Plan 



Average C 



t for Indicated Wave Period 



Average C t 

 All Periods 



7.0 sec 



9.0 sec 



11.6 sec 



1A3 (Existing) 



0.18 



0.21 



0.30 



0.23 



2 



0.16 



0.20 



0.27 



0.21 



2A 



0.17 



0.21 



0.27 



0.22 



3 



0.16 



0.19 



0.27 



0.21 



4 



0.16 



0.19 



0.26 



0.20 



4A 



0.14 



__i 



0.25 



0.20 



4A1 



0.12 



__i 



0.23 



0.18 



5 



0.16 



0.18 



0.26 



0.20 



6 



0.13 



0.16 



0.22 



0.17 



7 



0.15 



0.19 



0.24 



0.19 



8 



0.14 



0.20 



0.25 



0.20 



8A 



0.12 



0.15 



0.20 



0.16 



9 



0.13 



0.17 



0.24 



0.18 



' Not tested. 



The above data, graphically presented in Figures 28-31, show that Plans 6 and 

 8A yielded the lowest transmitted wave heights of all plans investigated. 

 Unfortunately, these wave heights were still larger than desired. Therefore, it 

 was decided to test an additional plan (Plan 10) that would be the same as 

 Plan 6, except the interface between the existing breakwater and the 5-ton 

 berm stone was sealed with a sheet of plastic to simulate an impermeable 

 barrier in the prototype. Plan 6 was selected over Plan 8A because of its 

 better stability. 



Stability of the existing structure, quantified as percent damage (number of 

 armor units displaced divided by total numer of armor units in that section) to 

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



Plan 



Percent Damage to Existing Structure 



Lakeside armor 



Harbor-Side Armor 



1A3 (Existing) 



2.5 



5 



2 











2A 







2 



3 











4 











4A 











(Continued) 



26 



Chapter 3 Tests and Results 



