Comparison Density and Fractal Dimension of Drainage Networks in Different Scales and Precision Different (Case Study: Ilam Watersheds)

Alimoradi, Mahtab; Ekhtesasi, Mohammadreza; Taze, mahdi; Karimi, Haji

doi:10.29252/jwmr.10.19.73

Volume 10, Issue 19 (5-2019) jwmr 2019, 10(19): 73-84 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.29252/jwmr.10.19.73

‎ 20.1001.1.22516174.1398.10.19.6.9

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Alimoradi M, Ekhtesasi M, Taze M, Karimi H. (2019). Comparison Density and Fractal Dimension of Drainage Networks in Different Scales and Precision Different (Case Study: Ilam Watersheds). jwmr. 10(19), 73-84. doi:10.29252/jwmr.10.19.73
URL: http://jwmr.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-792-en.html

Comparison Density and Fractal Dimension of Drainage Networks in Different Scales and Precision Different (Case Study: Ilam Watersheds)

Mahtab Alimoradi

, Mohammadreza Ekhtesasi

, Mahdi Taze

, Haji Karimi

yazd university

Abstract: (2867 Views)

Every phenomena in the nature, despite the complexity of the subject, has certain rules and regulations. River pattern and behavior as one of the most complex natural phenomena to this is not an exception. Depending on geomorphologic, climatic, topographic and erosive conditions, the waterways exhibit different patterns and behaviors. One of the parameters which can be achieved using the complexity of the pattern of the form of phenomena is fractal geometry. The purpose of this study is to calculate and compare the fractal dimension of hydrographic networks in Ilam watersheds, which were extracted from 50 m DEM and SRTM satellite data. Hydrographic networks that were derived from SRTM data with a precision of more than 5 meters are mapped by using Google Earth images. For this purpose, 12 watersheds were first selected in Ilam province (Ema, Tang-e-Sazbon, Doiraj, Holylan, Nazarabad, Chamgahs, Kolm, Siagav, Jafarabad, Chaviz, Jezman and Vargach) and after determining the units of 25 square kilometers in each of the areas and drawing and completing the drainage network patterns in the studied areas, their fractal dimension were calculated using Fractalys software. The results showed that the calculation and comparison of fractal dimension with visual methods is correct if the compared fields have the same area, and the accuracy and scale of the drawing of hydrographic networks is also the same. On the other hand, the drainage network drafted on Google Earth with a precision of more than five meters compared to the corresponding waterway network with a precision of 50m DEM in 5 × 5 square kilometers (25 square kilometers), has a very high accuracy. Also, the minimum fractal dimension before the modification of hydrographic networks is for Ema watershed (1/042) and the maximum amount is for Tang-e-Sazbon watershed (1,424). However, after the modification of hydrographic networks and calculating fractal dimension, the lowest fractal dimension is for Chaviz watershed (1.1) and the highest amount is for Nazarabad (1.49).

Keywords: Quantitative Parameters, Fractals Dimension, Formations Geology and Hydrology and Sediment Indicators

Full-Text [PDF 1318 kb] (777 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: ژئومورفولوژی و زمين شناسی
Received: 2017/04/8 | Revised: 2019/07/31 | Accepted: 2018/05/29 | Published: 2019/08/3

References

1. Adl, I. and S. Mehrvand. 2004. Fractal dimension and hydrological characteristics of catchments, Sharif University, Tehran, (In Persian).

2. Afshani, S.A. 2008. Practical training of SPSS in social and Behavioral Sciences, Yazd University, pp: 145-146.

3. Baas, A. 2002. Tchaos, fractals and self-organization in coastal geomorphology:simulating dune landscapes in vegetated environmentso Geomorphology, 48: 309-328. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00187-3]

4. Del Afrooz, H., A. Ghaheri, M.A. Ghorbani and M.H. Fazeli fard. 2016. Use an index nonlinear dynamical systems for the classification of hydrological watershed, Journal of Watershed Management, 7(13): 42-49 (In Persian).

5. Dombrádi, E., G. Timár, G. Bada, S. Cloetingh and F. Horváth. 2007. Fractal dimension estimations of drainage network in the, Sciencedirect, Global and Planetary Change, 58: 197-213. [DOI:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.02.011]

6. Ekhtesasi, M.R. 1994. An Introduction to the fractal,Quantitative geomorphology, Desert and Natural Resources College, Yazd University, (In Persian).

7. Esmaeili, H.A. and S. Kheyri. 2006. Introductory Workshop 11/5 SPSS software training," Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.

8. Ghadam poor, Z. and N. Taleb Bidokhti. 2011. Calculating the fractal dimension meander in the river using a box counting, Sixth National Congress on Civil Engineering, Semnan University. (In Persian).

9. Gulbin, Y.L. ans E.B. Evangulova. 2003. Morphometry of quartz aggregates in granites:fractal image sreferring tonucleation and growth processes," Mathematical Geology, 35(7): 819-833. [DOI:10.1023/B:MATG.0000007781.90498.5e]

10. Homauoon NeJad, I. and S. SHojaei. 2016. Application of fractal watershed assessment (Case study: watershed Doiyraj, Ecological congresses and exhibitions and future crises (centered on water scarcity and urban and industrial pollution). No 3:7 pp.

11. Horton, R. 2013. Drainage Basin Characteristics. Transactions of the American Geophysical ::union::(AGU), 13: 350-370. [DOI:10.1029/TR013i001p00350]

12. Horton, R. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach, 56: 275-370. [DOI:10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2]

13. Karam, A. and M. Saberi. 2015. Calculating the fractal dimension in drainage basins and its relationship with the characteristics of the basin Geomorphological (Case study: watershed north of Tehran), quantitative geomorphology, 4(3): 153-167 (In Persian).

14. Kruhl, J.H. 2012. Fractal-geometry techniques in the quantification of complex rock structures, Geology, 46: 2-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsg.2012.10.002]

15. Kruhl, J.H. and M. Nega.1996. The fractal shapeofsutured quartz grainboundaries, Geologische Rundschau, 85: 38-43. [DOI:10.1007/s005310050049]

16. La Barbera, P. and R. Rosso. 1989. On the fractal dimension of stream networks. Water Resources Research, 25(4): 735-741. [DOI:10.1029/WR025i004p00735]

17. Mehr Kazemiyan, M. and I. Sajedifar. 2008. Geotourism Atlas Ilam Province Geological organistion and Mineral Exploration country., Earth Sciences Databases.

18. Navarre Sitchler, A. and S. Brandley. 2007. Basalt weathering across scales, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 261(1-2): 321-334. [DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.07.010]

19. Nikooie, E., M. Hidari, N. Taleb Bidokhti and A.A. Hekmatzadeh. 2008. Fractal geometry in river engineering, ideas, concepts and achievements," در Congress of Civil Engineering, Tehran, (In Persian).

20. Peitgen, H.O., H. Jurgens and D. Saupe. 1992. Chaos and Fractals:," New Frontiers of Science, Vols. Springer, New York, 2(864): 62-63. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4757-4740-9_3]

21. Pelletle r, Jon D. 1999. Self-organization and scaling relationships of evolving river networks Journal april10, Geophisical research, pp: 7359-7375. [DOI:10.1029/1998JB900110]

22. Rezaei Moghaddam, M.H. M.R. Servati and S. Asghari Sereskanrood. 2011. A comparative study of fractal geometry analysis and pattern meanders using indexes central angle and curvature coefficient (Case Study: River Qzlavzn), Journal of watershed management, Vol. 2, No. 3 (In Persian).

23. Roach, D. and A. Fowler. 1993. Dimensionality analysis of patterns: fractal measurements, AA(Ottawa Carleton Geoscience Centre and Department of Geology, 19(6): 849-869. [DOI:10.1016/0098-3004(93)90055-A]

24. Schuller, D.J., A.R. Rao and G.D. Jeong. 2001. Fractal characteristics of dense stream networks, Hydrology, 243: 1-16. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00395-4]

25. Tahmasebi, Z., F. Zal and A. Ahmadi Khalaji. 2015. Tourmaline granites morphology in Mashhad (g2) using fractal analysis and social theory with a limited release (DLA), Crystallography and Mineralogy of Iran, Vol. 23, No. 3, (In Persian).

26. Talling, P. and M.J. Sowter. 1999. Drainage density on progressively tilted surfaces with different gradients, Wheeler Ridge, California. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24: 809-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199908)24:9<809::AID-ESP13>3.0.CO;2-R [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199908)24:93.0.CO;2-R]

27. Turcotte, D.L. 1992. Fractal and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics, Geophysics Combridge university press.

28. Veneziano, D. and J.D. Niemann. 2000. Self-similarity and multifractality of fluvial erosion topography: 1. Mathematical conditions and physical origin. Water Resources Research, 36: 1923-1936. [DOI:10.1029/2000WR900053]