Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Sensitivity analysis and impact quantication of the main factors affecting peak
discharge in the SCS curve number method: An analysis of Iranian watersheds
Mohammad Reza Kousari a, *, Hossein Malekinezhad b, Hossein Ahani a, Mohammad Amin Asadi Zarch b
a
b

Fars Organization center of Jahad Agriculture, Shiraz, Iran

Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 4 June 2010

The SCS curve number method is the most commonly used method for the estimation of peak discharge
in a watershed. This method is used in numerous complex models such as SWAT, HEC-HMS, EPIC, and
AGNPS, but has never been analyzed using the sensitivity analysis, to the best of the authors knowledge.
The present study deals with the effects of the time of concentration time, watershed area, amount of
rainfall at different return periods and the a-coefcient on the nature of the SCS curve number method in
the estimation of peak discharge and its reaction to change in the input parameters (coefcient of
estimation for getting the time of effective rainfall, which is usually equal to 0.133). Results indicate the
effective role of CN on the input to the peak discharge model. The sensitivity of the model, during the
estimation of peak discharge, increases following the increase in the return period. The sensitivity
analysis of SCS curve number method was performed via the MATLAB program. Due to the increased
application of MATLAB program for general basin conditions, it can be applicable in special watersheds to
nd out the parameter(s) having a signicant impact on peak discharge.
2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In watershed analysis, the hydrological models are more diverse
rather than their other counterparts. A careful study shows that
other effective models such as sediment delivery and erosion
estimation models are affected by hydrological models and play
a basic role in the algorithm of other models. It is notable that
simple models play the basic role for complex models such as SWAT
(Soil & Water Assessment Tool) (Arnold et al., 1996), HEC-HMS
(Hydrologic Modeling System), EPIC (Erosion Productivity Impact
Calculator), and AGNPS (Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution
Model), which were developed after the SCS curve number (Soil
Conservation Service; now Natural Resources Conservation Service
{NRCS}) hydrograph method.
One of the most commonly used and widely applicable
methods is the SCS curve number method used in the estimation
of watershed ood hydrograph ordinates. Easy usage and the
availability of the models inputs and numerous outputs such as
peak discharge of ood, time to peak, lag time and ood time
make the SCS method more applicable. Many exact hydraulic

* Corresponding author. Fax: 987112299029.

E-mail address: mohammad_kousari@yahoo.com (M.R. Kousari).
1040-6182/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.05.011

models derive their input data (i.e., the peak discharge for steady
and uniform ows while ood hydrograph for unsteady ows)
from the SCS curve number method. The SCS curve number
method is widely used for predicting the storm runoff volume
(Zhan and Huang, 2004).
As for every other model, the SCS curve number model also
needs the input for getting output, where the amount of
precipitation, time of concentration time, watershed area and CN
are its main inputs. However, a question arises: which input in
which conditions is effective for the main output (i.e. peak
discharge)? Sensitivity analysis can answer this question. Sensitivity analysis accurately compares the certainty and efciency of
the models and nds the sensitive conditions for the calibration
of these models. Sensitivity analysis is less time consuming,
economical, and effective. It is important to evaluate how
a model responds to changes in its inputs as part of the process of
model development, verication and evaluation. Furthermore,
a sensitivity analysis of the models input parameters can serve as
a guide to any further application of the model. Quantitative
sensitivity analysis is being increasingly used for corroboration,
quality assurance, and the defensibility of model-based analyses
(Ascough et al., 2004).
Thus, a sensitivity analysis is usually the rst step towards
model calibration because it answers several questions such as (a)

