Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research

ISSN: (Print) 2324-9676 (Online) Journal homepage: http://iahr.tandfonline.com.tandf-

prod.literatumonline.com/loi/tjaw20

Estimation of design runoff curve numbers for

Narmada watersheds (India)

Surendra Kumar Mishra , Sarita Gajbhiye & Ashish Pandey

To cite this article: Surendra Kumar Mishra , Sarita Gajbhiye & Ashish Pandey (2013) Estimation
of design runoff curve numbers for Narmada watersheds (India), Journal of Applied Water
Engineering and Research, 1:1, 69-79, DOI: 10.1080/23249676.2013.831583

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.831583

Published online: 04 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1579

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://iahr.tandfonline.com.tandf-prod.literatumonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjaw20
Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research, 2013
Vol. 1, No. 1, 69–79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.831583

Estimation of design runoff curve numbers for Narmada watersheds (India)

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Sarita Gajbhiye∗ and Ashish Pandey
Department of Water Resource Development & Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667, India
(Received 21 May 2013; accepted 31 July 2013 )

Employing 10 years daily rainfall–runoff data, frequency-based design curve numbers (CNs) of different rain durations and
for 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, and 200 years return periods were derived for normal, dry, and wet weather conditions, representing
50%, 10%, and 90% probability of exceedance, respectively. Among the three distributions, Gumble (extreme value) type 1,
log normal, and log Pearson type 3, the last performed better than the others. When compared, the design CN-values yielded
runoff values quite close to the conventionally derived design runoff, exhibiting the validity of the derived design CN-values.
Keywords: SCS-Curve number; frequency analysis; NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service); probability distri-
bution; Design flood

Introduction to AMC III (wet) or AMC II (normal) levels. Hjelmfelt

Rainfall-generated runoff is very important in various activ-
ities of water resources development and management, such
as: flood control and its management, irrigation schedul-
ing, design of irrigation and drainage works, design of
hydraulic structures, hydro-power generation, etc. Deter-
mining a robust relationship between rainfall and runoff
for a watershed has been one of the most important prob-
lems for hydrologists, engineers, and agriculturists since
its first documentation by P. Perrault (in Mishra & Singh
2003a) about 330 years ago. The process of transformation
of rainfall to runoff is highly complex, dynamic, nonlinear,
and exhibits temporal and spatial variability. It is further
affected by many parameters and often inter-related physi-
cal factors. Rain (precipitation) is the major component of
the hydrologic cycle and this is the primary source of runoff.
The soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN)
method (SCS 1956) converts rainfall to surface runoff (or
rainfall-excess) using a CN derived from watershed char-
acteristics and 5-days antecedent rainfall. This model is
selected for predicting runoff as: (1) it is a familiar pro-
cedure that has been used for many years around the world;
(2) it is computationally efficient; (3) the required inputs
are generally available; and (4) it relates runoff to soil
type, land use, and management practices. To derive CN
values (valid for storm duration less than 1 day) for an un-
gauged watershed, SCS (1956) provided tables based on
the soil type, land cover and practice, hydrologic condition,
and antecedent moisture condition (AMC). Fairly accu-
rate mathematical expressions (Ponce and Hawkins 1996)
are also available for CN conversion from AMC I (dry)
(1982) statistically related the AMC I through AMC III
levels, respectively, to 90%, 10%, and 50% cumulative
probability of the exceedance of runoff depth for a given
rainfall. The curve numbers are treated as random variables
with the curve numbers associated with antecedent mois-
ture condition II (AMC II) representing the central tendency
(Hjelmfelt 1991). For gauged watersheds, Hawkins (1993)
suggested using the CN-computation from event rainfall–
runoff data, and considering the median CN to correspond
to AMC II and the upper and lower bounds of the scatter
rainfall–runoff plot to AMC III and AMC I, respectively.
For hydrologic design purposes, Hawkins (1993) and
Hawkins (2001) derived CN values from the ordered
rainfall–runoff data, and McCuen (2002) developed con-
fidence intervals for CN values (from 65 to 95), treating
CN as a random variable. Mishra et al. (2004) compared
the existing SCS-CN and the modified Mishra and Singh
(2003a, 2003b, 2003c) models using the data from small
to large watersheds and found the latter to perform signifi-
cantly better than the former. Jain et al. (2006) quantitatively
evaluated the existing SCS-CN model, its variants, and the
modified Mishra and Singh (2003a) models for their suit-
ability to particular land use, soil type, and combinations
thereof, using a large set of rainfall–runoff data from small
to large watersheds within USA.
The above approaches, however, utilize discrete (gener-
ally annual extreme) storm events of varying time duration
(less than or equal to 1-day) for computing CNs (SCS 1971;
Hawkins 2001). Consequently, the resulting CNs are appli-
cable to storm durations of less than 1 day, to only those high

