CPEMCNEY. TP 76-19 erlay of Large, Placed Quarrystone ae and | by | Bruce L. McCartney and John P. Ahrens Aa “TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 76-19 DECEMBER 1976 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. ou. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS : : COASTAL ENGINEERING | RESEARCH CENTER Kingman Zwelidling Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060 Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from: National Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22151 Contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. SHELF LIST OA 0 0301 0089961 3 U.S. ARMY COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Kingman Building Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 ERRATA for Technical Paper No. 76-19 December 1976 Overlay of Large, Placed Quarrvstone and Boulders to Increase Riprap Stability Please make the following corrections: Page 30: We, H3 EN ue (ee FATT Tce a mR a = ae Waring | Vi j Page 33: \ W 50 Fr He Wp VA [(N,3 (S, % 1)3] f Woc UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO,.| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER TP 76-19 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED OVERLAY OF LARGE, PLACED QUARRYSTONE AND BOULDERS TO INCREASE RIPRAP STABILITY Technical Paper 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S) 7. AUTHOR(s) Bruce L. McCartney John P. Ahrens 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-SP) Kingman Building, Fort, Belvoir, Virginia 22060 CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) F31236 12. REPORT DATE December 1976 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 34 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) Hit. UNCLASSIFIED 15a, DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE } 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) . SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Armor stone Quarrystone Boulders Riprap Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota Wave forces Overlay ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) This report describes the wave tank tests and field performance of a single layer of large armor stone used as a protective overlay on under- designed riprap. The resistance of the overlay to wave attack was determined by small-scale model and prototype-scale wave tank tests at CERC. A stone overlay concept was successfully used to repair a damaged riprap revetment on Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota (App. A). Design information and continued EDITION OF f NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE —— DD 1 san 7a 1473 UNCLASSIFIED eee ee SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) UNCLASSTETED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) an example problem (App. B) are presented to demonstrate application of the overlay concept to both revetment repair and original construction. 2 UNCLASSIFIED SN ee ee SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) PREFACE This report is published to assist engineers in the planning, design, and construction of riprap-type revetments exposed to wave attack. The work was carried out under the coastal construction research program of the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). The report was prepared by Bruce L. McCartney, formerly of CERC, and John P. Ahrens (who directed the tests), Coastal Structures Branch under the general supervision of Dr. Robert M. Sorensen, Chief, Coastal Struc- tures Branch, Research Division. The authors acknowledge Mr. Leonard Kraft of the Foundations and Materials Branch, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, for the photos of the riprap and overlay on the Mobridge embankment. Technical assistance was also provided by Mr. Arvid Thomsen, Chief, Economics and Social Analysis Branch, Omaha District, and Mr. Paul Wohlt, formerly of the Geology, Soils, and Material Branch, and Mr. Alfred Harrison, Chief, Hydraulics and Hydrology Section, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River. Mr. Robert Jachowski, Chief, Design Branch, Engineering Develop- ment Division, CERC, reviewed the draft of this report and his many comments greatly improved the final study. Comments on this publication are invited. Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress, approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th Congress, approved 7 November 1963. OHN H. COUSINS Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director CONTENTS CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI). SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS. iL INTRODUCTION . II WAVE TANK TESTS. 1. General. Stead 2. Small-Scale Tests. 3. Prototype Tests. III ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS . PMN UCM 2 2 ‘ Le DES CUSSHON sie eoh ao DO AN Ro eee ere WM Sean 22 SCONCLUSMONSH sy eles PRO Voce See ton ver fe eee armas LITERATURE CITED . ’ APPENDIX A CASE STUDY OF OAHE RESERVOIR . B EXAMPLE: PROBLEMS? 25 202 QrBaei e002 FL an BAS ro. me TABLES 1 Riprap and overlay stability test conditions and results. 2 Comparison summary of stone overlay stability . 3 Comparison of stone gradations. FIGURES Il Detanl's of£small wave tank tesit ‘section. 5 i... 2 Small wave tank test of 100-percent stone overlay (angular Guar y.SithOne)) ecm ten al oe 3 3 Small wave tank test of 100-percent stone overlay (boulders). 4 Small wave tank test of 67-percent stone overlay (boulders) 5 Details of large wave tank test section . 6 Prototype tests of 100-percent stone overlay (quarrystone) coverage . 7 Stone coverage fraction for overlay coverage and armor shape. Page 25 555) 18 US CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows: Multiply by To obtain inches 25.4 millimeters 2.54 centimeters square inches 6.452 square centimeters cubic inches 16.39 cubic centimeters feet 30.48 centimeters 0.3048 meters square feet 0.0929 square meters cubic feet 0.0283 cubic meters yards 0.9144. meters square sail 0.836 square meters cubic yards 0.7646 cubic meters miles 1.6093 kilometers square miles 259.0 hectares acres 0.4047 hectares foot-pounds 1.3558 newton meters ounces 28.35 grams pounds 453.6 grams 0.4536 kilograms ton, long 1.0160 metric tons ton, short 0.9072 metric tons degrees (angle) 0.1745 radians Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degrees or Kelvins' 1To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use formula: C = (5/9) (F — 32). To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: K = (5/9) (F — 32) + 273.15. SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS stone overlay weight per square foot (lb/ft?) coverage fraction (dimensionless) stillwater depth in wave tank (ft) zero-damage wave height (ft) tolerable-damage wave height (ft) wavelength (ft) conventional stability number, based on median weight, EO eae 7S (dimensionless) (Wsoo/Wp) (Sp - 1) AWA : Hp=0 stability number, based on average weight, 73 (dimensionless) (W/wy) (S, - 1) specific gravity of armor unit (S, = w,/w,) (dimensionless) average weight of riprap or stone overlay (1b) median riprap or stone overlay weight (1b) unit weight of stone (1b/ft3) unit weight of water (lb/ft?) angle of the structure face relative to the horizontal (degrees) OVERLAY OF LARGE, PLACED QUARRYSTONE AND BOULDERS TO INCREASE RIPRAP STABILITY by Bruce L. McCartney and John P. Ahrens I. INTRODUCTION Conventional riprap (underlayer stone) revetment design requires an armor layer thickness 1.5 to 2 times the median diameter of the armor stone. The armor layer completely buries the underlayer so the revetment derives minimal benefit from the underlayer stone stability. This report presents the results of an investigation of revetment stability to wave attack for a one-stone-diameter-thick armor overlay. The armor overlay could also be used to upgrade existing riprap or as a cost-effective initial design. The reduced armor layer thickness concept was proposed by the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River, as a means of upgrading an exist- ing riprap slope on the Oahe Reservoir in South Dakota. The slope was damaged by unusually high storm waves in 1967. A case study of the Oahe _Reservoir riprap repair is presented in Appendix A. II. WAVE TANK TESTS 1. General. Wave tank testing to determine stability against wave attack for single- layer quarrystone and boulder overlays, for both 100- and 67-percent surface coverage, was conducted at the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) in both the small and large wave tanks. The 100-percent coverage is defined as all overlay stones touching; the 67-percent cover- age used two-thirds as many stones per unit area as the 100-percent cover- age. These general overlayer coverage definitions were converted to a dimensionless parameter (coverage fraction) which provides a quantitative measurement of coverage. The coverage fraction is the overlay stone weight per unit area for a specific overlay percent and stone shape. Cover frac- ‘tion’ (C.F) as defined by: C C.F. = ——~__ ,, W WS (1) We where C is the overlay weight (pounds per square foot), Wp is the unit weight of the stone (pounds per cubic foot), and W is the average stone weight (pounds). Fourteen model tests were conducted at a model to prototype scale of 1:10 in the small wave tank, 1.5 feet (45.7 centimeters) wide, 2 feet (61 centimeters) deep, and 72 feet (21.9 meters) long. The small wave tank tests were used to evaluate the stability of a single-layer overlay of rounded boulders and angular quarrystone. Two prototype (full-scale) tests, using a single layer of angular to blocky quarrystone, were conducted in the large wave tank, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, 20 feet (6.1 meters) deep, and 635 feet (194 meters) long. The large wave tank tests were used to verify the validity of the stone overlay concept at prototype scale. Test conditions for both wave tanks are given in Table 1 (see Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1971, for a detailed descrip- tion of the tanks). 2. Small-Scale Tests. The small wave tank tests were run with a 1.5-foot water depth and a wave period of 1.16 seconds which give a depth, d, to wavelength, L, ratio of 0.24. This value (d/L = 0.24) coincides with a large number of riprap stability tests previously run at CERC (Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison, 1972). At the normal operating water depth of 15 feet in the large tank, d/L = 0.24 gives a wave period of 3.67 seconds, the approxi- mate design wave period at the Mobridge, South Dakota, railroad embankment on the Oahe Reservoir. The core of the embankment in the small tank tests was composed of packed sand with a median diameter of 0.2 millimeter. Between the core and the riprap underlayer there was a 0.5-inch (12.7 millimeters) layer of coarse filter sand with a median diameter of 1.2 millimeters. The distinctive reddish-brown color of the filter sand made exposure of the filter easy to observe. Crushed bluestone with a median diameter of 11 millimeters was used as a riprap layer. This layer was designated the riprap underlayer for the tests using an overlay. The small wave tank test setup is shown in Figure 1. Generator [acc 45 ft Wave Gage Riprap Underlayer Coarse Filter Sand Scale (ft) fo) I 2 Figure 1. Details of small wave tank test section. In 13 of the 14 small tank tests, waves were run in burst durations of 20 seconds. The 20-second burst duration prevented wave energy reflec- ted from the slope from being re-reflected from the wave blade while it was still in motion. Such a condition would cause two distinct wave trains to travel toward the embankment, making it more difficult to mea- sure and describe the incident wave height. The 20-second burst duration “sToquds Jo suoyyUTJop oz 9 oBud eos, yuez oie] FU? UF £6°T [BuO UeAUOD SSOUYITYI IOABT OZ TBUOFIUWEAUOD YIFA ABTIOAO 30d O01 30d OO 30d O01 aod 19 aod 19 30d 00t Aysnonuyzzuos uni Jojvz0u03 oABy s o aod OOL yod 19 30d 001 30d 0OL MOFYd UT LS*T BuO FZUCAUOD 9%S00°0O WORYI UE T9'T [BUOFIUSAUOD 97S00°0 *ABTICAO YZoOYIZA $3503 Ay 835 deidyz D}seq o10M 4OTY? UF BO"? Laie Sue Tee wee eae a [BuO F UeAUOD 97S00°0 yuey TTeus 733 10d SsyreU9Yy 69uU03s JO “ON 4 S31MSeL pus suoz3zpuod 3se7 AVF ¥qeys ABT10ao pue derdyy “Tt o1qeL ne 03}z21enb (9uo03zsA1ienb) 92}¢z31enb (auoysA11enb) euojseuTyT UT-S*T 02 -T (auoysd11enb) 93tzq1eNnb Cyets CRS SU (auoysA1renb) 931z31enb UuT-Z 02 -S*I (auoysd11enb) a3]z31enb uf-Z 02 -S‘T slap[noq ut-Z 02 -S°T siap[noq Uy-Z 03 -S*T sAOpinoq Uf-Z 02 -S'T s1ep[noq Uf-Z 02 -S*T sio0p{noq Ut-S*T 03 -T siep[noq UI-S*T 02 -T siep[nog uy-T 02 -SL°0 (euo3sAaienb) euojyson|q wu Ty (ou yeAaaunb) ouoysont YG wu- TT (au0zsdaienb) euoysan{q wu-TT vI-s £I-S zI-s 9-S s-S v-S f-S [cq [ody | SC a ce also allowed the generation of 14 to 15 well-formed waves at a test per- iod of 1.16 seconds. The wave heights referred to in this report are the significant wave heights of the 14 or 15 well-formed waves in each burst. The significant wave height is the average of the highest one-third of the waves in the burst. This does not necessarily correspond to the significant height in an ocean wave spectrum. Although the wave height was spot checked during the stability tests, the actual wave heights used were obtained from a previous calibration of the wave generator. Both the small and large wave tanks were calibrated for wave heights using absorber beaches at the location of the embankment toe. Therefore, the wave heights used in this report represent the actual incident height at the embankment toe. The wave height for each condition tested was predetermined by calibra- ting the wave tank and running-in bursts. The location of the wave gages used to spot check the wave height in the small tank is shown in Figure l. The basic data in this study consisted of surveys of the embankment taken after each run was completed. A run (series of bursts) continued until the embankment slope had reached equilibrium at a particular wave height; however, never less than 50 waves bursts (about 750 well-formed waves) were considered sufficient to constitute a run. Normally, after 50 bursts the slope became stable, the run was terminated, and a survey was taken. In the small wave tank the wave height was increased in incre- ments of from 0.015 to 0.030 foot (4.6 to 9.1 millimeters) between runs. Tests S-1, S-2, and S-3 (Table 1) were used to establish the zero- damage stability of the crushed bluestone which constituted the model riprap layer without overlay, i.e., base condition. Tests S-4 to S-13 (Table 1) determined the stability characteristics of armor stone overlay. The overlay stones were of two general types, rounded boulders and angular Sioux quartzite quarrystone. Three sizes of boulders were tested and designated 0.75 to 1 inch (19 to 25.4 millimeters), 1 to 1.5 inches (25.4 to 38.1 millimeters), and 1.5 to 2 inches (38.1 to 50.8 millimeters). Both the boulders and the quarrystone had a specific gravity of 2.65. Details on the type of stone, stone size, and weight and coverage fractions for the various tests are given in Table 1. In test S-7 the wave generator was run continuously, as opposed to wave bursts, for a fixed number of waves to see if continuous wave action of less than design height could displace the riprap through the voids in the armor overlay. Test S-14 was considered to be a conventional overlay test, in that the overlay constituted a layer about two stones in diameter thick, rather than 100- or 67-percent coverage of a single layer of stone on top of the riprap. Kimmswick limestone quarrystone at a designated size of 1 to 1.5 inches was used for this test. The test was used as a reference for com- parison with the overlay tests using considerably smaller coverage frac- tions. Small tank tests photos of quarrystone and boulders having 100-percent overlay and the boulders having 67-percent overlay are shown in Figures Domania *(euoqyskizenb ie[nsue) AeTI9AO 9U0jS UdDZEed-NOT FO 3S9} YUeI OAeM TTeUS *7 OANBTY 2}1Z11eNb UT-Z 04 -S'T ‘(UOTITPUOS oseUep TOUTW) 3F SLE°0 = SH JO yOe!}}e 9APM BUTMOT[OF ddoT[S 911Z}2enb UT-Z 03 -S’T *OptM 3F G*T yue? 6 :[SAST LOVEM[ TTS soqouep odor ‘UOTIEPuod [eTITUT *(satoptnoqg) Av[L9OAO 9U0JS JUSsDTEd-QOT JO 389) yUe} OAM TTeWS ‘*s sANsTY sLop[noqg o[BdS UT-Z 02 -S°{ {(UOTITPUOD oseuep TOUTUW) ass SCG°O Ss Si Jo yore 2e 9AEM BuTMOT[OF odoTs SLOp[nog e[edS UT-Z 0} -S'T ‘OpIM 25 S°T Yue? ¢ ‘TOAST LIOJEMT [IIS soyousep odor ‘uOTITpuod [VTITUT l2 (steptnoq) AeTIeAO 9uo0jS jUedZed-/9 FO JSs9} YURI OALM [[eWS “Pp dINSTY SLop[nog a[edS UT-Z 0} -SG’T SOptM 4F S*T yueq SLoOp[noqg 9[eIs UT-Z 0} -S°T STAeAST TOVEMTTIIS sojzouep odor £3F Sz7o°0 = SH ‘eanttez odots “uOTITpuod [eTITU] 13 3. Prototype Tests. Two prototype overlay tests were conducted in the large wave tank. . The riprap underlayer for these two tests was Sioux quartzite quarrystone with a median weight of 3 pounds (1.4 kilograms). Between the riprap underlayer and the core of the embankment there was a crushed stone filter layer 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) thick, using stone with a median diameter of 1.5 inches. The core was compacted bank-run soil. Details of the large wave tank test section are shown in Figure ‘5. 24 Top of Side Boards 20 Top of Tank Wall Bank -Run Soil Core Elevation (ft) Generator Blade 418 ft Figure 5. Details of large wave tank test section. Test L-1 determined the stability of the 100-pound (45 kilograms) median weight Sioux quartzite quarrystone overlay. The largest overlay quarrystone weighed 290 pounds (132 kilograms); the smallest, 20 pounds (9.1 kilograms). This 100-percent overlay was tested for a 3.67-second period wave with a 15-foot stillwater depth in the tank. Wave heights ranged from 2.8 to 3.8 feet (0.85 to 1.16 meters). A total of 100 wave bursts with 19 waves per burst were run at each height. Test L-2 evaluated the stability of a 100-percent overlay of Sioux quartzite quarrystone with a median weight of 209 pounds (95 kilograms) . The largest overlay quarrystone weighed 675 pounds (306 kilograms); the smallest,100 pounds. The water depth was 15 feet and a 4.2-second wave period was tested. Wave heights ranged from 3.2 to 4.4 feet (0.98 to 1.34 meters). A total of 100 wave bursts with 14 waves per burst were run at each height. In the large tank the wave height was increased in increments of from 0.3 to 0.4 foot (9.1 to 12.2 centimeters) between runs. The large wave tank testing at prototype scale was done to determine what corrections were needed for the small-scale test results to make the small tank test representative of prototype conditions; i.e., determine scale effects. Large tank test photos of the 100-percent quarrystone over- lay (Wsg = 100 pounds) are shown in Figure 6. TII. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS Changes in the embankment profile were observed from the survey data collected after each run. These changes were converted to a volumetric 14 aT SE SS sf & a x Slope failure, Hs = 3.85 Slope construction — Initial condition Figure 6. Prototype tests of 100-percent stone overlay (quarrystone) coverage. change relative to the initial survey taken hefore any waves were run. The volumetric. changes were a measure of the damage to the embankment, and were plotted versus wave height to estimate the zero-damage wave height. As each test progressed there was usually some wave height at which an abrupt increase in the damage occurred. The wave height that preceded this abrupt change in the rate of damage is considered the zero- damage wave height, Hp-g- The damage that occurred to the embankment be- fore reaching the zero-damage wave height was usually insignificant, and resulted from the slight movement of a few stones which were in unstable positions at the completion of construction of the embankment. As an additional aid to establishing the zero-damage wave height, extensive written records of visual observations during the testing were made. Normally, the visual method of estimating the zero-damage wave height was used to confirm the survey data method, and there was always close agree- ment between the two. Stability of riprap is often measured as the stability number, Ng. The stability number, which is a dimensionless zero-damage wave height, can be used to compute a stable armor unit weight (Hudson, 1958), and is defined by: Hp=0 : (#0) (Bs 2 By Wy N (2) where Wsg is the median weight of the stone (pounds), Wp is the unit weight of the stone (pounds per cubic foot), and Sy = wy/Wy; Wy is the unit weight of the local water. Since the weight distributions for the overlay stone used in the small tank tests were not obtained, it was con- venient to define a stability number based on average weight. The average weight stability number is given by: e Hp=0 Ng = a. Grea (3) Wy where W is the average weight of the stone (pounds). N* was useful for making comparisons between various small-scale tests and between small- scale and prototype tests since the average weight was known for all tests. However, it should be noted that Ne is not the stability number normally used. An embankment with a stone overlay was considered a failure when enough of the stone overlay and riprap underlayer had been removed by wave forces, leaving the filter layer clearly exposed. An embankment without a stone overlay was considered a failure when enough riprap had been removed to clearly reveal the filter. Another useful definition is the tolerable-damage wave height, Hp=+, which is the largest wave height that does not remove either filter or rip- rap material through voids of the stone overlay. A wave height of Hpiz will move some overlay stones around but the damage is considered tolerable 16 because the revetment integrity is maintained. Both Hp.g and Hp_+ are given in terms of the significant wave height at the toe of the embank- ment. Test conditions and results are presented in Table 1. 