## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Flood Susceptibility Map (FSM)  
Depending on the FR values and the previously indicated approach applied to the top ten thematic layers, the flood vulnerability zones were estimated. According to the findings, classes 170-190, 10-20, and 18.8 had the lowest values of FR for elevation, slope, and aspect (0.2, 4.8, and 0.3, respectively). The FR values were inversely correlated with high elevation, slope, and aspect values, resulting in the lowest flood probability. With FR values more than 2, locations closer than 430 m from a stream had a higher likelihood of experiencing flash floods. Additionally, the analysis of the stream density showed that classes with densities greater than >22 km km\({}^{-2}\) had the greatest value of FR (2.2), followed by classes with densities between 8.4 and 11 km km\({}^{-2}\). (1.5). The class of sandstone and gravel deposits had the lowest FR value (1.2) and a high chance of flash floods, whereas the class of limestone formations had the highest FR value (5.6) and a high probability of flash floods. The areas with the largest frequency ratio (FR = 3.6, respectively) and the highest values of TWI and TRI (>19 and 0.64-0.89), respectively, demonstrate high vulnerability to flooding threats. The surface runoff parameter indicated that the areas with the highest frequency ratio (3.3) and, consequently, the highest likelihood of flooding were those with the highest surface runoff rate (6.6-7 m). According to the FSM, places with a large concentration of structures are the ones most in danger of flooding, whilst open spaces are less vulnerable. This finding supports the idea that metropolitan areas with low infiltration values are more susceptible to flooding. According to the findings, 20% of the research region is classified as having a very high risk of flash flood hazards (Figure 7). Contrarily, more than 50% of the area under investigation is less in danger of flooding (40.09% is classified as having extremely low risk, and 13.14% as having low-risk levels, respectively).  
The area, with that extension, is threatened by the danger of runoff due to the flow of water that collects in the stomachs of the main valleys and descends according to the directions of the various slopes and at a speed that varies according to the slope angles, causing torrential torrents that destroy the human activities that obstruct their path, and increase the risk of water erosion in the region due to the presence of dense drainage networks with tributaries Figure 6g.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**FSM Conditioning Factors** & **Classes** & **\% of Domain** & **\% of FSM Points** & **FR** \\ \hline  & \(<\)2 & 63.2 & 35.3 & 0.7 \\  & 8.4–11 & 10.8 & 16.7 & 1.5 \\ Stream density (km km\({}^{-2}\)) & 12–15 & 22.0 & 48.0 & 0.9 \\  & 16–18 & 4.0 & 33.0 & 0.1 \\  & 19–21 & 22.0 & 60.7 & 0.9 \\  & 22–24 & 4.0 & 48.0 & 2.2 \\ \hline  & 3–6 & 43.0 & 65.7 & 2.7 \\  & 6–9 & 25.8 & 22.0 & 1.0 \\  & 9–12 & 13.8 & 4.7 & 0.3 \\  & 12–16 & 8.0 & 3.7 & 0.4 \\  & 16–19 & 10.3 & 4.0 & 0.5 \\  & \(>\)19 & 62.2 & 30.3 & 3.6 \\ \hline  & 0.11–0.36 & 40.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\ TRI & 0.37–0.63 & 10.8 & 3.3 & 0.2 \\  & 0.64–0.89 & 30.8 & 80.0 & 1.5 \\ \hline  & 5.3–5.7 & 40.2 & 31.3 & 0.6 \\  & 5.7–6 & 12.8 & 14.7 & 0.9 \\ Surface Runoff & 6–6.3 & 20.0 & 44.0 & 1.7 \\  & 6.3–6.6 & 5.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\  & 6.6–7 & 29.1 & 42.7 & 3.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Cont.