Simulation of River Bed Degradation with Bed Rock Erosion Downstream of theReservoir
Sumi, Tetsuya
University of Kyoto, Kyoto, Japansumi.tetsuya.2s@kyoto-u.ac.jp

Lai, Jihn-Sung, Lee, Fong-Zuo, Tan, Yih-Chi & Huang, Chen-Chia
National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan

ABSTRACT:
After the completion of a dam or a weir, coarser sediments could be trapped in the impounding water area. Part of inflowing sedimenttends to deposit during reservoir operation. Over a period of time, the downstream river bed may gradually be degraded by the released
flood flow which contains less sediment supply than that of reservoir inflow. River bed erosion caused by running flood may create
problems of scouring the foundation of levees or bridge piers. In Taiwan, several river reaches downstream of the dams have the bed
rock erosion problems that possess of complex mechanism. The hydraulic erosion and sediment abrasion are studied to estimate thedegradation of bed rock. The numerical mobile-bed model is adopted to simulate erosion phenomena downstream of the Shihmen
reservoir. The Shihmen Reservoir has the function of water supply for municipal and agricultural demand in the northern part of
Taiwan. The Shihmen Reservoir is situated in the Dahan creek that is one of the major tributaries of the Tanshui River. In this research,the degradation tendency is investigated using bed rock erosion formulas. The simulated results provide further understanding of bed
degradation mechanism.
Keywords: Degradation, Bed rock, Erosion mechanism

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONSIn Taiwan, many downstream alluvial rivers of reservoirs
and dams are characterized by the presence and exposureof soft rocks on the river bed, due to lack of sedimentsupply. The soft rock consists of mainly mudstone andsandstone which is relatively weak (shear strength lower
than 25.0 MPa) and subject to essential erosion duringhigh flows. Therefore, soft rock erosion is an important
river process in Taiwan. For example, a few kilometresof river channels downstream of the Chi-Chi Weir,
Shihkang reservoir and Shihmen reservoir haveexperienced up to couple meters of rock scour since weirand reservoir construction (see Fig. 1). Much bed rockerosion is the result of interaction of hydraulic erosion
and sediment abrasion. There are many researches ofbedrock erosion and are usually classified to hydraulicand abrasive scour kinds. Tomkin et al. (2003) comparedvarious empirical models for bedrock erosion, but, theresults showed that they generally cannot explain
observed behaviour because of the simple empiricalapproaches do not account for the varying channel
capacity in different parts of the river and they accountfor the distribution of discharge with time. Therefore, inthis study, building a bedrock erosion module into 2D
hydraulic and sediment transport models, the variations

in channel capacity and specific discharge time series are
explicitly simulated. Similar to the 1D model ofGreimann and Vandeebrg (2008), the 2D model would
not estimate the local erosion caused from plunging jets
downstream of spillways. Such erosion could be
estimated using models developed by Bollaert andSchleiss (2005) and Annandale (2006). Bolaert andMason (2006) applied the method of Bollaert andSchleiss (2005) to estimate scour in a plunge pooldownstream of a dam. Therefore, this study would not
apply such techniques similar to Annandale (2006) toestimate local rock scour downstream of dams;
representative applications and procedures are reported
by Frizell (2006; 2007). Besides, Sklar and Dietrich(2004) and Lamb et al. (2008) researched on the abrasion
erosion. Sklar and Dietrich (2004) considered theabrasion erosion from bed load effect and Lamb et al.
(2008) further considered suspended load influence andcombining bed load effect to simulate bed rock erosion.
However, in this study, only bed load effect is employed
to estimate due to simplify model routing.
Water Resources Planning Institute (2009) already used
the same method to verify parameters of bed rock erosion
phenomenon. But, unfortunately, many bed rock erosion
phenomena, mechanisms and rates do not agree with

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 1. Photographs showing exposed bed rock at
downstream of (a) Chi-Chi weir (b)Shihkang reservoir(c)Shihmen reservoir

