26 | Indonesian Journal
of Science
& Technology,
Volume 2, Issue
1, April
2017 Hal 26-49
Indonesian
Journal
of Science & Technology
2 (1) (2017)
26-49

Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology
Journal homepage: http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ijost/

Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological Potential Zone
of Baira River Watershed, Churah in Chamba District of
Himachal Pradesh, India
Kuldeep Pareta1* and Upasana Pareta2
1

Head (Engineering & Planning Division), ACPL Global Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur (U.P.), India
2
Department of Mathematics, PG Collage, District Sagar (M.P.) India
*Correspondence: E-mail: kuldeep@acplglobal.in

ABSTRACT
In the present study, an attempt has been made to study the
quantitative geomorphological analysis and hydrological
characterization of 95 micro-watersheds (MWS) of Baira river
watershed in Himachal Pradesh, India with an area of 425.25
Km2. First time in the world, total 173 morphometric
parameters have been generated in a single watershed using
satellite remote sensing data (i.e. IRS-P6 ResourceSAT-1 LISSIII, LandSAT-7 ETM+, and LandSAT-8 PAN & OLI merge data),
digital elevation models (i.e. IRS-P5 CartoSAT-1 DEM, ASTER
DEM data), and soI topographical maps of 1: 50,000 scale.
The ninety-five micro-watersheds (MWS) of Baira river
watershed have been prioritized through the morphometric
analysis of different morphometric parameters (i.e. drainage
network, basin geometry, drainage texture analysis, and
relief characterizes ). The study has concurrently established
the importance of geomorphometry as well as the utility of
remote sensing and GIS technology for hydrological
characterization of the watershed and there for better
resource and environmental managements.
© 2017 Tim Pengembang Jurnal UPI

ARTICLE INFO
Article History:
Submitted/Received 03 Dec 2016
First revised 12 Jan 2017
Accepted 29 Mar 2017
First available online 01 Apr 2017
Publication date 01 Apr 2017
____________________

Keyword:
Geomorphometric analysis,
hydrological characterization,
remote sensing and GIS analysis,
micro-watershed assessment.

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 27

1. INTRODUCTION
Geomorphometry is the science ''which
treats the geometry of the landscape", and
quantitative procedure of the land
surface.(Chorley et al., 1957) Morphometry
is the quantitative analysis of the
conformation of the earth's surface, shape
and dimension of its landforms. The field of
geomorphology fundamentally characterizes
the topographical appearance of land by
way of area, slope, shape, length, etc. A
major highlighting in geomorphology over
the past several decades has been on the
development of quantitative physiographic
methods to describe the evolution and
behavior of surface drainage networks
(Horton, 1945; Abrahams, 1984).
Some quantitative approaches have
been documented to identify the basin
drainage
characteristics,
and
for
sympathetic of various hydrological
processes. The morphometric characteristics
at the watershed scale may contain
important information regarding its
formation development and spatiotemporal variations because all hydrologic
and geomorphic processes occur within the
watershed. The quantitative measurement
of landforms has become the current trust
of geomorphology. Earlier, it has been well
attempted
by
various
hydrologists,
geologists and geomorphologists. (Horton,
1932; Horton, 1945; Potter, 1957; Schumm,
1956; Mueller, 1968; Sutherland & Bryan,
1991;
Rahmat
&
Mutolib,
2016)
Morphometry is potentially a most
important approach to geomorphology,
since it affords quantitative information on
large scale fluvial landforms, which make up
the vast majority of earth configuration.

channel or inconsistent segment areas.
Hydrologic and geomorphic strategies
happen contained by the watershed, and
morphometric characterization at the
watershed scale reveals data considering
formation and improvement of land exterior
methods (Dar et al., 2013) and thusly is
responsible
of
a
comprehensive
comprehension
into
the
hydrologic
behaviour of a watershed. Additionally,
some of the morphometric parameters, for
example, circularity
proportion and
bifurcation ratio are input parameters in the
hydrograph examination (Jain et al., 2000;
Angillieri, 2008) and assessment of surface
water capability of an area (Suresh et al.,
2004). In this point of view, this study covers
a better thoughtful of hydrologic conduct of
the study area and the geomorphometric
analysis of micro-watersheds (MWS) for
hydrological scenario evaluation and
characterization Baira river watershed,
Churah in Chamba district of Himachal
Pradesh, India.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
In the present study, an attempt has
been made to study the quantitative
geomorphological analysis and hydrological
characterization of 95 micro-watersheds
(MWS) of Baira river watershed in Himachal
Pradesh, India with an area of 425.25 km2.
First time in the world total 173
morphometric parameters have been
generated in a single watershed by using
satellite remote sensing data i.e. IRS-P6
ResourceSAT-1 LISS-III, LandSAT-7 ETM+ and
LandSAT-8 PAN & OLI merge data, digital
elevation models i.e. IRS-P5 CartoSAT-1
DEM, ASTER DEM data, and SoI
topographical maps of 1: 50,000 scale.

Micro-watershed is the fundamental
unit
in
hydrology;
consequently,
geomorphometric analysis at microwatershed scale is helpful and better rather
carries it out on completes it on particular
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

28 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. STUDY AREA
The watershed area of Baira River is
425.25 kms2 & located between 32.85 N to
33.02 N latitude and 76.02 E to 76.38 E
longitudes (see Figure 1). The river Baira
originates from the Sach Pass of Churah
tehsil of Chamba district at a height of 5268
m, flows towards south, south-east and
finally joins the river Makkan at Buin village
of Chaurah tehsil of Chamba district in
Himachal Pradesh. Baira river is 19.07 Kms
long, however there is only one main
tributaries of the right bank of Baira river i.e.
Malin Nadi, there are some major tributaries
pouring into the left bank river, notable
amongst there are Cheni Nala, Trishan Nala,
Tabriyali Nala, Bhusandu Nala and Chhawed
Nala. The study area falls in Survey of India

(1:50,000) toposheets No. 52C/04 (I 3Q/04),
52 /08 (I43Q/08), 52D/01 (I43W/01) and
52D/05 (I43W/05). According to new
watershed codification system (Pareta &
Pareta, 2014), total 95 micro-watershed
(MWS) has covered the whole study area.
3.2. DATA USED, SOURCES AND
METHODOLOGY
Different type of data has been used for
this study. Data from satellite remote
sensing are: LandSAT-7 ETM+, ResourceSAT1 LISS-III, and LandSAT-8 OLI & PAN, ASTER
(DEM), CartoSAT-1 (DEM), and other
ancillary data i.e. Survey of India (SoI)
topographical map at 1: 50,000 scale and
geological map (GSI) have been collected
from concern agency. The details of
different data layers along with its sources
and methodology are given in Table 1.

Tabel 1. Data used, sources, and methodology
S. No.
1.

Data Layer / Maps
Topographical Map

2.

Remote Sensing Data

3.

DEM / Elevation Data

4.

Geological Map

5.

Geomorphological
Map

6.

