ANALYSIS OF CHANNEL CHANGES OF TISZA RIVER AT

VÁSÁROSNAMÉNY

Hydrological Planning

GROUP I

MSc of Geography,
Faculty of Science and Informatics,
University of Szeged
 Hydrological Planning

TABEL OF CONTEN

Introduction..............................................................................................................2
Data and Methodology.............................................................................................3
Result and Analysis..................................................................................................5
Conclusion...............................................................................................................9
Reference...............................................................................................................10

TABLES
Table 1. Background info (Lászlóffy W., 1982)......................................................2

FIGURES

Figure 1. Digitizing the river....................................................................................3

Figure 2. Measure the width of channel every 200 m..............................................3
Figure 3. Radius of curvature measurement............................................................4
Figure 4. Arc length measurement...........................................................................4
Figure 5. Lateral erosion calculation........................................................................5
Figure 6. River channel migration...........................................................................5
Figure 7. Lateral erosion comparison of the three channels....................................6
Figure 8. Meander migration from 1890-91 to 1929-31 and from 1929-31 to 1976
..................................................................................................................................7
Figure 9. Translation meander (2)............................................................................7
Figure 10. Extension meander.................................................................................8
Figure 11. The visualization of water level from 1876 to 2014...............................8

1
 Hydrological Planning

Introduction

The Tisza River Basin is one of the most picturesque territories of Europe.
Mountain streams, meandering rivers, diverse floodplains are characteristic of this
region – home to the unique mayfly species called the Tisza Flower (Palingenia
longicauda), which is only found in the rivers of the plains of the Carpathian
Basin. Ukraine, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Serbia share not
only the beauties of the Tisza River Basin but also the area’s problems related to
water supply, severe flooding, droughts, landslides and erosion, accidental
pollution by industrial and mining activities as well as pollution from agricultural
sources. These problems are influencing water quality and quantity, and the
management of land and water (ICPDR, 2008).

The Tisza River Basin is the largest sub-basin of the Danube River Basin
and the countries of the basin have a long history of cooperation resulting among
others in signing the Agreement on the protection of the Tisza and its tributaries in
1986 or in establishing the Tisza Forum to address flood issues in 2000. The Tisza
cooperation has been given a new perspective in line with the development of the
Danube River basin cooperation and the EU water policy (ICPDR, 2008).

It flows through following cities in Hungary : Vásárosnamény, Záhony,

Tokaj, Tiszalök, Tiszaújváros, Tiszafüred, Szolnok, Tiszakécske, Csongrád,
Szentes, and Szeged.

Table 1. Background info (Lászlóffy W., 1982)

parameter Vásárosnamény Szolnok Szeged

slope (cm/km) 8.8 3.7 2.5
bedload coarse sand, small sand fine sand
gravel
channel material sandy-gravely silty clayey
min. flow velocity 1.0 0.5 0.1 (influenced
(m/s) by Novi Becej
Dam)
min. flow velocity 2.5 1.5 2.0
(m/s)
max Q (m3/s) 3270 3800 4000
mean Q (m3/s) 330 546 810
min Q (m3/s) 45 65 95

2
 Hydrological Planning

Data and Methodology

Data, Material & Software Used:

 Everyday water stage station data from 1876 to 2014

 Images with coordinate (georeferenced maps)
 ArcGIS Software
 Microsoft Office

Methodology:
1. Using ArcGIS, Creation of the morphology of three channel (1890-91,
1929-31, and 1976) by tracing the line. Before that, defining the projection
of the images to HD72 EOV to fix the maps to their reference location.

Figure 1. Digitizing the river

2. Creation of Centreline and measurements of the channel width at every
200-meter interval.

Figure 2. Measure the width of channel every 200 m

3
 Hydrological Planning

3. Creation of the largest circle that fit to the centerline at each bend to know
the lateral erosion, maximum erosion at apex of the bend /years elapsed.
Do the measurement of radius of each circle.

Figure 3. Radius of curvature measurement

4. Arc length calculation using Inflexion points

Figure 4. Arc length measurement

5. Calculation of lateral erosion (M) using this formula:

……………………………………………….(Thien, 2017)
Where:
R(m): radius of curvature;
Bcf (m): flow or channel width of calculated hydrological section
corresponding to bed forming discharge.

4
 Hydrological Planning

Figure 5. Lateral erosion calculation

6. Calculate the hydrological discharge from station and create diagram from
the value using Microsoft excel.

Result and Analysis

Morphological Changes
The main reason of the change of the river channel is bank erosion. The sediment
taken from the bank during the process of bank erosion is deposited on the
opposing side of the channel called point bar deposition. The type of sediment
which was mentioned in introduction also has contributed to the change, for
coarse sand, small gravel, the bedload has bigger in size rather than silt, clay or
sand that much easier suspended (diluted) in water, so sediment discharge became
higher making it easier to erode.

Figure 6. River channel migration

5
 Hydrological Planning

The higher flow velocity which the minimal velocity was 1.0 m/s while maximal
was 2.5 m/s, and the higher slope with the value of 8.8 cm/km (see table 1), much
higher than the other rivers (Szeged and Szolnok) also helped in the change of the
river channel, since the steeper and longer a slope is, the faster water runs off of it,
thus making a greater potential for erosion. The channel also got wider (the
maximum width was 313 meter in both 1929-31 and 1976, while in 1890 was 280
meter), due to the erosion and point bar deposition which contributed to the
meander formation and change. This can be proven by comparing the lateral
erosion value which went so much from 1890-91 (maximum 3.96) to 1929-31
(maximum 9.46) but after that there is no significant change in 1976 (maximum
11.83).