2. DESCREPTION OF SHIHMEN RESERVOIRDOWNSTREAM
The Shihmen reservoir is a multi-functional reservoir andits functions include irrigation, water supply, generating
electric power, preventing flood and recreation. The
Shihmen reservoir has a natural drainage area of 762.4
km2. It is formed by the Shihmen dam located at the
upstream reach of the Dahan River. The Dahan River is
one of the three tributaries of the Tamshuei River whichflows westward the Taiwan Strait. A map of thewatershed area of the Shihmen reservoir is presented inFig. 2. The Shihmen dam was constructed in 1963 is a133.1m high embankment dam with spillways,
permanent river outlet, and power plant intake and flood
diversion tunnels controlled by tailrace gates. The
elevations of the spillway crest, permanent river outlet,
and power plant intake and tunnel spillway are EL.235 m,
EL.169.5m, EL.173m and EL.220m, respectively. The
total discharge of spillways is 11400m3/s, permanentriver outlet is 34m3/s, power plant intake is 137.2m3/s
and tunnel spillway is 2,400m3/s. With a maximum waterlevel of EL.245 m, the reservoir pool is about 16.5 km in
length and forms a water surface area of 8.15 km2. The
initial storage capacity was 30,912x 105 m3, and theactive storage was 25,188x 105 m3. Due to a lack ofsufficient desiltation facilities, incoming sedimentparticles have settled down rapidly along the reservoir
since the dam was completed. Based on the survey data,

the Shihmen reservoir has accumulated a significant
amount of sediment after dam completion. The
depositional pattern has become wedge-shaped since
2000.
From identification by the parameters of the turnover rateof water(CAP/MAR=total capacity/Mean annual runoff)and sediment(CAP/MAS=total capacity/Mean annual
inflow sediment) (Sumi, 2011), the life of Shihmen
reservoir is reduced from 188 year to 55year due to
Chi-Chi earthquake effect (Fig. 3). Fig. 4 show thevariation of deposition volume from reservoir isconstructed. The mainly deposition volume happened in1964 year and 2004 year after reservoir is constructed
and typhoon AERE attacking, respectively. The Fig. 4
also shows that the Chi-Chi earthquake does not affects
deposition volume obviously in recent 10 years.
Therefore, the mainly deposition volume is result fromtyphoon effect. Based on recent survey data in 2010, thestorage capacity was estimated to be 67.07% of its initial
capacity.
Fig. 5 shows the cross sections below the Shihmen
reservoir and Fig. 6 shows the mainly variation area ofbed elevation from section 86 to section 90. According to
the degradation of section 90, there is about 9m beeroded after Shihmen reservoir is constructed. However,the starting year of bed rock erosion is not recorded
clearly. But, based on 2004 field survey of Northern
Water Resources Bureau, bed rock is exposed and mainly
exposed area was from section 90A to section 82.
Therefore, the bed elevation of 2004 was adopted as ainitial geographic condition to simulate bed rock erosion.

Figure 2. Watershed of Shihmen reservoir (Lee et al., 2007)
100000

Excavation(before Chi-Chi earthquake)
Dredging(before Chi-Chi earthquake)
Venting(before Chi-Chi earthquake)
Others(before Chi Chi earthquake)

10000

Reservoir Life=CAP/MAS

each domestic environment. Therefore, this study
chooses exposed bed rock area in the downstream of
Shihmen reservoir in Dahan River at northern Taiwan for
the application case. Using of the hydraulic scour andsediment with rock abrasion in bed rock erosion model
for parameter identification and verification. Then, thestudy would establish appropriate bed rock parameters in
Dahan River and recognize which erosion mechanism
would dominate bed rock erosion in Shihmen reservoir
area.

Excavation(after Chi-Chi earthquake)
Dredging(after Chi-Chi earthquake)
Venting(after Chi-Chi earthquake)
Others(after Chi-Chi earthquake)

1000
Shihmen100
Shihmen101
0.1
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

Capacity-inflow ratio=CAP/MAR

Figure 3. Reservoir characteristics in Taiwan

10

120

1999
After Chi‐Chi‐Earthquake

Before Chi‐Chi‐Earthquake

35

100

33% ofCapacity

30
25

TyphoonAere(2004)

20

60

First year after reservoir
constructed

15

80

10

40

5

20

0

Accumulative deposition volume(106m3)

Average annual depsition volume(106m3)

40

-5
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year

Figure 4. Variation of sedimentation in Shihmen reservoir

Section 82

Section 83

Section 84

Section 85

Section 86

Section 87

Section 88

Section 89

Section 90

Section 90A

Section 86

Bed elevation(m)Section 87

120
117

Section 88

114

Section 89

111
108
105

Section 90

~9m

~102m

102

1969 1970

1980

1990

2000

(1)

