Statistics in Hydrology, Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Mishra
    • 1
  • M. K. Jain
    • 2
  • P. K. Bhunya
    • 2
  • V. P. Singh
    • 3
  1. 1.Water Res. Dev. Training CentreIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.National Institute of HydrologyRoorkeeIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations