J

Journal of Indiaan Water Resources Society,

Vol 34, No.4, October,
O 2014

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

Hawkinns, 1978; Knissel, 1980; Woodward and Gburek,

G 1992;
INT
TRODUCT
TION Pandit and Gopalakrrishnan, 1996; Mishra and Singh,S 2004a;
Estiimation of surfface runoff is essential for thhe assessment of Michell et al., 2005; Jain et al., 20006a&b; Sahu et al., 2007;
watter yield potenttial of a watersshed, planning of soil and waater Kannann et al., 2008; Durbude et al., 2011; Sahuu et al., 2010;
connservation meeasures, reduccing the seddimentation and a Babu anda Mishra, 20012; and Jain et al., 2012), prediction of
floooding hazardss downstream.. Although many m hydrologgic infiltrattion & rainfalll-excess rates and
a hydrograpph simulation
moddels are availaable for the esstimation of diirect runoff froom (Mishraa & Singh, 20004b), sediment yield modeeling (Mishra
storrm rainfall, most
m models are limited because
b of thheir and Sinngh, 2003a; Miishra et al., 2006b; Tyagi et al.,
a 2008; and
inteensive input data and calibration reqquirements, and a Singh et a Bhunya ett al., 2010), partitioning of
e al., 2008; and
therrefore, the moodels used for management decisions shouuld heavy metals (Mishhra et al., 20004b&c), deteermination of
be simple
s and unnpretentious, with
w few data requirements
r a
and subsurfface flow (Yuuan et al., 20001), urban hyydrology and
cleaarly stated assuumptions (Gray yson et al., 19992 and Shi et al.,
a rainwatter harvesting (Kadam et al., a 2012 and Singh et al.,
20009). The Soil Conservation Service Curvee Number (SC CS- 2013), water quality (Ojha, 2012), and distributeed hydrologic
CN) method, deeveloped by the t USDA-Sooil Conservatiion modelinng (White, 19888; Moglen, 20000; and Mishhra and Singh,
Servvice (SCS, 19772), is widely used
u for the esttimation of direect 2003a) using GIS andd remote sensinng.
runooff for a givven rainfall event
e from sm mall agricultuural
wattersheds. Due to its lesser input data reequirements and a Since itsi inception, the methodology has witneessed myriad
sim
mplicity, many watershed
w mod dels such as CR REAMS (Knissel, applicaations in variouus fields of hyydrology, evenn for those it
19880), AGNPS (Young( et al., 1989), EPIC C (Sharpley anda was not
n originally intended to be applied. The wider
Willliams, 1990), and SWAT (Arnold ( et al., 1996) use thhis applicaability of the SCS-CN
S methoodology can bee attributed to
metthod to determ mine runoff. Itt has, howeveer, been recenntly its mullti-faceted charracteristic inheerited such as its
i simplicity,
exteended for otheer applicationss, including seediment yield or ease ofo use, majorr runoff prodducing characcteristics (as
soill moisture moddeling and the feedback on CN C (Mishra et al.,a enumerrated above), widespread
w accceptance, and thhe significant
20004 b&c; Mishrra et al., 2006a,b; Reshmideevia et al., 20008; infrastrructure and institutional mom mentum for thhis procedure
Singgh et al., 2008;; and Tyagi et al., 2008). within NRCS (Garenn and Moore, 2005). 2 Therefoore, this paper
presentts a kaleidoscoopic review on various aspectts of SCS-CN
Thee method is siimple to use and requires basic
b descriptiive methoddology and its advanced appllications in varrious fields of
f estimation of
inpuuts that are coonverted to numeric values for the hyddrological sciennces.
wattershed direct runoff volum me (Bonta, 1997).
1 A currve
nummber (CN) thaat is descriptiv ve of major runoff
r produciing ORIG
GIN OF SCS
S-CN METH
HODOLOG
GY
characteristics ofo watershed such as soil s type, laand The oriigin of SCS-CN N methodologgy can be traceed back to the
use//treatment claasses, hydrolo ogic soil grooup, hydrologgic establisshment of Soill Conservation Service (SCS)) (earlier Soil
conndition, most immportantly the antecedent moisture conditiion Erosionn Service, SE ES) to obtainn hydrologic data and to
(AMMC) is required in the method. Since itts inception, the t establissh a simple prrocedure for esstimating channges in runoff
metthod has also been applied in several othher areas such as rates with
w setting up demonstrationn conservationn projects and
longg-term hydroloogic simulationn (Williams annd LaSeur, 19776; over-seeeing the design and consstruction of soil s & water
conservvation measurres for retardiing water flow w to prevent
1. Dept. off Water Resourcces Development & Managementt,
erosionn, being a classsical hydrologiccal problem off all the times.
Indian Innstitute of Technollogy Roorkee, Uttaarakhand
In 1954, United Staates Departmennt of Agricultture (USDA),
2. Dept. off Soil & Water Enggineering, PAE, Anand
A Agriculturaal SCS (ppresently know wn as Naturaal Resources Conservation
Universiity Anand, Gujaratt
Principaal, Government Po
olytechnic Kotdwarr, Uttarakhand
Servicee, NRCS) deveeloped a uniquee procedure knnown as SCS-
CN meethod for estim mating direct ruunoff from storrm rainfall. It
Manuscrript No.: 1372 is welll documentedd and foundd place in the t National
29
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014

