Tours 2012 Morphodynamique et transport solide en rivire: du terrain aux modles

USE OF HYDRAULIC MODELING TO

GEO-MORPHODYNAMIC ANALYSIS ALONG A CARPATHIAN
MOUNTAIN RIVER: PRAHOVA, ROMANIA
Daniela NISTORAN GOGOASE*, Iuliana ARMAS**,
Livioara Brasoveanu**, Cristina IONESCU*
(*) University Politechnica of Bucharest, Power Engineering Faculty, Department of Hydraulics,
Bucharest, Romania, dnistoran@gmail.com
(**) University of Bucharest, Facult de Gographie, Bucarest, Romania

CONCLUSIONS:
The natural, long-term evolutional
morphology of Prahova River channel is
mainly determined by climate, geology,
valley relief, lithology and tectonics,
tributaries and vegetation. On the other
hand, changes over the last 200 years
bear the mark of increased human
interventions.

Bed shear stress (N/m2)

400

Carpathian
unit
a)

BREAZA - NISTORESTI

Campea tributary

350

Belia tributary
43

300
250

31

200

11

100

12

32

17

D'

C'

50

49

19

150

57

36

37

B'

CORNU - BREAZA

A' 49

BELIA, COMARNIC

44

CAMPINA

0
0

Comarnic

10

12

14

16

18

20

W/D

c)

Hydraulic model Prahova River

Pl an: Plan 02 06.07.2011

modelare Prahova

Profil 54 nou

Pl an: P lan 02 06.07.2011

44

60

.045

.07

374

Legend

373

EG 1%

372

WS 1%
EG PF 5

371

WS PF 5

370

Ground

369

Bank Sta

368

50

100

150

200

250

17

300

Station (m)

.07

.045

.07

410

Legend

408

WS 1%

.045

504

.07

Legend
WS 10% Bf
Ground

503

Bank Sta

502
Elevation (Black Sea) (m)

D'

.07

EG 1%
River = Prahova Reach = A RS = 36 Profil 22 nou
Hydraulic model Prahova River
.045

Crit 1%

.07

Legend
471

WS 10% Bf

406

B'

Ground
Bank Sta

200

300

499

470

Crit PF 5

100

500

Bank Sta

WS PF 5

404

501

Ground

EG PF 5
Elevation (Black Sea) (m)

Elevat ion (Black Sea) (m)

Profil 41 nou

A'

469

498
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Station (m)

468

400
467
0

40

12
6

C'

B
37

19

C
4,000

60

80

100

120

Station (m)

32

0
2,000

40

31
11

20

Station (m)

20

Figure 1. a), b) Prahova watershed in Romania with its Carpathian and

Subcarpathian units as study reach; c) 109 cross-section surveyed along the
study reach (between Predeal and Campina) in 2006

Belia tributary
River = Prahova Reach = A RS = 44 Profil nr 14 nou

100

modelare Prahova

80

Subcarpathian
unit

36

Campea tributary
Elevat ion (Black Sea) (m)

Campina

W / D for the 20-year flood peak

b)

b)

Distance from downstream confluence with Doftana River (km)

Degradation/Erosion
Aggradation/Deposition

6,000

8,000

Photo 3
10,000

12,000

43

48
49

A
Photo 2
Photo 1 57
14,000 16,000 18,000

Distance from downstream confluence with Doftana River (km)

Erosion

Deposition

2. METHOD:
Figure 5. Computed a) shear stress values; b) Width / Depth ratio for
Q20-years show 4 areas of potential erosion (A-D) and 4 areas of potential
deposition and development of mid-channel bars (A-D). Cross-sections 4,
17, 36 and 44 still showing braiding character of the river

Qbankfull,
Q20-years,
Q50-years
Q100-years

3.2 Planform changes

b)
River = Prahova Reach = carp_subcarp

RS = 1082.73* SH Campina SH Campina

Hydraulic m odel Prahova River

374.5

Legend
Obs RC GS Campina

374.0

373.5

373.0

a)

b)

372.5

372.0

371.5

371.0

370.5
0

100

200

300

400

500

Q Total (m3/s)

Figure 2. a) TIN of the study area with cross-section lines to extract the
profiles in HEC-GeoRAS utility (USACE); b) Boundary conditions for the
hydraulic model in HEC-RAS (USACE)
1100

