the cut and fill strategy used to construct a 1-on-3, riprap-protected slope 

 on the embankment. Figure 5 shows a profile view of the 1-on-3 slope tested 

 and the location of the wave gages. Figure 6 shows a plan view of the test 

 setup. 



10. Since the armor stone planned to protect the dike was marine lime- 

 stone to be quarried in Florida, this type of stone was used in the model 

 tests. This stone has a density of 2.55 g/cm^. The armor stone had a median 

 weight which ranged from about 57 to 67 g during the course of the study (see 

 Table 1). Filter stone had a median weight of about 12 g and a layer thick- 

 ness of 2.5 cm. Additional details relating to test procedures and setup are 

 given in Ahrens and Zirkle (1982). 



WAVE 



PROTOTYPE DISTANCE FROM TOE OF DIKE, M 



Figure 5. Profile view of 1-on-3, riprap-protected slope 

 and offshore wave gages 



WALL OF WAVE TANK- 



:':GRAVEL ABSORBER BEACH: 



TO WAVE 

 GENERATOR, 19.29 M 



V t- 



GRAVEL ABSORBER BEACH 



TRAINING 

 WALLS 



STRUCTURE 



o oo 



Z 



■GRAVEL ABSORBER BEACH 



WALL OF WA VE TANK- 



15 14 13 12 11 



MODEL DISTANCE, M 



O DENOTES WAVE GAGE LOCATION 



Figure 6. Plan view of SAJ test setup 