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

where the data collection efforts should focus; (b) what degree of
care should be taken for parameter estimation; and (c) the relative
importance of various parameters (Cho and Lee, 2001). Sensitivity
analysis can be used as an aid in identifying the important uncertainties for the purpose of prioritizing the additional data collection
or research (Frey and Patil, 2002). In addition, the sensitivity
analysis can play an important role in model verication and validation throughout the course of model development and renement (Kleijnen and Sargent, 2000). Sensitivity analysis can also be
used to provide insight into the robustness of the model results
when making decisions (Saltelli et al., 2000).
Different methods are available for carrying out sensitivity
analyses and expressing their results (Lenhart et al., 2002; Van
Griensven et al., 2002; Van Griensven, 2006; Kannan et al.,
2007). Some methods use a percent change in input and report
a corresponding change in output variables. This is not always
suitable for the parameters such as saturated hydraulic conductivity and curve number (CN). Hydraulic conductivity can vary
over several orders of magnitude, and a 10% variate of a CN value
in hydrologic soil group C can lead to a CN value in the soil group B
or D (Neitsch et al., 2001). Ascough et al. (2004) have reported the
methods of sensitivity analysis especially in Natural Resource
Management with the eligibility and limitations of each method.
They concentrated on the qualitative evaluation of four sensitivity
analysis methods: 1) Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST), 2)
Response Surface Method (RSM), 3) Mutual Information Index
(MII), and 4) the methods of Sobol; and have mentioned that in
Natural Resource Management the FAST and Sobol methods are
particularly attractive.
On the other hand, there are different ways of classifying
sensitivity analysis methods, which are broadly classied as
mathematical, statistical (or probabilistic), and graphical (Frey and
Patil, 2002). Alternatively, these methods can be classied as
screening, local, and global (Saltelli et al., 2000; Ascough et al.,
2004). FAST, RSM, MII and Sobol methods are classied as statistical (Ascough et al., 2004).
In sensitivity analysis, the use of each method depends on the
structure of model, research condition and the level of accuracy.
Some methods are good for complex models and their application
to the simple model can consume extra time and energy.
The objective of this paper is to survey the effect of main factors
on the peak discharge in the SCS curve number method. The
mathematical-graphical method that determines the impact of
each input on peak discharge in a step by step manner was used. For
more accuracy and also for saving time, the algorithm for peak
discharge estimation by SCS method and sensitivity analysis were
recorded with the help of MATLAB program.
Direct application of sensitivity analysis studies to the SCS
curve number method cannot be found. Therefore, the results
from complex models that use the SCS curve number method have
been mentioned in these cases (Bhuyan et al., 2002). For the EPIC
model, sand, silt, coarse fragment contents, and CN were found to
be the most sensitive parameters (Brath and Montanari, 2003).
Another study indicated that the inltration is one of the important factors affecting peak discharge. Mohammed et al. (2004)
showed that in the evaluation of AGNPS (Agricultural Non-Point
Source Pollution) model, the CN is the most sensitive input for the
model. Holvoet et al. (2005) concluded that, in the sensitivity
analysis of SWAT model, the dominant hydrological parameters
were the curve number (CN), the surface runoff lag time, the
recharge to deep aquifer and the threshold depth of water in the
shallow aquifer. Cryer and Havens (1999) showed that the runoff
curve number was the most sensitive input parameter for the
GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems) model.

67

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Determination of the SCS curve number method algorithm
The runoff curve number (also called a curve number or simply
CN) is an empirical parameter used in hydrology for predicting
direct runoff or inltration from rainfall excess.
The curve number method was developed by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, which was formerly called the Soil
Conservation Service or SCS, and the curve number is still popularly
known as a SCS runoff curve number in the literature. The runoff curve
number was developed from an empirical analysis of runoff from
small catchments and hillslope plots monitored by the USDA. It is
widely used and is an efcient method for determining the approximate amount of direct runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area.
The runoff curve number is based on the areas hydrologic soil
group, land use, treatment and hydrologic condition.
The runoff equation is:

P  Ia 2
P  Ia S

Where:
Q is runoff; mm, cm or inch)
P is rainfall; mm, cm or inch)
S is the potential maximum soil moisture retention after runoff
begins (mm, cm or inch) Ia is the initial abstraction (mm, cm or
inch), or the amount of water before runoff, such as inltration, or
rainfall interception by vegetation; and it is generally assumed that
Ia 0.2S.
So the above equation could be written as:

Qp

P  2S2
P :8S

The runoff curve number, CN, is then related:

S 25400
CN  254 in mm. lower numbers of CN indicate low
runoff potential while larger numbers are for increasing runoff
potential.
Qp is used for computation of ood hydrograph (base on
dimensionless hydrograph) corresponding to each precipitation in
certain return period (Mahdavi, 2007).
To perform sensitivity analysis on the SCS curve number
method, its algorithm was determined and rewritten in MATLAB
(Fig. 1). CN, time of concentration (Tc), watershed area (A), and
amounts of rainfall in different return periods (2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and
100 years) were the inputs for studying the sensitivity analysis of
this program. The effect of a-coefcient was also evaluated along
with the sensitivity of the above mentioned parameters.
2.2. Determination of the input parameters
The input parameters for the sensitivity analysis were determined in articial conditions. As the SCS model supports a wide
range of inputs for driving signicant and logical results, the inputs
were divided into 4 homogenous combinations according to Irans
watershed conditions. This makes the inputs more homogenous
and can aid in analyzing the conditional sensitivity. For example,
when the time of concentration is about 3 hours, a watershed area
of about 30 km2 is more logical for this value of time of concentration. The precipitation in different return periods must also be
logical. For example, a 24 hourly precipitation of nearly 100 millimeters having a 2-year return period is far from the normal
weather conditions of Iran. CN values were determined as ranging
between 60 and 90, as these conditions are usual for Irans

68

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Fig. 1. The algorithm for peak discharge estimation for different return periods. qp peak discharge of unit hydrograph (m3.s1), Tp Time to peak (h), Tc Time of concentration
(h), S The potential maximum soil moisture retention after runoff begins (here is cm), CN curve number, PRT precipitation in related to its return period (cm), P precipitation
(cm), QRT The runoff height in cm and different return period (cm), D duration time of effective precipitation (h), Qpn peak discharge in different return period (m3.s1),
a the coefcient for determination of duration time of effective precipitation from Tc usually equal to 0.133.

watershed areas and the SCS output may be erroneous outside this
range (Mahdavi, 2007). As shown in Table 1, out of the four
combinations, the watershed area and the time concentration have
a major effect on the determined homogeneous combinations.
Table 2 shows the amount of 24 hour precipitations with return
periods ranging from 2 to 100 y. These combinations are related to
the size of watersheds.
The range of each of the input parameter for each watershed
may be different from the others, but this program only derives the
inputs and for each special condition. It can also carry out the
sensitivity analysis within that specic condition.

2.3. Program runs and discharges

In this section, with attention to the determined conditions
according to Table 1 and 2 and the algorithm of Fig. 1, one parameter in the iteration loop format changes in this range with its
repetition step as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Other parameter values
are xed at their average values. For the parameter value corresponding to the nal step of run in the iteration loop, 6 peak
discharges for six different return periods were obtained and saved
in a matrix. A numerical example can be given here to understand
the above mentioned process. For example, to nd out the effect of

Table 1
Range of inputs, means and repetition steps of watershed area, time of concentration, curve number (CN) and a-coefcient for combinations 1e4.
Combination

Area (km2)

Mean

Time of Concentration TC (h)

Repetition step
1

1e10

10e30

30e60

60e100

5.5
0.1
20
0.1
45
0.1
80
0.1

Mean

Curve number CN

Repetition step
0.25e1.0
1e3
3e6
6e10

0.625
0.1
2
0.1
4.5
0.1
8
0.1

Mean

Coefcient a

Repetition step
60e90
60e90
60e90
60e90

75
0.1
75
0.1
75
0.1
75
0.1

Mean
Repetition step

0.133e0.15
0.133e0.15
0.133e0.15
0.133e0.15

0.1415
0.001
0.1415
0.001
0.1415
0.001
0.1415
0.001

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Table 2
Return periods, means and repetition steps for 24 hour precipitation.
Return
period (y)

24eh
precipitation (cm)

Mean
precipitation (cm)

