## 4 Results
### Geomorphology
#### 4.3.3 Normalized River Profile  
High concavity and low MaxL indicate concave profiles approaching the stage of equilibrium. In contrast, low concavity (convex profiles) indicate a tectonically uplifted region [51; 59]. Figure 9 shows the normalized longitudinal river profiles of the twelve (12) major rivers traversing the frontal anticlinal structures in the Manzai Ranges. The concavity percent varies from \(-1.04\%\) to a maximum of 31.4%, with an average value of 11.23%. Ten out of twelve normalized river profiles show less than 20% concavity. They indicate a disequilibrium state in unstable young basins of the Manzai Ranges. The distance to maximum concavity (MaxL) varies from 0.27 to 0.79. The normalized longitudinal river profiles show an abrupt break in slope at knockpoints and are related to tectonic uplift or lithological \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Segment**} & **Valley** & **V\({}_{\mathrm{fw}}\)** & **E\({}_{\mathrm{ld}}\)** & **E\({}_{\mathrm{rd}}\)** & **E\({}_{\mathrm{sc}}\)** & **V\({}_{\mathrm{f}}\)** & **L\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\)** & **L\({}_{\mathrm{s}}\)** & **S\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\)** \\  & **No.** & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(km)** & **(km)** & **S\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\)** \\ \hline Southwest & 1 & 63.5 & 621 & 653 & 535.5 & 0.63 & 9.86 & 5.8 & 1.7 \\  & 2 & 82 & 612 & 600 & 516 & 0.91 & 4.91 & 3.66 & 1.34 \\  & 3 & 36 & 584.2 & 588.2 & 521 & 0.55 & 11.54 & 7.51 & 1.53 \\  & 4 & 41 & 598.5 & 580.7 & 500.5 & 0.46 & 8.47 & 4.81 & 1.76 \\  & 5 & 89.5 & 579.5 & 589 & 535 & 1.82 & 6.84 & 3.4 & 2.01 \\  & 6 & 81 & 612 & 612 & 525 & 0.93 & 4.39 & 2.42 & 1.81 \\  & 7 & 43 & 603.1 & 597.7 & 533 & 0.64 & 5.76 & 3.99 & 1.44 \\  & 8 & 32.5 & 571.5 & 558 & 512 & 0.62 & - & - & - \\  & 9 & 39.5 & 555.7 & 557.5 & 517.5 & 1.01 & - & - & - \\  & 10 & 48 & 362 & 370.9 & 310.5 & 0.86 & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mean} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.85} & \multirow{2}{*}{Median} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.75} & Stand. & \multirow{2}{*}{0.39} & Mean & \multirow{2}{*}{1.65} & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\  & & & & Dev. & & & S\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\) & & \\ \hline Southeast & 1 & 86 & 479.5 & 476 & 350.5 & 0.68 & 4.84 & 2.92 & 1.66 \\  & 2 & 99.5 & 510.2 & 501.2 & 386 & 0.83 & 3.52 & 2.22 & 1.59 \\  & 3 & 31 & 366.7 & 369.6 & 343.2 & 1.24 & 6.14 & 3.39 & 1.81 \\  & 4 & 19 & 326.7 & 327.5 & 315 & 1.57 & 8.28 & 4.31 & 1.92 \\  & 5 & 21 & 349.9 & 349.5 & 337.2 & 1.68 & - & - & - \\  & 6 & 28 & 339.4 & 343.1 & 326.4 & 1.89 & - & - & - \\  & 7 & 28.5 & 343.4 & 350.1 & 331.05 & 1.81 & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mean} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.39} & \multirow{2}{*}{Median} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.04} & Stand. & \multirow{2}{*}{0.51} & Mean & \multirow{2}{*}{1.74} & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\  & & & & Dev. & & S\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: S\({}_{\mathrm{mf}}\) and valley floor width to height ratio (V\({}_{\mathrm{f}}\)) values were calculated across the Khirgi Thrust. \(\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{mf}}\) for two different mountain front segments, i.e., southwest and southeast. The mean values for each segment was also indicated. Values of V\({}_{\mathrm{f}}\) (valley floor width to height ratio) along the major streams traversing perpendicular to the anticlinal structures in the study area where V\({}_{\mathrm{fw}}\) is the width of the valley floor, E\({}_{\mathrm{ld}}\) is an elevation on the left side of the valley floor, E\({}_{\mathrm{rd}}\) is the elevation on right side of the valley floor, and E\({}_{\mathrm{sc}}\) is the elevation on the valley floor. All calculations were limited to 500–1500 m of the mountain front and were constrained to the same lithology. Mean, median and standard deviation were calculated to better distribute the values. contrast. However, lithological contrast in the Manzai Ranges is limited to the sandstone and claystone of the quaternary Chinji and Nagri Formations.