Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity?
The conceptual and empirical foundations of the runoff curve number method are reviewed. The method is a conceptual model of hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall. Its objective is to estimate direct runoff depth from storm rainfall depth, based on a parameter referred to as the "curve numbe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of hydrologic engineering 1996-01, Vol.1 (1), p.11-19 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 19 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 11 |
container_title | Journal of hydrologic engineering |
container_volume | 1 |
creator | Ponce, Victor M Hawkins, Richard H |
description | The conceptual and empirical foundations of the runoff curve number method are reviewed. The method is a conceptual model of hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall. Its objective is to estimate direct runoff depth from storm rainfall depth, based on a parameter referred to as the "curve number." The method does not take into account the spatial and temporal variability of infiltration and other abstractive losses; rather, it aggregates them into a calculation of the total depth loss for a given storm event and drainage area. The method describes average trends, which precludes it from being perfectly predictive. The observed variability in curve numbers, beyond that which can be attributed to soil type, land use treatment, and surface condition, is embodied in the concept of antecedent condition. The method is widely used in the United States and other countries. Perceived advantages of the method are (1) its simplicity; (2) its predictability; (3) its stability; (4) its reliance on only one parameter; and (5) its responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil type, land use treatment, surface condition, and antecedent condition). Perceived disadvantages are (1) its marked sensitivity to curve number; (2) the absence of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent condition; (3) the method's varying accuracy for different biomes; (4) the absence of an explicit provision for spatial scale effects; and (5) the fixing of the initial abstraction ratio at 0.2, preempting a regionalization based on geologic and climatic setting. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11) |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_26354551</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17069615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a433t-d6fe310b8c1a2e8f825cfadea9244b731f16c6540c5b5d6b58056d8d4a7297c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKv_YQ8i7WE1s_nYpB6klNZWqkLVg6eQ3U2wpe3WZFfov3dDW7zZDCQz8PAyeRC6BnwLmMNdp_82GHYBCxpjLmUHpORd6EEHoHuCWiApiRkT9LTpD9A5uvB-gTHQZmiheFavS2ujQe1-TPRSrzLjetFY-2hSRTOj8y9TRM-6qt282j5cojOrl95c7d82-hgN3wfjePr6OBn0p7GmhFRxwa0hgDORg06MsCJhudWF0TKhNEsJWOA5ZxTnLGMFz5jAjBeioDpNZJoL0kY3u9yNK79r4yu1mvvcLJd6bcraq4QTRhmDoyCkzZ85sOMgS4FQmTTg_Q7MXem9M1Zt3Hyl3VYBVsG6UsG6CkJVEKqCdQWhwj57IboJV4uyduvGk3oafw5HIxwO_N2w7w_B_-T-Aq-uir4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>15713492</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity?</title><source>American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014</source><creator>Ponce, Victor M ; Hawkins, Richard H</creator><creatorcontrib>Ponce, Victor M ; Hawkins, Richard H</creatorcontrib><description>The conceptual and empirical foundations of the runoff curve number method are reviewed. The method is a conceptual model of hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall. Its objective is to estimate direct runoff depth from storm rainfall depth, based on a parameter referred to as the "curve number." The method does not take into account the spatial and temporal variability of infiltration and other abstractive losses; rather, it aggregates them into a calculation of the total depth loss for a given storm event and drainage area. The method describes average trends, which precludes it from being perfectly predictive. The observed variability in curve numbers, beyond that which can be attributed to soil type, land use treatment, and surface condition, is embodied in the concept of antecedent condition. The method is widely used in the United States and other countries. Perceived advantages of the method are (1) its simplicity; (2) its predictability; (3) its stability; (4) its reliance on only one parameter; and (5) its responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil type, land use treatment, surface condition, and antecedent condition). Perceived disadvantages are (1) its marked sensitivity to curve number; (2) the absence of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent condition; (3) the method's varying accuracy for different biomes; (4) the absence of an explicit provision for spatial scale effects; and (5) the fixing of the initial abstraction ratio at 0.2, preempting a regionalization based on geologic and climatic setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1084-0699</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-5584</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher><subject>Hydrology ; Infiltration ; Mathematical models ; Q1 ; Rain ; Storms ; TECHNICAL PAPERS</subject><ispartof>Journal of hydrologic engineering, 1996-01, Vol.1 (1), p.11-19</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a433t-d6fe310b8c1a2e8f825cfadea9244b731f16c6540c5b5d6b58056d8d4a7297c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a433t-d6fe310b8c1a2e8f825cfadea9244b731f16c6540c5b5d6b58056d8d4a7297c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)$$EPDF$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)$$EHTML$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,75944,75952</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ponce, Victor M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Richard H</creatorcontrib><title>Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity?</title><title>Journal of hydrologic engineering</title><description>The conceptual and empirical foundations of the runoff curve number method are reviewed. The method is a conceptual model of hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall. Its objective is to estimate direct runoff depth from storm rainfall depth, based on a parameter referred to as the "curve number." The method does not take into account the spatial and temporal variability of infiltration and other abstractive losses; rather, it aggregates them into a calculation of the total depth loss for a given storm event and drainage area. The method describes average trends, which precludes it from being perfectly predictive. The observed variability in curve numbers, beyond that which can be attributed to soil type, land use treatment, and surface condition, is embodied in the concept of antecedent condition. The method is widely used in the United States and other countries. Perceived advantages of the method are (1) its simplicity; (2) its predictability; (3) its stability; (4) its reliance on only one parameter; and (5) its responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil type, land use treatment, surface condition, and antecedent condition). Perceived disadvantages are (1) its marked sensitivity to curve number; (2) the absence of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent condition; (3) the method's varying accuracy for different biomes; (4) the absence of an explicit provision for spatial scale effects; and (5) the fixing of the initial abstraction ratio at 0.2, preempting a regionalization based on geologic and climatic setting.</description><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Infiltration</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Q1</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Storms</subject><subject>TECHNICAL PAPERS</subject><issn>1084-0699</issn><issn>1943-5584</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKv_YQ8i7WE1s_nYpB6klNZWqkLVg6eQ3U2wpe3WZFfov3dDW7zZDCQz8PAyeRC6BnwLmMNdp_82GHYBCxpjLmUHpORd6EEHoHuCWiApiRkT9LTpD9A5uvB-gTHQZmiheFavS2ujQe1-TPRSrzLjetFY-2hSRTOj8y9TRM-6qt282j5cojOrl95c7d82-hgN3wfjePr6OBn0p7GmhFRxwa0hgDORg06MsCJhudWF0TKhNEsJWOA5ZxTnLGMFz5jAjBeioDpNZJoL0kY3u9yNK79r4yu1mvvcLJd6bcraq4QTRhmDoyCkzZ85sOMgS4FQmTTg_Q7MXem9M1Zt3Hyl3VYBVsG6UsG6CkJVEKqCdQWhwj57IboJV4uyduvGk3oafw5HIxwO_N2w7w_B_-T-Aq-uir4</recordid><startdate>199601</startdate><enddate>199601</enddate><creator>Ponce, Victor M</creator><creator>Hawkins, Richard H</creator><general>American Society of Civil Engineers</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199601</creationdate><title>Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity?</title><author>Ponce, Victor M ; Hawkins, Richard H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a433t-d6fe310b8c1a2e8f825cfadea9244b731f16c6540c5b5d6b58056d8d4a7297c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Infiltration</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Q1</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Storms</topic><topic>TECHNICAL PAPERS</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ponce, Victor M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Richard H</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of hydrologic engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ponce, Victor M</au><au>Hawkins, Richard H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of hydrologic engineering</jtitle><date>1996-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>1</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>11-19</pages><issn>1084-0699</issn><eissn>1943-5584</eissn><abstract>The conceptual and empirical foundations of the runoff curve number method are reviewed. The method is a conceptual model of hydrologic abstraction of storm rainfall. Its objective is to estimate direct runoff depth from storm rainfall depth, based on a parameter referred to as the "curve number." The method does not take into account the spatial and temporal variability of infiltration and other abstractive losses; rather, it aggregates them into a calculation of the total depth loss for a given storm event and drainage area. The method describes average trends, which precludes it from being perfectly predictive. The observed variability in curve numbers, beyond that which can be attributed to soil type, land use treatment, and surface condition, is embodied in the concept of antecedent condition. The method is widely used in the United States and other countries. Perceived advantages of the method are (1) its simplicity; (2) its predictability; (3) its stability; (4) its reliance on only one parameter; and (5) its responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil type, land use treatment, surface condition, and antecedent condition). Perceived disadvantages are (1) its marked sensitivity to curve number; (2) the absence of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent condition; (3) the method's varying accuracy for different biomes; (4) the absence of an explicit provision for spatial scale effects; and (5) the fixing of the initial abstraction ratio at 0.2, preempting a regionalization based on geologic and climatic setting.</abstract><pub>American Society of Civil Engineers</pub><doi>10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1084-0699 |
ispartof | Journal of hydrologic engineering, 1996-01, Vol.1 (1), p.11-19 |
issn | 1084-0699 1943-5584 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_26354551 |
source | American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014 |
subjects | Hydrology Infiltration Mathematical models Q1 Rain Storms TECHNICAL PAPERS |
title | Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T09%3A51%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Runoff%20Curve%20Number:%20Has%20It%20Reached%20Maturity?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20hydrologic%20engineering&rft.au=Ponce,%20Victor%20M&rft.date=1996-01&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=11-19&rft.issn=1084-0699&rft.eissn=1943-5584&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17069615%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=15713492&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |