INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 229

Remote Sensing and GIS-Based Evaluation of Morphometric

Parameters of Madhupur Tract Basin

Muhammad Qumrul Hassan, M. Aziz Hasan, and Jowaher Raza

Department of Geology, Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Dhaka, Ramna, Dhaka 1000,

Bangladesh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1401025

Received: 17 January 2025; Accepted: 28 January 2025; Published: 18 February 2025

Abstract: Evaluating the complexity of the water system is essential to balance its utilization, maintenance, and management. A

quantitative description of the drainage system, an essential aspect of the characteristics of a basin, can be assessed by the

morphometric characteristics at a defined scale. Morphometric analysis quantitatively studies landforms' physical dimensions and

characteristics within a drainage basin. The Madhupur Tract, a large upland area in central Bangladesh, is surrounded by the

Jamuna-Brahmaputra River floodplain. Geologically, the Madhupur Tract predominantly consists of older Pleistocene deposits,

with a mix of clay, silt, and sand. The drainage pattern in the Madhupur Tract is primarily dendritic, resembling a tree-like

structure. Madhupur Tract Drainage Basin is a basin with 9,025 streams of different order, covering an area of almost 3,677 km

It is very elongated in shape with rapid discharge in a short period. Lower-order streams are high in number, probably due to the

elevated nature of the area. A gradual decrease in the number of streams can be seen inversely decreasing with increasing stream

order. The consistent decrease in the number of streams in relation to stream order throughout the basin indicates the dominance

of erosional landforms. The changes in stream length ratio throughout the basin show that the area is in the early stages of

irregular hydrological behavior. The overall drainage density of the Madhupur Tract Basin is high in lower reaches, indicating less

porous rock in the bed surface, high slope, and high-water flow regimes. The low form factor value indicated the elongated nature

of basins with low peak flow for longer. Flood flows of elongated basins can be more easily managed than circular basins. The

relief ratio of Madhupur Tract Basin was measured to be around 0.156, apparently very low, indicating minimal elevation

differences with a relatively flat or gently undulating terrain. The ruggedness number of the Madhupur Tract Basin is 33.54. A

low ruggedness indicates a relatively smooth and uniform landscape with gradual elevation changes. Both surface water and

groundwater interactions influence the Madhupur Tract's drainage system. The lateritic formations in the region contribute to the

formation of aquifers, affecting the groundwater flow and the overall drainage dynamics.

I. Introduction

Assessment of the complexity of the water system is needed to equate the utilization, maintenance, and management of the

system, as well as the occurrence, distribution, movement, and properties of water on earth (Khan & ElKashouty, 2023). The

development of water resources necessitates the assessment of the complexity of the water system for equate utilization,

maintenance, and management of the system, encompassing the occurrence, distribution, movement, and properties of water on

earth and their relationship with the environment within each phase of the hydrological cycle. A quantitative description of the

drainage system, an essential aspect of the characteristics of a basin, can be assessed by the morphometric characteristics at a

defined scale and synthesize the hydrological responses (Mahala, 2020; Bogale, 2020).

Morphometric analysis quantitatively studies landforms' physical dimensions and characteristics within a basin or drainage basin

(Kumar et al., 2015). It analyzes the shape of the Earth's surface and landforms. Measuring and calculating various parameters,

including stream length, drainage density, & relief ratio, characterizes the terrain's shape, size, and relief. The analysis gives

valuable insights into the processes occurring in a Basin, aiding in assessing its behavior, erosion potential, and overall landscape

characteristics. Water management studies are needed to protect the limited water resources because surface water resources are

rare in most places. (Mahala, 2020; Bogale, 2020)

Morphometric studies are essential for effective basin management and sustainable utilization of water resources. The outcome of

the analysis of linear and areal parameters is dependent on determining the effect of catchment characteristics and the distribution

of stream networks of different orders within the area. (Khan & ElKashouty, 2023; Arulbalaji & Gurugnanam, 2017)

The objective of the present study was to analyze the Madhupur Tract Basin's linear, areal, and relief morphometric attributes.

Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques were used to update drainage and surface water

bodies and evaluate the basin's linear, relief, and aerial morphometric attributes. Analyses of drainage efficiency, sediment

transport, and topography variations helped assess runoff, erosion, and land stability. The findings will support sustainable

watershed management, flood mitigation, and effective land use planning in the region. (Arefin & Alam, 2020)

Madhupur Tract

The Madhupur Tract, a large upland area in central Bangladesh, is surrounded by the Jamuna-Brahmaputra River floodplain

(Hossain et al., 2014). (Figure 1). The southern part of this tract is known in Bangla as Bhawal Garh, and the northern part as

Madhupur Garh. Geologically, it is a terrace one to ten meters above the adjacent floodplains (Rahman et al., 2005). The total

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 230

extent of this Tract is 4,244 sq km. The main section stretches from just south of Jamalpur in the north to Fatullah of Narayanganj

in the south. Most of Dhaka City is on this Tract. Madhupur Tract has seven small outliers; four are in the east and three in the

north (Rahman et al., 2005).