Morphometric
Analysis

Source / Methodology
- Topographical map, Survey of India (1: 50,000)
- Toposheet No.: 52C/04 (I43Q/04), 52C/08 (I43Q/08), 52D/01
(I43W/01) and 52D/05 (I43W/05).
- LandSAT-7 ETM+ satellite imagery with 30.0 m spatial resolution: 02nd
December, 1999.
- IRS-P6 (ResourceSAT-1) LISS-III satellite imagery with 23.5 m spatial
resolution: 16th April, 2010.
- LandSAT-8 OLI & PAN merge satellite imagery with 15m spatial
resolution: 15th March, 2016.
- ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM), DEM data with 30m
spatial resolution: 02nd December, 2007.
- CartoSAT-1 Digital Elevation Model (CartoDEM) data with 30m spatial
resolution: 26th September, 2010.
- Geological map of Chamba district has been collected from
Geological Survey of India (GSI) and updated through ETM+, LISS-III
and OLI & PAN merge satellite remote sensing data with limited field
check.
- Geomorphological map along with geological structures have been
prepared using satellite remote sensing data, CartoSAT-1 DEM /
ASTER-DEM and other ancillary data i.e. SoI topographical map, GSI
geological map with limited field check.
- Morphometric analysis has been completed based on data created
from SoI toposheets / CartoSAT-1 & ASTER (DEM) and different
morphometric parameters have been generated by using ArcGIS-10.3
software.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 29

3.3. WATERSHED CODIFICATION SYSTEM
For this study, authors have been used
the watershed codification system proposed
by the (Pareta & Pareta, 2014). They have
classified entire rivers in India as “2” Indian
sub-continent
largest
transboundary
watersheds, “3” water divisions, “6” water
sub-divisions, “22” basins, “72” sub-basins,
“814” watersheds and then micro
classification as sub-watersheds, microwatershed (MSW), mini-watershed (MiniWS).
According to them, the study area
watershed is situated in the international
channel. The water division’s code is “A” all
drainage flowing into Arabian sea (A),
“AS11” Indus river; water sub-divisions code
is “A1” all drainage flowing into Arabian sea
from north India; basin code is “Id” for Indus
river; sub-basin code is “RVI” for Ravi river.
They have classified the entire Ravi sub-

basin into “8” major watersheds i.e.
AS11A1Id(RVI)1 to AS11A1Id(RVI)8. They
study area is located in the major watershed
of AS11A1Id(RVI)7. This watershed future
has classified into “12” sub-watersheds and
symbolized
as
AS11A1Id(RVI)7a
to
AS11A1Id(RVI)7l. Authors have selected 3
sub-watersheds namely AS11A1Id(RVI)7d,
AS11A1Id(RVI)7e and AS11A1Id(RVI)7f for
this study. Under the above stated subwatersheds total “95” micro-watershed has
been identified and shown in Fig. 2. The
completed code for a micro-watershed with
eight
digits
is
represented
as
“AS11A1Id(RVI)7f3”, as an example of a
micro-watershed of Ravi sub-basin, where
“AS11” represents Indian Sub-Continent
Largest Transboundary, “A” for Water
Division, “1” for Water Sub-Division, “Id” for
Basin, “RVI” for Sub-Basin, “7” for
Watershed, “f” for Sub-Watershed, and “3”
for Micro-Watershed.

Figure 1. Location map of the study area
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

30 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Figure 2. Watershed codification system of baira river watershed
3.4. GEOLOGY
A systematic geomorphic study has
been attempted for the terrain classification
and their significance with the aid of
satellite imagery, digital terrain model and
surface characters in the study area.
Presently,
the
knowledge
of
the
geomorphology of the region is very sketchy
and hence an appraisal of terrain types,
drainage basin, river valleys and the
morphometric study to understand the
history of geomorphic evolution in this part
of the Himalayan belt has been brought out
to assist in the study basin management.
The gamut of geomorphic description of
study area in the region initially dictates the
need for understanding the geologic events
reflecting the relief and hence the paper
highlights first the rock description along
with their influence on basin management.

Various folks are studies the geological
aspects of the study area (Tomlinson, 1925;
De Terra, 1939; Krishnan & Aiyengar, 1940;
Woodroffe, 1981; Boison & Patton, 1985).
They have recorded the primary rock
formations namely (i) Chamba Formation:
Slate, Phyllite Carbonaceous Slate and
Quartzite; (ii) Katarigali Formation: Dark
Grey Slate, Micaceous Sandstone and
Quartzite; and (iii) Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and Limestone. The
mountain blocks in the study area are
composed of a series of differing
architectural elements represented by
sedimentary, metamorphosed sediments
and igneous massifs in the following tectonic
sequence. The study area lies between the
two high mountain ranges, i.e. the
Dhauladhar Range in the southwest and the
Zanskar Range or the Great Himalayan
Range in the northwest. Stratigraphic
sequence of the study area is shown in
Table 2.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 31

Tabel 2. Stratigraphic sequence of baira river watershed, himachal pradesh
Age
Neoproterozoic

Group
-

Undifferentiated Proterozoic

Vaikrita

conditions
Lithology

Formation
Katarigali
Manjir
Chamba

Dark Grey Slate, Micaceous Sandstone and Quartzite
Slate, Shale, Sandstone and Limestone
Slate, Phyllite Carbonaceous Slate and Quartzite

Source: Geological Survey of India (GSI)

3.5. METHOD FOR GEOLOGICAL MAPPING
The methods adopted for this research
work is divided into two aspects namely
field and lab operations. The field operation
is essentially geologic mapping of the study
area to determine the underlying lithologic
units. The geologic mapping was carried out
at a scale of 1:50,000 using grid-controlled
sampling method at a sampling density of
one sample per 9 km2 for the collection of
stream sediments and rock samples. The
location map of field data collection is
shown in Figure 3. Total fourty-three (43)
rock and stream sediment samples were
obtained. The rock samples were collected
from different localities in the studied area,
after which they were labelled accordingly
to avoid mix up. The geographical location
of each outcrop was determined with the
aid of a Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
and the lithologic and field description and
features characteristic of each sample were
correctly recorded in the field notebook. Six
distinct lithological units were recognized in
the studied area which were compiled to

produce a geological map, which are the
slate, micaceous sandstone, quartzite, shale,
phyllite carbonaceous slate and limestone.
The major structure in the area is an
anticline, syncline, fault, fractures, joints and
lineaments, which are visible on the
lithology in the studied area.
For lab operations, a published
geological map from Geological Survey of
India (GSI) has been used for preparation of
geological map of the study area. This
geological map has been update through the
satellite remote sensing data i.e. LandSAT-7
ETM+, (30m) IRS-P6 (ResourceSAT-1) LISS-III
(23.5), LandSAT-8 OLI & PAN merge (15m),
CartoSAT-1 (DEM) data (30m), ASTER (DEM)
data (30m) by using ESRI based ArcGIS-10.3
software along with comprehensive field
work as described above. Other ancillary
data like Survey of India (SoI) topographical
map at 1:50,000 scales has also used. The
above stated data has been used for
identification
of
various
geological
parameters and lithology of the study area.
The detailed geological map of the study
area is shown in Figure. 4.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

32 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Figure 3. Location map of field data collection

Figure 4. Geological map
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 33

3.6. APPLIED GEOMORPHOLOGY
The term of applied geomorphology
implies
the
utilization
of
our
geomorphological information in fervor of
the general public or the humankind in
general. This science demonstration like a
bridge to some of the gaps that have
segregated the several disciplines of the
geomorphology. It covers those aspects of
the geomorphology that are specifically
related with environment issues and
decision making processes which are of
value of agricultural researchers, engineers,
geologists and hydrologists and in addition
geomorphologists.
The key application of geomorphology
in the study area has been observed. for
example, soil erosion, various types of slope
failure, river floods, volcanoes, earth-quakes
and faulting as natural hazards. Now and
then we found the result of the utilization of
main procedures impulsively somehow,
specifically, if there is an occurrence of soil
erosion
and
man-made
problem.
Earthquakes (natural problems) in such
conditions can be the role of expert
geomorphologist that comes in picture since
they would be able to measure of
comprehension of the combinations of
occasions that created the hazards.
Satellite remote sensing data, aerial
photographs, digital elevation model and
digital terrain model is an important tool for
preparation of geomorphological map. The
geomorphological map is can be prepared
from small scale 1:1 million to a larger scale
of 1:1,000 but it is depending on the scope,
scale, purpose and nature of problems the
geomorphological map. The detailed
geomorphological map of the study area has
been prepared through visual image
interpretation of satellite data (i.e. IRS-P6
ResourceSAT-1 LISS-III, LandSAT-7 ETM+ and
LandSAT-8 PAN & OLI merge data) (See
Figure 5), digital elevation models (i.e. IRS-

P5 CartoSAT-1 DEM, ASTER DEM data), soI
topographical maps of 1: 50,000 scale, and
GSI geological map (structural and
lithological).
The various geomorphic units and their
component were identified and mapped
(Figure 6). The important geomorphic units,
their
lithology
and
description/
characteristics are shown in Table 3.

