APPENDIX 
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR 72C-10 
This appendix documents those aspects of the experimental procedures 
unique to experiment 72C-10. The procedures common to all experiments 
are documented in Volume I (Stafford and Chesnutt, 1977). 
ns Experimental Layout. 
The experimental layout was the same as that used for experiment 
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 (to 10 minutes), 
a continuous water surface elevation was recorded at station 25 near the 
toe of the movable-bed profile and 7 feet from the toe of the fixed-bed 
slope. During all subsequent runs, wave envelopes were recorded with 
wave gages moving along the center of the fixed-bed tank and along ranges 
1, 5, and 9 in the movable-bed tank from station +15 to +50. 
(2) Breaker Data. Breaker data were collected for the first 
85 hours according to the schedule in Table 3. After 85 hours, the 
visual observation form, including breaker data, was prepared hourly. 
(3) Wave-Generated Current Data. For the first 85 hours, wave- 
generated current data were collected using the methods described in 
Volume I; however, the frequency of collection varied, as surface current 
data were not collected between 35 and 85 hours. 
After 85 hours the current data were collected hourly and recorded on 
the visual observation form. Current patterns were determined by observ- 
ing the movement of organic debris in the water. 
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. 
3. Data Reduction. 
a. Wave Height Variability. The wave reflection envelope recordings 
were divided into two grades for data reduction. The automated method 
for determining Kp was used with a Grade I data, which had no data 
quality problems. The manual method for determining Kp was used with 
the grade II data, which had problems of (a) pen skips, (b) highly vari- 
able instrument carriage velocity, or (c) off-scale values. Twenty per- 
cent of the grade I envelopes were also reduced manually to provide a 
comparison of the two methods. 
Og 