The Madhupur Tract is an exposed Quaternary interfluve between two pathways for the Brahmaputra River (Pickering et al.,

2013). The Madhupur Tract is an uplifted Pleistocene Interfluve tilted to the east. The western margin of the Madhupur Tract is a

fault, termed the Madhupur Fault, which has several echelon linear segments with underlying faults being correct lateral strike-

slip faults. There are different interpretations of the faults underlying the Madhupur Tract. (Morgan and McIntire, 1959; Alam,

2007). The Lalmai hills and the Madhupur locality represent tectonically uplifted blocks. Still, the whole Barind tract and the

significant portion of the Madhuput tracts are not tectonically uplifted; instead, these originated by erosional-depositional

processes (Towhida et al., 2006). The western margin of the Madhupur tract is an erosional feature due to river truncation

(Hossain et al., 2014; Figure 2).

Geologically, the Madhupur Tract predominantly consists of older Pleistocene deposits, with a mix of clay, silt, and sand. The

landscape is marked by dissected plateaus and numerous small hills, creating a varied topography (Figure 3). It consists of

uplands with closely or broadly divided terraces connected to shallow or large, deep valleys. Erosional processes, including the

weathering of rocks, have contributed to the forming of characteristic landforms in the area. The soils here are generally classified

into three main categories: Madhupur clay, Madhupur gravelly clay, and Madhupur sandy loam. These soil types influence the

region's agricultural practices, impacting crop selection and yield.

The drainage pattern in the Madhupur Tract is primarily dendritic, resembling a tree-like structure (Figure 3). The rivers and

streams in the region flow in a pattern where smaller tributaries join larger rivers, forming a network that drains the water from

the plateau. The area is drained by several rivers, including the Old Brahmaputra, Arial Khan, and Karatoya, which play a

significant role in shaping the hydrological characteristics of the area.

Both surface water and groundwater interactions influence the Madhupur Tract's drainage system. The lateritic formations in the

region contribute to the formation of aquifers, affecting the groundwater flow and the overall drainage dynamics (Figure 4).

II. Methodology

The morphological features were retrieved using Arc Hydrology methods with the input of digital elevation model earth

observation datasets, which are significant in comprehending the spatial arrangement of stream network features. These are

widely applied in deriving detailed linear, relief, and areal morphometric parameters. Geomorphological Assessments of terrains

were done automatically based on Shuttle Radar Topography Mission - Digital Elevation Model (SRTM-DEM) high-resolution

images of terrain and landscape. Data set characteristics are explained in Table 1. Arc toolbox in GIS 10.3 was used to analyze the

morphologic characteristics of the basin, including ArcHydro Tools for watershed delineation, Spatial Analyst for slope, aspect,

and drainage density, and Hydrology Tools for stream order and flow direction. Zonal Statistics and Raster Calculator tools were

used to analyze terrain attributes. GIS techniques offer a powerful tool for analyzing, managing, and extracting spatial

information for better understanding. (Ehsani et al. 2010; Figure 4)

The study area was delineated in a GIS environment with the help of Arc-GIS 10.3 assigning Universal Transverse Mercator

(UTM), World Geodetic System (WGS dating from 1984 and last revised in 2004), and 43N Zone Projection System.

Spatial analyst tools of hydrology options within the Arc toolbox were used to assess the flow direction and accumulation

direction to prepare a basin map. Raster calculation was conducted to generate stream networks and correct the location of the

basin outlet. The basin was categorized into three morphometric aspects: linear, relief, and shape. The methodology adopted for

computations of morphometric parameters with formulae is listed in Table 2.

The topographic wetness index (TWI) is calculated to assess the hydro-geomorphic features of a drainage basin, describing

topography's influence on soil moisture distribution and surface runoff. (Beven & Kirkby, 1979). The Topographic Position Index

(TPI), first introduced by Weiss (2001), classifies landforms based on elevation differences between a focal point and the

surrounding area. The TWI was calculated using gridded DEM. The negative TPI value indicates that the central point is lower

than its surrounding average height, whereas positive TPI indicates a position higher than its average height. (Günther et al.,

2014; De Reu et al., 2013; Sørensen et al., 2006).

