Transmission results are depicted graphically in Figure 38. These data 

 show that the 1-ft transmission criterion is reached for 7-sec, 8-ft; 

 9-sec, 5-ft; and 11-sec, 4-ft incident waves. The 3-ft transmission criteria is 

 exceeded by 12-ft, 11.6-sec waves. 



The stability response of Plan 11 was marginal. As shown in Photos 71- 

 73, a significant number of armor stones were displaced down the lakeward 

 face from the vicinity of the swl, with three stones being removed from the 

 structure. Five harbor-side armor units were displaced. 



Summary of Results (All Improvement Plans) 



Average transmission coefficients for Plans 10, 10A, and 1 1 were as 

 follows: 



Plan 



Average C t for Indicated Wave Period 



Average C f 

 All Periods 



7.0 sec 



9.0 sec 



11.6 sec 



10 



0.09 1 



0.1 1 1 



0.19 1 



0.13 1 



10 



0.11 



0.14 



0.22 



0.16 



10A 



0.12 



0.16 



0.24 



0.17 



11 



0.14 



0.19 



0.28 



0.20 



1 swl = 0.0 ft Iwd. 



Figures 39-42 summarize transmission test results for the 15 improvement 

 plans tested. These data show Plans 8 A and 10 produced the most 

 improvement in wave transmission (average Q = 0. 16), followed closely by 

 Plans 6 and 4A1 with average Q's of 0.17 and 0.18, respectively. Also, 

 these data show that in general the submerged reefs (Plans 2-4A1) and 

 restacking of the existing armor (Plan 1 1) were least effective in reducing 

 wave energy, whereas the toe berms (Plans 5, 6, and 10) and the large-stone 

 overlays (Plans 7, 8, 8A, and 9) were most effective. 



Stability of the existing structure, quantified as percent damage to the 

 lakeside and harbor-side armor, is summarized as follows: 



Plan 



Percent Damage to Existing Structure 



Lakeside Armor 



Harbor-Side Armor 



1 (Existing) 



2.5 



5 



2 











2A 







2 



3 











4 











(Continued) 



Chapter 3 Tests and Results 



31 