Where, E =total rock erosion rate (m/s), k p =hydraulicerodibility, U =depth averaged flow velocity (m/s),
 ,  cri =bed shear stress ; critical shear stress forhydraulic scour (Pa), c , ctr =thickness of rock cover ;transition thickness (m); n =empirical exponent andEa =abrasive scour rate (m/s). The first term on the righthand side of equation (1) represents the hydraulic scour
rate and it is set to be a function of the stream power (τU)
(Annandale,2006). The above form has the advantage ofbeing dimensionally consistent as opposed to thedimensional equations used in many existing models
such as that of Tomkin et al. (2003) and it is also
consistent in form to the cohesive sediment transport
relationships. The c / ctr term represents the armour

k p can be a calibration parameter in the numerical modeland it is also probably can be a site specific value. Basedon the results of Greimann and Vandeburg (2008) and
Water Resources Planning Institute report (2009), thevalue of k p is set from 4.0*10-6 to 1.0 downstream of

126
123

c

 1) n (1  )  Ea
ctr
 cri

effect and ctr  0.1m was used as the transition
thickness above which zero rock erosion is expected.
Besides, n=1 is used in this study as no concrete datasuggest the use of nonlinear relations. Therefore, twoempirical parameters are needed for the hydraulic scour:k p and  cri . The dimensionless erodibility parameter

Figure 5. Mainly bed rock area and cross sections
129

E  k pU (

2007

2010

Year

Figure 6. Variation of bed elevation at each cross section

3. DESCREPTION OF BED ROCK EROSION
MODEL AND SIMULATED CONDITIONIn this study, we employed that the hydraulic scour andabrasive scour be modelled separately to simulate bed
rock erosion. And, mainly content is following the resultsof Water Resources Planning Institute report (2009).
Therefore, both models are incorporated into 2D mobile
bed model. Field survey should be conducted todetermine whether the study site is hydraulic scour
dominant, abrasive scour dominant, or both play
important roles. Model simulation results may also be
used through post-analysis to assess the dominant scour
mechanism.
The presented rock erosion model follows the results ofGreimann and Vandeburg (2008) with minor
modifications. The rock scour rate is computed by
combining both the stream power based hydraulic scour
model with excesses shear tress and the bed load abrasive
scour model as follows:

the weir if abrasive scour is ignored. In this research, thesame value is adopted. The critical stress  cri may be
estimated using the Annandale (2006) approach, field
test, or numerical model test in comparison with fielddata. With the Annandale method the critical stream
power may be related to the critical shear stress as(Greimann and vandeburg, 2008). According to thecalibration results of Water Resources Planning Institutereport (2009) in Chu-Chi weir and Shihkang reservoir,
the value of  cri is between 100 Pa and 300 Pa.
Therefore, this study also follows such range in Shihmen
reservoir.
The abrasive scour is based on the model of Sklar andDietrich (2004) and adopted model is presented asfollowing:
1.5


0.08 Rb gY
u 

Ea 
qs (  1) 0.5 1  ( * ) 2  Fe2
kv Tw f 
c

In

which

Ea

=abrasive

scour

rate

(2)
(m/s),

R b =  s /   1 ,  s =is sediment density and ρ is water
density, g=gravity (m/s2), k v =rock erodibility parameter(-), Y=modulus of elasticity of rock (Pa),  T =tensile
strength of rock (Pa), q s =sediment supply per unit width(kg/m/s),  ,  c =bed shear stress and critical shear stress(Pa), w f =sediment fall velocity (m/s), u* =shear velocity

2758000

parameter representing rock erodibility and it may be
estimated in the laboratory that presented by Sklar andDietrich (2004), but it needed to be calibrated for field
applications. Based on the calibration results of Chi-Chi
weir and Shihkang reservoir, its value was calibrated tobe from 10 to 1000 at different cross sections if only
abrasive scour is present. Y is the rock modulus ofelasticity (Pa) and  T is the rock tensile strength (Pa).
Based on the relative values in similar locations, Y and T can be measured in the field. Note that, the fraction of
the exposed bed is represented by Fe in the abrasivemodel equation (2). In addition, it can be chosen thesame as the hydraulic scour, i.e. Fe  1 - c / ctr . However,Fe  1 - qs / qt is used to represent the fraction of bedrock
exposure with the sediment transport capacity per unit
width (kg/m/s).
On the other hand, the sediment transport equation ofParker (1990) was adopted. Besides, due to the initial bed
condition is from 2004 year, the simulated boundary
condition is also from 2004year. Fig. 7 shows thehydrograph of boundary condition and combines
apparently hydrological events from 2004 year to 2008
year to simulate bed rock erosion. The first part from2004 year to 2006 year was used for calibration
parameters and from 2006 to 2008 year was used forverification duration. Fig. 8 presents the simulation meshand initial bed elevation from section 90A of upstream
boundary and Yuanshan weir of downstream boundary.
The simulated mesh was locally increased to improve
simulation accuracy.
5500