3.7. MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Horton and Strahler were the first
geomorphologists, who measured the
various morphometric parameters of river
basin. (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1952)
Morphometric analysis is the mathematical
measurement of configuration of the earth
surface, shape, and dimension of its
landforms in a given drainage basin.
Landforms and morphometric analyses are
significant in the study of geomorphology
with the quantitative measurements of
physical characteristics of landforms to
understand the structure, processes and
evolution of landscape. It is also help to
comprehension the hydrological behavior of
drainage basin and controlled the
predominantly
climate,
geology,
geomorphology, structural backgrounds of
the river basin.
The morphometric characteristics at the
river basin scale may contain essential
information in regards to its formation and
development since all hydrologic and
geomorphic processes occur within the river
basin. The relationship between various
morphometric parameters and the abovementioned factors are well recognized by
various geomorphologists (Rich, 1916;
Wenthworth, 1930; Horton, 1932; Strahler,
1952; Taylor & Schwarz, 1952; Potter, 1957;
Schumm, 1956; Chorley, 1957; Hack, 1957;
Melton, 1958; Farvolden, 1963; Smart &

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

34 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Surkan, 1967; Faniran, 1968; Mueller, 1968;
Black, 1972; Moore & Thornes, 1976; Patton
& Baker, 1976; Pareta, 2004). They have
documented that relations are very
significant
between
hydrological
characteristics, geological and geomorphic
characteristics of river basin system. Several
key hydrologic phenomena can be linked
with the physiographic characteristics of
river basin such as size, shape, geometry,
drainage density, relief, slope of drainage
area, size and length of the contributories
etc. (Rastogi & Sharma, 1976). The
quantitative analysis of morphometric
parameters is found to be of huge utility in
river
basin
evaluation,
watershed
prioritization for soil and water conservation
and natural resources management. The
morphometric analysis of the Baira river
watershed has been carried out based on
satellite remote sensing data (i.e. IRS-P6

ResourceSAT-1 LISS-III, LandSAT-7 ETM+ and
LandSAT-8 PAN & OLI merge data), digital
elevation models (i.e. IRS-P5 CartoSAT-1
DEM, ASTER DEM data), and soI
topographical maps of 1: 50,000 scale. The
drainage network with stream order has
been generated by using above stated DEM
data and rectified its using SoI topographical
maps through ArcGIS-10.3 software. Stream
ordering has been generated using (Strahler,
1952) system, and ArcHydro tool in ArcGIS10.3 software. First time in the world,
authors have investigated “One-Hundred
and
Seventy-Three
Morphometric
Parameters” of a single watershed. Out of
173
parameters,
54
morphometric
parameters have been directly analysed and
generated
in
ArcGIS-10.3
software.
Morphometric parameters of Baira river
watershed with formula, references and
result are shown in Table 4.

Figure 5. LandSAT-8 PAN & OLI merge satellite
Imagery
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 35

Tabel 1. Important geomorphic units of the Baira river watershed conditions
S.
No.
1.

Geomorphic Units
or Landforms
Valley Fills

Map
Symbol
VF

Lithology

Description / Characteristic

Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone

2.

Pediplain (Katarigali)

PP (KG)

3.

Buried Pediment
(Manjir
Sedimentary)
Pediment (Chamba)

BP (MN)
SST

5.

Structural Valley
(Manjir)

SV (MN)

6.

Sandstone Upland
(Katarigali)

SST(KG)

7.

Sandstone Upland
(Manjir)

SST(MN)

8.

Sandstone Upland
(Chamba)

SST(CB)

9.

Denudational Hills
(Katarigali)

DHM
(KG)

10.

Denudational Hills
(Manjir)

DHM
(MN)

11.

Denudational Hills
(Chamba)

DHM
(CB)

12.

Structural Hills
(Katarigali)

SH (KG)

13.

Structural Hills
(Manjir)

SH (MN)

14.

Structural Hills
(Chamba)

SH (CB)

15.

River

R

Katarigali Formation: Dark
Grey Slate, Micaceous
Sandstone and Quartzite
Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone
Chamba Formation: Slate,
Phyllite Carbonaceous
Slate and Quartzite
Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone
Katarigali Formation: Dark
Grey Slate, Micaceous
Sandstone and Quartzite
Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone
Chamba Formation: Slate,
Phyllite Carbonaceous
Slate and Quartzite
Katarigali Formation: Dark
Grey Slate, Micaceous
Sandstone and Quartzite
Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone
Chamba Formation: Slate,
Phyllite Carbonaceous
Slate and Quartzite
Katarigali Formation: Dark
Grey Slate, Micaceous
Sandstone and Quartzite
Manjir Formation: Slate,
Shale, Sandstone and
Limestone
Chamba Formation: Slate,
Phyllite Carbonaceous
Slate and Quartzite
-

The unconsolidated sediment deposited to fill a
valley, sometimes controlled by fracture forming
linear depression.
Thin soil covered erosional surface developed over
meta-sedimentary rock i.e. quartzite, slate, etc. Low
relief, gently sloping, undulating terrain.
Broad, gently sloping, erosional surface covered with
detritus of sandstone, shale and thin veneer of soil.

16.
17.
18.

Snow Covered Areas
Glaciated Valley
Fold, Fault

SC
GV
--------

-

19.

Lineaments

--------

-

4.

PM (CB)

Broad, gently to moderate sloping, erosional surface
covered with detritus of sedimentary rocks.
Low to moderate relief undulating topography.
Normally cultivated soil thickness varies from place
to place.
Deep sites with sand, slate on uplands. Narrow sites
on slopes of hills, scarps and valley sides. Moderate
to high sloping.
Narrow sites on slopes of hills, scarps and valley
sides. Moderate to high sloping. Deep sites with
sand, slate, shale, limestone on uplands.
Narrow sites on slopes of hills, scarps and valley
sides. Moderate to high sloping. Deep sites with
slate, sand, quartzite.
High relief, moderate to steep slope, barren,
moderate to high hills. Generally seen sand, slate and
quartzite.
High relief, moderate to steep slope, barren,
moderate to high hills. Generally seen sand, slate,
shale and limestone.
High relief, moderate to steep slope, barren,
moderate to high hills. Generally seen sand, slate and
quartzite.
Very high relief, steep sloping, barren, covered with
natural vegetation with slate, sand and quartzite.
Very high relief, steep sloping, barren, Covered with
natural vegetation with slate, shale, sand, and
limestone.
Very high relief, steep sloping, barren, Covered with
natural vegetation with slate and quartzite.
Baira river and its tributaries i.e. Malin Nadi, Cheni
Nala, Trishan Nala, Tabriyali Nala, Bhusandu Nala and
Chhawed Nala.
Snow covered areas and hills.
Glaciated valley.
Quartz intrusions that cut across the country rock
Phyllite Slate and Quartzite.
Fractures, joints, shear zone, contact zones, other
linear features and straight stream courses

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

36 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Figure 6. Geomorphological map

Tabel4.4.(continued)
Comparison
of drainageofbasin
characteristics
of Baira river
watershed
Tabel
Comparison
drainage
basin characteristics
of Baira
river
watershed Watershed conditions

S. No.
A
1
2
3
4
5

Morphometric Parameter
Drainage Network
Stream Order (Su)
Total No. of 1st Order Stream (Suf1)
Total No of 2nd Order Stream (Suf2)
Stream Number (Nu)
Left Bank Tributaries Stream Number (Nulb)

6

Right Bank Tributaries Stream Number (Nurb)

7
8
9
10
11
12

14
15

Stream Number Symmetry Index (Nusi)
Total Length of 1st Order Stream (L1)
Total Length of 2nd Order Stream (L2)
Stream Length (Lu) Kms
Average Length of First Order Stream (Lu1)
Average Length of Second Order Stream (Lu2)
Ratio between Average Lengths of First to
Second Order Streams [Lu(1/2)]
Stream Length Ratio (Lur)
Mean Stream Length Ratio (Lurm)

16

Weighted Mean Stream Length Ratio (Luwm)

17
18

Left Bank Tributaries Stream Length (Lulb)
Right Bank Tributaries Stream Length (Lurb)

13

Formula

Reference

Result

Hierarchical Rank
Suf1 = N1
Suf2 = N2
Nu = N1+N2+ ……Nn
Nulb = N1lb + N2lb + …….Nnlb
Nurb = N1rb + N2rb +
…….Nnrb
Nusi = Nulb / Nurb
L1
L2
Lu = L1+L2 …… Ln
Lu1 = L1 / N1
Lu2 = L2 / N2

(Strahler,1952)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Horton, 1945)
(Horton, 1945)

1 to 7
1580
371
2074
1233

(Horton, 1945)

841

(Pareta, 2004)
(Horton, 1945)
(Horton, 1945)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)

1.47
875.75
252.89
1333.91
0.55
0.68

Lu(1/2) = Lu1 / Lu2

(Strahler, 1952)

0.81

Lur = Lu / (Lu+1)
Lurm = Ʃ Lur / Max Su-1
Luwn = Ʃ[Lur * (Lu + (Lu+1))] /
Ʃ [Lu + (Lu+1)]
Lulb = L1lb + L2lb + …….Lnlb
Lurb = L1rb + L2rb + …….Lnrb

(Strahler, 1952)
(Horton, 1945)

1.43 to 3.46
2.37

(Horton, 1945)

3.04

(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)

839.35
494.56

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 37

Tabel 4. (continued) Comparison of drainage basin characteristics of Baira river
S. No.
19
20
21

watershed Watershed conditions

22

Weighted Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbwm)

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Left Bank Tributaries Bifurcation Ratio (Rblb)
Right Bank Tributaries Bifurcation Ratio (Rbrb)
Bifurcation Ratio Symmetry Index (Rbsi)
Main Channel Length (Cl) Kms
Flow Path Length (Lfp) Kms
Valley Length (Vl) Kms
Minimum Aerial Distance (Adm) Kms
Channel Index (Ci)
Valley Index (Vi)
Rho Coefficient (ρ)

Formula
Lusi = Lulb / Lurb
Rb = Nu / (Nu+1)
Rbm = Ʃ Rb / Max Su-1
Rbwm = [Lu+(Lu+1)] / [Rb *
{Lu+(Lu+1)}]
Rblb = Nulb / (Nulb+1)
Rbrb = Nurb / (Nurb + 1)
Rbsi = Nulb / Nurb
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
Ci = Cl / Adm (H & TS)
Vi = Vl / Adm (TS)
ρ = Lur / Rb

33

Angle of the 1st Order Stream (An1)

GIS Software Analysis

(Schumm, 1956)

34
35
B

GIS Software Analysis
Aμ = An1 * Jr (μ-1)

(Schumm, 1956)
(Schumm, 1956)

GIS Software Analysis

(Black, 1972)

13.03

37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Junction Ratio (Jr)
Law of Junction Angle (Aμ)
Basin Geometry
Length from WS Center to Mouth of WS (Lcm)
Kms
Width of WS at the Center of Mass (Wcm) Kms
Basin Length (Lb) Kms
Mean Basin Width (Wb)
Basin Area (A) Sq Kms
Mean Area of 1st Order Stream (Am1)
Stream Order wise Mean Area (Am)
Mean Area Ratio (Arm)

(Black, 1972)
(Schumm, 1956)
(Horton, 1932)
(Schumm, 1956)
-

16.81
23.53
18.07
425.25
0.18
0.92
0.68

44

Weighted Mean Area Ratio (Arwm)

-

0.77

45
46
47

Basin Perimeter (P) Kms
Relative Perimeter (Pr)
Length Area Relation (Lar)

GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
Wb = A / Lb
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
DEM & GIS Software Analysis
Arm = Am / (Am+1)
Arwn = Ʃ[Su * Nu] / Ʃ[Am
*Arm]
GIS Software Analysis
Pr = A / P
Lar = 1.4 * A0.6

99.17
4.29
52.88

48

Lemniscate’s (k)

k = Lb2 / A

49
50
51
52

Form Factor Ratio (Rf)
Shape Factor Ratio (Rs)
Elongation Ratio (Re)
Elipticity Index (Ie)

Ff = A / Lb2
Sf = Lb2 / A
Re = 2 / Lb * (A / π) 0.5
Ie = π * Vl2 / 4 A

53

Texture Ratio (Rt)

Rt = N1 / P

54
55
56
57
58

Circularity Ratio (Rc)
Circularity Ration (Rcn)
Drainage Texture (Dt)
Compactness Coefficient (Cc)
Fitness Ratio (Rfi)

Rc = 12.57 * (A / P2)
Rcn = A / P
Dt = Nu / P
Cc = 0.2841 * P / A 0.5
Rf = Cl / P

59

Wandering Ratio (Rw)

Rw = Cl / Lb

60

Watershed Eccentricity (τ)

τ = [(|Lcm2-Wcm2|)]0.5/Wcm

(Schumm, 1956)
(Schumm, 1956)
(Hack, 1957)
(Chorley et al.,
1957)
(Horton, 1932)
(Horton, 1932)
(Schumm, 1956)
(Schumm & Lichty,
1965)
(Potter, 1957)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Horton, 1945)
(Melton, 1958)
(Smart & Surkan,
1967)
(Black, 1972)

61

Centre of Gravity of the Watershed (Gc)

GIS Software Analysis

(Rao, 1998)

36

Morphometric Parameter
Stream Length Symmetry Index (Lusi)
Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)
Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Reference
(Pareta, 2004)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)

Result
1.70
2.33 to 4.26
3.54

(Strahler, 1952)

4.08

(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Pareta, 2004)
(Miller, 1968)
(Miller, 1968)
(Horton, 1945)

3.80
3.07
1.24
25.91
24.99
23.53
23.81
1.09
0.99
0.98
72.23
(Average)
0.53
38.55

1.30
0.77
1.30
0.99
1.02
15.93
0.54
4.29
20.91
1.37
0.26
1.10
0.76
76.204 E &
32.921 N

38 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Tabel 4. (continued) Comparison of drainage basin characteristics of Baira river
S. No.
62
63
64

watershed Watershed conditions

74

Morphometric Parameter
Hydraulic Sinuosity Index (Hsi) %
Topographic Sinuosity Index (Tsi) %
Standard Sinuosity Index (Ssi)
Longest Dimension Parallel to the Principal
Drainage Line (Clp) Kms
Area of the Basin to the Right of the Trunk
Stream that Facing Downstream (Ar) Sq Kms
Distance from the Midline of the Drainage
Basin to the Midline of the Active Meander
Belt (Damb)
Distance from the Basin Midline to the Basin
Divide (Dbd)
Area of Left Bank Tributaries (Alb) Sq Kms
Area of Right Bank Tributaries (Arb) Sq Kms
Drainage Basin Asymmetry (Bas)
Transverse Topographic Symmetry Factor
(TTSF)
Ratio of First Order Stream Number to
Perimeter (PN1)
Basin Area Symmetry Index (Bsi)

75

Valley Width (Vwid) Mts

76
77
78

Meander Width Ratio (MWR)
Stream Meander Length (Lm)
Meander Length Ratio (Lmr)

79

2D Area of Watershed (A2d) Sq Kms

80

3D Arrea of Watershed (A3d) Sq Kms

81

Watrshed Volume (Vw) Cubic Meter

C
82
83

85
86

Drainage Texture Analysis
Stream Frequency (Fs)
Drainage Density (Dd) Km / Kms2
Constant of Channel Maintenance (Kms2 / Km)
C
Drainage Intensity (Di)
Infiltration Number (If)

87

Drainage Pattern (Dp)

-

(Horton, 1932)

88

Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Kms

(Horton, 1945)

89

Flow Direction (Fdi)