∗ Corresponding author. Email: gajbhiyesarita@gmail.com

© 2013 IAHR and WCCE

70 S.K. Mishra et al.
rain and short duration events from which they were derived
and not appropriate for events of low magnitude and/or
long duration. It is a common experience that for a given
amount of rainfall on a watershed, the event produces a
high or low runoff depending on (besides other parameters):
the small or large time interval/duration, with the infiltra-
tion and evaporation losses depending significantly on how
long the water remains in the watershed. Thus, it is appro-
priate to explore the application of the SCS-CN concept to
long duration storm events by investigating the CN depen-
dency on rain duration and, in turn, avoiding CN-variability
due to varying event duration, which is otherwise accounted
for in terms of AMC in the original procedure.
Standard probability distributions commonly used for
design flood estimation are normal, log normal (LN), Pear-
son, log Pearson type III (LPIII), and extreme value type 1
(Gumbel 1958; Chow et al. 1988; Wilson 1990; Haktanir
1991; Haktan 1992; Hosking & Wallis 1993; Abdul-Karim
& Chowdhury 1995; Pandey & Nguyen 1999; Wurbs &
James 2009; Ibrahim & Isiguzo 2009; Ewemoje & Ewe-
mooje 2011; Izinyon et al. 2011). This study suggests a
procedure to determine the CNs for use in design runoff
estimation and validate these design CNs employing the
observed data. Thus, the objectives are: (i) to investigate the
impact of rain duration on CNs; (ii) to derive design CNs
for different rain durations, wetness conditions, and differ-
ent return periods; and (iii) validate the derived design CNs
using observed data.
This study suggests the direct application in designing
the CN, which gives the rainfall-generated runoff. Hence,
from the hydrological design point of view, the study pro-
vides the mechanism for flood forecasting and subsequently
for the design of suitable structures, etc. Especially in flood
affected areas, this study can be used for river modelling to
mitigate the effects of flooding.
Materials and methods
SCS-CN method
The existing SCS-CN equation is expressed as
(P − 0.2S)2
Q= , (1)
P + 0.8S
where P is the rainfall (mm), Q the direct runoff (mm), and
S the potential maximum retention (mm). The parameter
S depends on the soil type, land use, hydrologic condition,
and AMC. S (mm) is mapped on to the CN value as below
25400
S= − 254. (2)
CN
S can be derived from Equation (2) as follows:

S = 5[P + 2Q − (4Q2 + 5PQ)]. (3)
For estimation of the design CN value for long duration
(i.e. more than 1 day) rain events, the proposed procedure
is as follows:
(1) Estimation of CN-values for various wetness con-
ditions and durations:
(a) Prepare a series of available daily rainfall (P)
and runoff (Q) data for a certain (say 1-day)
rain duration, exhibiting runoff factor (C =
Q/P) > 1 and assign the probability to P using
Weibull’s plotting position formula.
(b) Describe CN (Equations (2) and (3)) for 10%,
50%, and 90% probability of exceedance to
correspond to dry, normal, and wet weather
conditions, respectively. Since these values
are derived from daily P–Q data, the derived
CN-values correspond to 1-day rain duration.
(c) From the above daily P–Q data, we derive two-
daily, three-daily, four-daily, P–Q series, by
summing the rainfall and corresponding runoff
values for respective durations.
(d) Repeat steps (a) and (b) for deriving CN values
for different wetness conditions and rain dura-
tions separately. Plot CN vs. rain duration for
each wetness condition.
(2) Estimation of design CN:
(a) For design purpose, CN values for three dura-
tions, namely, 1-day, 2-day, and 3-day, and
three wetness conditions are considered. In a
similar procedure to step 1, CNs are derived for
each year using respective duration and year P–
Q series; and annual CN-series for each wetness
condition and duration prepared.
(b) For a given wetness condition and duration, fit
a suitable frequency distribution to the annual
CN-series to derive CNs for different return
periods, and plot them for different return
periods, wetness conditions, and rain durations.
(3) Validation of design CN estimates:
(a) For a given duration, prepare annual maxi-
mum rainfall (P)-series and annual maximum
runoff (Q)-series separately to determine differ-
ent return period P- and Q-values separately,
using the above frequency distribution proce-
dure. The latter are considered as observed
Q-values.
(b) Compute runoff (Q) from P that corresponds
to the same duration and return period and CN
that corresponds to the same duration and return
period, and for all three wetness conditions.
Assume these as computed Q-values for three
wetness conditions and compare these with the
above observed Q-values.
Study area
Narmada catchment
The River Narmada is one of the major rivers, with 41 trib-
utaries, flowing through the central parts of India. It starts
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
Figure 1. Location map of the study area.
from the Amarkantak plateau of the Maikala range in Shah-
dol district in Madhya Pradesh, at an elevation of about
1059 m above mean sea level. The river travels a distance
of 1312 km before it joins the Gulf of Cambay in the Arabian
Sea, near Bharuch in Gujarat. The stream flow data used in
the study relate to River Narmada at Banjar at Bamhani,
Manot, Burhner at Mohgaon, and Shakkar at Gadarwara as
shown in Figure 1 and described briefly as follows:
(a) Banjar catchment: The River Banjar is a trib-
utary of the river Narmada and its catchment
is geographically located in the Mandla district,
between 21◦ 65 55 N and 22◦ 29 00 N latitudes and
80◦ 22 00 E and 81◦ 00 00 E longitudes. The water-
shed covers an area of 2542 km2 and it is situated
in the eastern part of Madhya Pradesh. The cli-
mate of the Mandla district is characterized by a
hot summer and general dryness, except during the
southwest monsoon season. The climate of the basin
can be classified into sub-tropical and sub-humid,
with an average annual rainfall of 1178 mm. About
90% of the annual rainfall is received during the
monsoon season (June–October). The estimates of
71
evapotranspiration vary from 4 mm/day in winter
to 10 mm/day in summer. The area comprises
both flat and undulating lands covered with tim-
ber, grasses, and cultivated land. Soils vary from
black to mixed red soils. Nearly 65% of the catch-
ment area is covered with forest. Agricultural crops
are grown over 29% of the area and the remaining
area comes under degraded lands and water bod-
ies. The soils in the area are characterized as black
grey, red, and yellow colours, often mixed with red
and black alluvium and ferruginous red gravel or
lateritic soils. These soils are commonly known as
black soils.
(b) Manot catchment: The Narmada catchment up to
Manot lies between the north latitudes 22◦ 26 to
23◦ 18 and east longitudes 80◦ 24 to 81◦ 47 . The
length of the river Narmada from its origin up to
Manot is about 269 km, with a drainage area of
4884 km2 . The catchment is covered by forest and
its topography is hilly. Its elevation ranges from
450 m near the Manot site to 1110 m in the upper
part of the catchment. It has a continental type of cli-
mate, classified as sub-tropical and sub-humid, with
72 S.K. Mishra et al.

an average annual rainfall of 1596 mm. It is very comprises both flat and undulating lands covered
hot in summer and cold in winter. Over the major with forest and cultivated lands. Soils are mainly
part of the catchment, the soils are red, yellow, red and yellow silty loam and silty clay loam. For-
and medium black, with a shallow to very shallow est and agricultural lands share nearly 58% and 42%
depth. In some small pockets of plain land, soils are of the catchment area, respectively.
moderately deep and of a dark grayish clay type. (d) Shakkar catchment: The Shakkar river rises in
Approximately 52% of the catchment area is under the Satpura range, east of the Chhindi village,
cultivation, about 35% under forest, and 13% under
wasteland.
(c) Burhner catchment: The Burhner river rises in the
Maikala range, south-east of the Gwara village in
the Mandla district of Madhya Pradesh, at an eleva-
tion of about 900 m at north latitude 22◦ 32 and east
longitude 81◦ 22 . It flows in a westerly direction
for a total length of 177 km to join the Narmada
near Manot. Its catchment area up to Mohegoan is
about 3978 km2 . The elevation at Mohegoan gaug-
ing site drops to 509 m. The climate of the basin
can be classified into sub-tropical and sub-humid
with an average annual rainfall of 1547 mm. The
evapotranspiration varies from 4 mm/day in win-
ter to 10 mm/day in summer. The catchment area
Figure 4. Ordered daily runoff data for determination of CN for
three wetness condition for Manot catchment.