1. Discussion. The tests show that riprap stability is greatly improved when a stone overlay is used. It might be suspected that when the waves become large enough to move the overlay stone, open areas would be created in the over- lay through which the underlying riprap could be removed by the wave action. Small open areas did appear between the overlay stone when the wave height reached the zero-damage level and gradually enlarged with increasing wave height. These open areas started near the stillwater level and slowly migrated upslope, sometimes extending to the upper limit of the active wave action. The open areas developed through the general shifting around of the overlay stones, which tended to pack more tightly just below the stillwater level, rather than by the actual removal of overlay stones. Even as the open areas enlarged, the exposed riprap underlayer had little tendency to be removed and remained sheltered from the wave action by the overlay stones until the waves approached the failure wave height. Near the failure wave height, riprap was removed from the open areas, undermin- ing the stability of the adjacent overlay stones which shifted around and further enlarge the area; at times, the overlay stones were also removed. The riprap and overlay stones once removed from the open area were depos- ited by the wave in the zone just below the stillwater level. In test S-7, where the wave generator was run continuously rather than in 20-second bursts, the prolonged attack of high waves failed to remove the riprap through the overlay stones. There was no observable displace- ment of overlay stones at a wave height of 0.363 foot (11.1 centimeters) , the wave height increment just below the estimated zero-damage wave height. These observations were supported by time-lapse movies of the riprap motion. Table 2 shows the following three comparisons of the stone over- lay stability, using the average weight stability number, N&: (a) The stability of 100- to 67-percent overlay coverage; (b) the stability of a rounded to angular stone overlay; and (c) the stability of a quarrystone overlay for small-scale and prototype tests. Since the number of tests involved in the comparisons (Table 2) were small, the results are regarded only as trends. The last comparison indi- cates surprisingly large-scale effects, but the differences in stability may be partly due to differences in the gradation and shape of the over- lay. The gradation of the stone overlay used in the prototype tests (Table 3) is considered wider than the stone overlay used in the small- scale tests, although the gradation of the overlays in the small-scale tests were not documented. The quarrystone overlay used in the prototype 17 Table 2. Comparison summary of stone overlay stability. Comparison Results 100-pct coverage A 10-pet reduction in €0 NZ for 67-pct overlay. 67-pct coverage Boulders and quarrystone, 100-pct boulders Boulders and quarrystone t 100-pct overlays have (o) Sais equal stability. 100-pet quarrystone Quarrystone, 100-pct quarrystone Small-scale NZ must be increased by 40 pct to correspond to prototype tests results. to 100-pct quarrystone Table 3. Comparison of stone gradations. Comparison Ahrens, 1975 This study (prototype tests) tests appeared to be more blocky than the quarrystone overlay in the smali- scale tests (compare Figs. 2 and 6). However, the scale effects shown in Table 2 are consistent with the findings of Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison (1972) who found sizable scale effects on riprap stability in small-scale model tests. To determine how general the findings of this study are, it would be valuable to compare the results with a study of conventional riprap sta- bility. Ahrens (1975) is a convenient and useful comparison since the stone gradations are similar and a wide range of wave and slope conditions were tested at prototype scale. A comparison of stone gradations used in Ahrens (1975) and this study is given in Table 3. The tests by Ahrens were conducted in the CERC large wave tank and most used a riprap layer between 1.5- and 2-median-stone diameters thick. A riprap layer thickness between these diameters is considered a conventional two-layer riprap. Revetment slopes of 1 on 2.5, 1 on 3.5, and 1 on 5 were tested at prototype scale for wave periods between 2.8 and 11.3 seconds. The conditions and corresponding results which most closely matched these stone overlay tests are: No. Slope Period, of tests, Avg. N. (s) zone) 4.2 4 199 ron WSi0 4.2 4 2.42 Estimated Ng for 1 on 3 slope = 2.21 The interpolated N, = 2.21 for a conventional 1 on 3 riprap is approxi- mately equal to the Ng = 2.26 for a 1 on 3, 100-percent stone overlay armor (Table 1). The similarity of the zero-damage stability between the stone overlay and conventional riprap suggests that the stability equa- tion for conventional riprap design, developed by Ahrens and McCartney (1975), can be used with equation (2) to estimate stable stone overlay weights. This equation is: Ng = 1.46 (cot a)7/? , (4) where 6 is the angle between the embankment face and the horizontal. Equation (4) is intended for design use, and was made conservative enough to account for the worst wave conditions and scatter in the test results. No allowance is made in equation (4) for uncertainty in predicting the design significant wave height. If equation (4) is solved for cot 9 = 3, the stability number is 1.86, which is about 20 percent lower than the large wave tank overlay test results. The lower stability number is indicative of the conservatism included in equation (4). The limit of tolerable damage is the maximum wave height a structure can withstand without some loss of structural integrity. The ratio of tolerable-damage wave height to zero-damage wave height is a measure of 19 the structure's reserve stability. The reserve stability of the 100- percent overlay armor is estimated by the following large wave tank results: Test Hp=9 Hp=t Reserve stability (ft) (ft) halk Beil S50 