• Methods of computation of runoff

• Examples
 Computation of runoff

METHODS

Use of infiltration
Use of runoff Use of infiltration
indices
coefficient curves
 1. Use of runoff coefficient
The volume of runoff can be directly computed approximately by using
an equation of the form
Q=k.P
Where
Q= runoff
P= precipitation
k= constant depending upon imperviousness of the drainage area

Truly speaking this equation is not rational because:

“runoff not only depends upon the precipitation but also depends
upon the recharge of the basin”.
but
the equation gives more and more reliable results as the
imperviousness of the area increases and the value of k tends to
approach unity.
 Application of method

Where USED?
 Design of storm water drains.
 Small water control projects especially for urban areas
where the percentage of impervious area is quite high.

Where should be AVOIDED?

This method of computing runoff should be avoided for
rural areas and for the analysis of major storms.
 2. USE OF INFILTRATION CAPACITY CURVE
 The infiltration capacity (IC) curve is a plot of the infiltration
capacity against time.

 If the IC curve is super imposed on the rainfall hyetograph, the

resultant amount will represent nothing but the runoff.

 Natural rains of varying intensities, sometimes below and

some time above the prevailing infiltration capacity, results in
a distortion of a capacity time curve.

 It is generally assumed that the infiltration capacity at any

time is determined by the mass infiltration, which has
occurred up to that time.
INFILTRATION CAPACITY CURVE
 3. USE OF INFILTRATION INDICES
 The infiltration capacity curve already determined on test plot
cannot be applied to large basins or heterogeneous areas.

 At any instant, in a large area, the IC as well as the rainfall rate will
vary from point to point.

 Moreover subsurface flow or interflow will also be substantial.

 Since this water flow is part of infiltration, it will not normally be

included in the runoff computed by IC curve determined on a test
plot.

 Hence runoff volumes are generally computed by using infiltration

indices.

 W-index and Φ-index are the two indices which are commonly
used.
 W-index is the average infiltration rate or the infiltration capacity averaged
over the whole storm period, and is given by

Windex = F / tr
= (P – Q) / tr
where
F = total infiltration including initial basin recharge
(Potential Infiltration = Initial Basin Recharge + Infiltration)
P = total precipitation
Q = total runoff
tr = duration of rainfall in hour

 Φ-index is defined as, “the average rate of loss such that the volume of
rainfall in excess of that rate will be equal to the volume of direct runoff”.

 It can be defined the other way round as, “the rate of rainfall above which
the rainfall volume equals to the runoff volume”.

 Φ-index can be represented graphically as shown.

Φ-index and W-index will be equal for a uniform rain, but they may not be
equal for a non-uniform rainfall. However for rains which are reasonably
uniform or for heavy rains these two indices are found to be nearly equal.

Uniform Rainfall
 In a usual case of moderate rain of non-uniform intensities
the Φ-index will be somewhat higher than W-index.

 These indices will change with a change in interception,

depression storage and initial soil moisture.

 They will also change with the amount of precipitation.

 These indices are not the actual infiltration rate but the
measure of potential basin recharge.

 The runoff coefficient k can be determined if the Windex is

known by using the equation
k = (P – Windex) / P
where, P = rainfall rate
 Example # 1
Following are the rates of rainfall for
successive 20 minutes period of a 140 minutes
storm:

2.5, 2.5, 10.0, 7.5, 1.25, 1.25, 5.0 cm/hr.

Taking the value of Φindex as 3.2 cm/hr, find

out the runoff in cm, the total rainfall and the
value of Windex.
 Solution:
• From the given rainfall rates rainfall hyetograh is plotted, to see
rain intensity pattern, as shown in below Figure.

• Φindex line at a height of 3.2 cm/hr is superimposed.

• The hatched area is calculated, so as to obtain the value of
runoff:
 P Q
Windex 
tr
Example # 2
An isolated 3 hour storm occurred over an area of 120 ha as below:
Partial Rainfall (cm)
area of Φindex
catchment (cm/hr) 1st hour 2nd hour 3rd hour
(ha)
36 0.9 0.6 2.4 1.3
18 1.1 0.9 2.1 1.5
66 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.9

(i) What is the total rainfall on the catchment in this storm?

(ii) Estimate the runoff from the catchment.
(iii) If the Φindex were to remain at the same value, what runoff would be
produced by uniform rainfall of 3.3 cm in 3 hours uniformly spread all over
the catchment?
(ii)
4. SCS Method
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Method
Devised by the Soil Conservation Service now Natural Resources
Conservation Service of USA.
The SCS runoff equation is
[Eq. 1]
where
Q = runoff (in);
P = rainfall (in);
S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in); and
Ia = initial abstraction (in)
Initial abstraction (Ia) includes all losses before runoff begins.
It includes water retained in surface depressions, water intercepted
by vegetation, evaporation, and infiltration.
Ia is highly variable but generally is correlated with soil and cover
parameters.
Through studies of many small agricultural watersheds, Ia was
found to be approximated by the following empirical equation:
Ia = 0.2S [Eq. 2]
By removing Ia as an independent parameter, this approximation
allows use of a combination of S and P to produce a unique runoff
amount. Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 gives:

[Eq. 3]

S is related to the soil and cover conditions of the watershed

through the Curve Number (CN). CN has a range of 0 to 100, and S
is related to CN by:
[Eq. 4]
Parameters affecting the runoff potential of a
watershed:
(i) Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG)
Group-A: soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly
wetted e.g. sands or gravel that are deep and well to
excessively drained
Group-B: has soils having moderate infiltration rates with
moderately fine to moderately coarse texture
Group-C: soils belonging to this group have slow infiltration rates
and have moderately fine to fine texture
Group-D: very fine textured soils, which generate maximum runoff
Table 1: Minimum infiltration rates for each soil group
Group Minimum infiltration rate (in/hr)

A 0.30 – 0.45

B 0.15 – 0.30

C 0.00 – 0.05
(ii) Cover type
Table 1 addresses most cover types, such as vegetation, bare soil,
and impervious surfaces. There are a number of methods for
determining cover type. The most common are field
reconnaissance, aerial photographs, and land use maps.
(iii) Treatment
Treatment is a cover type modifier to describe the management of
cultivated agricultural lands. It includes mechanical practices, such
as contouring and terracing, and management practices, such as
crop rotations and reduced or no tillage.
(iv) Hydrologic condition
Hydrologic condition indicates the effects of cover type and
treatment on infiltration and runoff and is generally estimated from
density of plant and residue cover on sample areas. Good
hydrologic condition indicates that the soil usually has a low runoff
potential for that specific hydrologic soil group, cover type, and
treatment. Some factors to consider in estimating the effect of cover
on infiltration and runoff are:
(a) canopy or density of lawns, crops, or other vegetative areas;
(b) amount of year-round cover;
(c) amount of grass or close-seeded legumes in rotations;
(d) percent of residue cover; and
(e) degree of surface roughness.
Estimation of Curve Number
A runoff curve number is a function of land use, antecedent
moisture condition of soil, and other factors affecting runoff and
retention in a watershed.
It is basically a dimensionless number defined such that 0 ≤ CN ≤
100.
For impervious and water surfaces it is taken as 100, whereas for
natural surfaces it is always less than 100.
With the knowledge of the soil type and land use, CN for cultivated
agricultural lands can be obtained from Table 1. Whereas, CN for
any watershed can be estimated using the tables 2-2a to 2-2d
published by the SCS in their Technical Report 55 (TR – 55).
For a watershed with several different soil types and land uses, a
composite CN can be calculated as follows:

Where,
CNcomposite = the composite CN computed
i = an index of watershed subdivisions of uniform land use and soil
type
CNi = the CN for division i
Ai = the drainage area of division i
Runoff
Obtain CN from Table 1 and knowing the amount of
rainfall for the watershed, determine runoff by using any
one of following:

• Using Figure 1
• Table 2
• Eqs. 3 and 4

The runoff is usually rounded to the nearest hundredth of

an inch.
Table 1. Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands

Curve Numbers (CN) for hydrologic soil

Cover Description
groups
Hydrologic
Cover Type Treatment A B C D
Conditions
Fallow Bare soil - 77 86 91 94
Crop residue cover poor 76 85 90 93
(CR) Good 74 83 88 90
Row Crops Poor 72 81 88 91
Straight row (SR)
Good 67 78 85 89
Poor 71 80 87 90
SR+CR
Good 64 75 82 85
Poor 70 79 84 88
Contoured (C)
Good 65 75 82 86
Poor 69 78 83 87
C+CR
Good 64 74 81 85
Contoured & Poor 66 74 80 82
Terraced (C&T) Good 62 71 78 81
Poor 65 73 79 81
C&T+CR
Good 61 70 77 80
Table 1. Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands (continued)

