SEA SIDE 









LAND 



SIDE 



W W, l| 

 -8.6 FT MLT ' \^ 



\ -5 FT MLT / VsS<T^ 



,-V / w 2 y^L^i^ 



+ 7 

 2.5 



FT 



MLT^ 



W 



2 



— +5 FT MLT 



I ~P^~~~, 



——^^ 





EXISTING EMBANKMENT 

 (ASSUMED STABLE) 



\ -9.5 FT MLT 











MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS 













W, = 4-6 TON STONE 













W 2 = 200-1000 LB STONE 









MODEL SCALE 1 



24 



Wj = 1-200 LB STONE 













Figure 6. Stone revetment cross section, Plans 3 and 3R 



Plan 3R (Figure 6) was the same as Plan 3 except the model structure was 

 rebuilt and the majority of the armor stones were placed with their long axis 

 parallel to the incoming wave crest. This plan thus served to verify the 

 response of the 200- to 1,000-lb toe and shore-side crest stone and compare 

 the stability of the 4- to 6-ton armor for the two possible long axis 

 orientations. 



Plan 3R was tested for the abbreviated worst case eight-step storm given in 

 Table 4. Similar to previous plans, some reorientation of the 200- to 1,000-lb 

 toe stone was observed and several 200- to 1,000-lb stones were displaced 

 from the shore-side crest of the structure. The 5-ton armor was generally 

 stable; however, one stone was displaced from the crest of the revetment dur- 

 ing step 8 (Table 4 at the -8.6-ft mlt toe condition). The after-testing condition 

 of the structure is shown in Photos 11 and 12. 



Summary of Results for the Stone-Armored Plans 



Results of tests conducted with stone armor (Plans 1, 2, 3, 3R) show the 

 4- to 6-ton armor stone to be stable for any reasonable combination of swl, 

 wave period, and wave height that can be expected to occur. The 200- to 

 1,000-lb toe and berm stone is only minimally adequate; therefore, it is recom- 

 mended that the weight of this stone be increased. 



10 



Chapter 3 Tests and Results 