-

NW to SE

90

Flow Accumulation (Range in M) Fac

91
92
D
93
94
95
96

Lg = A / (2 * Lu)
Spatial Analyst-Hydrology
Tool in ArcGIS-10.3
Spatial Analyst-Hydrology
Tool in ArcGIS-10.3
Rbs = A / Dd
Fst = N1 / A

1.55
15.30
Dendritic,
Radial
0.16

Basin-scale Ruggedness (Rbs)
1st Order Stream Frequency (Fst)
Relief Characterizes
Height of Basin Mouth (Zbm) M
GIS Analysis / DEM
Minimum Height in the Basin (Zmi) M
GIS Analysis / DEM
Maximum Height of the Basin (Zmx) M
GIS Analysis / DEM
Mean Height Value (Hmv)
Summary Statistics for WS
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

84

Formula
Hsi = ((Ci - Vi)/(Ci - 1))*100
Tsi = ((Vi - 1)/(Ci - 1))*100
Ssi = Ci / Vi

Reference
(Mueller, 1968)
(Mueller, 1968)
(Mueller, 1968)

Result
113.33
-13.33
1.10

GIS Software Analysis

-

25.92

GIS Software Analysis

-

169.62

GIS Software Analysis

(Cox, 1994)

11.34

GIS Software Analysis

(Cox, 1994)

4.41

GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
Bas = 100 (Ar / A)

-

255.63
169.62
39.89

TTSF = Damb / Dbd

(Cox, 1994)

2.57

PN1 = N1 / P

-

15.93

Bsi = Alb / Arb
Vwid = Valley width 0.5 Km
from basin mouth
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
Lmr = Lm / MWR
3D Analyst-Surface Volume
Tool in ArcGIS-10.3
A3d = 2D Area / Cosine (Slope
in degrees)
3D Analyst-Surface Volume
Tool in ArcGIS-10.3

(Pareta, 2004)

1.51

-

4.83

-

1.52
23.81
15.66

-

423.72

-

527.62

-

811569.78

Fs = Nu / A
Dd = Lu / A

(Horton, 1932)
(Horton, 1932)

4.88
3.14

C = 1 / Dd

(Schumm, 1956)

0.32

Di = Fs / Dd
If = Fs * Dd

(Faniran, 1968)
(Faniran, 1968)

(Miller, 1968)

703 to
35,855
135.57
3.72

-

1178
1155
5268
3206.17

-

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 39

Tabel 4. (continued) Comparison of drainage basin characteristics of Baira river
watershed Watershed conditions

S. No.

Morphometric Parameter

97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

Total Basin Relief (H) m
Relief Ratio (Rhl)
Absolute Relief (Ra) m
Relative Relief Ratio (Rhp)
Average Divide Elevation (Eda)
Divide Average Relief (Rad)
Dissection Index (Dis)
Channel Gradient (Cg) m / Kms
Gradient Ratio (Rg)
Watershed Slope (Sw)

Formula
Raster; not median / GIS
Software
H = Zmx – Zbm
Rhl = (H / Lb) / 100
GIS Analysis / DEM
Rhp = (H * 100) / P
Eda = H / Rhl
Rad = Eda – Zbm
Dis = H / Ra
Cg = H / {(π/2) * Clp}
Rg = (Zmx - Zmi) / Lb
Sw = H / Lb

Reference

Result

4090
1.74
1155
4124.23
2353
1175
3.54
50.22
174.80
173.82

MRn = H / A0.5
GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis

(Strahler, 1952)
(Schumm, 1956)
(Melton, 1958)
(Farvolden, 1963)
(Sreedevi, 2004)
(Patton & Baker,
1976)
(Melton, 1965)
-

107

Ruggedness Number (Rn)

Rn = Dd * (H / 1000)

108
109
110

Melton Ruggedness Number (MRn)
Total Contour Length (Ctl) Kms
Contour Interval (Cin) m

Curvature - 3D Analyst Tools
in ArcGIS-10.3

(Moore & Thornes,
1976)

GIS Software Analysis

(Strahler, 1952)

Awc = A / {(L1+L2) / 2}

(Strahler, 1952)

9.90

114
115
116

Length of Two Successive Contours (L1+L2) Km
Average Width between Two Successive
Contours (Awc)
Stream Length-Gradient Index (SLgi) in M
Mean Stream Channel Gradients (Smcg)
Slope Analysis (Sa)

198.34
12869.96
20
Ranging from
(+) 19.16 to () 17.42
107.95

111

Plan Curvature (Plc)

112

SLgi = (Zmx - Zmi) * Lfp
Smcg = H / Cl
GIS Analysis / DEM

164.59
157.85
500’-4703’

117

Average Slopes of 1st Order Streams (AS1)

GIS Analysis / DEM

118
119
120
121

Slope Gradient (tan β) 0
Maximum Slope Value Raster (Smax)
Minimum Slope Value Raster (Smin)
Slope Variability (Sva)

GIS Analysis / DEM
GIS Analysis / DEM
GIS Analysis / DEM
Sva = Smax – Smin

122

Slope Index (Sin)

Sin = H / Lb

123

Slope Ration (Sr)

Sr = AS1 / (AS1+1)

(Azor et al., 2002)
(Rich, 1916)
(Sreedevi et al.,
2009)
(Taylor & Schwarz,
1952)
(Sreedevi et al.,
2009)

124

Profile Curvature (CuPr)

Curvature - 3D Analyst Tools
in ArcGIS-10.3

-

125

Platform Curvature (CuPl)

Curvature - Spatial Analyst in
ArcGIS-10.3

-

126

Slope Aspect (Sas)

3D Analyst Tools in ArcGIS10.3

-

127

Average Slope (S) %

S = (Z * (Ctl/H)) / (10 * A)

128

Hack’s Stream-Length (SLh)

SLh = (Δ H / Δ Lu) / Lu

129

Mean Slope Ratio (Sm)

130

Weighted Mean Slope Ratio (Swm)

131

Mean Slope of Overall Basin (Ѳs)

113

Ѳs = (Ctl * Cin) / (A * 100)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

(Wenthworth’s,
1930)
(Hack, 1973)
(Wenthworth’s,
1930)
(Wenthworth’s,
1930)
(Chorley et al.,

12.83

35.89
27.33
68.21
2.38
65.83
173.82
0.97
Ranging from
(+) 16.19 to () 18.22
Ranging from
(+) 35.22 to () 31.55
South (157.5202.5)
3.90
0.0023
2.03
2.64
6.05

40 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Tabel 4. (continued) Comparison of drainage basin characteristics of Baira river
S. No.

Morphometric Parameter

132

Length-Slope Factor (LSf)

watershed Watershed conditions
Formula

135

Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) or
Compound Topographic Index (CTI) or
Topographic Moisture Index (TMI) or Hillslope
Wetness Index (HWI)
Upslope Contributing Area per Unit Contour
Length (Aus)
Relative Stream Power (SPr)

136

Stream Power Index (SPI)

137

Topographic Position Index (TPI) or Relative
Topographic Position (RTP) or Local Elevation
Index (LEI)

133

134

LSf = 1.4 * [(A/22.13)^0.4] *
[(tan β / 0.0896)^1.3]

Reference
1957)
(Moore & Wilson,
1992)

TWI = ln (A / tan β)

(Moore et al., 1991)

15.00

Aus = Ctl / A

(Moore et al., 1991)

30.26

SPr = Aus * tan β
SPI = A * tan β or
SPI = Ln(((FlowAccum_Raster)
+ 0.001) *
((Slope_Raster)/100) + 0.001))
(in ArcGIS 10.3)
TPI = (“smtDEM″ - “minDEM”)
/ (“maxDEM” - “minDEM”),
where: minDEM = Name of
minimum elevation raster,
maxDEM = Name of
maximum elevation raster,
smtDEM = Name of smoothed
elevation raster

(Lindsay, 2005)

827.13

(Moore et al., 1993)

15.560

(Jenness, 2005)