Repetition
step

2
5
10
25
50
100

0.2e0.5
0.5e1.0
1e2
2e4
3e6
5e10

0.35
0.75
1.5
3
4.5
7.5

0.001
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

curve number on the peak discharge, in the rst step, a CN value of

60 (which is the lower limit of CN range) is made to enter the
iteration loop and 6 peak discharge values having six different
return periods are obtained. Other parameters (i.e., precipitation
for 6 different return periods, Time of Concentration, Area, and acoefcient) are xed at their average values. In the next step, CN
enters the loop with a value of 60 0.1 (where 0.1 is the repetition
step for CN), other parameters are xed at their average values, and
the 6 peak discharge values related to 6 different return periods are
obtained. Table 3 indicates the process.
The same procedure was followed for other input parameters. To
perform these processes for 4 sets of parameters for more than
1000 times, the iterating loop must be repeated.
2.4. Normalization of the inputs
Sensitivity analysis is a very cumbersome process, because it has
to be carried out differently among different sets of input parameters. For example, in this case, the area of watershed is in square
kilometers, the time of concentration is in hours, amount of
precipitation is in centimeters, and the CN and a-coefcient are
dimensionless. This problem is seen when the effects of different
parameters on peak discharge are shown in the same graph. On the
other hand, for comparing and determining the relative impact of
each input parameters on the output (i.e., peak discharge), the
steepness of each curve is related to each parameter. Normalization
of all the input parameters must be carried out in such an experiment. The standardization of the input parameters makes them
dimensionless. Equation (1) is used for this process wherein the
standard normal variable is computed.

69

Table 3
The systematic program runs used to estimate discharges. The CN is changed but the
other input parameters are xed at their averages.
Name of Input
Range of inputs and outputs
parameters and
also output discharge
CN
60
60.1
60.2
60.3
80
80
80
80
Area (km2)
concentration time (h)
8
8
8
8
Alpha coefcients
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Precipitation in
2 years
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
different return
5 years
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
periods (cm)
10 years
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
25 years
3
3
3
3
50 years
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
100 years
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
2 years
0
0
0
0
Discharge in
5 years
0
0
0
0
different return
3
10 years
0
0
0
0
periods (m /2)
25 years
0
0
0
0
50 years
1.63
1.68
1.72
1.77
100 years 19.08 19.27 19.45 19.63

.
90
80
80
8
8
0.14
0.14
0.35
0.35
0.75
0.75
1.5
1.5
3
3
4.5
4.5
7.5
7.5
.
0
.
0.27
.
5.53
.
26.78
.
54.41
.
117.02

more effect on peak discharge, the relation between peak discharge

and the time of concentration or a-coefcient is an inverse relationship, and the effect of time of concentration or CN is not linear
but exponential. This creates a problem in distinguishing the relative impact of the input parameters on the peak discharge at the
same steepness of two or more input parameters. To solve this
problem, each curve is divided into two regions to distinguish
height and slope, which were then compared. Mathematically, the
dependence of a variable y on a parameter x is expressed by the
partial derivative Dy/Dx (Lenhart et al., 2002). Figs. 6e17 display
this process only for the 1th and 4th combinations, respectively.
Each gure is associated with a certain return period.
Figs. 2e5 present the general comparison among all input
parameters at 4 return periods from 10 to 100 y. For the time of
concentration and a-coefcient, which have negative slopes and
are inversely related to the peak discharge, the absolute amounts
(abs function) must be applied to access the steepness and
comparison with other curves.

Xi  X

st

Standard normal variable (1)

Where Xi is the ith member of input set for each parameter, X
and st are the population mean and population standard deviation
of each input parameter, respectively.
2.5. Effects of changes
After the above steps, the peak discharge values were compared
from each of the normalized input parameters. Figs. 2e5 display
this processes for 4 combinations as indicated in Table 1. Each group
of 5 curves in these gures is related to a certain return period. The
upper group of 5 curves is related to the 100-year return period. As
p < 0.2 s condition in the SCS method algorithm (indicated in Fig. 1),
the peak discharge for low return period values of 2 and 5 y are 0,
because the runoff amount is 0. Thus, no curve group is related to
return period values of 2 and 5 y.
Figs. 2e5 are not sufcient to display the relative impact of the
input parameters on the peak discharge. They show a general
comparison of effect of each parameter on the peak discharge.
According to these gures, each curve with more steepness has

Fig. 2. The change in peak discharge due to the change in standard normal variates of
input parameters for combination 1 given in Table 1.

70

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Fig. 3. The change in peak discharge due to the change in standard normal variates of
input parameters for combination 2 given in Table 1.

Fig. 5. The change in peak discharge due to the change in standard normal variates of
input parameters for combination 4 given in Table 1.

