215. The value of the empirical coefficient is 5.5 (Line B) and differs 

 from the value of 1.7 (Line A) originally given by Dean (1973) as determined 

 mainly from small-scale laboratory data. Kriebel , Dally, and Dean (1987) 

 reevaluated this coefficient and obtained a band of values in the range of 4-5 

 using a portion of the CE and CRIEPI data set. It is, however, possible to 

 achieve even a better delineation between bar/berm profiles if the Dean 

 parameter is raised to an exponent (Line C) according to 



Ho 



= 115 



L„ 



gT 



(5) 



Since L^ -v T , Equation 5 indicates a relatively weak dependence on wave 

 period. 



216. Sunamura (in press) proposed two somewhat different dimensionless 

 quantities for classifying beach profile response involving breaking wave 

 properties instead of deepwater wave conditions, namely D/Hj, and Hj^/gT^ . 

 The second parameter is basically the inverse of the Ursell parameter 

 U = HL^/h'^ evaluated at breaking with linear wave theory. By using these two 

 parameters, it was possible to obtain a good classification of profile type 

 (Figure 9), although one point in the data set is located in the wrong area. 

 The equation of the line separating bar/berm profiles is 



D 



= 0.014 



Hb 



gT' 



(6) 



217. In summary, it is possible to obtain a clear distinction between 

 bar profiles and berm profiles and, thereby, a predictor of overall erosion 

 and accretion if the dimensionless quantities chosen to compose the criterion 

 consist of parameters characterizing both sand and wave properties. Signif- 

 icant differences occur, however, in the values of the empirical coefficients 

 in the criteria, depending on whether data from small-scale or prototype -scale 

 experiments are used. Deepwater wave steepness appears in most criteria 

 together with a parameter involving a quantity describing the sediment, such 

 as the fall speed or grain size. In a theoretical sense, the sediment fall 



69 