III. Result and Discussion

Quantitative evaluation of the morphometric parameters describes the basin characteristics; each parameter was classified into

different dimensional aspects, namely, linear aspects, areal aspects, and relief. The arrangement of streams in a drainage system

constitutes the drainage pattern, which reflects mainly structural or lithologic controls of the underlying rocks. The following

description explains the characteristics of the Madhupur basin.

Madhupur Tract Drainage Basin has been divided into 49 basins. They have an area coverage of almost 8,200 km

, with an

average area of 168 km

. These basins are generally elongated in shape, with a total perimeter of almost 380 km (Figure 5).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 231

Linear Morphometric Parameters

Linear aspects explain the one-dimensional parameters to indicate channel patterns of the drainage network and the topological

characteristics.

Stream Order

Stream Ordering was proposed by Strahler (1957). It is a hierarchical relationship between stream segments and their

connectivity. First-order streams are the smallest, unbranched ones; second-order segments are formed when two first-order

streams confluence; segments of third-order are formed when two second-order streams combine, and so on. It is the first step of

drainage analysis based on the hierarchical ranking of streams. Higher-order streams generally exhibit increased discharge and

drainage area, playing a crucial role in shaping the overall hydrological patterns of a region. This stream order depends on the

basin shape, size, and relief characteristics of such basin (Haghipour and Burg 2014).

The total number of streams of the Madhupur Tract area or basin is 9,025, covering an area of almost 8,200 km

. Lower-order

streams are high in number, probably due to the elevated nature of the area. A gradual decrease in the number of streams can be

seen inversely decreasing with increasing stream order. (Figure 6; Table 3)

The consistent decrease in the number of streams to stream order (average 57.67 %) throughout the basin indicates the dominance

of erosional landforms. Higher order streams (4th, 5

order) are fewer due to their alluvial deposits. Basins with high stream

numbers have higher runoff and rapid peak flow than those with low stream numbers (Bhat et al., 2019).

Geological factors influence the high density of low-order streams in the Madhupur Tract basin, which promotes surface runoff

and stream formation. Anthropogenic activities, including deforestation and agricultural expansion, increase runoff and erosion

(Brammer, 2016).

Stream Numbers

Stream number refers to the count of individual streams within a specified area. It is a quantitative measure of the density of the

stream network. High stream numbers suggest a denser network, indicating intricate drainage patterns and potential susceptibility

to various hydrological processes.

The interplay between stream order and stream number yields valuable information about basin characteristics. Madhupur Basin,

with a high stream order and low stream number, indicates a more hierarchical and organized drainage pattern, with a few major

rivers dominating the landscape. (Table 4)

Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)

The Bifurcation Ratio (Rb) quantifies the branching pattern of a drainage basin's stream network. It is calculated by dividing the

number of streams of a given order by the number of streams in the next higher order (Mayhew, 2015). Bifurcation ratios

typically range between 3.0 and 5.0 in basins where geological structures exert minimal influence on drainage patterns. The

drainage network is shaped by homogeneous lithology and uniform erosion processes from minimal structural control

(Chowdhury, 2016). The mean bifurcation ratio of 2.54 in the Madhupur Tract basin suggests that geological structures

moderately influence the drainage pattern, reflecting a balance between lithological uniformity and structural control, denoting

water-carrying capacity and related flood potentiality. (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1957; Joji et al., 2013; Table 3; Table 4)

The bifurcation ratio of streams in the basin ranges from 1.56 to 3.16 (Table 5). The low Rb indicates a dendritic or tree-like

drainage pattern, with stream segments tending to converge into more significant streams at a lower rate.

Stream Length

Stream length was calculated using the Horton law that indicates the successive stage of stream segment development.

(Horton,1945; Table 2) A direct geomorphic and hydrological sequence can approximate from different order stream lengths

(Castillo et al., 1988). Generally, most numbers of the streams are of the 1st order and decrease as the stream order increases.

Such a trend indicates discrepancies and inconsistencies in the lithology of the area. Studies suggest higher stream lengths in a

mountain–plain front than in a plateau–plain front river basin. (Sreedevi et al. 2005). The stream length ranges from 1610 km (1st

Order) to 77 km (5th Order). (Table 5)

A higher stream order with a lower stream length (Figure 7) can indicate specific geomorphological and hydrological

characteristics with anthropogenic influence on the basin, thus requiring a holistic understanding of the local geomorphology,

hydrology, and anthropogenic impact. It indicates diverse topographic features, steep gradients, or rugged terrain, causing streams

to cover relatively shorter distances. And also influenced by growing urbanization altering the natural stream patterns,

Mean Stream Length

The mean stream length indicates the basin's early stage of geomorphic development. This causes discrepancies in surface flow

discharge and sedimentation (Mahala, 2020). The mean stream length for 1st-order streams is 0.17 km, 2nd-order streams are

0.15 km, 3rd-order streams are 0.18 km, 4th-order streams are 0.22 km, and 5

-order streams are 0.30 (Table 5). The total length

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 232

of streams decreases with the increase of stream order, giving a negative linear change, showing dendritic type type drainage

pattern (Figure 7). The low mean value of high-order streams indicates that development stopped. Relatively higher values

indicate low erosion potentiality, which denotes old erosional landform development. (Table 4)

Stream Length Ratio

The stream length ratio is vital to the discharge the basin's surface flow and erosional stages (Horton, 1945). The ratio between

stream orders 1 & 2, 3 & 4, and 4 & 5 are almost similar, ranging between 0.44 and 0.55. The changes in stream length ratio

denote that the area is in an early stage of geomorphic development, and the area has a high potentiality of frequent changes

shortly, indicative of irregular hydrological behavior. (Table 5)

Areal Morphometric Parameters

Stream Frequency (Fs)

Stream frequency is the total number of stream segments irrespective of the order per unit area (Horton, 1945). It may also be

defined as the ratio between the total number of stream segments cumulative of all orders and the basin area (Table 2). Different

stream frequencies through the basin with the same drainage density may be possible. Permeability, infiltration capability, and

basin relief correlate with stream frequency. In reaction to runoff processes, it offers a drainage basin response. The drainage

density of the basin, initial resistivity of the rocks, relief, and precipitation all affect stream frequency. Stream frequency at the

Madhupur Tract basin is 5.101 number/km

, indicative of an immediate surface runoff. High slope and greater precipitation

increase stream frequency (Sf), whereas low permeability and less available surface flow decrease stream frequency (Bali et al.,

2011; Thomas et al., 2010; Table 6).

Drainage Density

Drainage density is calculated as the expression of the closeness of channel spacing within a basin, as it provides a numerical

measurement of runoff potentiality and landscape dissection (Horton, 1945). It measures the ratio of the total length of streams

irrespective of stream order to the per unit area of the basin (Joji et al., 2013; Magesh & Chandrasekhar, 2014; Table 2). It

depends upon that basin's underlain geology, relief, geomorphology, climate, vegetation, etc. (Parveen et al., 2012; Obeidat et al.,

2021). Slope gradient and relative relief are the main controlling factors on drainage density (Magesh et al., 2011). Low drainage

density values prevail in basins with low relief and vice versa (Strahler, 1957). Low drainage density indicates highly permeable

subsoil material under dense vegetation, low relief, and low runoff, whereas high drainage density implies high runoff and low

infiltration rate. Madhupur Tract basin has a drainage density of 0.86 and is fast-drained. (Harllin & Wijeyawickrema, 1985;

Kelson & Wells, 1989; Horton, 1945; Table 6)

The drainage density throughout the Madhupur Tract Basin ranges from 0.01 to 69.48 km/km

, indicating significant lithology,

topography, and land use heterogeneity (Rahaman et al., 2017). The overall drainage density is 0.86 km/km

High drainage density in lower reaches indicates less porous rock in the bed surface, high slope, and high water flow regimes.

Low drainage density is observed in the basin's northern plain areas due to low relief and high permeability. Drainage Density of

the Madhupur Tract basin can be considered low to moderate. (Table 6; Figure 8)

Texture Ratio (Rt)

Texture ratio (Rt) is calculated from stream frequency and drainage density (Horton, 1945; Table 2). It is also the ratio between

the total stream segments and the basin's perimeter. Infiltration capacity is the single critical factor influencing texture ratio, as

recognized by Horton. It is also an essential fluvial parameter that denotes the relative spacing of the drainage network of any

basin. Infiltration capacity is an essential factor influencing texture ratio. (Horton, 1945; Table 3)

Form Factor (Rf)

The Form Factor in the context of river morphology refers to a dimensionless parameter used to quantify the shape or elongation

of a drainage basin. It is calculated by dividing the basin's area (A) by the square of its length (L), providing insights into the

basin's overall form (Horton 1932; Table 2). The value of Ff is always less than 0.7854, which indicates a perfectly circular basin,

often in regions with uniform topography and drainage patterns (Bali et al., 2011). Flood flows of the elongated basin can be more

easily managed than those of the circular basin (Castillo et al. 1988). The average form factor of the study area is 0.058, indicative

of a very elongated basin. (Table 3)

Elongation Ratio (Re)

Elongation Ratio is a dimensionless parameter used in geomorphology to quantify the degree of elongation or stretching of a

landform, such as a drainage basin or a basin (Schumm 1956). It is calculated by dividing the longest dimension of the landform

by its perpendicular width. It is also a significant index of basin shape (Gayen et al. 2013). It can be crucial for understanding the

landform characteristics and their implications for hydrological processes. Changes in the Elongation Ratio may also be relevant

for assessing vulnerability to specific environmental changes (Gayen et al. 2013; Table 6). ER assesses the planimetric

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 233

characteristics of drainage basins or basins, with a lesser value suggesting a comparatively wider landform. The ER value of the

Madhupur tract basin is 4.68. (Table 4)

Circularity Ratio (Rc)

The circularity Ratio quantifies the circularity or roundness of a basin. It is calculated by dividing the landform's area by the

square of its perimeter. (Strahler, 1957; Table 2). It is crucial to understand the landform characteristics and their implications for

hydrological processes and to assist in quantitatively characterizing the shape and organization of basins (Strahler, 1957). Peak

discharge from high precipitation will impact basins with a high circular ratio. Rc's high, medium, and low values show the

Basin's development stages. (Table 6)

The average circularity ratio value of the Madhupur Tract basin is 0.32, which indicates its near-circular characteristics. (Table 3)

Relief Morphometric Parameters

Basin Relief (H)

Basin relief indicates the variation in elevation within a basin. It assists in understanding landform characteristics and the overall

terrain complexity. Basin relief measures the difference in elevation between the highest and lowest points within a drainage

basin. Higher basin relief indicates more varied and rugged topography, while lower relief suggests a relatively flat or gently

sloping landscape (Sreedevi et al., 2009). A steeper relief often leads to faster runoff, increased erosion potential, and dynamic

river systems. The measured basin relief value of the Madhupur Tract Basin is 39, inferring a gently sloping and undulating

landscape with fast runoff. (Table 3; Table 6)

Relief Ratio (Rr)

The Relief Ratio is a dimensionless parameter that characterizes the relative difference in elevation between the highest and

lowest points within a specified area, often expressed as a ratio (Schumm, 1956; Soni, 2017). The relief ratio of Madhupur Tract

Basin was measured to be around 0.156, apparently very low, indicating minimal elevation differences with a relatively flat or

gently undulating terrain.

Basin Slope (Sb)

Basin slope, also known as drainage basin slope or basin slope, refers to the average gradient or incline of the land within a

specific drainage basin or basin. It measures how steep or gentle the terrain is within the entire basin, providing insights into the

overall topographical characteristics of the drainage area. (Schumm, 1956; Soni, 2017)

Ruggedness Number (Rn)

The ruggedness number, also known as the terrain ruggedness index (TRI), measures a landscape's topographic complexity or

roughness (Schumm, 1956). It quantifies the variability in elevation within a specified area, providing information about the

physical characteristics of the terrain. (Strahler, 1956; Selvan et al., 2011; Adhikari, 2020) The ruggedness number of the

Madhupur Tract Basin is 33.54. A low ruggedness indicates a relatively smooth and uniform landscape with gradual elevation

changes. This may correspond to plains, lowland areas, or regions with minimal topographic variation. (Table 3; Table 6)

IV. Conclusion

Madhupur Tract Drainage Basin has an area coverage of almost 3,677 km

and a perimeter of almost 380 km. The form factor

value of the basin is 0.05, which signifies that it is very elongated in shape. Such a low form factor implies that this drainage

basin experiences rapid discharge in a short period.

The total number of streams of the Madhupur Tract area or basin is 9,025, covering an area of almost 8,200 km

. Lower-order

streams are high in number, probably due to the elevated nature of the area. A gradual decrease in the number of streams can be

seen inversely decreasing with increasing stream order. The consistent decrease in the number of streams in relation to stream

order throughout the basin indicates the dominance of erosional landforms. Higher-order streams are less in number due to the

alluvial deposits. The changes in stream length ratio denote that the area is within the early stage of geomorphic development of

irregular hydrological behavior.

The overall drainage density of the Madhupur Tract Basin is high in lower reaches, indicating less porous rock in the bed surface,

high slope, and high water flow regimes. Low drainage density is observed in the basin's northern plain areas due to low relief

and high permeability. The low form factor value indicated the elongated nature of basins with low peak flow for longer. Flood

flows of elongated basins can be more easily managed than circular basins. The average circularity ratio value of the Madhupur

Tract basin indicates its near-circular characteristics. It also suggests substantial peak flood runoff during the monsoon season and

neo-tectonic upliftment. It also alludes to decreased peak flow characteristics and mature geomorphological adjustment. The relief

ratio indicated that Madhupur Tract has high relief with a high slope. An extremely high value of ruggedness number occurs when

both variables are significant and the slope is steep.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 234

The measured basin relief value of the Madhupur Tract Basin is 39, a gently sloping and undulating landscape with fast runoff.