138

Slope Position Classification (SPC)

Topography Tools in ArGIS10.3

(Jenness, 2005)

139

Landform Classification (LC)

Topography Tools in ArGIS10.3

(Jenness, 2005)

140

Topographic Convergence Index (TCI)

141

143
144

Terrain Characterization Index (TCHi)
Length along the Edge of the Mountain
Piedmont Junction (Lmej)
Overall Length of the Mountain Front (Lmf)
Mountain Front Sinuosity Index (Simf)

145

Terrain Roughness Index (TRI)

146

Relative Height (h/H)

142

Result
7748.62

Ranging from
(+) 341.23 to
(-) 301.81 at
50m nb

Valleys, cliff
base, mid
slope, ridge /
hilltop /
canyon edge
Canyons,
deeply
incised
streams,
upland
drainages,
high ridges /
hills

Ln (flow accum+1) /
(tan(((slope Deg.) * 3.141593)
/ 180))
TCHi = TCI * In Aus

-

18.99

(Park et al., 2001)

64.75

GIS Software Analysis

-

49.585

GIS Software Analysis
Simf = Lmej / Lmf
TRI = √(Abs((FS3x3max)^2) ((FS3x3max)^2)), where:
FS3x3max = Focal statistics of
DEM with 3m size / type
minimum, FS3x3max = Focal
statistics of DEMwith 3m size
/ type maximum
h/H

-

11.765
4.21

(Riley, 1999)

Highly
Rugged

(Strahler, 1952)

100 to 0

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 41

Tabel 4. (continued) Comparison of drainage basin characteristics of Baira river
S. No.
147
148
149
150

Morphometric Parameter
Relative Area (a/A)
Hypsometric Index (HI)
Hypsometric Integral (Hi) %
Erosional Integral (Ei) %

151

Stage of Watershed (WSs)

152

watershed Watershed conditions

Reference
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)
(Strahler, 1952)

Result
0 to 100
0.50
58.33
41.67

(Strahler, 1952)

Mature

Clinographic Analysis (Clga)

Formula
a/A
HI = (Hmv - Zmi) / (Zmx - Zmi)
Hypsom Curve h/H & a/A
Hypsom Curve h/H & a/A
According to Hypsometric
Integral
Tan Q = Cin / Awc

(Strahler, 1952)

153

Erosion Surfaces (Es) m

Superimposed Profiles

(Potter, 1957)

154

Surface Area of Relief (Rsa) Sq Kms

-

155

Composite Profile Area (Acp) Sq Kms

156

Minimum Elevated Profile Area as Projected
Profile (App) Sq Kms

157
158

Erosion Affected Area (Aea) Sq Kms
Total Soil Loss (SE) [Tonnes/Hectare/Year]

159

Longitudinal Profile Curve Area (A1) Sq Kms

160

Profile Triangular Area (A2) Sq Kms

Composite Profile
Area between the Composite
Curve and Horizontal Line
Area between the Minimum
Elevated Profile as Projected
Profile and Horizontal Line
Aea = Acp - App
TSL = R*K*LS*C*P
Area between the Curve of
the Profile and Horizontal Line
Triangular Area created by
that Straight Line, the
Horizontal Axis Traversing the
Head of the Profile

2.02
2610, 3130,
3450, 3900 &
4705
331.77

161

Concavity Index (Ca)

162

Sediment Transport Capacity Index (STCI)

163
164
165
166
167

169
170

Mean Ground Slope Angle (Sma) Degree
Sediment Area Factor (Saf)
Sediment Movement Factor (Smf)
Transport Efficiency Factor (Tef)
Sediment Yield (Sy) Metric Tons Kms-2 yr-1
Elevation of the Valley Floor or Stream Channel
(Esc) Mts
Elevations of the Left Valley Divides (Elvd) Mts
Elevations of theRight Valley Divides (Ervd) Mts

171

Valley Floor Width to Valley Height Ratio (Vf)

172

Hillslope Erosion Potential (HEP)

173

Specific Weight of Sediment (Quartz) γs

168

(Pareta, 2004)

331.77

(Pareta, 2004)

105.84

(Pareta, 2004)
(Snow &
Slingerland, 1987)

225.93
145.12
122.05

(Snow &
Slingerland, 1987)

211.84

Ca = A1 / A2

(Snow &
Slingerland, 1987)

0.58

STCI = [1.4 * ((A / 22.13)^0.4)]
* [(tanβ / 0.0896)^1.3]

(Moore et al., 1991)

7748.62

Saf = P / Cos Ѳ Sma
Smf = Saf * Cos Ѳ Sma
Tef = Rbm * Ʃ Lu
Sy = ƒ (Saf, Smf, Tef)

(Lustig, 1966)
(Lustig, 1966)
(Lustig, 1966)
(Lustig, 1966)

33.50
118.93
99.17
0.0027
218.10

GIS Software Analysis

-

1314.00

GIS Software Analysis
GIS Software Analysis
Vf = (2 * Vwid) / ((Elvd - Esc) +
(Ervd - Esc))
HEP = (Pma * S) / 1000,
where, Pma (Mean Annual
Precipitation): 860.95 mm
(Chamba)
Density relative to Water
(1.65 Constant for Quartz)

-

2783.00
4278.00

-

0.0022

(Mitchell &
Montgomery, 2006)

3.36

-

1.65

3.8. CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF DRAINAGE
MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS
Statistics analyses are useful in a
variability of fields in hydrological research.

These
analyses
are
valuable
for
understanding of morphometric parameters
and linking the same to particular
hydrological forms. Statistical analysis of

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

42 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

inter-relationship
of
morphometric
parameters are help to understanding the
terrain characteristics for hydrological
potential at micro-watershed level as well
watershed management and planning.
A correlation matrix Table 5 of Baira
river watershed and its 95 micro-watershed
(MSW) has been generated with the
selected 13 morphometric parameters (i.e.
Area (A), perimeter (P), stream number
(Nu), stream length (Lu), form factor (Ff),
shape factor (Sf), elongation ratio (Re),
texture ratio (Rt), circularity ratio (Rc),
drainage texture (Dt), stream frequency (Fs),
drainage density (Dd), length of overland
flow (Lg)). The preliminary observation is
confirmed by the statistics as shown in
Table 5; furthermost of the morphometric
parameters of the Baira river watershed are
showing a positive correlation with each
other that means these parameters are codependent on another, except shape factor
and length of overland flow. Shape factor
and length of overland flow are
demonstrating a negative relationship with
other morphometric parameters implies
these parameters are independent and it is
possible to compelling by different
components.

3.9. HYDROLOGICAL POTENTIALITY ZONE
Keeping in mind to identify, categorize,
arrange
and
delineate
hydrological
potentiality zone in the Baira river
watershed, a thorough comprehensive
analysis was attempted, which takes several
MSW level geo-morphometric parameters
map composites into thought by method for
integrating and evaluating them based on
specific criteria employed. Several thematic
data layers have been generated and
integrated based on the weightage criteria
produced for determination of the
hydrological potential zones for surface
water, and additionally groundwater
investigation in the Baira river watershed.
The weightages were relegated to the
themes and units relying on their
significance of hydrological potentiality area.
Hydrological potentiality zones of the Baira
river watershed has been generated by
using ArcGIS 10.3 software in the model
builder module, which has allowed for the
amalgamation of different data layers.
Weightage criteria used for generation of
hydrological potentiality zones are shown in
the Table 6.