Curve Numbers (CN) for hydrologic

Cover Description
soil groups
Hydrologic
Cover Type Treatment A B C D
Conditions
Small Grain Poor 65 76 84 88
SR
Good 63 75 83 87
Poor 64 75 83 86
SR+CR
Good 60 72 80 84
Poor 63 74 82 85
C
Good 61 73 81 84
Poor 62 73 81 84
C+CR
Good 60 72 80 83
Poor 61 72 79 82
C+T
Good 59 70 78 81
Poor 60 71 78 81
C&T+CR
Good 58 69 77 80
Poor 66 77 85 89
SR
Good 58 72 81 85
Poor 64 75 83 85
C
Good 55 69 78 83
Poor 63 73 80 83
C&T
Good 51 67 76 80
Table 1. Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands (continued)
Curve Numbers (CN) for hydrologic
Cover Description
soil groups
Hydrologic
Cover Type A B C D
Conditions
Poor 68 79 86 89
Pasture, grassland or range-continuous forage for
Fair 49 69 79 84
graving
Good 39 61 74 80
Meadow-continuous grass, protected from grazing
- 30 58 71 78
and generally mowed for hay
Poor 48 67 77 83
Brush-brush weed mixture with brush the major
Fair 35 56 70 77
element
Good 30 48 65 73

Poor 57 73 82 86
Woods-grass combination (orchard or tree farm) Fair 43 65 76 82
Good 32 58 72 79

Poor 45 66 77 83
Woods Fair 36 60 73 79
Good 30 55 70 77
Farmsteads-buildings, lanes, driveways, and
- 59 74 82 86
surrouding lots
Pakistan Indus Plains
Good Cropping pattern Good 51 67 76 30
Poor Cropping Patttern Poor 61 72 79 82
Figure 1. Solution of runoff equation
Table 2. Runoff depth for selected curve numbers (CN) and rainfall amounts
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S.

2 The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite
CN’s. Other assumptions are as follows: impervious areas are directly connected to
the drainage system, impervious areas have a CN of 98, and pervious areas are
considered equivalent to open space in good hydrologic condition. CN’s for other
combinations of conditions may be computed using Figure 2-3 or 2-4.

3 CN’s shown are equivalent to those of pasture. Composite CN’s may be

computed for other combinations of open space cover type.

4 Composite CN’s for natural desert landscaping should be computed using Figures
2-3 or 2-4 based on the impervious area percentage (CN = 98) and the pervious area
CN. The pervious area CN’s are assumed equivalent to desert shrub in poor
hydrologic condition.

5 Composite CN’s to use for the design of temporary measures during grading and
construction should be computed using Figure 2-3 or 2-4 based on the degree of
development (impervious area percentage) and the CN’s for the newly graded
pervious areas.
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia=0.2S
2 Crop residue cover applies only if residue is on at least 5% of the surface throughout
the year.
3 Hydraulic condition is based on combination factors that affect infiltration and runoff,
including:
(a) density and canopy of vegetative areas,
(b) amount of year-round cover;
(c) amount of grass or close-seeded legumes;
(d) percent of residue cover on the land surface (good ≥ 20%); and
(e) degree of surface roughness.
Poor: Factors impair infiltration and tend to increase runoff.
Good: Factors encourage average and better than average infiltration and tend to
decrease runoff.
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S.
2 Poor: <50% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch.
Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover and not heavily grazed.
Good: > 75% ground cover and lightly or only occasionally grazed.
3 Poor: <50% ground cover.
Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover.
Good: >75% ground cover.
4 Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computations.
5 CN’s shown were computed for areas with 50% woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover.
Other combinations of conditions may be computed from the CN’s for woods and
pasture.
6 Poor: Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular
burning.
Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil.
Good: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the
soil.
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S. For range in humid regions, use Table 2-2c.
2 Poor: <30% ground cover (litter, grass, and brush overstory).
Fair: 30 to 70% ground cover.
Good: > 70% ground cover.
3 Curve numbers for group A have been developed only for desert shrub.
Antecedent runoff condition
The index of runoff potential before a storm event is the antecedent
runoff condition (ARC).
ARC is an attempt to account for the variation in CN at a site from storm
to storm.
CN for the average ARC at a site is the median value as taken from
sample rainfall and runoff data.
The CN’s in Table 2-2 are for the average ARC, which is used primarily
for design applications.
Urban impervious area modifications
Several factors, such as the percentage of impervious area and the
means of conveying runoff from impervious areas to the drainage
system, should be considered in computing CN for urban areas.
For example, do the impervious areas connect directly to the drainage
system, or do they outlet onto lawns or other pervious areas where
infiltration can occur?

