211. In a study of criteria for the occurrence of bar/berm profiles 

 performed as part of the present work, the deepwater wave steepness Hq/L^ 

 and the dimensionless fall speed parameter H^/wT were found to be the most 

 reliable parameters. Figure 6 is a plot of the LWT data on profile response 

 as bar or berm (erosion or accretion) together with a line drawn by inspection 

 to best separate the erosional and accretionary cases. This line defines an 

 empirical criterion in terms of the two parameters given by the following 

 equation: 



H„ 



= M 



r H„ 1 



wT 



(2) 



in which the empirical coefficient M = 0.00070. 



212. In classification of the different cases, only prominent features 

 of the profile were considered. For example, a small berm which formed on the 

 foreshore was ignored if a large bar also formed, since the main transport 

 direction during the run was obviously offshore. In such a case, the profile 

 was considered to be a bar profile. Similarly, a small bar may have formed 

 close to the break point in a case where the main trend of transport was 

 onshore by which large berm buildup occurred. The classification of the beach 

 profile response determined here coincides with that used by Kriebel , Dally, 

 and Dean (1987), except for two cases which were designated as mixed response 

 by those authors but as berm type in this study. Similarity in classification 

 indicates that results were not strongly influenced by subjectivity. 



213. As an alternative to use of the dimensionless fall speed para- 

 meter, the parameter H^/D suggested by Iwagaki and Noda (1963) and formu- 

 lated based on small-scale laboratory data was combined with the deepwater 

 wave steepness to yield a criterion for bar and berm profiles for the proto- 

 type-scale data. Figure 7 shows that a clear distinction results between bar 

 and berm profiles. The line of delineation between bar and berm profiles is 

 given by 



I -1-3.05 



H„ 



= 4.8 10"^ 



(3) 



66 