oat We ASOD ASS 1.09 Average 1.10 Reserve stability of conventional two-layer riprap was determined in the large wave tank by Ahrens (1975) as follows: Slope No. of tests Avg. reserve considered stability one 275 9 1.16 One Sr.5 13 ive Interpolation of this data for a 1 on 3 slope yields a reserve stability of 1.19; i.e., the riprap still protects the embankment from damage for a wave about 20 percent higher than the zero-damage wave height. By com- parison, the 100-percent overlay has only one-half as much (10 percent) reserve stability as the conventional two layers of armor. The number of stones per unit area necessary to have the 100-percent stone overlay condition (all stones touching) is different for boulders and quartzite quarrystone because of stone shape. The coverage fraction (Table 1) shows 100-percent coverage of boulders having a coverage frac- tion between 0.53 to 0.59; the 100-percent coverage for quarrystone (including prototype and small-scale tests) has a coverage fraction between 0.41 and 0.43. This means that to obtain 100-percent coverage about 30 percent more of the rounded boulders would be required per unit area than the blocky quarrystone. The variation of coverage fraction between boulders and conventional shape riprap used in these tests is consistent with an evaluation of rip- rap layer thickness reported by Hudson (1958). This change of coverage fraction with layer thickness for various stone shapes is shown in Figure ke The variation of coverage fraction in Figure 7 can be used to make comparative cost estimates of alternative stone types for revetment design. An example of the use of Figure 7 is given in Appendix B. 2. Conclusions. The general conclusion of these prototype and small-scale wave tank tests is that a one-layer stone overlay greatly improves riprap stability 20 Flat Stone Typical Riprap> Boulders a E a x = Stone Shapes (Hudson,!958) o= Boulders ( Table 1) O= Quartzite (Table |) Armor Rock Shape Stone Layers De) 100-pct Overlay 67-pct Overlay O 0.5 1.0 Jes) 2.0 2.5 (CoE) Figure 7. Stone coverage fraction for overlay coverage and armor shape. 2 and can be useful for upgrading smaller riprap slope protections. The following specific conclusions were also made: a. A 100-percent stone overlay coverage gives about the same stabil- ity number, Ng, as a conventional two-layer armor stone thickness. Overlay stone stability numbers for a 100-percent overlay can be computed from the formula: No = 1.46) (cot aye! b. A 67-percent overlay coverage gives stability numbers about 10 percent less than a 100-percent overlay coverage. c. The reserve stability of a 100-percent stone overlay coverage is about one-half of a conventional two-layer armor stone thickness. d. Rounded boulders were about as stable as a stone overlay as angular quarrystone; however, because of their shape, more boulders are needed per unit area to obtain the same percent coverage. e. The stability numbers obtained in the prototype tests were 40 percent higher than those in small-scale (1:10) tests. However, this apparent scale effect is based on only two prototype and two small-scale tests. 22 LITERATURE CITED AHRENS, J.P., “Large Wave Tank Tests of Riprap Stability," TM-51, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., May 1975. AHRENS, J.P., and McCARTNEY, B.L., ‘Wave Period Effect on the Stability of Riprap," Proceedings of the Ocean Engineering III Conference, Newark, Del., June 1975, pp. 1019-1034. COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, "Summary of Capabilities," MP 3-64, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., updated Nov. 1971. HUDSON, R.Y., 'Design of Quarrystone Cover Layers for Rubble-Mound Breakwaters ,"' Research Report No. 2-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., July 1958. THOMSEN, A.L., WOHLT, P.E., and HARRISON, A.S., "Riprap Stability on Earth Embankments Tested in Large- and Small-Scale Wave Tanks,'' TM-37, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Washington, D.C., June 1972. ; U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, Shore Protection Manual, 2d ed., Vols. I, II, and III, Stock No. 008-022-00077-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975, 1,160 pp. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, ''Slope Protection Upgrading,'' Design Memorandum No. Mo-197, C.M. ST. P. & P. Railroad Crossing, Mobridge, SADE Sept LISS U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, ''Specifications for Slope Protection Upgrading,'' C.M. ST. P. & P. Railroad Crossing, Mobridge, S.D., Jan. Salve 23 APPENDIX A CASE STUDY OF OAHE RESERVOIR Oahe Dam is a 9,300-foot-long (2.83 kilometers) , 230-foot-high (70.1 meters) earthfill dam located on the Missouri River in central South Dakota (Fig. A-1l). LOCATION MAP SCALE IN MILES ° so soos Figure A-1. Oahe Dam. The reservoir behind Oahe Dam, filled in 1962, is about 190 miles (360 kilometers) long and 5 to 10 miles (8 to 16.1 kilometers) wide. About 100 miles (161 kilometers) upstream from the dam, a railroad crosses the reservoir near the town of Mobridge, South Dakota. The rail- road crossing is made by a 4,500-foot-long (1.37 kilometers) earth embank- ment reveted by riprap and a 2,000-foot-long (610 meters) bridge. Figure A-2 is a project map showing the railroad embankment and the reservoir segment near the embankment. The embankment core is dredge-fill material with 1 on 3 side slopes. Both upstream and downstream slopes are reveted with a 6-inch-thick bed of gravel, 6-inch-thick layer of spalls, and a 24-inch-thick (61 centi- meters) layer of riprap armor. This riprap revetment has a top elevation of 1,627 feet (496 meters) mean sea level (MSL) on both upstream and downstream sides. The toe elevation of the upstream side is 1,543 feet (470 meters) MSL and 1,588 feet (484 meters) MSL on the downstream side. The reservoir operating levels (U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, 1969) in feet above MSL are: Maximum operating pool 1,620 Maximum normal operating pool Te ouly/ Minimum flood control pool 160705 Limit of drawdown 1540 25 Pte FR, =a a U.S. GOV'T. BOUNDARY 1 ' \ Se 4 |- \, SSSSc109555) ent] S eee Ms @ “0, x of H ‘. 