TEST m 



- 2 (Golvin) 



»b ■ 



0.I4S M 





Y ■ 



0.95 





"b ■ 



15.0* 





T • 



1.0 J*c 





r • 



0.0033 



ft 



'.» • 0.024 



ti'/.ec 



V(tB») 



TEST n 



- 



3 (Galvin) 



"b ■ 







198 U 



Y ' 



1 



07 



"b ' 



6 



3* 



T ■ 



1 



125 sec 



r • 







0033 fl 



max 



0.096 ft'/sec 



u- 







.021 



V(fos) 



Figure 61. Thornton's longshore current profile theory versus laboratory 

 data of Galvin and Eagleson, 1965, tests II-2 and II-3 (after 

 Thornton, 1969). 



Jonsson, Skovgaard, and Jacobsen (1974) were the first to include 

 a strong current formulation for bed shear in the theory. Depth refraction 

 and a different lateral mixing formulation was also incorporated. Some 

 numerical results are compared in Figure 63 against (a) the laboratory 

 data of Galvin and Eagleson (1965) and (b) some limited field measurements 

 of Ingle (1966). The theory with y = 1.42 gave a better fit within the 

 surf zone and also matched the breaker location for the laboratory data. 

 A poor comparison outside the breaker line was possible due to an exces- 

 sively large eddy viscosity in this region. The field data shown in Figure 

 63(b) are too incomplete to make a true analysis possible. Jonsson, 

 Skovgaard, and Jacobsen (1974) chose to use y = 0-8 for the field comparison 

 which gave a rather good agreement for the Vm value. In one example, the 

 combined bed friction coefficient, f„„ across the surf zone was about 



175 



