10 



(Hmo)t (ft) 



□ 



12 S 



+ 



14 s 



* 



16 S 



X 



18 S 



2 U 





,*+■ 



£ 



+ + 



+ Dl- 



X 



□ 



< x + > 



D 



,X1* 



12 



14 



16 



18 20 



(Hmo)i (ft) 



22 



24 



26 



Figure 7. Wave transmission, Plan 1 



Plan 2 



Description 



27. Plan 2 consisted of the same geometric cross section as Plan 1, but 

 6- to 11 -ton armor stone ("A-l" Stone) was placed from +10 ft mllw to 



-10 ft mllw, with "A" Stone placed from +10 ft mllw to the crown on the harbor 

 side (Figure 8, Photos 7-12). "A-l" Stone was chosen by SPL as the most eco- 

 nomical armor size to replace the larger armor units. The toe buttress was 

 composed of "A- 2" Stone, identical to Plan 1. 

 Results 



28. The design wave conditions were tested for Plan 2, and repeated 

 once. All tests were conducted at +7.0 ft mllw. Percent damage was 

 determined for the sea-side, "A" Stone, and "A-l" Stone sections. Figure 9 

 shows sea- side damage similar to Plan 1. Damage for (H mo ) i < 20 ft was 

 approximately 10 percent, but damage increased to 20 to 25 percent for 

 (H mo ) i > 24 ft . Figure 10 shows that the crown suffers little damage and was 

 intact for (H mo ) i < 22 ft ; however, damage increased to 30 to 40 percent for 

 (H mo ) i > 24 ft . The displacement of armor units from this section was caused 

 by the heavy overtopping associated with the highest waves. Damage to the 



18 



