Plan 2 (Figure 5) was identical to Plan 1, except the upper toe elevation 

 was raised from -5.0 ft to -3.6 ft mlt. This plan represented a repair or addi- 

 tion of material that might be made to the existing prototype structure. There- 

 fore, the remaining portions of the structure were not rebuilt. 



Plan 2 was tested for the six-step storm given in Table 2. Only the +4-ft 

 swl was tested, since this water level appeared to be the most critical to toe 

 stability in previous tests of Plan 1. Plan 2 proved to be stable. Similar to 

 Plan 1, minor reorientation of some 200- to 1,000-lb toe stone was observed. 

 Also, several additional 200- to 1,000-lb stones were displaced from the shore- 

 side crest of the structure. The after-testing condition of the structure is shown 

 in Photos 6-8. 



Plan 3 (Figure 6) was identical to Plan 1 except it was assumed that 

 another 5 ft of erosion occurred seaward of the section Thus, the effective 

 water depth was increased by 5 ft at each swl. 



As anticipated, some additional reorientation of the 200- to 1,000-lb toe 

 stone was observed. The most significant movement observed during testing 

 of Plan 3 occurred along the crest at the +7.0-ft swl (steps 7-12 of the hydro- 

 graph given in Table 3) and consisted of minor shoreward movement of sev- 

 eral 4- to 6-ton stones. This movement, shown in Photos 9 and 10, was not 

 extensive enough to jeopardize the integrity of the section. 



LAND SIDE 



— +5 FT MLT 



-9.5 FT MLT 

 MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS 



W, = 4-6 TON STONE 



W 2 = 200-1000 LB STONE 

 W-j = 1-200 LB STONE 



MODEL SCALE 1:24 



Figure 5. Stone revetment cross section, Plan 2 



Chapter 3 Tests and Results 