Tabel 5. Correlation matrix of morphometric parameters
Morphometric Parameters
1
A
2
P
3
Nu
4
Lu
5
Ff
6
Sf
7
Re
8
Rt
9
Rc
10
Dt
11
Fs
12
Dd
13
Lg

A
1.00

P
0.66
1.00

Nu
0.43
0.37
1.00

Lu
0.68
0.54
0.91
1.00

Ff
0.26
-0.31
0.23
0.28
1.00

Sf
-0.36
0.16
-0.27
-0.33
-0.94
1.00

Re
0.30
-0.27
0.25
0.30
0.99
-0.97
1.00

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Rt
0.25
0.04
0.93
0.78
0.43
0.40
0.43
1.00

Rc
0.19
-0.51
0.09
0.12
0.83
-0.74
0.83
0.33
1.00

Dt
0.23
0.04
0.93
0.78
0.45
-0.42
0.43
0.93
0.33
1.00

Fs
-0.04
0.02
0.85
0.61
0.21
-0.18
0.23
0.89
0.06
0.93
1.00

Dd
0.01
0.08
0.08
0.71
0.19
-0.16
0.20
0.85
0.03
0.86
0.93
1.00

Lg
-0.03
-0.10
-0.71
-0.68
-0.20
0.17
-0.19
-0.73
-0.03
-0.73
-0.79
-0.93
1.00

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 43

Where: Area (A), Perimeter (P), Stream Number (Nu), Stream Length (Lu), Form Factor (Ff), Shape Factor (Sf), Elongation
Ratio (Re), Texture Ratio (Rt), Circularity Ratio (Rc), Drainage Texture (Dt), Stream Frequency (Fs), Drainage Density (Dd),
Length of Overland Flow (Lg)

6. Weights
of geomorphometric
parameters
for hydrological
potentiality
zone zone
Tabel Tabel
6. (continued)
Weights
of geomorphometric
parameters
for hydrological
potentiality
Factor
Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)

Elongation Ratio (Re)

Texture Ratio (Rt)

Drainage Texture (Dt)

Stream Frequency (Fs)

Values
Less than 2.250
2.250 – 2.501
2.502 – 2.753
2.754 – 3.004
3.005 – 3.255
3.256 – 3.506
3.507 – 3.758
3.759 – 4.009
4.010 – 4.260
More than 4.260
Less than 0.670
0.671 – 0.881
0.882 – 0.987
0.988 – 1.092
1.093 – 1.198
1.199 – 1.303
1.304 – 1.409
1.410 – 1.514
1.515 – 1.620
More than 1.620
Less than 10.720
10.721 – 12.421
12.422 – 14.122
14.123 – 15.823
15.824 – 17.524
17.525 – 19.226
19.227 – 20.927
20.928 – 22.628
22.629 – 24.329
More than 24.329
Less than 14.071
14.072 – 16.304
16.305 – 18.536
18.537 – 20.769
20.770 – 23.002
23.003 – 25.235
25.236 – 27.468
27.469 – 29.701
29.702 – 31.934
More than 31.934
Less than 3.284
3.285 – 3.805
3.806 – 4.326
4.327 – 4.847
4.848 – 5.368

Weights (Wi)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
9
8
7
6

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Remarks
The low value of bifurcation ratio is
characterize in the high hydrological
potential zone because it is depend on
geological and lithological
development of the drainage basin,
and dimensionless property are
generally ranges from 3.0 to 5.0.

The high value of elongation ratio is
characterizing in the high hydrological
potential zone because high
elongation value is signifying the more
elongated of the basin, that means if
the basin is more elongated then
surface runoff is also high.

The low value of texture ratio is
described in the high hydrological
potential zone because it is depending
on the drainage density. Low value of
texture ratio is also represent the low
drainage density, means low surface
runoff.

The low value of drainage texture is
defined in the high hydrological
potential zone because it is depending
on the drainage density. Low value of
drainage texture is also signifying the
low drainage density, means low
surface runoff.

The low value of stream frequency is
demarcated in the high hydrological
potential zone.

44 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Tabel 6. (continued) Weights of geomorphometric parameters for hydrological potentiality zone
Factor

Drainage Density (Dd)

Slope

Values
5.369 – 5.889
5.890 – 6.410
6.411 – 6.932
6.933 – 7.453
More than 7.453
Less than 2.113
2.114 – 2.448
2.449 – 2.784
2.785 – 3.119
3.120 – 3.454
3.455 – 3.789
3.790 – 4.125
4.126 – 4.460
4.461 – 4.795
More than 4.795
Less than 5.00o
05.01o – 9.70o
09.71o – 14.40o
14.41o – 19.10o
19.11o – 23.80o
23.81o – 28.50o
25.51o – 33.20o
33.21o – 37.90o
37.91o – 42.60o
More than 42.60o

On the beginning of integration of these
data layers’ hydrological potentiality zones
of the study area were identified. The
weightages are assigned for various
mapping units of a thematic layers in a scale
ranging from 1 to 10, individually, where
value 1 demonstrates for least significance
while the worth 10 showing highest
significance of the mapping unit. The final
hydrological potentiality zone map has been
displayed in a gradation of red to green. The
green patches represent the most potential
MWS for water resource development,

Weights (Wi)
5
4
3
2
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Remarks

When drainage is less, there is more
possibility of infiltration, and less
surface runoff, thereby increasing
hydrological potential area.

Steeper slopes (more than 30o) are low
prone to hydrological potential area,
but the slope below than 12o have high
hydrological potential area to the
absence of debris over the slope
surface.

while the red patches denote the least. The
more potential MWS are the ones which
have got an aggregate score close to 10. A
glance at Figure 7 reveals that the many
patches in the whole watershed and some
of the south-eastern parts of the study area
have
poor
hydrological
potentiality
prospects due to steep slope, and high
runoff as compared to the south watershed,
north-eastern part, and some part along the
river of the basin. These results are also
corroborated with observations from the
field checks conducted in the basin area.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 45

Figure 7. Hydrological potentiality zone map

4. CONCLUSION
Morphometric analysis of watersheds
involves the quantification of the drainage
network and related parameters such as
drainage area, gradient and relief.
Quantitative geomorphology finds helpful
applications in hydrological investigations
related with the flow regime, the rates of
erosion and sediment production from
watershed. Quantitative Morphometric
analysis plays vital role in prediction of
hydrological investigations, assessing the
sediment yield and to appraise soil erosion
rates. The present work is an attempt to
carry out a detailed study of linear, areal
and relief morphometric parameters in the
Baira
river
watershed,
utilizing
synergistically the conventional methods
and innovative methods i.e. Remote Sensing
and GIS.

Drainage morphometry of a watershed
and micro-watershed (MSW) reflects hydrogeologic development of that river. Satellite
remote sensing data has a capacity of
getting the succinct perspective of an
expansive region at one time, which is
extremely helpful in analysing the drainage
morphometry. GIS has demonstrated to be
an effective device in drainage delineation
and this drainage has been utilized as a part
of the present study. Frist time in the world
total 173 morphometric parameters has
been analysed of a single watershed through
the measurement of linear, areal and relief
aspects of the watershed. Remote Sensing
techniques have contributed and will
continue contributing tremendously to the
state
of
knowledge
about
the
geomorphometric analysis of microwatersheds as well as the hydrological
scenario assessment and characterization of
the watershed and there for better resource
and environmental managements.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

46 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

6. AUTHORS’ NOTE

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are profoundly thankful to our Guru
Ji Prof. J.L. Jain, who with his unique
research competence, selfless devotion,
thoughtful guidance, inspirational thoughts,
wonderful patience and above all parent like
direction and affection motivated us to
pursue this work.

The author(s) declare(s) that there is no
conflict of interest regarding the publication
of this article. Authors confirmed that the
data and the paper are free of plagiarism.