Figure 5. CN variation with rainfall duration (≥1 day).

Figure 2. Ordered daily runoff data for determination of CN for
three wetness condition for Banjar catchment.

Figure 6. Ordered daily runoff data for determination of CN for

Figure 3. CN variation with rainfall duration (≥1 day). three wetness condition for Burhner catchment.
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research 73

Chhindwara district, Madhya Pradesh, at an ele-
vation of about 600 m at latitude 22◦ 23 N and
longitude 78◦ 52 E. The watershed covers 2220 km2
area. The climate of the basin is generally dry,
except in the southwest and during the monsoon
season. The southwest monsoon starts from the
middle of June and lasts until the end of Septem-
ber. October and up to the middle of November
constitute the post monsoon or retreating monsoon
season. The normal annual rainfall is 1192.1 mm.
The normal maximum temperature received dur-
ing the month of May is 42.5◦ C and the minimum
during the month of January is 8.2◦ C. Soils are
mainly clayey to loamy in texture, with calcare-
ous concretions invariably present. They are sticky
and in summer, due to shrinkage, develop deep
cracks. They generally predominate in montmoril-
lonite and beidellite type of clays. Over the rest
of the alluvial areas, there are mixed clays, black
to brown to reddish brown in colour, derived from
sandstones. Traps are observed, which are sandy
clay in nature, with calcareous concretions. Near
the banks of the rivers and at the confluence, light
yellow to yellowish brown soils are noticed, which

Table 1. Estimation of design 1-day rainfall (mm), CN, and

runoff (Q) values for dry condition.

Curve Number (CN)

Return Rainfall Qo Qc
period (yr) (LP-III) LP-III G LN (LP III) (LP III)
Figure 7. CN variation with rainfall duration (≥1 day).
Banjar catchment
2 77.20 76.34 74.79 75.39 34.62 26.94
5 120.56 81.00 82.17 80.94 62.46 70.17
10 155.83 83.03 87.06 84.00 89.76 107.20
25 208.71 84.89 93.24 87.39 138.01 162.82
50 254.71 85.93 97.83 89.65 186.83 210.81
100 306.86 86.76 102.38 91.74 249.67 264.79
200 366.11 87.43 106.91 93.69 330.42 325.67
Manot catchment
2 105.46 82.40 87.76 88.13 60.12 99.30
5 131.37 88.79 91.56 90.95 99.44 124.36
10 148.05 91.90 94.08 92.46 124.21 137.44
25 168.79 95.01 97.27 94.09 153.79 151.01
50 184.06 96.91 99.63 95.16 174.69 159.44
100 199.24 98.54 101.97 96.13 194.79 166.75
200 214.46 99.96 104.31 97.04 214.35 173.16
Burhner catchment
Figure 8. Ordered daily runoff data for determination of CN for 2 112.14 86.53 85.94 86.52 103.17 75.56
three wetness condition for Shakkar catchment. 5 137.06 92.26 92.44 91.23 127.89 114.34
10 157.63 94.77 96.75 93.79 146.87 142.01
25 188.54 97.57 102.20 96.60 173.90 181.17
50 215.43 98.43 106.24 98.46 196.40 210.63
100 245.96 98.74 110.25 100.16 221.03 242.09
200 280.76 99.93 114.24 101.74 248.15 280.48
Shakkar catchment
2 84.91 78.28 77.85 78.23 53.60 35.50
5 131.55 81.07 81.79 81.06 82.50 80.04
10 166.98 82.55 84.39 82.58 120.00 116.27
25 216.87 84.13 87.68 84.23 178.00 168.36
50 257.80 85.15 90.13 85.31 225.80 211.34
100 301.99 86.08 92.55 86.30 276.50 257.73
200 349.83 86.93 94.97 87.21 297.40 307.82

Notes: LP-III = Log Pearson type III, G = Gumble, LN = Log

Normal distribution, Qo = Observed runoff, Qc = Computed
Figure 9. CN variation with rainfall duration (≥1 day). runoff.
74 S.K. Mishra et al.