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

versa. Hawkins et al. (1985) found that the antecedent moisture
condition (AMC) is one of the most influential watershed
characteristics in determining curve number (CN).
Despite widespread use of SCS-CN methodology, the accurate
estimation of CN is a topic of much discussion among
hydrologists (Hawkins, 1978; Chen, 1982; Hjelmfelt, 1980;
McCuen, 2002; Bonta, 1997; Ponce and Hawkins, 1996;
Mishra and Singh, 1999; Mishra and Singh, 2002a; and Mishra
and Singh, 2006). Originally CNs were developed using daily
rainfall-runoff records corresponding to the maximum annual
flows from gauged watersheds for which information on their
soils, cover, and hydrologic condition was available (SCS,
1972). The rainfall (P)-runoff (Q) data were plotted on the
arithmetic paper having a grid of plotted curve number, as
shown in Fig. 1.
The CN corresponding to the curve that separated half of the
plotted data from the other half was taken as the median curve
number for the watershed. Thus the developed cure numbers
represented the averages or median site values for soil groups,
cover, and hydrologic condition and corresponds to AMC II
(CNII). The upper enveloping curve was taken to correspond to
AMC III (CNIII) and the lower curve to AMC I (CNI). The
average condition was taken to mean average response, which
was later extended to imply average soil moisture condition
(Miller and Cronshey, 1989).
Depending on 5-day antecedent rainfall, CNII is convertible to
CNI and CNIII using the relationships given by Sobhani (1975),
Hawkins et al. (1985), Chow et al. (1988), Neitsch et al.
(2002), and Mishra et al. (2008) as given in Table 1 and
directly from the NEH-4 Tables (SCS, 1972 and Mishra &
Singh, 2003a) and these are applicable to ungauged
watersheds. However, to estimate the CNII mathematically
from the observed rainfall (P)-runoff (Q) data of a gauged
watershed, Hawkins (1993) suggested the following expression
for S (or CN) computation as:
[
S = 5 P + 2Q Q(4Q + 5P) ] (1)
Schneider & McCuen (2005) developed a new Log-normal
frequency method to estimate curve numbers from observed P-
Q data. The developed method was found to be more accurate
Table 1: AMC Dependent CN Conversion Formulae
CN Conversion Formulae
CN II
Sobhani (1975) CN I =
2.334 0.01334CN II
CN II
Hawkins et al. (1985) CN I =
2.281 0.01281CN II
4.2CN II
Chow et al. (1988) CN I =
10 0.058 CN II
Neitsch et al. (2002) CNI = CNII
{100 CNII + exp[2.533 0.0636(100 CNII )]}
20(100 CNII )
Mishra et al. (2008) CNI = CNII
2.274 0.012754CNII
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
than the rank-order method (Hjelmfelt, 1980) and the method
suggested by Hawkins (1993). Recently, Mishra and Singh
(2006) investigated the variation of CN with AMC and
developed a new power relationship between the S (or CN)
and the 5-day antecedent rainfall. The developed CN-AMC
relationship is applicable to gauged as well as ungauged
watershed and eliminates the problem of sudden jump from
one AMC level to other.
In recent past few researchers have also considered watershed
slope in CN computations. The works of Sharpley & Williams
(1990) and Huang et al. (2006) are noteworthy. Sharpley &
Williams (1990) incorporated slope factor in CN estimation
assuming that CN2 obtained from the NEH Handbook (SCS
1972) corresponds to a slope of 5%. The slope adjusted CN2
(CN2) were represented as:
CNII =
1
3
( )
(CNIII CNII ) 1 2e13.86 + CNII (2)
where is the soil slope in m/m. However, Huang et al. (2006)
explored the applicability of the above equation and found that
the equation has limited applications and, as an improvement,
they developed another set of equations for climatic and steep
slope conditions observed in Loess Plateau of China. The
modified CN2 can be expressed as:
322.79 + 15.63
CN II = CN II (3)
( + 323.52)
However, the credibility of the above models needs to be
validated for other regions having similar climatic and slope
conditions. From the above discussions, it can be concluded
that there is still ample future scope of research for
improvements in CN estimation methods.
DEVELOPMENTS IN IA-S RELATIONSHIP
The relationship between Ia-S has always been a topic of
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
fixed ratio of Ia to S (Plummer & Woodward, 2002). Because
of the larger variability, the Ia = 0.2S relationship has been the
focus of discussion and modification since its very inception.
AMC I AMC III
CN II
CN III =
0.4036 + 0.005964CN II
CN II
CN III =
0.427 + 0.00573CN
II
23CN II
CN III =
10 + 0.13CN II
20(100 CNII )
CNIII = CNIIexp{0.0067 3(100 CNII )}
CN II
CN III =
0.430 + 0.0057CNII
31