3 Tonakowse Mon” 5 ~~ RESERVATION Ls +. Setong Bull Grave ‘and Monument Figure A-2. Project map, railroad embankment in Lake Oahe. 26 The specified armor stone gradation called for riprap with a medium weight of 125 pounds (57 kilograms). However, the actual median riprap weight in place ranged between 10 and 75 pounds (4.5 and 34 kilograms) , which was considerably less than specified. The specified riprap grada- tion and actual riprap gradations are shown in Figure A-3. Se SS eee 90 LUNN Bs 10 I ta ae ai aa as | a 80 kN oN 120 I SES SS ee ee 70 BS Within Areaof 30 & ml NES ze se ie ee s = @ 80 “s A 40 m Seat EES: a SNC 260 ai . i ~ 50 § eal SRT Eee HH : = 50 LINN P 60 8 F aol eC ESs se Sess 2 e BRS aN 70 © ill eee aS RSLs Bs cl A 10 i of Existing Riprap 90 I RISES Le he a 5 (2) {e) fe} fo} (o) (oy (2) (eo) (o} oo oO fo} (o} oom oO vt Ow oy) oo 3 Ss fe} S (oy, to) 3 fo} fe) o o vt nw = $s $ & 333 ¢ a Stone Weight (1b) Specific Gravity of Stone 2.65 Figure A-3. Riprap gradation for railroad embankment (U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, 1969). From 1962 to 1967 the reservoir pool level fluctuated between eleva- tions of 1,555 and 1,597 feet (474 and’ 487 meters). The) first riprap failure was noticed on the upstream face in June 1967. Damage consisted of a 2,700-foot-long (823 meters) wave-cut notch similar to that shown in the photos in Figure A-4. This damage was‘attributed to storm waves from the northeast on 30 April and 1 May 1967 during which the Mobridge Weather Bureau Station reported gusts to 70 miles (113 kilometers) per hour. More riprap damage occurred on the upstream slope during 1968 at a higher reservoir pool level. This damage notch was not as extensive as the 1967 damage although it was about 2,500 feet (762 meters) long. Typical sections of the damaged riprap revetment are shown in Figure A-5. U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha (1969) estimated a 5-foot (1.52 meters) wave caused the 1967 and 1968 slope damage. This estimate was based on the wave-cut notch and position of driftwood on the slope. Further analysis by the District concluded that the embankment would be exposed during a 100-year period to 250 waves with a height of 5 feet or higher. This 5-foot wave height was selected as the design wave for the permanent revetment repair. Assuming the 5-foot height approximately represents the l-percent exceedance wave height of a Rayleigh distribu- tion, the significant height is 3.3 feet (1.01 meters). The 1-percent exceedance wave height is the height exceeded by l-percent of the waves. - Therefore, the design significant wave height, H,, is 3.35 feet. 27 Figure A-4. Storm damage to riprap embankment during 1967 and 1968. 28 24-in Riprap G-in Spalls 6-in Bedding Figure A-5. Typical damaged riprap sections (U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, 1969). % The upstream embankment slope is exposed to an effective fetch across the reservoir of about 1.4 miles (2.25 kilometers); the downstream slope is exposed to a 1.5-mile (2.41 kilometers) effective fetch. Using the deepwater wave forecasting curves in U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center (1975), a Hy = 3.3 feet can be gener- ated by a wind of about 55 miles (89 kilometers) per hour blowing over a 1.5-mile fetch. A 3.6-second wave period is associated with this 3.3- foot-high significant wave height. Thus, a storm with gusts of 70 miles per hour over a 1.5-mile fetch is capable of generating some waves as high as 5 feet, the designated design height. Both the 1967 and 1968 damage was temporarily repaired by dumping quarrystone into the notches from a barge. While these emergency repairs provided temporary protection, a permanent solution to the inadequate riprap stability problem was needed. U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha (1969) evaluated the following methods of upgrading the riprap stability: (a) Overlaying with wire mesh or chain-link fence anchored in place to hold the stone and prevent movement; (b) placing grout by various methods into the voids between the existing stone to bind smaller stone together into either larger or continuous solid units that are more wave resistant; (c) overlaying with grouted preplaced mesh-enclosed coarse aggregate as suggested by Milwaukee railroad officials; (d) overlaying with manufac- tured concrete armor units such as tetrapods or tribars; and (e) over- laying with quarrystone or boulders. Method (e) was selected as the cost- effective plan with a good chance of success. To assure success of the stone overlay design, the U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha requested a series of wave tank tests be performed at the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). These tests were intended to determine stability of various stone overlay coverages for both quarry- stone and boulders. 