of the second hydrograph . The same test procedures used during the first 

 hydrograph were used to accumulate test time and document structure changes 

 that occurred during the second hydrograph. At the conclusion of the test, 

 the cummulative response of the structure to both hydrographs was summarized 

 in test notes and documented with photographs. The dolos or armor-stone 

 layers then were removed, underlayer stone was straightened as needed, and the 

 armor units once again were placed on the structure and the test was 

 repeated. The purpose of the repeat test was to determine the presence of any 

 uncontrolled variations in model construction technique that might affect 

 stability of the structure. 



Methods of reporting model 

 observations and test results 



12. The following list of adjectives, in order of increasing severity, 

 was used for recording model observations and reporting test results of damage 

 for each test section: (a) slight, (b) minor, (c) moderate, (d) significant, 

 (e) major, and (f) extensive. Slight and minor were used to describe accept- 

 able results, moderate described borderline acceptability, while significant 

 to extensive described unacceptable conditions of increasing severity. Use of 

 these adjectives allowed some quantification of the severity and/or amount of 

 rocking in place, reorientation and displacement of the primary armor units, 

 wave overtopping, and resulting damage accrued by the breakwater's primary 

 cover-layer units. 



10 