Connected impervious areas — An impervious area is considered

connected if runoff from it flows directly into the drainage system.
It is also considered connected if runoff from it occurs as concentrated
shallow flow that runs over a pervious area and then into the drainage
system.
If all of the impervious area is directly connected to the drainage
system, but the impervious area percentages or the pervious land use
assumptions in Table 2-2a are not applicable, use Figure 2-3 to
compute a composite CN.

For example, table 2-2a gives a CN of 70 for a 1/2-acre plot in HSG

B, with assumed impervious area of 25 percent.

However, if the plot has 20 percent impervious area and a pervious

area CN of 61, the composite CN obtained from Figure 2-3 is 68.

The CN difference between 70 and 68 reflects the difference in

percent impervious area.
Unconnected impervious areas — Runoff from these areas is spread
over a pervious area as sheet flow. To determine CN when all or part of
the impervious area is not directly connected to the drainage system,
(1) use Figure 2-4 if total impervious area is less than 30 percent or
(2) use Figure 2-3 if the total impervious area is equal to or greater than
30 percent, because the absorptive capacity of the remaining
pervious areas will not significantly affect runoff.

When impervious area is less than 30 percent, obtain the composite CN

by entering the right half of figure 2-4 with the percentage of total
impervious area and the ratio of total unconnected impervious area to
total impervious area. Then move left to the appropriate pervious CN and
read down to find the composite CN.
For example, for a 1/2-acre lot with 20 percent total impervious area (75
percent of which is unconnected) and pervious CN of 61, the composite
CN from Figure 2-4 is 66. If all of the impervious area is connected, the
resulting CN (from Figure 2-3) would be 68.
Figure 2-3: Composite CN with connected impervious area.
Figure 2-4: Composite CN with unconnected impervious areas and
total impervious area less than 30%
Limitations
• The equation does not contain an expression for time and, therefore,
does not account for rainfall duration or intensity.
• If the conditions are other than Ia = 0.2S, then one must redevelop
equation 2-3, Figure 2-1, Table 2-1, and Table 2-2 by using the original
rainfall-runoff data to establish new S or CN relationships for each
cover and hydrologic soil group.
• Runoff from snowmelt or rain on frozen ground cannot be estimated
using these procedures.
• The CN procedure is less accurate when runoff is less than 0.5 inch. As
a check, use another procedure to determine runoff.
• The SCS runoff procedures apply only to direct surface runoff: do not
overlook large sources of subsurface flow or high ground water levels
that contribute to runoff.
• When the weighted CN is less than 40, use another procedure to
determine runoff.
EXAMPLE
Find out Runoff in the LBOD project area with the following data

Table 1: Percentage wise distribution of soil groups in project component areas.

Nawab
Sanghar Mirpur Khas Badin
Shah
NDP Data
Nespak Data (2007)
(2002-04)

High Infiltration - Low runoff (A) 9.0 7.0 6.0 11.0

Moderate Infiltration - Thoroughly wetted (B) 48.0 47.0 49.0 46.0

Low Infiltration - Thorughly wetted (C) 39.0 42.0 40.0 40.0

High runoff (D) 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Table 2: Percentage wise distribution of land use during Kharif period in project
component areas.

Nawab Shah Sanghar Mirpur Khas Badin

Nespak Data (2007) NDP Data 2002-04

Sugarcane 18.0 15.0 12.0 7.0

Rice 12.0 11.0 9.0 13.0

Cotton 13.0 7.0 9.0 0.0

Fodder and other 11.0 12.0 14.0 13.0

Fallow 2.0 5.0 8.0 7.0

Barren 35.0 42.0 37.0 51.0

Urban Area 9.0 8.0 11.0 9.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Daily and cumulative rainfall in project area during monsoon 2011.
Date Rainfall (mm)
Benazirabad Mirpurkhas Badin
Daily Cumulative Daily Cumulative Daily Cumulative
10-Aug-11 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
11-Aug-11 5 5 120 120 148 148
12-Aug-11 108 113 125 245 147 295
13-Aug-11 1 114 0 245 3 298
14-Aug-11 1 115 0 245 4 302
15-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
16-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
17-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
18-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
19-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
20-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
21-Aug-11 0 115 0 245 0 302
22-Aug-11 34 149 1 246 0 302
23-Aug-11 0 149 0 246 0 302
24-Aug-11 0 149 0 246 0 302
25-Aug-11 0.1 149 0 246 0 302
26-Aug-11 1 150 0 246 0 302
27-Aug-11 0 150 0 246 0 302
28-Aug-11 0 150 0 246 0 302
29-Aug-11 0.1 150 0.1 246 0.1 302
30-Aug-11 55 205 12 258 22 324
31-Aug-11 70 275 5 263 7 331
Table 3: Daily and cumulative rainfall in project area during monsoon 2011. (continued)

