10 



(Hmo)t (ft) 



□ 12 8 







+ 14 s 







* 16 S 







X 18 s 





* * 



jX & 



XX* 



* + + 





i 



i i 



I i 



12 



14 



16 



18 20 



(Hmo)i (ft) 



22 



24 



26 



Figure 12. Wave transmission, Plan 2 



Plan 3 



Description 



31. Results from Plan 2 indicated that the "A-l" Stone was stable for 

 all waves if placed on the middle section of the harbor side; "A" Stone in the 

 upper section was stable for (H mo ) i < 22 ft ; and stability tests with 

 smaller armor stone placed in the upper section might be stable. Plan 3 

 (Figure 13, Photos 13-18) consisted of the same geometry as Plan 1, except 

 "A-l" Stone was placed on the harbor-side slope from the breakwater crest to 

 -10 ft mllw. The harbor-side toe buttress remained the same as previous 

 plans . 



Results 



32. Plan 3 was subjected to the 12 design waves at +7.0 ft mllw and 

 repeated. During the repeat test, the regular series of test waves for a con- 

 stant wave height was conducted at a swl of +7 ft mllw, and the damage was 

 assessed; then the water level was dropped to 0.0 ft mllw and that constant 

 wave height repeated for a 16-sec wave period (see Table 1) and damage 

 assessed again. Wave action at the low water contributed to the overall dam- 

 age on the sea side (Figure 14) but did not cause significant instability of 



22 



