Table 8 



Concrete Armor Unit Breakage Summaries for Kahului 



Breal(waters 





Number broken 



Number 

 cracked 



Breakwater 



Armor 



Size 

 tons 



Aerial 



Melby and 

 Turk 



Melby 

 and Turk 



West 



Dolos 



30 



5 



8 



3 



West 



Dolos 



20 



5 



13 



4 



West 



Tribar 



19 



2 



6 



5 



West 



Tribar 



50 







1 







West 



Tribar 



6.5 



1 











East 



Dolos 



3 











1 1 



East 



Dolos 



6 



3 



9 







East 



Tribar 



35 







2 



2 1 



The walking inspection by Melby and Turk (1993) occurred several months 

 after the aerial inspections, but the time factor does not account for the 

 considerably larger number of broken armor units revealed by the hands-on 

 inspection when compared to the aerial surveillance results. The difference is 

 associated with the difference in accuracy and visibility between the two 

 methods. The aerial inspection does not pick up on the cracked, but yet 

 unbroken, units, and the broken units in shadows, in the splash zones and in 

 the underlayers. This observation shows that breakage counts obtained from 

 the aerial, or remote sensing, technique must be understood to not be totally 

 accurate and for a definite understanding of breakage quantities, a hands-on 

 walking inspection of the armor unit fields is essential. The aerial inspection 

 fulfills its anticipated results in that it will reveal to some degree the breakage 

 and its distribution and it will give insight into when closer inspections of the 

 armor unit fields are needed to ascertain accurate counts on armor breakage. 



42 



Chapter 2 Monitoring Plan and Data 