As an example, Aron et al. (1977) suggested 0.1 and
Golding (1979) provided values for urban watersheds
depending on CN as = 0.075 for CN 70, = 0.1 for
70 < CN 80, and = 0.15 for 80 < CN 90. Ponce &
Hawkins (1996) suggest that the fixing of the initial abstraction
ratio at 0.2 may not be the most appropriate number, and that it
should be interpreted as a regional parameter. Hawkins et al.
(2001) found that a value of = 0.05 gives a better fit to data
and would be more appropriate for use in runoff calculations.
Mishra & Singh (1999) suggested that the initial abstraction
component accounts for the short-term losses such as
interception, surface storage and infiltration before runoff
begins, and therefore, can take any non-negative value.
Mishra & Singh (2004b) developed criterion for applicability
of SCS-CN method based on runoff coefficient (C) and
variation. They defined the applicability bounds for the SCS-
CN method as: 0.3; Ia* (=Ia/P) 0.35 and C 0.23.
Considering the fact that P is an implicit function of
climatic/meteorological characteristics, a more general non-
linear Ia-S relation was developed by Jain et al. (2006a),
expressed as:
P et al., 2007; Kannan et al., 2008; Durbude et al., 2010; Sahu et
I a = S (4)
(P + S)
where is a constant. Since Eq. (4) reduces to Ia = 0.2S for
= 0.2 and = 0, and hence could be taken as a generalized
form of Ia-S relationship. The model resulting from the
coupling of Eq. (4) with Eq. (6) (general form of SCS-CN
method) for = 0.3 and = 1.5 were found to perform much
better than the existing SCS-CN method (Eq. 13) for = 0.2.
Mishra et al. (2006a) developed a modified non-linear Ia-S
relationship based on the hypothesis that Ia largely depends on
initial soil moisture M, as:
S 2 (5)
Ia =
(S + M )
The generalized nature of the above equation can be seen as,
for M = 0 or a completely dry condition, Eq. (5) reduces to Eq.
(7), which is the basic Ia and S relationship. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the Ia-S relationship can be further refined
for an enhanced performance of the SCS-CN methodology.
HYDROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF SCS-
CN METHODOLOGY
The SCS-CN method has witnessed myriad and variety of
applications to the fields not originally intended, due to the
reason of its simplicity, stability and accountability for most
runoff producing watershed characteristics: Soil type, land use
treatment, surface condition, and antecedent moisture
condition. Some of its critics suggest it to be obsolete, a
remnant of outdated technology, and needs overhaul or
outright replacement (Smith & Eggert, 1978 and Van-Mullem,
1989). However, recently Singh and Frevert (2002) edited a
book titled Mathematical Models of Small Watershed
Hydrology and Applications, in which at least 6 of the 22
chapters have mathematical models of watershed hydrology
based on SCS-CN approach. This reflects the robustness and
lasting popularity of SCS-CN methodology. Recently, the
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
SCS-CN method has also been successfully applied in some of
the newer fields like water quality, metal partitioning, erosion
and sedimentation, and irrigation scheduling.
A considerable amount of literature on the method has been
published and the method has undergone through various
stages of critical reviews several times (Rallison, 1980; Chen,
1982; Ponce and Hawkins, 1996; and Mishra & Singh, 2003a).
Rallison (1980) provided detailed information about the origin
and evaluation of the methodology and highlighted major
concerns to its application to the hydrology and water
resources problems it was designed to solve and suggested
future research areas. Chen (1982) evaluated the mathematical
and physical significance of methodology for estimating the
runoff volume.
Though primarily intended for event-based rainfall-runoff
modeling of the ungauged watersheds, the SCS-CN method
has been applied successfully in the realm of hydrology and
watershed management and environmental engineering, such
as long-term hydrologic simulation (LTHS) (Williams and
LaSeur, 1976; Hawkins, 1978; Knisel, 1980; Woodward and
Gburek, 1992; Pandit and Gopalakrishnan, 1996; Mishra and
Singh, 2004a; Michel et al., 2005; Jain et al., 2006a&b; Sahu
al., 2010; and Babu & Mishra, 2012), sediment yield modeling
(SYM) (Mishra and Singh, 2003a; Mishra et al., 2006b; Tyagi
et al., 2008; and Singh et al., 2008; and Bhunya et al., 2010),
metal partitioning (Mishra et al., 2004b&c), determination of
subsurface flow (Yuan et al., 2001), urban hydrology (Pandit
& Gopalakrishnan, 1996 and Singh et al., 2013), water quality
(Ojha, 2012), rainwater harvesting (Kadam et al., 2012 and
Singh et al., 2013). The method has also been successfully
applied in distributed watershed modeling (White, 1988;
Moglen, 2000; and Mishra and Singh, 2003a). A brief
description on few of these applications is being discussed here
as follows.
SCS-CN BASED LONG-TERM HYDROLOGIC
SIMULATION (LTHS) MODELS
This section discusses some of the important and widely used
LTHS models based on SCS-CN method.
Water Yield Model (Wym)
Williams & LaSeur (1976) were probably the first to introduce
the concept of Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) procedure to
develop a Water Yield Model (WYM) based on the existing
SCS-CN methodology. The model is based on the notion that
CN varied continuously with soil moisture, and thus
considering many values of CN instead of only three (CNI,
CNII, CNIII). The model computes a soil moisture index
depletion parameter that forces an agreement between the
measured and predicted average annual runoff. The model
eliminates sudden jump in the CN-values while changing from
one AMC to the other and requires simple inputs as: (i) CNII
estimate for the study watershed; (ii) measured monthly
runoff; (iii) daily rainfall; and (iv) average monthly lake
evaporation, and only outputs runoff volume. It can also be
applied to the nearby ungauged watershed by adjusting the
curve number for the ungauged watershed in proportion to
ratio of the AMC II curve number to the average predicted
curve number for the gauged watershed. However, the model
32

