an 
eS 
MADD ADOVHWIDAA MBOTHHOZOP 
[s¥) Ww 
WN 
As) 
@ 5 10 15 28 es 38 35 
LONGSHORE ENERGY FLUX FACTOR J/M/S 
Figure 25. Relation between longshore transport rate, Ip), 
and longshore energy flux factor, P»,, using 
test cycle data (tests 8 and 11 excluded). 
7. Surf Similarity Relation. 
Figures 26 and 27 were drawn to test the dependence of K, and on &. 
Test numbers are indicated in the figures. Table 8 lists the statistics. 
The K terms were calculated using equations (15) and (16). These graphs 
show that K is far from being constant, as is commonly assumed, and that it~ 
is strongly related to €. 
8. Comparison to Past Data. 
They units of el and Py, were converted to those used in the SPM and 
plotted in Figure 28, which is taken from Figure 4-36 of the SPM. The SPM 
figure was modified by shifting the x-axis to convert from P to Pope 
Equation (13) shows the relation between P and Pose Test numbers for the 
data points of this report are noted in Figure 28. 
Two major observations are immediately apparent. The first is that the 
laboratory data in this report, as in laboratory data from past reports, have 
considerable scatter. Since the surf similarity parameter, €, in this 
report varies by a significant amount for the different tests, as shown in 
Figures 26 and 27, some scatter is expected. The surf similarity parameter, 
of course, does not explain all of the scatter in the laboratory data- There 
are still some laboratory and scale effects which are not yet understood. 
42 
