10.0 



8.0 



6.0 



4.0 



2.0 



(Hmo)t (ft) 



0.0 



□ 



12 s 









+ 

 * 



14 s 

 16 s 







* * 



+ 



X 



18 s 







+ 



' 







+# + 





- 



, X 



° □ 



x x 









i 



i i 



i i 



i 



12 



14 



16 



18 20 



(Hmo)i (ft) 



22 



24 



Figure 18. Wave transmission, Plan 3 



Table 5 

 Plan 3 Wave Heights. +0.0 mllw 



26 



T 

 sec 



16 

 16 

 16 



CH.no) 1* 

 ft 



16.6 

 19.8 

 24.2 



(HmJi** 

 ft 



15.3 

 17.9 

 21.0 



(H mo ) t t 

 ft 



2.2 

 2.5 

 3.6 



Kttt 







14 







14 







17 



* Incident wave height at the wave board. 



** Incident wave height at the structure. 



f Transmitted wave height approximately 350 ft behind the structure. 



ft Transmission coefficient, (H mo ) i /(H mo ) t . 



Summary 



36. The rehabilitation section was stable for the wave conditions; how- 

 ever, the crest section suffered 63 -percent damage for (H mo ) i > 22 ft. The 

 sea side had damage similar to Plans 1 and 2. Results of the low-water wave 

 tests showed that the toe area was stable for the wave conditions generated. 

 Wave transmission with Plan 3 was also similar to transmission with Plans 1 

 and 2; however, the transmitted waves for Plans 1-3 were higher than desired 

 by SPL. 



27 



