depth in the new data sets. This reinforces the fact that damage variability was greater 

 in Series D', £", F\ and G' than in Series A', B', and C. Also, Series D' produced more 

 outlying points in this Figure than the other series. This is consistent with previous 

 figures and indicates that further testing is required to better quantify the coefficient of 

 variation of the damage and profile parameters, particularly for low damage levels. The 

 mean normalized eroded length L is plotted as a function of 5 for data from the four 

 new series in Figure 7.8. Equation 6.4 for Z as a function of Sis shown to provide an 

 excellent fit to the new data. 



*> 





lUJ 



£ 1 5 























3 























0) 



Q 



■g 1 - 



















p 













., 



^f^ 



^_— — -■ 









g 



UJ 









%M 



1 • 















.^ 



^8 

















03 



^ 



%^ 



















f 

























2 4 6 £ 

 Mean Damage, S 



\ 1( 





• Series B" a Series D' ▼ Series E" 

 + Series F' * Series G' Eq. 6.2 

















Figure 7.6. Prediction of mean maximum eroded depth as a function of mean damage 

 for Series B',D\ E', F\ and G' 



135 