utilizes an arbitrary assigned value of 20 inches for absolute
potential maximum retention Sb. The general expression of the
model is given in Table 2.
Hawkins Model
Hawkins (1978) developed continuous soil moisture
accounting (SMA) procedure by linking evapo-transpiration
(ET) and CN for use in continuous hydrologic simulation
model. The model uses the volumetric concept for accounting
the site moisture on a continuous basis. The general expression
of the model is given in Table 2. Hence, if (i) CNt for the first
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
next time step and sequentially the daily Q from Eq. (10). The
model accounts for the site moisture on continuous basis and
thus eliminates the problem of sudden jump in CN. The model
is easier to apply and the SMA procedure followed in model
development is hydrologically sounder than WYM.
Annual Storm Runoff Coefficient (ASRC) Model
Pandit and Gopalakrishnan (1996) developed a continuous
simulation technique, for computing annual pollutant loads
using annual storm runoff coefficient (ASRC) and degree of
perviousness/ imperviousness of watershed, using existing
SCS-CN method. The model is very simple and specifically
useful for small urban watersheds characterized by the percent
imperviousness. The technique is cost-effective since the
continuous simulations can be performed on spread sheets, and
requires easily available daily rainfall data from a nearby
climatological station. However, it allows sudden jumps in CN
values, ignores evapo-transpiration, drainage contribution, and
watershed routing. The general expression of the model is
given in Table 2. It involves the following steps (Mishra and
Singh, 2004a):
1. Determine the pervious curve number for AMC II,
2. Determine the directly connected impervious area of the
urban watershed according to SCS (1956),
3. Estimate the daily runoff depth for both pervious and
impervious areas separately using Eq. (13),
4. Determine the actual AMC based on the previous 5-day
rainfall and modify CN using Eqs. (14 and (15) such that
it does not exceed 98, and
5. Calculate the yearly storm runoff depth by summing the
runoff for each day.
Versatile MS-SCS-CN (VMS-SCS-CN) Model
Mishra & Singh (2004a) developed a four parameter VMS-
SCS-CN model to remove the inconsistencies and complexities
associated with the existing models of long term hydrologic
simulation such as Water Yield Model (WYM) (William and
LaSeur, 1976), Hawkins model (Hawkins, 1978), ASRC model
(Pandit and Gopalakrishnan, 1996), Mishra et al. (1998)
model, and MS model (Mishra and Singh, 2002a). They
described the water balance equation of Mishra and Singh
(2002) by discretizing them for time (t) using Eq. (22) and
modified the SCS-CN runoff equation of Mishra and Singh
(2002) as in Eq. (23).
The dynamic infiltration (Fd), occurred during t period was
computed using Eq. (24), which represents an increase in the
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
amount of soil moisture in the soil profile during t period.
The soil moisture budgeting was expressed as given in Eq. (25)
which yields the antecedent moisture amount for the next
storm to modify S(t) for the next storm. The model obviates
the sudden jumps in CN values, exclusively considers the soil
moisture budgeting on continuous basis, evapotranspiration,
and watershed routing procedures. These characteristics make
the model versatile. The developed model has been given in
Table 2. They also expressed the evapo-transpiration ET(t), in
terms of pan coefficient (PANC) and absolute maximum
potential retention (Sabs) using Eq. (27).
SCS-CN based Time Distributed Runoff Model
Mishra & Singh (2004b) established the criterion for the
applicability of SCS-CN method and extended the SCS-CN
concept to derivation of a time distributed runoff model.
Further, they attempted to develop SCS-CN based infiltration
model. The governing equations (Eqs. 28 a&b) of the
developed models are given in Table 2.
Michel SCS-CN (MSCS-CN) Model
Michel et al. (2005) reviewed SMA procedure that lies behind
SCS-CN method and pointed out severe inconsistencies in the
treatment of antecedent moisture conditions in SCS-CN
procedure and proposed a sounder methodology. They
hypothesized that the SCS-CN model is valid not only at the
end of the storm but at any instant along a storm. Their
findings are based on an analysis of the continuous soil
moisture accounting (SMA) procedure implied by the SCS-CN
equation. Their SMA procedure is based on the notion that
higher the moisture store level, higher the fraction of rainfall
will be converted into runoff.
They developed a procedure that is more consistent from SMA
viewpoint, by introducing the term V0, the initial soil moisture
store level. MSCS-CN model eliminates initial abstraction (Ia)
and introduces a new parameter Sa (Sa=Ia+V0) to compute the
direct runoff. The developed MSCS-CN model with new
insight in SMA procedure is given in Table 2.
Enhanced SCS-CN (ESCS-CN) Model
Jain et al. (2006b) developed ESCS-CN model for long-term
hydrologic simulation by incorporating the storm duration and
a non-linear relation for initial abstraction (Ia). They also
proposed a continuous moisture content using a 5-day
antecedent rainfall (P5) relation instead of the existing discrete
relationship. The expression of ESCS-CN model is given in
Table 2.
Sahu et al. Model
Sahu et al. (2007) developed a continuous hydrologic
simulation model for long-term hydrologic simulation using
SCS-CN method. They found that the antecedent or initial soil
moisture (V0) depends not only on P5 but also on S. The
dependency on S is based on the fact that the watershed with
larger retention capacity S must retain higher moisture
compared to the watershed with lesser S for a given P5. V0
depends not only on the antecedent 5-day precipitation (P5),
which is the basis for three AMCs in the SCS-CN method, but
also on S. Considering Sa = S in consistence with the MSCS-
CN model and using other suitable assumptions, they derived
Eqs. (35) to (38) for different conditions. These expressions
are given in Table 2.
33
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014

