4.3 Article

Quantifying Excess Stormwater Using SCS-CN-Based Rainfall Runoff Models and Different Curve Number Determination Methods

Journal

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000805

Keywords

Rainfall; Direct runoff; Initial abstraction ratio; Modified SCS-CN model

Funding

  1. Construction Technology Innovation Program - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MLIT) of Korea [11CTIPC06]
  2. Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) [63370] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [21A20132012107] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estimation of excess storm water is among the most basic hydrological challenges for hydrologists and engineers. The initial abstraction ratio lambda (= 0.2) assumed in the original U.S. Soil Conservation Service curve number (SCS-CN) is ambiguous and must be calibrated from rainfall-runoff measurements for better runoff estimation. Eight different models including the original SCS-CN model, modified models in spired by it, and three newly proposed models were investigated to assess the accuracy of runoff estimation using rainfall-runoff measurements from 15 watersheds in South Korea. Different methods for CN determination were evaluated to see the effect of CN and lambda on runoff estimation. The optimized lambda and CN exhibited better results than fixed values as in the original SCS-CN model. Using three different goodness-of-fit statistics to assess the accuracy of the estimates, our proposed models outperformed in all watersheds in the study area when compared with the original SCS-CN model and some of its modified models. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available