3. Results

discharge. From Figs. 2e5, results could be achieved from the

steepness of the curve at distinct heights. For example, Fig. 11
indicates the curves steepness for combination 1 for a 100-year
return period. The y axis shows curve steepness (slope change of
each distinct height) and the x axis is related to the standard normal
variate of the input parameters. In this gure, the more effective
parameter has a greater value. The contact point of each of two
curves indicates that the effect of a specic parameter on peak
discharge has increased or decreased.
From Fig. 11, the model is sensitive to low values of time of
concentration (TC), because its slope change values in peak
discharge are higher. By increasing the amount of curve number
(CN), TC, the slope change due to change in TC becomes lower than
that compared to the change in CN. This shows that in this range of
standard normal variate, CN is the more effective parameter especially when CN is large.

According to Figs. 2e5, a general concept of the effects of all

parameters on peak discharge values for different return periods
can be noted. For example, it is understood that the time of
concentration, especially where it has a low value, severely affects
the amount of peak discharge, because the slope of the time of
concentration is very steep as compared to other input parameters.
On the other hand, this effect increases with the increase in the
return period, because the distance among the group of 5 curves
increases with the increase in the return period. The general
distances between curve groups related to a 50-year return period
is lesser than for curves of 25-year return period. The model output
is sensitive to a shorter time of concentration and increases with
the increase in return period. In total, with an increase in the return
period, the sensitivity of the model to all of the input parameters
increases. The time of concentration and a-coefcient are inversely
related, whereas the watershed area, amount of precipitations in
different return periods and CN are directly related to peak

Fig. 4. The change in peak discharge due to the change in standard normal variates of
input parameters for combination 3 given in Table 1.

Fig. 6. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 2-year return period for combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input parameters.

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Fig. 7. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 5-year return period for combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input parameters.

This experiment determines the comparatively increased

priority of CN. In all gures and combinations, the effect of changes
in a-coefcient is less signicant than that of any other parameter.
Figs. 7 and 12 represent the slope changes in peak discharge due
to the standard normal variates of curve number (CN) for a 5-year
return period. A horizontal straight line passing through 0 is shown
in both these gures, corresponding to p < 0.2 s condition. This
indicates that no other input parameter has any impact on the
output of peak discharge.
Fig. 17 shows slope change graphs for a 100-year return period.
The effect of low amounts of precipitation is signicant compared
to that of other parameters. By increasing the amount of CN, the
impact of CN will be greater.
The 4 combinations stated in the present study are related to
Irans general watershed conditions. Different results will appear
when the sensitivity analysis is used for a specic watershed.

Fig. 8. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 10-year return period for
combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

71

Fig. 9. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 25-year return period for
combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

4. Discussion
The results derived from the present study are in agreement
with previous work (Cryer and Havens, 1999; Bhuyan et al., 2002;
Brath and Montanari, 2003; Mohammed et al., 2004). When the
time of concentration is short, this indicates small watershed area,
low potential for inltration, low loss of precipitation, more slope,
circularity of watershed, and short stream length. Any one of these
factors or a combination of them causes increased peak discharge
in the outlet. In other words, the evacuation of the ood-volume is
more that there is no storage routing in small and sloped watersheds. From Fig. 2, by increasing the time of concentration, peak
discharge decreases as compared to CN or precipitation. An
increasing concentration time is related to an increase in the stream
length, lesser slope of watershed, less slope of main stream,
increased loss of rainfall, more watershed area, more watershed

Fig. 10. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 50-year return period for
combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

72

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

Fig. 11. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 100-year return period for
combination 1 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

Fig. 13. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 5-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

elongation, and the occurrence of storage routing, as it is effective

for decreasing the peak discharge at the outlet. The inverse relationship between peak discharge and time of concentration is
related to this phenomenon.
The peak discharge increases by increasing the amount of
precipitation, which is more signicant at high return periods. The
occurrence of huge oods with high return periods conrms this
phenomenon. The watershed area shows a linear variation with
peak discharge. There is an empirical equation in hydrology
according to which an increase in the watershed area leads to an
increasing peak discharge, but this relationship is not linear. As
shown in Fig. 1, the related equation comprising the area in the
algorithm is linear and the a-coefcient (i.e., the ratio of the unit
hydrograph duration and time of concentration) is same for all the
watershed areas, but other parameters do not show a linear
equation relationship.