Table 2: SCS-CN Based Hydrologic Simulation (LTHS) Models

Model Name Governing Equation SMA accounting

Water Yield
(P I a ) 2 M = S abs S Sabs = absolute potential maximum
Model (Williams
Q= ; if P>Ia, Q = 0, otherwise
(8)
and LaSeur, 1976)
P Ia + S retention equal to 20.
M
(6) M (t ) = (9)
1 + b c Mt =1 E ( t )
T
I a = S
(7) where t = time; bc = depletion coefficient; M = soil moisture index at the
beginning of the first storm; M(t) = soil moisture index at any time t; E(t) =
average monthly lake evaporation for day t and T = number of days
between storms.
Hawkins (1978) S for P0.2S [ ]
S( t + t ) = S( t ) + ET (P Q ) ( t , t + t ) (11)
model Q = P S1.2
(P + 0.8S) (t, t+t) = the t duration between time t and (t+t)
(10) 1200 (12)
CN ( t + t ) =
1200 + [ET (P Q )]( t ., t + t )
CN ( t )
Pandit and CN II
( P 0.2S) 2 CN I = for AMC I (14)
Gopalakrishnan
Q= for P0.2S 2.281 0.01281CN II
(1996) model P + 0.8S
(13) CN II for AMC III (15)
CN III =
0.427 + 0.00573CN II
Mishra et al. CN t
( P 0 .2 S ) 2 CN t + t = for AMC I (17)
(1998) model Q= 2.281 0.01281CN t
P + 0 .8 S ,for P0.2S
CN t
DOt = d1 ROt + d 2 ROt 1 + d 3 ROt 2 + ....... CN t + t = for AMC III (18)
0.427 + 0.00573CN t
(16)
DO= direct runoff at the outlet,
RO direct surface runoff at any time t,
d1, d2, d3,... = non-dimensional regression
coefficients.
Mishra-Singh
(2002) model Q=
(P Ia )(P Ia + M) , if P>I , M = 0.5 (1 + )S + (1 )2 S 2 + 4 P5S (21)
a
P Ia + M + S
(19)
Q = 0, otherwise
=
0.2 [
M = 0.5 1.2S + 0.64S 2 + 4P5S ]
(20)
I a = S
=
0
[
M = 0 .5 S + S + 4 P5 S 2
]
where, P5= amount of antecedent 5-day rainfall.
Versatile SCS-CN P ( t + t ) = I a ( t ) + Fc ( t + t ) + Fd ( t + t ) + Q Fd (t, t + t ) = P(t, t + t ) I a (t ) Fc (t, t + t) RO(t, t + t )
Model (Mishra & (24)
S(t + t ) = St M (t , t + t ) + ET (t , t + t )
(22)
Singh, 2004a)
(25)

[P(t+t) Ia(t) Fc(t+t)][P(t+t) Ia(t) Fc(t+t) + PET(t, t + t ) = PANCxE(t, t + t ) (26)

Q(t+t) =
P(t+t) Ia(t) Fc(t+t) +M(t+t) +s(t+t PANC = S t
(27)
Sabs
(23)
where Fd and Fc represent the dynamic and static
portion of infiltration during t period; St, potential
maximum retention at time t; Sabs absolute potential
maximum retention; PANC, pan coefficient; M, the
antecedent moisture content prior to the beginning
of the storm; PET, ET and E represent the potential
evapotranspiration, evapotranspiration and pan
evaporation at time t, respectively.
SCS-CN based SCS-CN based Infiltration model:
1
Time distributed
Q( t ) = 1 i Aw
2 e
i0 fc
(1 + kt ) f = fc +
runoff and (28b)
Infiltration models
Mishra & Singh (28a)
(1 + kt )2
(2004b) where Q(t) is the rainfall-excess rate (L3T-1); ie is where f is the infiltration rate (LT-1) at any time t ; fc is the final infiltration
the effective rainfall intensity (LT-1); Aw is the rate (LT-1); i0 is the uniform rainfall intensity; is the initial abstraction
catchment area (L2); and k and are the infiltration coefficient; and k is the decay parameter (T-1).
decay constant and initial abstraction coefficient,
respectively.
Mi h l t l If V S P th Q 0
34
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
Michel et al. If V0 SaP, then Q=0 V = V +PQ
0
(2005) model (29) (32)
where; V = soil moisture store level at time when the accumulated rainfall
If SaP < V0<Sa, then Q=
(P + S a V0 )2 is equal to P.
P + V0 S a + S
(30)
If Sa V0 Sa+S, then,

Q = P 1 2
(S + Sa V0 )
2

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)

a function of P5 as well as Sabs. The expression of the

SME Model
Sahu et al. (2010) developed a revised version of MS model
(Mishra & Singh, 2002) by incorporating a hydrologically
more sound procedure for accounting antecedent moisture and
designated as Sahu-Mishra-Eldho (SME) model. The
governing equations of the model are given in Table 2. The
SME model has several advantages over the existing SCS-CN
based models.
Babu and Mishra Model
Babu & Mishra (2012) modified ESCS-CN model by
including a new parameter, Sabs, to overcome most of the
limitations existing in the SCS-CN method and proposed a
new model consisting of five parameters as given in Table 2. It
was assumed that Sabs as the sum of potential retention (S) and
moisture content (M), where S is a variable quantity from
storm to storm and inversely varies with moisture content (M).
Further, to make the model more realistic, M was modified as
developed model is given in Table 2.
SCS-CN Based Rain Water Harvesting Model
Singh et al. (2013) explored applicability of SCS-CN method
and its variants, i.e., Hawkins SCS-CN (HSCS-CN) model
(Hawkins et al., 2001), Michel SCS-CN (MSCS-CN) model
(Michel et al., 2005), and Storm Water Management Model-
Annual Storm Runoff Coefficient (SWMM-ASRC) (Heaney et
al., 1976) and compared their performance with Central
Ground Board (CGWB) (CGWB, 2000) approach. It was
found that for the same amount of rainfall and same rooftop
catchment area, the MSCS-CN model yields highest rooftop
runoff followed by SWMM-ASRC>HSCS-CN>SCS-
CN>CGWB. The versatility of SCS-CN based models for
rainwater harvesting studies can be attributed to the fact that
the model implicitly incorporates major runoff producing
catchment characteristics and have sound hydrological
foundation and therefore, these models could be a better