1-Sep-11 19 294 4 267 15 346

2-Sep-11 67 361 50 317 24 370
3-Sep-11 2 363 0 317 5 375
4-Sep-11 70 433 50 367 19 394
5-Sep-11 25 458 17 384 6 400
6-Sep-11 0.1 458 3 387 8 408
7-Sep-11 25 483 1 388 73 481
8-Sep-11 37 520 166 554 20 501
9-Sep-11 27 547 122 676 11 512
10-Sep-11 0 547 0 676 11 523
11-Sep-11 0.1 547 0 676 7 530
12-Sep-11 0 547 0 676 22 552
13-Sep-11 75 622 190 866 60 612
14-Sep-11 6 628 0 866 0 612
15-Sep-11 0 628 0 866 3 615
SOLUTION:
Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas.

Nawab Mirpur Badin

Sanghar
Shah Khas Area

NDP Data
Nespak Data (2007)
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Sugarcane Area 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.12

Cover Type: Row crop irrigated with bund and with on-farm drainage

Soil Group A 68 68 68 68

Soil Group B 75 75 75 75

Soil Group C 79 79 79 79

Soil Group D 83 83 83 83

Weighted Average 76.25 76.51 76.58 76.07

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Rice Area 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09

Cover Type: Rice irrigated with bund and with on-farm drainage

Soil Group A 57 57 57 57

Soil Group B 60 60 60 60

Soil Group C 63 63 63 63

Soil Group D 65 65 65 65

Weighted Average 61.1 61.25 61.27 61.02

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Other Crops 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14

Cover Type: Grain irrigated with bund and with on-farm drainage

Soil Group A 60 60 60 60

Soil Group B 68 68 68 68

Soil Group C 72 72 72 72

Soil Group D 75 75 75 75

Weighted Average 69.12 69.4 69.47 68.93

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Fallow Area 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.08

Cover Type: Land Left Without Cultivation

Soil Group A 50 50 50 50

Soil Group B 52 52 52 52

Soil Group C 54 54 54 54

Soil Group D 55 55 55 55

Weighted Average 52.72 52.82 52.83 52.67

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % Barren Area 0.51 0.35 0.42 0.37

Cover Type: Rangeland, Semiarid with herbaceous misture (fair H.C)

Soil Group A

Soil Group B 71 71 71 71

Soil Group C 81 81 81 81

Soil Group D 89 89 89 89

Weighted Average 69.23 70.95 71.64 67.73

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Urban Area 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11

20% 18% 15%

Cover Type: Commercial and Residential (High impervious area)
Imperv. Imperv. Imperv.

Soil Group A 89 52 50 49

Soil Group B 92 70 68 69

Soil Group C 94 83 80 81

Soil Group D 95 90 88 87

Weighted Average 92.63 75 72.72 72.14

Table 4: Computation of composite curve numbers for all component areas. (continued)
Nawab Mirpur Badin
Sanghar
Shah Khas Area
NDP
Nespak Data (2007) Data
2002-04

Curve Number for % of Cotton Areas 0 0.13 0.07 0.09

Cover Type: Grain irrigated and with on-farm drainage

Soil Group A 74 61 61 61

Soil Group B 67 68 68 68

Soil Group C 80 74 74 74

Soil Group D 76 75 75 75

Weighted Average 73.06 70.31 70.33 69.84

Composite Curve Number for each Drainage Unit 69.60 70.54 70.03 67.77
Table 5: The composite curve numbers for all project components.

Area Impervious Curve

Project
area Number
components (acres) (mi2) (%) (CN)
Nawabshah 626000 978.1 20 70.03

Sanghar 424000 662.5 18 67.77

Mirpurkhas 376000 587.5 15 69.60

Badin 593496 927.3 10 70.54

 Table 6: The total Excess Runoff generated.

Precipitation Initial Abstraction (Ia) CN Excess Runoff

Project
Component
(mm) (mm) (mm)

Nawabshah 247.24 3.51 70.03 21.22

Sanghar 247.24 3.68 67.77 21.07
Mirpurkhas 340.94 4.34 69.6 29.76
Badin 248.03 4.11 70.54 20.71
Total 15.65 92.76