4000

1000
900

Main tributaries:
1 - Doftana
2 - Teleajen

Subcarpathian
reach

800
Busteni GS

700

3500

a)

3000
2500

Piedmont plain reach

600
500

2000

Lowland plain reach

1500

400
300

Campina GS

Carpathian
reach

200

1000

thalweg line

drainage area

Drainage area (sqkm)

RESULTS
Computed stream power values
show a peak at the limit of Carpathians
with the Subcarpathians. This way the
stream enters the downstream reach
with high energy. Four main areas with
high values of computed shear stresses
and corresponding low values of width
to depth ratio (W/D) were identified (AD) along the Subcarpathian reach (Fig.
5a) and b)) through hydraulic modeling.
These areas were found to match the
observed erosion areas, where the river
has incised into bedrock and eroded its
banks (Fig. 7). Other potentially
aggradation areas of low shear stress
values and high W/D (A-D) were
confirmed by field observations and
explained geomorphologically.
Maximum values of W/D were found in
cross-sections 4, 17, 36, and 44, where
the tendency of braid-bar development
in the main channel may be observed in
the detail cross-section plots (Fig. 5b).
Long-term planform changes were
evidenced by diachronic cartography
(Fig. 6).

Bed shear stress for the 20-year flood peak

a)

500

100
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Evolution of Sinuosity and Braiding Indexes

Figure 7. Incision
observed along
the downstream
reach

Evolution of characteristic lengths

80
70

2.5

b) b)

1.5
1

0
1840

3.3 Vertical changes

a) erosion area A
(Photo 1);

Distance from source (km)

0.5

Figure 6. Planform changes along Subcarpathian reach between 1864

and 2005

Morphological parameters

OBJECTIVES
1. To analyze and explain the
morphological vertical incision and
planform channel evolution (narrowing
and transition from braiding to sinuous);
2. To relate this pattern change to
hydrodynamic parameters obtained
from numerical simulations performed
with a 1D hydraulic model (HEC-RAS
software);
3. To identify the erosion/deposition
prone areas and their links with human
activities and impacts.

3. RESULTS:
3.1 Computed shear stress and width / depth ratio, for the
Subcarpathian reach

Predeal

Prahova watershed

Elevation relative to Black Sea level

(m)

METHOD
109 surveyed cross-section profiles
and digitized 1:5000 maps were used to
construct a TIN in Arc-GIS (Fig. 2). By
using the HEC-GeoRAS utility, the
geometry of a 1D hydraulic model was
extracted and exported to HEC-RAS
software (USACE) (Fig. 2).
Prahova has a reduced sediment
inflow along the study reach due to the
absence of main tributaries in the area
(Fig. 3a).
During the last 100 years an intense
decrease of morphometric indexes was
evidenced by diachronic spatial
analysis (fig. 3b). These changes may
be related to a severe anthropic impact
(Fig. 4) such as: gravel mining, river
regulation and channel works, dam
construction, sediment traps, land use
change, population increase, road and
railway construction and afforestation.
Simulations were performed under
steady flow conditions for flow values
between bankfull and the peak
discharge value of typical flood events
with a return period of 20, 50 and 100years (Fig. 2b).

1. SITE AND DATA

Sinuosity and Braiding

indexes

INTRODUCTION
Hydraulic modeling is used to verify
areas of observed erosion and
deposition over the Carpathian and
Subcarpathian reaches (about 50 km in
length) of Prahova River, Romania (Fig.
1).
Like other European rivers, Prahova
has been incising into bedrocks,
narrowing its valley, abandoning its
lateral channels and straightening its
path while crossing the study reach,
mainly during the last 100 years.

Sinuosity index
Braiding index
1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

Time (years)

1960

1980

2000

2020

c)

60
50
40
30
20

L along thalweg
L along straight line
L anabranches
Total L

10
0
1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Time (years)

Figure 3. a) Longitudinal profile of entire Prahova River and cumulative

drainage area of tributaries; b) Evolution of morphometric parameters for
the studied reach from diachronic spatial analysis (DIA)

b) erosion area B
(Photo 2);

c) Erosion area C
(Photo 3).
Figure 4. Anthropic impact within the last 200 years along study reach;