were deposited during the recent past. These soils decrease, because of the longer time available for water loss
are clayey to silty in nature. in the watershed, and vice versa. It is apparent from these
figures that for all the three wetness conditions, the Manot
catchment exhibits the highest CN-values, and the others
Results and discussion for normal condition show only a little difference, indicat-
Development of CN-duration relationship ing that the Manot catchment is the highest runoff-producing
Using the whole set of daily data available and filtered for catchment. It is consistent with the physical characteristics
C > 1 as stated earlier, 1-day CN values were derived for for all others and is dominated by forest land, whereas the
different wetness conditions as shown in Figures 2, 4, 6, Manot catchment by agricultural land.
and 8 for the Banjar, Manot, Burhner, and Shakkar catch-
ments, respectively. Similarly, CN-values for 2 days, 3
days, 4 days, etc. were derived from 2 daily, 3 daily, 4
daily, P–Q series, respectively. The CN values derived for
different wetness conditions and durations are plotted in Fig-
ures 3, 5, 7, and 9, for the respective catchments. As shown
in the figures, the CN values decay almost exponentially as
the duration increases. The derived pattern is consistent with
the notion that as the rain duration increases, the CN values

Table 2. Standard error for 1-day rainfall and runoff.

Rainfall (mm) Runoff (mm)

Return
period (yr) LP-III G LN LP-III G LN

Banjar catchment
2 15.23 14.26 13.81 8.70 10.98 9.87
5 18.58 24.00 17.50 11.76 18.49 13.32
10 20.72 32.42 20.54 14.25 24.97 15.78
25 23.33 43.71 23.66 17.95 33.66 19.21
50 25.21 52.30 26.16 21.14 40.28 21.46
100 27.05 60.92 28.15 24.75 46.92 24.63
200 28.87 69.58 30.20 28.82 53.59 27.57
Manot catchment
2 18.32 8.21 14.84 14.39 8.18 14.14
5 22.20 13.83 16.57 16.16 13.77 16.13
10 24.59 18.67 17.58 17.04 18.60 17.30
25 27.45 25.17 18.74 17.91 25.08 18.67
50 29.48 30.12 19.54 18.44 30.01 19.62
100 31.44 35.09 20.28 18.89 34.96 20.52
200 33.36 40.07 20.99 19.28 39.93 21.38
Burhner catchment
2 21.50 8.86 15.60 14.60 8.37 14.90
5 22.89 14.92 17.15 16.29 14.09 16.48
10 23.72 20.15 18.04 17.52 19.02 17.41
25 24.70 27.17 19.06 19.19 25.65 18.46
50 25.39 32.51 19.76 20.49 30.69 19.18
100 26.05 37.87 20.40 21.85 35.75 19.85
200 26.68 43.25 21.01 23.27 40.83 20.49
Shakkar catchment
2 16.77 14.66 13.60 10.88 4.71 6.61
5 20.54 24.68 16.94 13.60 7.93 9.01
10 22.92 33.33 19.06 16.55 10.71 10.65
25 25.83 44.93 21.66 20.38 14.44 12.75
50 27.92 53.77 23.53 23.14 17.28 14.33
100 29.95 62.63 25.35 25.79 20.13 15.93
200 31.95 71.53 27.15 26.93 22.99 17.55

Notes: LP-III = Log Pearson type III, G = Gumble, LN = Log Figure 10. Design curve number for (a) wet, (b) normal, and (c)
Normal distribution, CN = Curve Number. dry condition and different return periods for Banjar catchment.
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research 75

Determination of design CNs employed for the derivation of the design CN-values,
To enhance the field utility of the CN-methodology, corresponding to different return periods. The results are
CN values for three wetness conditions were derived shown in Tables 1 and 2, for example, for dry condi-
for three durations, namely, 1 day, 2 days, and 3 days, tions. Based on the minimum standard error (Table 2)
for each year and for all the four catchments sepa-
rately. For a given duration and wetness condition, the
annual CN-series was derived for each catchment. Then,
LN, Gumbel (G), and LPIII frequency distributions were

