the toe stone. Damage to the harbor side, including damage caused by waves at 

 low water, is shown in Figure 15. Waves generated at low water caused little 

 damage to the harbor side. The harbor- side section was not damaged for 

 (H^i < 18 ft , and maximum damage was approximately 6 percent. 



% Damage 



□ Run 1 



+ Run 2 

 ?fc 0.0 mllw 



* 



-\a 



* 



12 



14 



24 



26 



16 18 20 22 



Hmo at Structure (ft) 



Figure 15. Harbor-side damage, Plan 3 



33. Plan 3 consisted of only one rehabilitation section covering the 

 harbor side; therefore, some stones near the crest which roll onto a lower 

 part of the rehabilitation section are not counted as displaced stones. 

 Because Plan 2 gave an indication of the crest stability, it was desirable to 

 separate Plan 3 into sections to determine the performance of smaller armor 

 units placed at the crest. To compare Plan 3 with Plan 2, the harbor-side 

 section was divided into two zones , and the number of armor units displaced 

 from each zone was recorded during the repeat test of Plan 3. Zones 1 and 2 

 were defined as the rehabilitation sections from the seaward end of the crown 

 to +10 ft mllw, and from +10 to -10 ft mllw, respectively. Figure 16 shows 

 percent damage to Zone 1 versus (H^i . Damage to Zone 1 was 10 percent or 

 less for (H mo ) i < 22 ft , but for the 24-ft wave, damage was 63 percent. The 

 increase in damage is a result of heavy overtopping of the structure. Damage 

 to Zone 2 was minor for the 24-ft wave and not damaged for lower waves 

 (Figure 17) . 



24 