Section 90A

5000
4500

實測值

4000

Q(m 3 /s)

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
檢定(85 hr)驗證(138 hr)

2006~2008

2004~2006

500
0

Sediment concentra tion (ppm)

20000

0

25

50

75

125

時間(hr)

檢定(85 hr)

2004~2006

18000

100

16000

150

175

200

225

驗證(138 hr)

2006~2008

Section 90A

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

實測值

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

51.9
51.8

2006~2008
驗證(138 hr)

2004~2006
檢定(85 hr)

51.7

Wa ter level (m)

51.6
51.5
51.4
51.3
51.2
51.1
51.0

Yuanshan Weir

50.9

實測值

50.8
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Time (hour)

Figure 7. Boundary conditions of inflow and outflow

2756000

2756000

2754000

2754000y (m)There are three parameters needed to be determined forabrasive erosion: k v , Y and  T . k v is a dimensionless2758000
YuanshanWeir /  and Fe =fraction of exposed bedrock.
y (m)(m/s) ;

2752000

Bed elevation (m)2752000

Section 82

Section 82

2750000

2750000

2748000

2748000
Section 90A

2746000

Section 82

276000 278000 280000 282000 284000 286000

x (m)Section 90A

2746000

Obviously
bed rock area

140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40

276000 278000 280000 282000 284000 286000

x (m)Figure 8. Simulation mesh and initial bed elevation in 2004

4. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Due to the lack of field test, the hydraulic erosion andabrasion erosion parameters from refer to the values of
Shihkang reservoir and Chi-Chi weir (Water Resources
Planning Institute report, 2009). Table 1 lists thereference data from Shihkang reservoir area and Chi-Chi
weir area and calibrated values of k v , Y,  T , k p and  crifrom 2004 year to 2006 year in this study. The calibrated
values indicated that k v ,  T and  cri at same order
between three areas. But, Y and k p presented couple
order difference, especially Y. Therefore, the value ofY needed to measure in the field to adopt proper value.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of bed elevation from 2004
year to 2006 year and the figure also shows the bed
elevation tendency of downstream river is erosion,
especially at section 78 and section 75. However, theerosion area of field survey presents cross section erosion
performance between section78 and section 87 andsimulated result presents mainly channel erosion
phenomenon. Fig. 10 shows the comparison of
measurement data and simulation results at section 85,
section 87 and section 89. Mainly part of each crosssection was choosing for comparison. The figure shows
the fine agreement results at main channel of section 85
and section 89, except section 87. The simulation results
indicated that employed model can deal with mainly bed
rock erosion at deep channel, but, weakly simulate atflood plain or widely cross section. Integrated to say, thebed rock tendency can preliminary describe by presented
model, but, precisely erosion depth and range is needed
to improve. Fig. 11 shows the variation of bed elevationfrom 2006 year to 2008 year and the figure also shows
the bed elevation tendency of downstream river iserosion as 2004 year to 2006 year, especially at section
78 and section 75 downstream. However, the erosion
area of field survey obviously presents cross section
erosion performance between section 75 and section 87
and simulated result still presents mainly channel erosion
phenomenon. Fig. 12 shows the comparison of
measurement data and simulation results at section 85,
section 87 and section89. Mainly part of each crosssection was also choosing for comparison. The figure
shows that the relative fine agreement results at main
channel of section 85, section 87 and section 89. Based120
Section 85

Bed底床高程
elevation
(m)
(m)

115

Simulation (2006)
Measurement(2006)
Initial elevation(2004)

110
105
模擬值(95年)100

實側值(95年)
95

初始底床(93年實測值)

90

120

0

100

200

300

Section 87

118

400

500

距左岸距離(m)600

模擬值(95年)

116

Bed底床高程
elevation(m)(m)

on the field survey at section 87 from 2004 to 2008, thevariation during 2004 to 2006 is erosion but during 2006
to 2008 is deposition. The simulation results pointed out
adopting model can deal with mainly bed rock erosion at
deep channel and also sedimentation mechanism at flood
plain or widely cross section if those sections possess
sedimentation and bed rock erosion at the same event.
The results also presented that the sediment transport
equation of Parker (1990) is suitable in Dajia River,
Chosui River and Dahan River. Overall to say, the bed
rock tendency can preliminary describe by presented
model, but, precisely erosion depth and range is needed
to improve.