Figure 11. Computed and observed runoff for different wetness Figure 12. Design curve number for (a) wet, (b) normal, and (c)
conditions and return periods. dry condition and different return periods for Manot catchment.
76 S.K. Mishra et al.
of rainfall and runoff and CN < 100 (Table 1) criteria,
the results of LPIII distribution were adopted. It is seen
from Table 1 that, for a given return period, as the dura-
tion increases, the quantum CN-value decreases, and vice
versa. Alternatively for a given duration, the reverse trend
is apparent with the return period. Similarly, for a given
return period and duration, as the degree of wetness pro-
gresses from dry to wet, then the design CN-values also
increases. The last inference is consistent with the general
Figure 13. Computed and observed runoff for different wetness
conditions and return periods.
notion that CN in the existing methodology increases
as the AMC level changes from AMC I (dry) to AMC
III (wet).
Validation
For validation, the above design CN-values for all three
wetness conditions were used in the SCS-CN equation
(Equation (1)) for determination of a design runoff from the
rainfall of the same return period and duration. This design
runoff, termed as the computed design runoff (Q-computed),
was compared with the conventionally derived design
Figure 14. Design curve number for (a) wet, (b) normal, and (c)
dry condition and different return periods for Burhner catchment.
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research 77

runoff (termed as observed runoff, Q-observed), for the respectively. It is seen from the results that for a given
same return period, from the observed annual maxi- duration, the Q-computed is generally quite close to the
mum runoff series, employing the same LPIII distribution. Q-observed for all return periods and for all catchments.
The computed runoff values for different return periods, These design CN values can be useful in the field for estima-
durations, and wetness conditions (Table 1) are plot- tion of the design flood, using the unit hydrograph approach,
ted against the corresponding observed design runoff in for the basins requiring a storm duration of the order of 1,
Figures 10(a)–(c), 12(a)–(c), 14(a)–(c), and 16(a)–(c) for 2, and/or 3 days.
the Banjar, Manot, Burhner, and Shakkar catchments,
respectively. Both Q-observed and Q-computed (for differ-
ent wetness conditions) runoff values for different durations
and return periods are compared through a line of perfect
fit in Figures 11(a)–(c), 13(a)–(c), 15(a)–(c), and 17(a)–(c)
for the Banjar, Manot, Burhner and Shakkar catchments,

