34. Transmitted wave heights and K t -values for Plan 3 at +7.0 ft mllw 

 are listed in Table 4. Harbor- side wave heights reached 8.1 ft for the high- 

 est incident waves (Figure 18) . Wave transmission with Plan 3 installed was 

 comparable to Plans 1 and 2. A plot of nondimensional wave transmission for 

 Plan 3 is located in Appendix A, Figure A3. 





Table 4 







Plan 3 Wave Heights 





CH.no) 1* 



OWi** 



(Hn,o)tt 



ft 



ft 



ft 



14.9 



13.7 



2.6 



15.3 



14.2 



2.5 



18.7 



17.4 



3.3 



19.0 



17.2 



3.0 



14.3 



13.6 



3.1 



15.3 



14.5 



3.1 



17.8 



16.8 



3.8 



18.8 



18.0 



4.1 



23.0 



21.3 



5.5 



24.3 



22.4 



5.8 



27.3 



24.7 



6.9 



27.3 



23.8 



7.6 



14.4 



13.8 



3.1 



14.9 



14.2 



3.0 



17.8 



16.9 



3.9 



18.2 



17.2 



4.1 



23.1 



21.6 



5.6 



23.5 



21.7 



5.8 



26.4 



24.1 



8.1 



27.9 



25.2 



8.0 



14.7 



14.2 



3.4 



14.9 



14.4 



3.1 



18.0 



17.5 



4.3 



18.5 



17.8 



4.6 



T 

 sec 



12 

 12 

 12 

 12 



14 

 14 

 14 

 14 

 14 

 14 

 14 

 14 



16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 



18 

 18 

 18 

 18 



Kttt 



0.19 

 0.18 

 0.19 

 0.18 



0.22 

 0.21 

 0.23 

 0.23 

 0.26 

 0.26 

 0.28 

 0.32 



0.22 

 0.21 

 0.23 

 0.24 

 0.26 

 0.27 

 0.34 

 0.32 



0.24 

 0.21 

 0.25 

 0.26 



* Incident wave height at the wave board. 



** Incident wave height at the structure. 



f Transmitted wave height approximately 350 ft behind the structure. 



|t Transmission coefficient, (^mo) l/ (^mo") t . 



35. Wave transmission was considerably less for waves generated at 

 0.0 ft mllw (Table 5, Figure 19). Wave overtopping was less because of higher 

 freeboard (the distance from the breakwater crest to the swl) . The breakwater 

 was also wider at +0.0 ft mllw, which resulted in more energy dissipation and 

 less transmission through the breakwater. 



26 