The relief ratio of Madhupur Tract Basin was measured to be around 0.156, apparently very low, indicating minimal elevation

differences with a relatively flat or gently undulating terrain. The ruggedness number of the Madhupur Tract Basin is 33.54. A

low ruggedness indicates a relatively smooth and uniform landscape with gradual elevation changes. This may correspond to

plains, lowland areas, or regions with minimal topographic variation.

Declaration

Funding

This work was part of the Dhaka University Centennial Research Grant Project for Session 2020-2021 (Reg-3-47804).

Conflict of interest

To the best of their knowledge, the authors declare that there shouldn’t be any conflict of interest as this work was done as part of

a nationally approved project.

Reference

1. Adhikari, S. (2020). Morphometric Analysis of a Drainage Basin: A Study of Ghatganga River, Bajhang District, Nepal.

The Geographic BaseVol. 7: 127-144, 2020. Doi:10.3126/tgb.v7i0.34280.

2. Alam, M.N. (2007). Stratigraphic and Structural Features of the Surma Basin and the Upliftment of the Madhupur Tract

of Northeastern Bengal Basin. Journal of Geological Society of India, 69, 1319-1327.

3. Arulbalaji, P. & Gurugnanam, B. (2017). Geospatial tool-based morphometric analysis using SRTM data in Sarabanga

Basin, Cauvery River, Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:3875–3883. DOI 10.1007/s13201-017-

0539-z.

4. Bali, R., Agarwal, K.K., Ali, S.N., Rastogi, S.K., & Krishna, K. (2011). Drainage morphometry of Himalayan Glacio-

fluvial basin, India: hydrologic and neotectonic implications. Environ Earth Sci 66(4):1163–1174.

5. Bhat, M.S., Alam, A., Ahmad, S., Farooq, H., & Ahmad, B. (2019). Flood hazard assessment of Upper Jhelum basin

using morphometric parameters. Environ Earth Sci. 78(2):54.

6. Bogale, A. (2020). Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical information system in Gilgel Abay

basin, Lake Tana Basin, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Applied Water Science (2021) 11:122.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01447-9

7. Castillo, V., Diazsegovia, A, & Alonso, S.G. (1988). Quantitative study of fluvial landscapes, case study in Madrid,

Spain. Landsc Urb Plan 16:201–217.

8. De Reu, J., Bourgeois, J., Bats, M., Zwertvaegher, A., Gelorini, V., De Smedt, P., Chu, W., Antrop, M., De Maeyer, P.,

Finke, P., Van Meirvenne, M., Verniers, J., & Crombé, P. (2013). Application of the topographic position index to

heterogeneous landscapes. Geomorphology 186, 39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.015.

9. Ehsani, A.H., Qulel, F., & Maleklan, A. (2010). Effect of SRTM resolution on morphometric feature identification using

neural network-self organizing map. Geoinformatica 14:405–424.

10. Günther, A., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Malet, J.P., Reichenbach, P., & Hervás, J. (2014). Climate- physiographically

differentiated Pan-European landslide susceptibility assessment using spatial multi-criteria evaluation and transnational

landslide information. Geomor- phology 224, 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.07.011.

11. Haghipour N, Burg JP (2014) Geomorphological analysis of the drainage system on the growing Makran accretionary

wedge. Geomorphology 209:111–132.

12. Horton, R.E. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: Hydrophysical approach to

quantitative morphology. Geo. Soc. Am. Bulletin., 56: 275-37°.

13. Hossain, A., Akhter, S.H., Steckler, M.S., & Caldwell, R. (2014) Tectonics of Madhupur Tract, and its Influence on the

Cenozoic Sediments and Jamuna River Avulsion. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2014, abstract id. T31C-

4636.

14. Joji, V.S., Nair, A.S., & Baiju, K.V. (2013). Drainage basin delineation and quantitative analysis of Panamaram Basin of

Kabani River Basin, Kerala, using remote sensing and GIS. J Geol Soc Ind 82:368–378.

15. Kabir, A.S.M.S., Delwar Hossain, & Rashed Abdullah. “2-D Electrical Imaging in Some Geotechnical Investigation of

Madhupur Clays, Bangladesh.” Journal Geological Society of India, 77 (2011): 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-

011-0009-4.