The parameter with the largest inuence on the peak discharge

is the curve number (CN). By increasing the CN, the peak discharge
increases exponentially and the slope of this curve is steeper than
that due to other parameters. The effect of CN on peak discharge
increases with the increasing return period and watershed area. In
the presence of large amounts of CN, the potential of the watershed
for runoff production increases. Increasing CN causes an increased
volume of ooding. Additionally, CN affects the time of concentration. An increase in CN causes the concentration time to
decrease, producing more peak discharge in the watershed outlet.
Therefore, increasing CN can affect in two ways: 1) increasing the
runoff and 2) decreasing the time of concentration. On the other
hand, a decrease in CN causes a decrease in the peak discharge. This
effect is more signicant for high return periods. It indicates the
role of CN in watershed management and ood mitigation. An
increase in CN causes an increase in the effect of precipitation,

Fig. 12. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 2-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

Fig. 14. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 10-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

73

Fig. 15. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 25-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

Fig. 17. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 100-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

which to some extent that indicates the relation between CN and

precipitation. This effect can be seen in bare soils of semiarid and
arid regions where the convectional precipitation causes large
ooding with very low inltration.
An increase in the frequency and volume of ood leads to an
increase in the peak discharges in Iranian watershed conditions
along with increased soil-degradation, and weather changes
conrm this effect. These factors cause serious degradation in the
land cover consisting of plant and soil, which generally increases
the amount of watershed CN. A number of studies have shown that
changes in vegetation cover, i.e. deforestation or the lack of forests
leads to an increase or decrease in water yield. Such changes have
been observed in catchments with different areas ranging from less
than 1 to over 1000 km2 (Richey et al., 1989; Laurance, 1998; Fohrer
et al., 2001; Huang and Zhang, 2004; Brown et al., 2005). Very low
changes in CN have an important effect on peak discharge. The

present study has shown the same effect of CN on the peak

discharge as shown by other researchers (Cryer and Havens, 1999;
Bhuyan et al., 2002; Brath and Montanari, 2003; Mohammed et al.,
2004). These models use CN method as a basic algorithm for the
estimation of runoff and ood hydrograph.
It is obvious that the effect of CN is more pronounced than that of
other parameters. Additionally, the present study has also observed
the effect of other input parameters on the peak discharge.
Many various combinations of basin conditions could be
selected for the sensitivity analysis of SCS curve number method in
Iran. Therefore, in this study, more general conditions in four
combinations have been considered. These combinations were set
to cover the general condition. For example, CN and precipitation is
more variable rather than other physiographic parameters such as
area of basin or to some extent time of concentration. The amount
of CN in each basin probably can change according to conditions
(antecedent soil moisture, land use and vegetation canopy cover,
and soil texture). In all combinations, the amounts of CN and
precipitation have been changed widely rather than time of
concentration and basin area. CN changes over these ranges cover
all conditions such as good or poor vegetation cover, and drier or
moist soil conditions.
Although this sensitivity analysis method has produced some
valuable results, this method does not indicate the interaction
between the parameters. There is a need for the application of
statistical methods in sensitivity analysis such as FAST, RSA, and
GLUE. Future works aim to survey sensitivity analysis of SCS curve
number method using these statistical methods.
5. Conclusion

Fig. 16. The slope change graph in peak discharge for 50-year return period for
combination 4 of Table 1 for different standard normal variate values of input
parameters.