實側值(95年)

114

初始底床(93年實測值)

112
110
108
106
104
102
100
270

Table 1 Relative parameters of bed rock erosion
Tensilestrength
σT (Pa)Modulus of Erodibility
elasticity
parameter
Y (Pa)
KV

Criticalshear
stressτcri (N/m2)

Hydraulicerodibility
KP

Shihkang Reservoir Area (Dajia River)
7*106
50
5*106
4*10-6
Chi-Chi Weir Area (Chosui River)
7*106
75
5*106
1*10-6
Shishmen Reservoir Area (Dahan River)
5*101050
1*106
4*10-6
11
6
1*10
50
1*10
7*10-7
10
6
5*10
50
1*10
7*10-7
5*109
50
1*106
7*10-7

85~82
87~85
88~87
90A~88

370

200

125

470
Section 89

實側值(95年)
初始底床(93年實測值)

120
115
110
105
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

距左岸距離(m)Distancefrom left bank (m)

225
200
200
200
200

420

距左岸距離(m)模擬值(95年)

Bed底床高程
elevation(m)(m)

Sections

320

130

Figure 10. Mainly comparison of bed elevation from 2004
year to 2006 year in section 85, section 87 and section 89
2758000
Section 72

2756000
Section 75

2758000
2754000

Section 72

Section 78
Section 78Ay (m)2756000
Section 75

2752000

Change of bed elevation (m)y (m)2754000
Section 78
Section 78A

2752000

2750000
Change of bed elevation (m)2750000
Section 85
Section 87

Section 88
Section 89
Section 90

2746000

276000278000Section 85

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0

Section 82

2748000

2800002820002840002748000

2746000

278000280000282000(a)

Section 78
Section 78A

2752000
Section 82

2750000y (m)2754000

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0

Change of bed elevation (m)Section 78
Section 78A

2752000
Section 82

2750000

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0

Section 85

2748000

Section 85
Section 87

2746000

Section 88
Section 89
Section 90

Section 87

Section 88
Section 89
Section 90

276000 278000 280000 282000 284000 286000

x (m)276000 278000 280000 282000 284000 286000

x (m)286000(a)

Section 75

2754000

Change of bed elevation (m)Section 75

2840002758000

2756000

2756000y (m)2760002860002758000

2746000

Section 87

Section 88
Section 89
Section 90

x (m)

x (m)

2748000

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0

Section 82(b)

Figure 9. Change of bed elevation from 2004 to 2006 (a)Field survey (b) Simulation result(b)

Figure 11. Change of bed elevation from 2006 to 2008 (a)Field survey (b) Simulation result120(m)(m)
Bed底床高程
elevation模擬值(97年)

Section 85

115

Simulation (2008)
Measurement(2008) 實側值(97年)
Initial elevation(2006)實側值(95年)

110
105
100
95
90
120

0

100

200

300

Section 87

118

400

500

距左岸距離(m)模擬值(97年)

116

Bed底床高程
elevation(m)
(m)

600

實側值(97年)

114

實側值(95年)

112

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The presented study was financially supported by the Water
Resources Planning Institute, Water Resources Agency
Ministry of Economic Affairs. Writers wish to thank the
National Taiwan University Hydrotech Research Institute andDisaster Prevention Research Institute of Kyoto University inJapan for manpower and technique supporting.

110
108
106
104
102
100
130

270

320

370

125

420

470

距左岸距離(m)模擬值(97年)(m)(m)
Bed底床高程
elevationY,  T and k v to be a new parameter is probably
attempted to try. In addition, the abrasion erosion in thisstudy only considered bed load effect. Therefore,
combing bed load and suspended load effect was
reasonable to improve simulation accuracy and thescheme of Lamb et al. (2008) is a good method to replace
the equation of Sklar and Dietrich (2004) in this study.