16. Khan, M.Y.A. & ElKashouty, M. (2023). Basin prioritization and hydro-morphometric analysis for the potential

development of Tabuk Basin, Saudi Arabia using multivariate statistical analysis and coupled RS-GIS approach.

17. Kumar R, Kumar S, Lohani AK, Nema RK, Singh RD (2000) Evaluation of geomorphological characteristics of a

catchment using GIS. GIS India 9(3):13–17.

18. Mahala, A. (2020). The significance of morphometric analysis to understand the hydrological and morphological

characteristics in two different morpho‑climatic settings. Applied Water Science (2020) 10:33.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1118-2.

19. Maitra, M.K. & Akhter, S.H. (2010). Neotectonic Activities along Madhupur Tract and Its Adjoining Areas. Proceedings,

3rd International Earthquake Symposium, Bangladesh, Dhaka, March.5-6 2010.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 235

20. Miller, V. (1953) A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area,

Virginia and Tennessee. Project NR 389-402, Technical Report 3, Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR,

New York

21. Pickering, J.L., Goodbred, S.L., Beam, J.C., Ayers, J.C., Covey, A.K., Rajapara, H.M., & Singhvi, A.K. (2018). Terrace

formation in the upper Bengal basin since the Middle Pleistocene: Brahmaputra fan delta construction during multiple

highstands. Basin Research, 30.

22. Rahman, M.A., Moslehuddin, A.Z.M., & Saha, D.K. (2005). Mineralogy of Soils from Different Agroecological Regions

of Bangladesh: Region 28 - Madhupur Tract. Clay Science 12,333-339(2005).

23. Saha, S., Das, J., & Mandal, T. (2022). Investigation of the basin hydro-morphologic characteristics through the

morphometric analysis: A study on Rayeng basin in Darjeeling Himalaya. Environmental Challenges 7 (2022) 100463.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100463.

24. Schumm, S.A. (1956) Evolution of Drainage Systems & Slopes in Badlands at Perth, New Jersey. Bulletin of the

Geological Society of America, 67, 597-646.

25. Selvan, M.T., Ahmad, S., & Rashid, S.M. (2011). Analysis of the geomorphometric parameters in high altitude

Glacierised terrain using SRTM DEM data in Central Himalaya, India. ARPN J Sci Technol 1(1):22–27.

26. Smith, K.G. (1950) Standards for Grading Textures of Erosional Topography. American Journal of Science, 248, 655-

668. http://dx.doi.org/10.2475/ajs.248.9.655

27. Sreedevi, P.D., Subrahmanyam, K., & Ahmed, S. (2005). The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining

groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environ Geol 47(3):412–420.

28. Strahler, A.N. (1952) Dynamic Basis of Geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63, 923-938.

29. Strahler, A.N. (1957). Quantitative analysis of basin geomorphology. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union,

33(6), 913-920.

30. Strahler, A.N. (1964). Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In Chow, V.T. (ed.)

Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York. pp 439-476.

31. Thomas, J., Joseph, S., & Thrivikramaji, K.P. (2010). Morphometric aspects of a small tropical mountain river system,

the southern Western Ghats, India. Int J Digit Earth 3(2):135–156.

32. Towhida, R., Hossain, M.M., & Suzuki, S. (2006). A Review on the Quaternary Characteristics of Pleistocene Tracts of

Bangladesh. Geology.

33. Verstappen, H. (1983) Applied Geomorphology: Geomorphological Surveys for Environmental Development. Elsevier,

New York.

Figure 1: Map showing the location and extent of Madhupur Tract.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 236

Figure 2: Structural elements in and around Madhupur Tract. This figure also shows the direction of the strike-slip movement

along the Madhupur Fault (Source: Maitro & Akhter, 2010).

Figure 3: Surface geology Map of the study area and surroundings.

Figure 4: A drainage map of the Madhupur Tract Area (modified from Begum et al., 2009).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 237

Figure 5: Map showing basin basins of Madhupur Tract study area. Each basin is identified by individual color shade.

Figure 6: Stream order map of Madhupur Tract basin, calculated using Strahler method.

Figure 7: Stream Order vs Stream Number vs Stream Length.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 238

Figure 8: Drainage Density characteristics of the Madhupur Tract Basin area.

Figure 9: Map showing Stream Flow direction over the Madhupur Tract Basin.

Table 1: Characteristics of data sources used for the morphometric study.

