T 

 sec 



Kttt 



12 14.9 13.5 2.5 0.18 



12 14.9 13.5 2.8 0.21 



12 18.8 16.9 3.6 0.21 



12 19.1 17.3 3.3 0.19 



14 14.2 13.3 2.6 0.20 



14 14.6 13.9 3.2 0.23 



14 17.9 16.7 4.0 0.24 



14 18.1 17.0 4.1 0.24 



14 22.6 20.6 5.7 0.27 



14 23.1 21.6 5.9 0.27 



14 27.1 23.6 7.4 0.31 



14 28.0 24.6 7.7 0.31 



16 14.1 13.7 3.0 0.22 



16 14.8 14.6 3.4 0.24 



16 16.9 16.3 4.0 0.25 



16 17.6 17.2 4.4 0.25 



16 22.0 20.8 6.1 0.29 



16 22.4 21.5 6.4 0.30 



16 26.5 24.3 7.9 0.33 



16 27.3 25.1 8.4 0.33 



18 14.5 14.1 3.4 0.24 



18 14.7 14.5 3.6 0.25 



18 17.3 16.7 4.5 0.27 



18 17.4 16.9 4.5 0.27 



* Incident wave height at the wave board. 



** Incident wave height at the structure. 



f Transmitted wave height approximately 350 ft behind the structure, 



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



0.18 to 0.33. Wave heights on the harbor side of the breakwater were as high 

 as 8.45 ft, Figure 12 (see Appendix A, Figure A2 for nondimensional plot). 

 Summary 



30. Results from Plan 2 indicated the "A-l" Stone was stable placed at 

 the middle harbor- side section. Armor stone in the upper section was stable 

 for 22 ft waves, but the section was severely damaged when (H mo ) i > 24 ft . 

 Damage to the sea side was 10 to 15 percent for (H nio ) i < 22 ft and was as 

 high as 25.8 percent for 24- ft waves. 



21 