35
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
alternative to the empirical coefficients/constant based method
used for the purpose. Recently, Kadam et al. (2012) identified
the potential sites to construct rainwater harvesting structures
coupling SCS-CN method with GIS and remote sensing. It was
found that that the SCS-CN method adopted deciphers the
more precise, accurate and ability to process large catchment
area than other methods.
SCS-CN Based Erosion, Sedimentation and Water
Quality Models
Sediment yield is defined as the total sediment outflow from a
watershed or a drainage basin, measurable at a point of
reference and in a specific period of time (ASCE, 1970). This
section briefly discusses some of the recently developed
models based on SCS-CN method for erosion, sedimentation
and metal partitioning in hydrological and environmental
engineering. As discussed previously, most of the computer
based sedimentation simulation models such as AGNPS
(Young et al., 1989), CREAMS (Knisel, 1980), SWRRB
(Arnold et al., 1990), SWAT (Neitsch et al., 2002), EPIC
(Sharpley & Williams, 1990) and GWLF (Haith & Shoemaker,
1987) use the SCS-CN method as a component model for
runoff estimation, however, the SCS-CN method has not
witnessed many applications in the field of erosion & sediment
yield and environmental engineering, despite some noteworthy
works of Mishra and Singh (2003a), Mishra et al. (2006b),
Tyagi et al. (2008), Singh et al. (2008), and Bhunya et al.
(2010). In the recent past, an interesting review paper by Garen
& Moore (2005) titled Curve Number Hydrology in Water
Quality Modeling: Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions was
widely appreciated by the water quality modelers. Hence, it
can be stated that the SCS-CN method is still a central tool
available to the scientific community with its broad
applicability.
Metal Partitioning Analog (MPA) Models
Mishra et al. (2004b) employed the basic proportionality
concept of the SCS-CN method for partitioning 12 metal
elements, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ni, Mn, Fe, Cr, Mg, Al, Cu, and Na
between dissolved and particulate bound form. In order to
apply this metal partitioning analogy, two parameters, the
potential maximum desorption ( ) (Eq. 47) and the
partitioning curve number (PCN) (Eq. 48) are postulated as
analogous to the SCS-CN parameters S and CN, respectively.
Table 3: SCS-CN Based Erosion, Sedimentation and Water Quality Models
Model Name
PCN Metal Partitioning
Model
Analog
(Mishra et al. 2004b&c) PCN method
(46)
if- hypothesis
(47)
CN mapping
(48)
where CP = particulate-bound metal; CT = total metal; Cd = dissolved metal; = potential maximum
desorption; if = initial flush
USLE SCS CN M d l (i) I i f I ( S)
These parameters were introduced, along with -PCN and -
ADP, where ADP is the antecedent dry period similar to the
AMC. Based on these parameters analogous relationships were
developed as given Table 3. In an another attempt, Mishra et
al. (2004c) further suggested a new partitioning curve number
(PCN) approach for partitioning heavy metals into dissolved
and particulate bound forms in urban snow melt,
rainfall/runoff, and river flow environments on the basis of an
analogy between SCS-CN method based infiltration and metal
sorption processes.
USLE-SCS-CN Model
For the first time, Mishra et al. (2006b) coupled the popular
and widely used models of SCS-CN method and universal soil
loss equation (USLE) for modeling rain-storm generated
sediment yield from a watershed. The coupling is based on
three hypotheses: (i) the runoff coefficient (C) is equal to the
degree of saturation (Sr); (ii) the potential maximum retention
(S) can be expressed in terms of the USLE parameters, and
(iii) the sediment delivery ratio (DR) is equal to the runoff
coefficient (C). The expressions of the model for various
conditions are given in Table 3.
Time Distributed Sediment Yield Model
A time distributed sediment yield model was developed by
Tyagi et al. (2008) utilizing the SCS-CN based infiltration
model for computation of rainfall-excess rate, and the SCS-
CN-inspired proportionality concept for computation of
sediment-excess. Finally, for computation of time distributed
sediment yield (sediment graphs), the sediment-excess was
routed to the watershed outlet using a single linear reservoir
technique. The general expression of the model is given in
Table 3.
Conceptual Sediment Graph Model
New conceptual sediment graph models were developed by
Singh et al. (2008) based on coupling of popular and
extensively used methods, viz., Nash model (Nash, 1957)
based instantaneous unit sediment graph (IUSG), SCS-CN
method, and Power law (Novotny and Olem, 1994). The
models for different conditions are given in Table 3. The
proposed models are useful in computation of sediment graph
as well as total sediment yield and can be successfully applied
for ungauged conditions as well. The models can be very
useful for computing dynamic pollutant loads in water quality
Governing Equations
Cp =
(CT i f )2
; for CT i f
CT i f +
if = t
1000
PCN =
1000 +
36
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
USLE-SCS-CN Model (i) Incorporation of Ia (= S)
(Mishra et al., 2006b)
Y=
(P Ia )A
(P Ia + S)
(49)
Taking Ia = 0.2S which is a standard practice:

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
toxic at high concentrations, requiring determination of peak,
rather than average sediment flow rate. The expressions of the
model for various conditions are given in Table 3.
Modified Long-Term Hydrologic Simulation Advance
Soil Moisture Accounting (MLTHS ASMA) Model
Jain et al. (2012) proposed modified long-term hydrologic
simulation advance soil moisture accounting (MLTHS ASMA)
model by suitably amalgamating the advanced soil moisture
37

