Author
 |
SMITH, ROGER |
|
Submitted to: Journal Hydrologic Engineering
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: 5/13/1996 Publication Date: N/A Citation: N/A Interpretive Summary: Interpretive Summary not required for "Discussion" article. Technical Abstract: The paper under discussion is found to be a rather partisan presentation of the Curve Number (CN) method. The authors suggest illogically that the use of a single parameter makes this method "responsive". To this the writer suggests that a truly responsive formula should have independent parameters representing all the major factors affecting runoff rather than lumping them all into one parameter. The authors also claim that the antecedent moisture condition (AMC), a method which adjusts the curve number for previous rainfall amount, accounts for the fact that the curve number actually changes significantly from event to event. The authors ignore the important factor of rainfall intensity, and the writer points out a study which showed that use of the AMC adjustment on several rainfall runoff data sets actually made the CN prediction of runoff worse than without it. Finally, it is pointed out that the CN method is popular mostly because of its simplicity and that it's government origins give it litigational security for practicing engineers. |