Data Type

Data Source

Landsat image (land use map)

GloVis, Landsat 8 OLI (Panchromatic band of 15 m × 15 m,

visible, NIR, SWIR bands of 30 m × 30 m and thermal band of

100 m × 100 m resolution), 2014, row/path- 43/138

Digital elevation model (DEM)

USGS 1 arc second, UTM-45, WGS 1984

Drainage Density Map

DEM (USGS 1 arc second), 30 m × 30 m resolution, UTM-45,

WGS 1984

Table 2: Morphometric Parameters (Methodology adopted for Computations of Linear and Areal Morphometric Parameters with

formulae.

Linear Aspect

Basin Perimeter

Outer boundary of drainage basin / basin

Schumm

(1956)

Basin Length

=1.312

0.568

Length of basin

Stream Order

Sµ

no.

Hierarchical rank

Strahler

(1964)

Stream Number

Nµ

no.

number of streams of a given order ‘µ’

Stream Length

Lµ

the total length of streams (km) of all order ‘µ’

Horton

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 239

Mean Stream

Length















= total length of streams (km) of a particular

order ‘u’

= Total number of streams of a particular

order ‘u’

(1945)

Stream Length

Ratio















 

ratio

= mean stream length of a particular order

‘u’

+ 1 = mean stream length of next higher

order ‘u + 1’

Bifurcation Ratio



















ratio

= number of streams of a particular order ‘u’

+ 1 = Number of streams of next higher

order ‘u + 1’

Schumm

(1956)

Mean Bifurcation

Ratio

ratio

mean of bifurcation ratios of all orders

Areal Aspect

Basin Area

Area from which water drains

Strahler

(1964)

Form Factor















ratio

A = area of the basin (km

)

= basin length (km)

Horton

(1945)

Drainage Density













km /

= length of all stream (km)

A = Basin area (km

)

Stream Frequency













/ km

= total number of streams of a given basin

A = total area of basin (km

)

Circularity Ratio













A = area of the basin (km

)

P = perimeter of the basin (km)

Strahler

(1964)

Elongation Ratio











P = outer boundary of a drainage basin (km)

L = basin length (km)

Texture Ratio

(Drainage Texture)













/ km

= total number of streams of a given basin

P = perimeter of the basin (km)

Smith

(1950)

Constant Channel

Maintenance

 







= drainage density

Strahler

(1964)

Relief Aspects

Basin Relief

    

R = highest relief

r = lowest relief

Schumm

(1956)

Relief Ratio













ratio

H = relative relief (m)

= length of the basin (m)

Dissection Index











ratio

H = relative relief (m)

R = absolute relief (m)

Basin Slope













ratio

H = relative relief (m)

= length of the basin (m)

Miller

(1953)

Ruggedness

Number





  



ratio

R = Basin Relief

= drainage density

Schumm

(1956)

Index

Topographic

Wetness Index

(TWI)



 











ratio

= Upslope contributing area per unit contour

width (m²/m)

 = Slope angle in radians

Beven and

Kirkby

(1979)

Topographic

Position Index

(TPI)

  



 





ratio





= Elevation of the target cell





= Mean elevation of neighboring cells within

a specified radius

Weiss

(2001)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 240

Table 3: Morphometric results for the Madhupur Tract basin.

Linear Aspect

Basin Perimeter

380

Basin Length

139

Stream Order

no.

Order

Stream Number

no.

18,757

Stream Length

3,163

Mean Stream Length

1.56

Stream Length Ratio

ratio

0.47

Mean Bifurcation Ratio

ratio

2.54

Areal Aspect

Basin Area

8,200

Form Factor

ratio

0.06

Drainage Density

km / km

0.55 - 2.06

Stream Frequency

/ km

14.57 - 205.51

Circularity Ratio

0.32

Elongation Ratio

4.68

Texture Ratio (Drainage

Texture)

/ km

9.8

Relief

Aspects

Basin Relief

Relief Ratio

ratio

0.16

Ruggedness Number

ratio

35.54

Table 4: Ranges and classification of morphometric parameters.

Table 5: Linear morphometric results against stream orders across the Madhupur Tract basin.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 241

Table 6: Ranges and classification of areal and relief aspects of morphometric parameters.

FORM FACTOR (Pérez, 1979)

DRAINAGE DENSITY (Pérez, 1979)

MEAN SLOPE - the mainstream (IBAL, 2009)

MEAN SLOPE - basin/basin (Pérez, 1979)

Stream Number

Bifurcation Ratio

Mean Bifurcation

Ratio

Stream Length

(km)

Mean Stream

Length (km)

Stream Length

Ratio

0.17

0.15

0.18

0.22

0.30

0.55

0.46

0.43

0.44

1610

887

412

176.58

2.54

9396

6018

2273

813

258

1.56

2.65

2.80

3.16

Stream Order

Linear Aspects