T OWi* (H^o)!** (H-o)tt K+ + 



sec ft ft ft ZlLL 



12 15.1 14.1 1.7 0.12 



12 15.8 14.2 1.8 0.12 



12 19.1 17.2 2.1 0.12 



12 19.1 17.7 2.1 0.12 



14 14.4 13.8 2.2 0.16 



14 18.4 17.2 2.9 0.17 



14 18.1 16.8 2.4 0.14 



14 23.4 21.6 4.5 0.21 



14 23.5 21.4 3.9 . 0.18 



14 27.7 23.7 4.9 0.21 



14 28.2 24.7 4.6 0.19 



16 14.2 13.7 1.9 0.14 



16 18.0 16.9 2.5 0.15 



16 17.8 17.0 2.9 0.17 



16 22.9 21.2 3.6 0.17 



16 22.7 20.6 3.6 0.18 



16 27.3 24.1 4.7 0.20 



16 27.6 24.5 5.0 0.20 



18 14.9 14.4 2.6 0.18 



18 14.8 14.6 2.7 0.18 



18 18.1 17.4 3.0 0.17 



18 18.3 17.6 2.8 0.16 



* Incident wave height at the wave board. 



** Incident wave height at the structure. 



f Transmitted wave height approximately 350 ft behind the structure. 



f-f Transmission coefficient, (H mo ) i /(H mo ) t . 



Summary of Test Results 



48 . The tested sections were stable for wave conditions in which 

 (H mo ) i < 22 , but higher waves destroyed the structure for all plans. Percent 

 damage to the rehabilitation section was similar for Plans 1 and 3. These 

 plans consisted of one armor unit size in the rehabilitation section; there- 

 fore, displaced stones were counted from only one section. Plan 2 involved 

 two armor sizes on the harbor side. The middle section, consisting of "A-l" 

 Stone, was stable for all wave conditions, but the upper section, consisting 

 of "A" Stone, suffered 30- to 40-percent damage for (H mo ) i > 22 ft . Plan 3 



35 



