DIST FROM SEABED TO MID-STREAMER (cm) 



10 20 30 40 50 



NOZZLE FLUX (kg/m2/min) 



— SHOREVWRD TRAP -^^ SEAWARD TRAP 



Figure 12. Fluxes measured in consistency Run 85909AM6 



of the streamer not residing on the bottom throughout the sampling period. 

 However, it can not be ruled out that a local bedform altered the transport 

 rate at the bottom. The proportionate amounts of sand trapped in pairs of 

 traps in the great majority of consistency runs indicate that the traps will 

 give reliable results if operated carefully. 



Cross -shore distributions 



46. In this section transport rate data from eight cross-shore 

 distribution runs are presented in graphical form as a summary of results 

 (Figures 13a-h) . The plotted fluxes were determined by dividing the directly 

 collected weights listed in Table Al by the sand transport efficiencies 

 (Rosati and Kraus in preparation) of 0.13 for the bottom streamer and 0.92 for 

 streamers higher in the water column. In the cross -shore distribution runs, 

 6 or 7 traps were deployed simultaneously across the surf zone with separation 

 distances of either one half or one full interval between photopoles (approx- 

 imately 3 m and 6 m, respectively). The width of the surf zone (mean water 

 shoreline to average break point) was in the approximate range of 15 to 40 m. 



37 



