APPENDIX 
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR 72B-6 AND 72B-10 
This appendix documents those aspects of the experimental procedures 
unique to experiments 72B-06 and 72B-10. The procedures common to all 
experiments are documented in Volume I (Stafford and Chesnutt, 1977). 
1. Experimental Layout. 
The experimental layout was the same as that used for experiments 
71Y-06 and 71Y-10 (Vol. III). Figure A-1 shows the position of the 
initial profiles with respect to the coordinate system. 
2. Data Collection. 
a. Regular Data. 
(1) Wave Height Variability. During the first run in each ex- 
periment, a continuous water surface elevation was recorded at station 
+25 near the toe of the movable-bed profiles and 7 feet offshore of the 
toe of the fixed-bed slope. During all subsequent runs, wave envelopes 
in experiment 72B-06 were recorded with wave gages moving along the 
center of the two tanks from station +15 to +85 and from +85 to +15, and 
in experiment 72B-10 along the center of the fixed-bed tank and ranges 
1, 5, and 9 in the movable-bed tank from station +15 to +50 and from 
OOO) ctilloy. 
(2) Wave-Generated Current Data. Observations of wave-generated 
surface and bottom currents were made throughout both experiments. 
b. Special Data. Four types of special data were collected at less 
frequent intervals, and Table A-1 indicates the times when each type of 
data was collected and the spacings and limits of the data collected. 
3. Data Reduction. 
a. Wave Height Variability. The wave reflection envelopes were 
divided into two groups for data reduction. The automated method for 
determining Kp was used with the grade I data, which had no quality 
control problems. The manual method for determining Kp was used with 
the grade II data, which had problems of (a) pen skips, (b) highly 
variable carriage speed, or (c) off-scale values. Some of the grade I 
envelopes were reduced manually to provide a comparison of the two 
methods. 
b. Sand-Size Distribution. All samples were analyzed using the VA 
tube method by the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River, laboratory. 
Approximately 10 percent of the samples were also analyzed by project 
personnel in the CERC Petrology Laboratory using the dry sieve method as 
a quality control measure. Table A-2 gives the results from the dry 
sieve method. 
c. Breaker Characteristics. Breaker type and position were deter- 
mined from the visual observation forms. 
87 