Section 89

實側值(97年)
實側值(95年)

120

REFERENCES

115
110
105
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

40

距左岸距離(m)Dista nce fromleft bank (m)Figure 12. Mainly comparison of bed elevation from 2006
year to 2008 year in section 85, section 87 and section 89

5. CONCLUSIONS
In past 10 years, the downstream river bed gradually be
degraded by the released flood flow after reservoir or
weir was constructed and the gradation reason result
from less sediment supply that of reservoir outflow in
Taiwan. Over a period of time, the remained sediment at
the downstream would be flushed out to the sea and bed
rock would finally expose. This study focuses on the bed
rock erosion with hydraulic mechanism and sedimentabrasion methods in Shihmen reservoir downstream. Fiveparameters were pointed out, three of them (Y,  T

and  cri ) can be measured and specified from field test
and two of them ( k v and k p ) needed to calibrate fromcalibration and verification. According to the historical
data and field survey, it is realized that bed rock exposedfrom 2004 year. Therefore, from 2004 year to 2008 year
was separated as calibration period and verification
duration. The simulation results show that the simulated
bed rock tendency can preliminary describe by presented
model, but, precisely erosion depth and range is needed
to improve. Besides, the adopted sediment transport
equation of Parker (1990) is suitable to use in Dajia
River, Chosui River and Dahan River. According to thesimulation results of Shihmen reservoir downstream, thebed rock erosion parameters are calibrated to Y is from
5*109 to1*1011, k v is equal to 50,  T is equal to1*106, k p is from 4*10-6 to 7*10-7 and  cri is equal to200. Moreover, due to the obviously difference of Y
between field survey and simulation result, combining

Annadale G.W. (2006) : Scour technology, mechanics andengineering practice.” McGraw Hill, New York.
Bollaert, E.F.R., and A. J. Schleiss (2005) : Physically Based
Model for Evaluation of Rock Scour due to High-Velocity
Jet Impact, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 131(3),pp.153-165.
Bollaert, E.F.R., and Mason, P.J., (2006) : A Physically Based
Model for Scour Prediction at Srisailam Dam, Hydropowerand Dams, Issue Three.
Frizell (2006) : Hydraulic Investigations of the Erosion
Potential of Flows Overtopping Gibson Dam, Sun River
Project, Montana, Great Plains Region, Hydraulic Laboratory
Report HL-2006-02. US Bureau of Reclamation.
Frizell (2007) : Analysis of the Erosion Potential of Flow
Overtopping Arrowrock Dam, Technical Memorandum No.
ARR-8560-IE-2007-1 US Bureau of Reclamation.
Greimann, B.P., and Vandeberg, M., (2008) : Predicting RockScour, Technical Report SRH-2008-01, Technical Service
Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
Lamb, M.P., Dietrich, W.E., and Sklar, L.S. (2008). “A Modle
ofr Fluvial Bedrock Incision by Impacting Suspended and
Bed Load Sediment.” J. Geophys. Res., 113, F03025.
Lee, F. Z., Lai, J. S., Hwang G. W. and Tan, Y. C. (2007) :Influence of High-turbid Inflow on Irrigation and Water
Supply in the Shihmen reservoir, 2007_58th ICID IEC
Meeting and Fourth International Conference on Irrigation
and Drainage.
Parker, G. (1990) : Surface-Based Bedload Transport Relation
for Gravel Rivers, J. Hydraulic Research, 28(4), pp.417-436.
Sklar, Leonard S., and William E. Dietrich (2004) : A
mechanistic model for river incision into bedrock by saltating
bed load,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp
063011-0630121.
Sumi, T. and Kantoush, S. A. (2011) : Comprehensive
Sediment Management Strategies in Japan: Sediment bypass
tunnels, 34th IAHR World Congress, pp. 1803-1810,
Brisbane, Australia.
Tomkin, J. H., Brandon, M. T., Pazzaglia, F. J., Barbour, J. R.
and Willet, S.D. (2003) : Quantitative Testing of Bedrock
Incision Models for the Clearwater River, NW Washington
State, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(B6), 2308,
pp.1-19.
Water Resources Planning Institute, Water resources agency,
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2009) : Rock Erosion
Modeling on Selected Alluvial Rivers in Taiwan, Bureau of
Reclamation, U. S. A..