7. REFERENCES
Abrahams, A. D. (1984). Channel networks: a geomorphological perspective. Water
resources research, 20(2), 161-188.
Azor, A., Keller, E.A., & Yeats, R.S. (2002). Geomorphic indicators of active fold growth:
South Mountain-Oak Ridge Anticline, Ventura Basin, Southern California. Geological
society of america bulletin, 114(6), 745-753.
Black, P. E. (1972). Hydrograph responses to geomorphic model watershed characteristics
and precipitation variables. Journal of hydrology, 17(4), 309-329.
Boison, P. J., & Patton, P. C. (1985). Sediment storage and terrace formation in Coyote Gulch
basin, south-central Utah. Geology, 13(1), 31-34.
Chorley, R. J., Malm, D. E., & Pogorzelski, H. A. (1957). A new standard for estimating
drainage basin shape. American journal of science, 255(2), 138-141.
Cox, R. T. (1994). Analysis of drainage-basin symmetry as a rapid technique to identify areas
of possible Quaternary tilt-block tectonics: An example from the Mississippi
Embayment. Geological society of america bulletin, 106(5), 571-581.
Dar, R. A., Chandra, R., & Romshoo, S. A. (2013). Morphotectonic and lithostratigraphic
analysis of intermontane Karewa Basin of Kashmir Himalayas, India. Journal of
mountain science, 10(1), 1-15.
De Terra, H. (1939). The Quaternary terrace system of southern Asia and the age of man.
Geographical review, 29(1), 101-118.
Angillieri, M. Y. E. (2008). Morphometric analysis of Colangüil river basin and flash flood
hazard, San Juan, Argentina. Environmental geology, 55(1), 107-111.
Faniran, A. (1968). The index of drainage intensity-A provisional new drainage factor.
Australian journal of science, 31, 328-330.
Farvolden, R. N. (1963). Geologic controls on ground-water storage and base flow. Journal of
hydrology, 1(3), 219-249.
Hack, J. T. (1957). Studies of longitudinal profiles in Virginia and Maryland, no. 294-B in US
Geol. Survey Prof. Papers, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 690(691),
10.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 47

Hack, J. T. (1973). Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index. Journal of research of
the US geological survey, 1(4), 421-429.
Horton, R. E. (1932). Drainage‐basin characteristics. Eos, transactions american geophysical
union, 13(1), 350-361.
Horton, R. E. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins;
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geological society of america
bulletin, 56(3), 275-370.
Jain, S. K., Singh, R. D., & Seth, S. M. (2000). Design flood estimation using GIS supported
GIUHApproach. Water resources management, 14(5), 369-376.
Jenness, J. (2005). Topographic position index (TPI) v 1.2. Extension for ArcView 3x. Jenness
En-Terprices, Available online at web site: http://www.jennessent.com (accessed on
December 2, 2016)
Krishnan, M. S., & Aiyengar, N. K. N. (1940). Did the Indobrahm or Siwalik river exist.
Records, geological survey of india, 75(6), 24.
Lustig, L. K. (1966). The Geomorphic and Paleoclimatic Significance of Alluvial Deposits in
Southern Arizona: A Discussion. The journal of geology, 74(1), 95-102.
Lindsay, J. B. (2005). The terrain analysis system: A tool for hydro‐geomorphic applications.
Hydrological processes, 19(5), 1123-1130.
Melton, M. A. (1958). Geometric properties of mature drainage systems and their
representation in an E4 phase space. The journal of geology, 66(1), 35-54.
Melton, M. A. (1965). The geomorphic and paleoclimatic significance of alluvial deposits in
southern Arizona. The Journal of geology, 73(1), 1-38.
Miller, V. C. (1968). Aerial photographs and surface features–1. Aerial photographs and land
forms (photogeomorphology). In Aerial surveys and integrated studies: proceedings of
the Toulouse Conference. UNESCO, Paris (pp. 41-69).
Mitchell, S. G. & Montgomery, D. R. (2006). Polygenetic topography of the Cascade Range,
Washington State, USA. American journal of science, 306(9), 736-768.
Moore, I. D. & Wilson, J. P. (1992). Length-slope factors for the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation: Simplified method of estimation. Journal of soil and water conservation,
47(5), 423-428.
Moore, I. D., Gessler, P. E., Nielsen, G. A., & Peterson, G. A. (1993). Soil attribute prediction
using terrain analysis. Soil science society of america journal, 57(2), 443-452.
Moore, I. D., Grayson, R. B., & Ladson, A. R. (1991). Digital terrain modelling: a review of
hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological processes,
5(1), 3-30.
Moore, R. F. & Thornes, J. B. (1976). Leap—a suite of FORTRAN IV programs for generating
erosional potentials of land surfaces from topographic information. Computers and
geosciences, 2(4), 493-499.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

48 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal 26-49

Mueller, J. E. (1968). An introduction to the hydraulic and topographic sinuosity indexes 1.
Annals of the association of american geographers, 58(2), 371-385.
Pareta, K. (2004). Hydro-geomorphology of Sagar district (MP): a study through remote
sensing technique. In Proceeding in XIX MP Young Scientist Congress, Madhya Pradesh
Council of Science & Technology (MAPCOST), Bhopal.
Pareta, K., & Pareta, U. (2014). New watershed codification system for Indian river basins.
Journal of hydrology and environment research, 2(1), 31-40.
Park, S. J., McSweeney, K., & Lowery, B. (2001). Identification of the spatial distribution of
soils using a process-based terrain characterization. Geoderma, 103(3), 249-272.
Patton, P. C., & Baker, V. R. (1976). Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins
subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water resources research, 12(5), 941952.
Potter, P. E. (1957). A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in
the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee VC Miller. The journal of geology,
65(1).
Rao, D. P. (2002). Remote sensing application in geomorphology. Tropical ecology, 43(1), 4959.
Rahmat, A., & Mutolib, A. (2016). Comparison Air Temperature under Global Climate
Change Issue in Gifu city and Ogaki city, Japan. Indonesian journal of science and
technology, 1(1), 37-46.
Rastogi, R. A., & Sharma, T. C. (1976). Quantitative analysis of drainage basin characteristics.
Journal of soil and water conservation in india, 26(1), 18-25.
Rich, J. L. (1916). A graphical method of determining the average inclination of a land
surface from a contour map. Transaction illinois academy of science, 9, 196-199.
Riley, S. J. (1999). Index That Quantifies Topographic Heterogeneity. Intermountain journal
of sciences, 5(1–4), 23-27.
Schumm, S. A., & Lichty, R. W. (1965). Time, space, and causality in geomorphology.
American journal of science, 263(2), 110-119.
Schumm, S. A. (1956). Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy,
New Jersey. Geological society of america bulletin, 67(5), 597-646.
Smart, J. S., & Surkan, A. J. (1967). The relation between mainstream length and area in
drainage basins. Water resources research, 3(4), 963-974.
Snow, R. S., & Slingerland, R. L. (1987). Mathematical modeling of graded river profiles. The
journal of geology, 95(1), 15-33.
Sreedevi, P. D. (2004). Groundwater quality of Pageru river basin, Cuddapah district, Andhra
Pradesh. Geological society of india, 64(5), 619-636.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Kuldeep Pareta1 & Upasana Pareta. Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological... | 49

Sreedevi, P. D., Owais, S., Khan, H. H., & Ahmed, S. (2009). Morphometric analysis of a
watershed of South India using SRTM data and GIS. Journal of the geological society of
india, 73(4), 543-552.
Strahler, A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological society of america
bulletin, 63(9), 923-938.
Suresh, M., Sudhakar, S., Tiwari, K. N., & Chowdary, V. M. (2004). Prioritization of
watersheds using morphometric parameters and assessment of surface water
potential using remote sensing. Journal of the indian society of remote sensing, 32(3),
249-259.
Sutherland, R. A., & Bryan, R. B. (1991). Sediment budgeting: a case study in the Katiorin
drainage basin, Kenya. Earth surface processes and landforms, 16(5), 383-398.
Taylor, A. B., & Schwarz, H. E. (1952). Unit‐hydrograph lag and peak flow related to basin
characteristics. Eos, transactions american geophysical union, 33(2), 235-246.
Tomlinson, M. E. (1925). River-terraces of the Lower Valley of the Warwickshire Avon.
Quarterly journal of the geological society, 81(1-4), 137-NP.
Wentworth, C. K. (1930). A simplified method of determining the average slope of land
surfaces. American journal of science, 21, 184-194.
Woodroffe, C. D. (1981). Mangrove swamp stratigraphy and Holocene transgression, Grand
Cayman Island, West Indies. Marine geology, 41(3-4), 271-294.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045