Figure 15. Computed and observed runoff for different wetness Figure 16. Design curve number for (a) wet, (b) normal, and (c)
conditions and return periods. dry condition and different return periods for Shakkar catchment.
78 S.K. Mishra et al.
Figure 17. Computed and observed runoff for different wetness
conditions and return periods.
Conclusions
The design runoff values derived from design storm and
design CN-values are generally quite close to the conven-
tionally derived design runoff for a given rain duration.
For a given duration, as the wetness level (wet through
dry) decreases, the CN value decreases, and for a given
AMC, as the duration increases, the CN value decreases,
and vice versa. For a given wetness condition and dura-
tion, the CN value increases as the return period increases.
This study will be very helpful for hydrologists and
engineers engaged in flood forecasting, looking for suit-
able sites for hydro-electric plant, etc. and also for soil
conservationists.
Notes on contributors
Dr S.K. Mishra received an M.Tech degree in Civil engi-
neering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur,
India, in 1985; and a PhD degree in Hydrology from Uni-
versity of Roorkee, India, in 1999. He is currently an
Associate Professor in the Department of Water Resource
Development and Management, IIT Roorkee and has 8
years of postgraduate level teaching experience in univer-
sity and 17 years of research experience. He is carrying out
research work in the field of rainfall-runoff, sediment yield,
water quality modelling using SCS-CN concept, reservoir
operation, river meandering, dam break analysis, and infil-
tration. He has published more than 100 research papers
in refereed journals, conference and workshop proceed-
ings, and edited books. He is a member of the International
Association of Hydrological Sciences, Institution of Engi-
neers (India), Indian Association of Hydrologists, Indian
Water Resources Society (Roorkee), and Board of Advisors
(ψ-fronts – Multiple Sciences journal) Jabalpur.
Sarita Gajbhiye received her B.Tech degree in Agricul-
tural engineering in 2007 and her M.Tech degree in
Soil and water engineering in 2009, both from the Col-
lege of Agricultural Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi
Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur (MP). She is currently a
PhD student in the Department of Water Resource Devel-
opment and Management, IIT, Roorkee (UK) India. Her
current research interests include geographical informa-
tion systems, rainfall-runoff sediment yield modelling, and
SCS-CN.
Dr Ashish Pandey received M.Tech and PhD degrees from
the College of Agricultural Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru
Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur and IIT Kharagpur
India, in 1998 and 2005, respectively. Presently, he is teach-
ing as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Water
Resource Development and Management, IIT Roorkee and
has 10 years of teaching and research experience. He is car-
rying out research work in the field of RS and GIS applica-
tions in hydrology, soil and water conservation engineering,
and irrigation water management. He has published more
than 50 papers in national and international journals. He
has published around 100 research papers in refereed jour-
nals, conference and workshop proceedings. He is a member
of International Society of Soil and Water Conservation
(Beijing), International Society of Hydrological Sciences
(UK), Indian Society of Remote Sensing (Dehradun),
Indian Association of Hydrologist (Roorkee), Indian Asso-
ciation of Soil and Water Conservationist (Dehradun),
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
Indian Society of Technical Education (New Delhi), Insti-
tution of Engineers (India), and Soil Conservation Society
of India, New Delhi.
References
Abdul-Karim MD, Chowdhury JU. 1995. A comparison of four
distributions used in flood frequency analysis in Bangladesh.
Hydrol Sci J. 40(1):55–66.
Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW. 1988. Applied hydrology.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Ewemoje TA, Ewemooje OS. 2011. Best distribution and plotting
positions of daily maximum flood estimation at Ona River in
Ogun-Oshun River Basin, Nigeria. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J.
13(3):1–13.
Gumbel EJ. 1958. Statistics of extreme values. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Haktan YT. 1992. Comparison of various flood frequency distri-
butions using annual flood peaks data of rivers in anatolis. J
Hdrol. 136:1–31.
Haktanir T. 1991. Statistical modelling of maximum flows in
Turkish rivers. Hydrol Sci J. 36(4):367–389.
Hawkins RH. 1993. Asymptotic determination of runoff curve
numbers from data. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE. 119(2):
334–345.
Hawkins RH. 2001. Discussion of “another look at SCS-CN
method” by Mishra S.K. and Singh V.P. J Hydrol Eng ASCE.
6(5):451.
Hjelmfelt AT Jr. 1982. Closure to empirical investigation of
the curve number technique. J Hydraulic Div ASCE.
108(HY4):614–616.
Hjelmfelt AT Jr. 1991. Investigation of curve number procedure.
J Hydraulic Eng. 117(6):725–737.
Hosking JRM, Wallis JR. 1993. Some statistics in regional
frequency analysis. Water Resour Res. 29(2):272–281.
Ibrahim HM, Isiguzo EA. 2009. Flood frequency analy-
sis of Gurara River catchment at Jere, Kaduna State,
79
Nigeria. Sci Res Essay. 4(6):636–646. Available from:
www.academicjournals.org/SRE
Izinyon OC, Ihimekpen N, Igbinoba GE. 2011. Flood frequency
analysis of Ikpoba River catchment at Benin City using log
Pearson type III distribution. J Emerg Trends Eng Appl Sci.
2(1):50–55.
Jain MK, Mishra SK, Suresh Babu P, Venugopal K, Singh VP.
2006b. Enhanced runoff curve number model incorporating
storm duration and mom-linier Ia –S relation. J Hydrol Eng
ASCE. 11(6):1–5.
McCuen RH. 2002. Approach to confidence interval
estimation for curve numbers. J Hydrol Eng. 7(1):43–48.
Mishra SK, Jain MK, Singh VP. 2004. Evaluation of SCS-
CN-based model incorporating antecedent moisture. Water
Resour Manage. 18(6):567–589.
Mishra SK, Singh VP. 2003a. Soil conservation service curve num-
ber (SCS-CN) methodology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. ISBN 1-4020-1132-6
Mishra SK, Singh VP. 2003b. Validity and extension of the SCS-
CN method for computing infiltration and rainfall-excess
rates. Hydrol Process. 18(17):3323–3345.
Mishra SK, Singh VP. 2003c. Derivation of SCS-CN parameter
S from linear Fokker–Planck equation. Acta Geophys Pol.
51(2):180–202.
Pandey GR, Nguyen VTV. 1999. A comparative study of regres-
sion based methods in regional flood frequency analysis. J
Hydrol. 225:92–101.
Ponce VM, Hawkins RH. 1996. Runoff curve number: has it
reached maturity? J Hydrol Eng. 1(1):11–19.
SCS. 1956. National engineering handbook, Supplement A,
Section 4, Chapter 10, Washington, DC: Soil Conservation
Service, USDA.
SCS. 1971. National engineering handbook. Washington, DC:
USDA.
Wilson EM. 1990. Engineering hydrology. 4th ed. London: ELBS
Publishers.
Wurbs RA, James WP. 2009. Water resources engineering. New
Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Ltd.