Figure 7. Lateral erosion comparison of the three channels

The change of lateral erosion from 1929-31 to 1976 were not so significant,
therefore the change in the meander migration also not too noticeable. While from
1890-91 to 1929-31 the change of the rate was so drastic and the meander

6
 Hydrological Planning

migration was also noticeable. This is the reason why the channel width got
enlarged so much from 1890-91 to 1929-31. Thus, the revetment was built
alongside of the meander to help controlling the rate of erosion and channel
stability. It showed the revetment do work to helps to maintain the rate of erosion,
since the change from 1929-31 to 1976 was not as noticeable as the change from
1890-91 to 1929-31.

Figure 8. Meander migration from 1890-91 to 1929-31 and from 1929-31 to 1976

Meander Migration
While most of them are rotating meanders indicate by the migration or the change
of all parameter (bend length (L), radius of curvature (R), and inflection point (I)).
there are a few of translation meander and extension meander.
Translation meander: No parameter changes except the location of Inflexion point.

7
 Hydrological Planning

Figure 9. Translation meander (2)

Extension meander: No parameter change except the size of bend length (L).
Inflection points are the same.

Figure 10. Extension meander

Hydrological Change and Human Impact on Streams

1200

1000

800

600
Max
400 Avg
Min
200

0
18761886189619061916192619361946195619661976198619962006
-200

-400

Figure 11. The visualization of water level from 1876 to 2014

8
 Hydrological Planning

As per the diagram generated by using discharge data of Vásárosnamény, it is

evident that since 1885 there is a continuous decline in the average and minimum
level of water discharge. Even the average level of discharge recorded below zero
many times since 1950’s. The noticeable thing is increasing instability of
maximum values in the discharge. It is happening quite randomly since the
beginning of 20th century. So, if maximum discharge value is 850 this year next
year it is dropping down below 400 (reduced by more than 50%).
After revetment was constructed in 1960s, the water discharge become unstable,
even reach the minimum level of discharge in 2014 from all the years combined.
The revetment confined the morphological of river so the meander stayed in shape
all these years instead of enlarging or grow wider, this contributed to the decrease
in water discharge level that river can contain. The climate change should be
considered as a factor that contributed to this change in water level also, since
there should be a change of precipitation each year and an effect of urban heat
island phenomenon which increasing the evaporation rate. Also, invasive species
that comes from other region that causing water could not get through. However,
the one that creates big differences in water level is mainly caused by human, such
as the construction of revetment.

Human activities, like agriculture and settlement building give impacts to the
streams, it increases the sediment transport. Especially from the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries when the industrial revolution started and large development
of settlement were happened in Europe, Furthermore, revetment which was built
to help against erosion is creating another problem. It creates a phenomenon
called soil salinization since the revetment confine the flood, so the salt being
accumulated in soil, not being transported to the sea. It decreases the fertility of
the soil. Moreover, since the river protection like levee was built higher in surface
along the canal, it stops the flow from the melting ice in the lower surface goes to
the channel, creating another problem that we called inland-water in early spring.

The worst part is that this phenomenon of uncertainty and gap between the
discharge values are increasing every year. River regulations such as levee and
revetment construction create other problems, such as:
1. It requires more effort on levee and revetment that should repair and
maintenance every year. Increasing flood hazard every year also makes the
revetment goes weaker and need a lot of maintenance.
2. Upliftment and widening of levees too often so sediment collection rate in
flow channel increased
3. Relocation of settlement living very close to weak levee points.
4. Increased flood threat, as the passageway gets narrower (because of
revetment construction), the water flows faster, especially during heavy rain
or discharge from upstream (neighboring country).
5. Loss of agricultural production next to levee in case of flood overflow or
breach in the levee.

9
 Hydrological Planning

Conclusion

The change of channel has a lot of factor affecting the formation of meandering
river, such as erosion and point bar deposition. The type of sediment, flow
velocity, slope, width, and discharge are also the parameter that contributed to the
rate of erosion and point bar deposition. This morphological change of river
resulted to the change of hydrological also. In addition, river regulation such as
building the revetment with purpose to decrease the erosion also creating another
problem, such as, increasing flood hazard since the channel is reducing, soil
salinization and the appearing of inland-water.

Reference

Lászlóffy W. (1982): A Tisza. (The River Tisza.) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest,

Hungary.
ICPDR – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
(2008): Analysis of the Tisza River Basin 2007. Vienna, Austria.
https://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/Tisza_RB_Analysis_2007.pdf
Thien, D. Q., Ngo Tu Do, H., Nhan, T. T., Hai, L. D., Hanh, H. V., Tuyen, T. H.,
Tien, D. Q. (2017). Assessing the Lateral Erosion of Main Meandering
Rivers in the Mid-Central Part of Vietnam. Journal of Hydrogeology &
Hydrologic Engineering, 06(02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-
9647.1000154

10