NRCS Curve Number Method: Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Curve Number from Rainfall-Runoff Data

AbstractA data set comprising rainfall-runoff data gathered at 31 Agricultural Research Service experimental watersheds was used to explore curve number calibration. This exploration focused on the calibrated value and goodness-of-fit as a function of several items: calibration approach, precipitati...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of hydrologic engineering 2022-10, Vol.27 (10)
Hauptverfasser: Moglen, G. E., Sadeq, H., Hughes, L. H., Meadows, M. E., Miller, J. J., Ramirez-Avila, J. J., Tollner, E. W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:AbstractA data set comprising rainfall-runoff data gathered at 31 Agricultural Research Service experimental watersheds was used to explore curve number calibration. This exploration focused on the calibrated value and goodness-of-fit as a function of several items: calibration approach, precipitation event threshold, data ordering approach, and initial abstraction value. Calibration methods explored were least-squares, the National Engineering Handbook (NEH) median, and an asymptotic approach. Results were quantified for events exceeding two precipitation thresholds: 0 and 25.4 mm. Natural and frequency-matched data ordering methods were analyzed. Initial abstraction ratios of 0.05 and 0.20 were examined. Findings showed that the least-squares calibration approach applied directly to rainfall-runoff data performed best. Initial abstraction ratios clearly influenced the magnitude of the calibrated curve number. However, neither ratio outperformed the other in terms of goodness-of-fit of predicted runoff to observed runoff. Precipitation threshold experiments produced mixed results, with neither threshold level producing a clearly superior model fit. Frequency-matching was not considered to be a valid analysis approach, but was contrasted with naturally ordered results, indicating a bias toward producing calibrated curve numbers that were 5–10 points larger.
ISSN:1084-0699
1943-5584
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002210