Poster Tours
Poster Tours
Poster Tours
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.
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)
modelare Prahova
Profil 54 nou
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)
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
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
b)
b)
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
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
b)
River = Prahova Reach = carp_subcarp
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
600
500
2000
1500
400
300
Campina GS
Carpathian
reach
200
1000
thalweg line
drainage area
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).
a)
500
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Figure 7. Incision
observed along
the downstream
reach
80
70
2.5
b) b)
1.5
1
0
1840
a) erosion area A
(Photo 1);
0.5
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
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).
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)
b) erosion area B
(Photo 2);
c) Erosion area C
(Photo 3).
Figure 4. Anthropic impact within the last 200 years along study reach;