accounting (ASMA) procedure, the modified subsurface
drainage flow concept, and curve number (CN)based model
for simulating daily flows. The proposed model uses the
ASMA procedure both for surface and sub-surface flows. In
this model, the direct surface runoff is computed using the
modified formulations of SCS-CN method given by Michel et
al. (2005) and Durbude et al. (2011). The sub-surface drainage
flow is modeled using a new formulation on the basis of the
concept of Yuan et al. (2001).
Water Quality Model for River Bank Filtration
Ojha (2012) explored the potential of the SCS-CN approach in
water quality modeling of the river bank filtration (RBF)
process using a theoretical framework through relating the
curve number (CN) with the filtration/kinetic coefficient (K)
and the input applied to the system. The CN was found to be
dependent on travel time between source water and the
abstraction well in addition to the influent concentration. For
very low or very high values of influent concentration, the
curve number exhibits an asymptotic variation approaching
100 and 0, respectively. The governing equations of the
postulated theory are given in Table 3. The salient features of
the study were found as:
(i) CN is related with the performance (output to input
ratio, R) of a water quality system. The simulation of
filtrate quality (R) using filtration coefficient (),
kinetic coefficient, and CN is equivalent to each
other as these are all interrelated.
(ii) For flow through porous media, CN is dependent on
the filtration coefficient/kinetic coefficient.
Therefore, CN is dependent on all the parameters that
influence the filtration/kinetic coefficient such as
filtration velocity, medium properties and the
distance between source water and abstraction point,
and the source water quality.
CONCLUSION
Within the tremendous literature available on applications of
SCS-CN methodology in surface water hydrology, a relevant
work dealing with its origin, theoretical and historical
background, nature, advantages and limitations, issues
pertaining to structural foundation, including the CN vs AMC
variation, Ia vs S and storm duration dependence, CN vs SMA
procedure, and advanced applications of methodology
including the areas other than originally intended was
presented and discussed critically for their merits and demerits.
Following explorative and diagnostic discussions, it can be
stated that the SCS-CN methodology has been applied through
the spectrum of hydrology ranging from runoff and flood
estimation to water quality and erosion & sedimentation. It is
observed that the methodology has gone under rigors of the
peer review and modifications by incorporating soil moisture
accounting (SMA) procedures, storm duration (t), non- linear
Ia-S relation, slope factors, etc. Looking into current trends of
advanced applications as well as sound hydrological re-
structuring of the SCS-CN methodology, there is always ample
scope for further refinements to enhance its wider applicability
in the field of erosion & sedimentation, groundwater,
environmental engineering, urban hydrological studies, and
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
water resources assessment related studies through coupling
with the latest GIS and remote sensing techniques
REFERENCES
1. Andrews, R. G. (1954). The use of relative infiltration
indices in computing runoff (unpublished). Soil
Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas, p. 6.
2. Arnold, J. G., Williams, J. R., Griggs, R. H. & Sammons,
N. B. (1990). SWRRBA Basin Scale Simulation Model
for Soil and Water Resources Management. A&M Press,
Texas.
3. Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Srinivasan, R., King, K.W.,
1996. SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool. USDA-
ARS, Grassland, Soil andWater Research Laboratory,
Temple, TX. Aron G, Miller A C and Lakatos D F. (1977).
Infiltration formula based on SCS curve numbers. Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Division. ASCE. 103(4): 419-
427.
4. ASCE (1970). Sediment sources and sediment yields. J.
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 96 (HY6), 1283 1329.
5. Babu, P. S. and Mishra, S.K. (2012). Improved SCS-CN
Inspired Model. J. Hydrologic Engg., 17(11), pp. 1164
1172.
6. Bhunya, P. K., Jain, S. K., Singh, P. K. & Mishra, S. K.
(2010). A simple conceptual model of sediment yield.
Water Resources Management, 24(8) 16971716.
7. Bonta, J. V. 1997 Determination of watershed curve
number using derived distributions. J. Irrigation &
Drainage Engg., 123 (1), 234238.
8. Boszany, M. (1989). Generalization of SCS curve number
method. J. Irrigation & Drainage Engg., 115 (1), 139
144.
9. Central Ground Water Board (2000). Guide on artificial
recharge to ground water prepared by central ground
water board. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of
India, New Delhi.
10. Chen C L. (1982). Infiltration formulas by curve number
procedure. Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 108(7):
828-829.
11. Chow V T, Maidment D R and Mays L W. (1988). Applied
Hydrology. New York. Mc-Graw-Hill.
12. Chung, W., Wang, I., and Wang, R. (2010). Theory based
SCS-CN method and its applications. J. Hydrologic Engg.,
15(12), 1045-1058.
13. Durbude, D. G., Jain, M. K. and Mishra, S. K. (2011).
Long-term hydrologic simulation using SCS-CN based
improved soil moisture accounting procedure.
Hydrological Processes, 25, 561-579.
14. Garen, D. and Moore, D. S. (2005). Curve number
hydrology in water quality modeling: use, abuse, and
future directions. J. American Water Resources
Association, 41 (2), 377388.
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