The present study, with the help of mathematical and graphical

sensitivity analysis of the SCS curve number method, has clearly
established the nature of peak discharge to the various input
parameters. Within these parameters, CN and the amount of
precipitation have been identied as the main factors in estimating
the peak discharge and ood mitigation. In general, CN, Precipitation, TC, Area and a coefcient are more sensitive, respectively. This
indicates the practical and research-based importance of the allocation of time, money and skill to estimate these sensitive parameters required in the process of watershed management. Before

74

M.R. Kousari et al. / Quaternary International 226 (2010) 66e74

estimating the peak discharge in the special watershed, it is better

to test the SCS curve number method with some accurate models to
precisely estimate the affecting parameters to give more precise
estimates of peak discharges. The sensitivity of models increases
with an increase in the return period. Therefore, calibration of this
method for high return periods is necessary. Keeping in mind the
effect of CN on peak discharge, a decrease in its value can lead to
a reduction of ood, erosion and sediment delivery in watersheds.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Jahad -e- Agriculture
Organization of Fars province and University of Yazd for supporting
the present work.
References
Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Srinivasan, R., King, K.W., 1996. SWAT: Soil and Water
Assessment Tool. Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
Ascough II, J.C., Green, T.R., Ma, L., A, L.R., 2004. Key Criteria and Selection of
Sensitivity Analysis Methods Applied to Natural Resource Models. USDA-ARS,
Great Plains Systems Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO. 80526.
Bhuyan, S.J., Kalita, P.K., Janssen, K.A., Barnes, P.L., 2002. Soil loss predictions with three
erosion simulation models. Environmental Modelling and Software 17, 135e144.
Brath, A., Montanari, A., 2003. Sensitivity of the peak ows to the spatial variability
of the soil inltration capacity for different climatic scenarios. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth 28, 247e254.
Brown, A.E., Zhang, L., McMahon, T.A., Western, A.W., Vertessy, R.A., 2005. A review
of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting
from alterations in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 310, 28e61.
Cho, S.M., Lee, M.W., 2001. Sensitivity considerations when modeling hydrologic
processes with digital elevation model. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 37, 931e934.
Cryer, S.A., Havens, P.L., 1999. Regional sensitivity analysis using a fractional factorial
method for the USDA model GLEAMS. Environmental Modelling and Software
14, 613e624.

Fohrer, N., Haverkamp, S., Eckhardt, K., Frede, H.G., 2001. Hydrologic response to
land use changes on the catchment scale. Physics and Chemistry of Earth 26,
577e582.
Frey, H.C., Patil, R., 2002. Identication and review of sensitivity analysis methods.
Risk Analysis 22, 553e577.
Holvoet, K., van Griensven, A., Seuntjens, P., Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2005. Sensitivity
analysis for hydrology and pesticide supply towards the river in SWAT. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, 518e526.
Huang, M.B., Zhang, L., 2004. Hydrological responses to conservation practices in
a catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. Hydrological Processes 18, 1885e1898.
Kannan, N., White, S.M., Worrall, F., Whelan, M.J., 2007. Sensitivity analysis and
identication of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological
modelling in SWAT-2000. Journal of Hydrology 332, 456e466.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., Sargent, R.G., 2000. A methodology for tting and validating metamodels in simulation. European Journal of Operational Research 120 (1),
14e29.
Laurance, W.F., 1998. A crisis in the making: responses of Amazonian forests to land
use and climate change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 411e415.
Lenhart, T., Eckhardt, K., Fohrer, N., Frede, H.G., 2002. Comparison of two different
approaches of sensitivity analysis. Physics and Chemistry of Earth 27 (27),
645e654.
Mahdavi, M., 2007. Applied Hydrology. Tehran University.
Mohammed, H., Yohannes, F., Zeleke, G., 2004. Validation of agricultural non-point
source (AGNPS) pollutionmodel in Kori watershed South Wollo, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observationand Geoinformation,
97e109.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2001. Soil and Water Assessment
Tool-Version 2000-Users Manual Temple, Texas, USA.
Richey, J.E., Nobre, C., Deser, C., 1989. Amazon River discharge and climate variability: 1903e1985. Science 246, 101e103.
Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Probability and Statistics
Series. Wiley, New York.
Van Griensven, A., Francos, A., Bauwens, W., 2002. Sensitivity analysis and autocalibration of an integral dynamic model for river water quality. Water Science
and Technology 45, 325e332.
Van Griensven, A., 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of
multivariable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology 324 (1e4), 10e23.
Zhan, X., Huang, M.-L., 2004. ArcCN-Runoff: an ArcGIS tool for generating curve
number and runoff maps. Environmental Modelling and Software 19 (10),
875e879.