43. There was concern that the added transition layer would cause added 

 pressure to the sea side of Plan 5 and increase damage. However, Figure 23 

 shows that damage to the sea side was not significantly higher for Plan 5 than 

 Plans 1-3. Damage to the "A" Stone section of Plan 5 was less than 3 percent 

 for (H mo ) i < 22 ft and 15 percent for (B mo ) i ~ 24 ft (Figure 24). The "A-l" 

 Stone section was not damaged for any wave condition during the first run and 

 suffered 5. 3 -percent damage for the highest wave condition during the repeat 

 test (Figure 25) . 



30 



25 



20 



15 



10 



% Damage 



D 



Run 1 







* 



- * 



Run 2 







D 









□ 





- 





* 



* 







% 



i i 



i i 



i 



12 



14 



16 



18 20 



(Hmo)i (ft) 



22 



24 



26 



Figure 23. Sea-side damage, Plan 5 



44. The maximum transmitted wave height with Plan 5 installed was 

 5.0 ft (Figure 26; a nondimensional plot of K t for Plan 5 is located in 

 Appendix A, Figure A5) . Transmission coefficients were as high as 0.21 for 

 the highest incident waves, but transmission was less than 18 percent for most 

 wave conditions (Table 9) . 



Summary 



45. The transition layer added to reduce transmission resulted in a 

 wider structure and, therefore, a wider crown. The wider crown improved sta- 

 bility to the rehabilitation sections. Sea-side damage to Plan 5 was similar 

 to Plans 1-3, which indicates the transition layer did not have a considerable 

 effect on damage to the sea side. 



32 