44. Mishra, S. K., Jain, M. K., Babu, P. S., Venugopal, K. &
Kaliappan, S. 2008 Comparison of AMC-dependent CN-
conversion formulae. Water Resour. Manage. 22, 1409
1420.
45. Mishra, S. K., Sahu, R. K., Eldho, T. I. & Jain, M. K.
(2006a). An improved IaS relation incorporating
antecedent moisture in SCS-CN methodology. Water
Resources Management, 20, 643660.
46. Mishra, S. K., Sansalone, J. J. & Singh, V. P. (2004b).
Partitioning analog for metal elements in urban rainfall-
runoff overland flow using the soil conservation service
curve number concept. J. Environmental Engg., 130 (2),
145154.
47. Mishra, S. K., Sansalone, J. J., Glenn, D. W., III & Singh,
V. P. (2004c). PCN based metal partitioning in urban
snow melt, rainfall/runoff, and river flow systems. J.
American Water Resources Association, 40 (5), 1315
1337.
48. Mishra, S. K., Tyagi, J. V., Singh, V. P., and Singh, R.
(2006b). SCS-CN based modeling of sediment yield. J.
Hydrology, 324, 301-322.
49. Mishra, S.K., Singh, R.D., and Nema, R.K., (1998). A
modified SCS-CN method for watershed modeling, Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Watershed Management and Conservation,
Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, India,
Dec. 810
50. 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, Dec. 1.
51. Moglen, G. E. (2000). Effect of orientation of spatially
distributed curve number in runoff calculations. Journal
of American Water Resource Association, 36, 1391-1400.
52. Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Williams, J. R.
& King, K. W. (2002). Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT): Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000. Texas
Water Resources Institute, College Station, Texas, TWRI
Report TR-191.
53. Ojha C.S.P. (2012). Simulating turbidity removal at a
river bank filtration site in India using SCS-CN
approach. J. Hydrologic Engg., 17(11), 1240-1244.
54. Pandit, A. and Gopalakrishnan, G. (1996). Estimation of
annual storm runoff coefficients by continuous simulation.
J. Irrigation and Drainage Engg., 122(4): 211-220.
55. Plummer, A. & Woodward, D. E. (2002). The origin and
derivation of Ia/S in the runoff curve number system.
Available at the NRCS website:
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/quality/common/tech
paper/don1.pdf
56. Ponce, V. M. and Hawkins, R. H. (1996). Runoff curve
number: Has it reached maturity? J. Hydrological Engg.,
1(1): 1119.
57. Rallison, R. E. & Miller, N. (1982). Past, present, and
future. In Proc. Int. Symp. Rainfall-Runoff Relationship
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
(ed. V. P. Singh). Water Resources Pub., P.O. Box 2841,
Littleton, CO.
58. Rallison, R. E. (1980). Origin and evaluation of the SCS
runoff equation. Proc. Symp. Watershed Management,
ASCE, Idaho, 912924.
59. Ramasastry, K. S. & Seth, S. M. (1985). Rainfall-runoff
Relationships. Rep. RN-20, National Institute of
Hydrology, Roorkee, India.
60. Reshmidevia, T.V., Janab, R., Eldho, T.I. (2008).
Geospatial estimation of soil moisture in rain-fed paddy
fields using SCS-CN-based model. Agricultural Water
Management, 95, 447457.
61. Sahu, R. K., Mishra, S. K. and Eldho, T. I. (2010). An
improved AMC-coupled runoff curve number model.
Hydrological Processes, 21(21): 2834-2839.
62. Sahu, R. K., Mishra, S. K., Eldho, T. I. and Jain, M. K.
(2007).An advanced soil moisture accounting procedure
for SCS curve number method. Hydrological Processes,
21, 2827-2881.
63. Schneider, L. E. & McCuen, R. H. (2005). Statistical
guidelines for curve number generation. J. Irrigation &
Drainage Engg., 131 (3), 282290.
64. SCS (1972). Hydrology National Engineering Handbook,
Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation
Service, USDA, Washington, DC.
65. SCS 1985 National Engineering Handbook. Supplement A,
Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation Service, USDA,
Washington, DC.
66. Sharpley, A. N. & Williams, J. R. (1990). EPIC
Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model
Documentation. US Department of Agriculture Technical
Bulletin No. 1768. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
67. Sherman, L. K. (1949). The unit hydrograph method. In
Physics of the Earth (ed. O. E. Meinzer), 514525. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
68. Shi, Zhi-Hua, Chen, Li-Ding, Fang, Nu-Fang, Qin, De-
Fu, and Cai, Chong-Fa (2009). Research on the SCS-CN
initial abstraction ratio using rainfall-runoff event
analysis in the Three Gorges Area, China. Catena, pp. 1-
7.
69. Singh, P. K., Bhunya, P. K., Mishra, S. K. & Chaube, U.
C. (2008). A sediment graph model based on SCS-CN
method. J. Hydrology, 349, 244255.
70. Singh, P.K., Yaduwanshi, B.K., Patel, S, and Ray, S.
(2013). SCS-CN based quantification of potential of
rooftop catchments and computation of ASRC for
rainwater harvesting. Water Resources Management, 27
(7), 2001-2012.
71. Singh, V. P. & Frevert, D. K. (2002). Mathematical
Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications.
Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO.
40
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 34, No.4, October, 2014
72. Smith, R.E., and Eggert, K.G. (1978). Discussion to
infiltration formula based on SCS cure number by G.
Aron, A.C. Miller, and D.F. Lakatos. J. Irrig. And Drain.
Div., ASCE, 104(4), 462-463.
73. Sobhani, G. (1975). A review of selected small watershed
design methods for possible adoption to Iranian
conditions. MS Thesis, Utah State University, Logan,
Utah.
74. Tyagi, J. V., Mishra, S. K., Singh, R. & Singh, V. P.
(2008). SCS-CN based time distributed sediment yield
model. J. Hydrology, 352, 388403.
75. Van-Mullem, J. A. (1989). Runoff and peak discharges
using Green-Ampt model. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 117 (3),
354370.
76. White, D. (1988). Grid-based application of runoff curve
numbers. J. Water Resources Planning and Management,
114(6), 601-612.
77. Williams, J. R. and LaSeur, V. (1976). Water yield model
using SCS curve numbers. J. Hydraulic Engg., 102(9),
1241-1253.
78. Woodward, D. E. and Gbuerek, W. J. (1992). Progress
report ARS/SCS curve number work group. Proceedings
of ASCE Water Forum. ASCE, New York, 378-382.
79. Young, R. A., Onstad, C. A., Bosch, D. D. & Anderson, W.
P. (1989). AGNPS: a nonpoint-source pollution model for
evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil & Water
Conservation, 44 (2), 168173.
80. Yuan, Y., Mitchell, J. K., Hirschi, M. C. and Cooke, R. A.
C. (2001). Modified SCS Curve Number Method for
predicting sub surface drainage flow. Transaction of the
ASAE. 44(6): 1673-1682.
41