29 Application of Model Test Results. The original riprap slope was damaged by storms which had an esti- mated significant wave height of 3.3 feet. The original 1 on 3 slope riprap gradation, as sampled on the constructed slope, was: Large quarrystone area Small quarrystone area (1b) (1b) ee oe ncAdly Ne = 180 Wao) = 75 Weg 10 min — 4 am = Sb The stability of these existing rock gradations for zero damage is com- puted using the definition of the stability number (eq. 2) rearranged to yield: Wy H3 W ee 3 ei 3 Ne (S., 1) where Wsg = median stone weight (pounds) Wp = unit weight of stone (165 pounds per cubic foot) H = significant wave height (feet) Ns = 1.46 (cot 92/9 = 1.86 (Ahrens and McCartney, 1975). 8 = angle of structure slope with the horizontal (cot 6 = 3) of AWAR ; LEO Ore Sp = armor specific gravity, = Ga 2.64 Using this equation, the zero-damage wave heights for the damaged railroad embankment slope follow: Area Wsg Zero-damage wave height (1b) (ft) Small stone (riprap) 10 2 Large stone (riprap) wS 2.4 This analysis of the original riprap shows it was considerably smaller than the size required to be stable against the design waves. Using this same equation for the design significant wave height of 3.3 feet, Wsg = 209 pounds is required for stability. This computed stable stone overlay weight of 209 pounds was increased arbitrarily to 600 pounds (272 kilo- grams) to incorporate a factor of safety into the repair design and because stone up to this weight was available at about the same unit 30 cost as smaller overlay stone. Since Wsg is proportional to H®, the 600-pound median weight stone overlay should be stable for waves with a significant height up to 4.7 feet (1.43 meters). The Mobridge upgrade stone overlay specifications for repair of the railroad embankment riprap were: Weight of Pct smaller individual stones by weight (1b) 1,200 100 600 55) to) 50 300 6 to 10 Overlay coverage was to be 50 tons per 1,000 square feet above water and 65 tons per 1,000 square feet below water (U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, 1971). The stone overlay on the railroad embankment was constructed in 1971 (Fig. A-6), and to date has performed satisfactorily without the need for additional repair work. 3| Figure A-6. Damaged revetment repair by stone overlay. APPENDIX B EXAMPLE PROBLEM This appendix illustrates how the findings of this study can be used to calculate the weight of stone and amount of stone required for a stable overlay-type revetment. Guidance is provided on how this infor- mation can be used to develop a cost-effective design. RRR KR KKK KKK RAK KKK KKK KEK KEKEKEXAMPLE PROBLEM** *%% % % KKK KKK KKK KEK KEKEKEEK GIVEN: (a) 1 on 3 slope existing riprap revetment damaged by He = 19 feet, IT = 4 seconds. wee t 2 (b) Stability number is Ng = 1.86 [Ng = 1.46 (cot 8) 1 for a 1 on 3 slope riprap revetment. FIND: (a) A 100-percent stone overlay size (Wsg) necessary to sta- bilize slope against wave H, = 5 feet, T = 4 seconds. (b) Stone weight per unit area for overlay of (1) boulders, (2) overlay of conventional riprap-shaped quarrystone, and (3) conventional two-layer overlay. Stable quarrystone weight for: He = 5 feet Wy, = 165 pounds per cubic foot Weg = HY Mp / CN, (5, > 1)3] (53) (165)/(1.863) (2.64 - 1)3 727 pounds. = ea) fo) I Use Wsog = 730 pounds. From Figure 7, stone coverage fraction (C.F.) for boulders and riprap: (2) Geille 0.55 for boulders (100-percent coverage) . (b) C.F. = 0.43 for riprap (100-percent coverage, "E' stone 33 ANSWERS : Weight of boulders needed per 1,000 square feet of revetment surface area: Ws50\1/3 Wp weight 1,000 ft2 wy (1 ,000/2 ,000) 1,000 ee) ( 2,000 74.5 tons per 1,000 square feet. CCl CH0) = Co. ( 1/3 ! = 0.55 (730/165) Weight of quarrystone riprap needed per 1,000 square feet of revetment surface area: 1,000 2,000 = 58.2 tons per 1,000 square feet.. _Weight _ 9.43 (730/165)!/5(165 OOO ae) Wa ce Conventional two layers of overlay have about the same zero-damage wave height stability as the 100-percent overlay. Therefore, a conven- tional two-layer overlay Wsg = 730 pounds. From Figure 7: C.F. = 0.95 quarrystone ripfrap for two layers C.F. = 1.15 boulders for two layers Quarrystone 1/3 : F ‘a 730 1,000 riprap weight = 0.95 (2) 165 (5-300) = 128.7 tons per 1,000 square feet. 1/3 ‘ uh 730 1,000 Boulder weight = 1.15 ice 165 7-000 155.8 tons per 1,000 square feet. SUMMARY : Overlay Overlay Wcg for Overlay zero-damage H, = 5 ft (tons per 1,000 ft?) (1b) 100-percent boulders 730 74.5 100-percent quarrystone riprap 730 58.2 Boulders 730 155.8 Quarrystone riprap, two layers 730 128.7 If unit prices for boulders and conventional quarrystone riprap are avail- able, an economic comparison can be made. 34 daigsn* £79 61-9L ‘ou dapecn* €0ZOL "61-92 ‘ou aoeded TeoTuyseT *lejueD yoAeesey BuTiseutTsug Teqseog *s*p :SeTIes “III ‘azoyjne qutol ‘*g uyor ‘suexryy “II “eTITL “I *eIOYeC yanos faAToATasey ayeQ *y *SadT0F aAeMN *g “deadty *Z ‘saeptnog *| *poepntout osTe ST feqoyed YINOS SATOAZeSay ayeQ uo Jueu}eAeA deidta pasewep e atedo1t 0} pesn qdaosuod AeT1aAO |uU0RS e UO UOTJeWAOFJUT USTSEq "OYA We S7zseq yur} eaem aTeos-oedAjojo1d pue Taepow aTeos-[Teus Aq peuTWtejep sea yoeqqe eaem 03 AeTAsAO |yR FO soUeRSTsSer sy, ‘deadta paustsaprzapun uo A®TAaAO 9ATI0030AId e& se pasn sdUO}S JOWAe adie, Jo zaakeT aTZuts e jo aouewIOjied platy pue sjse} Yue aAeM dy] Saqtaosap Jaodsea sTYyL ‘ez ‘di: Aydeasottqrg (6L-9Z ‘Ou $ AajUAaD yoaeesey BZurtseutTsuq Teq3seog *s*'n — zeded Teotuyosel) “TIT : *d HE ‘Q/6| ‘SATequeg YOTeasey BuTTeeuTZuyq Teqyseop *s*n : “eA SATOATEg jaoq — ‘suaayy *q uyor pue Asuqaego] ‘JT eonag Aq / AqtTtqeqs dea -dIi oseaiout 0} Siaptnoq pue suoqsdkiaenb paoertd ‘a8reT Jo AeTA9AO "JT vonag ‘AauqIzegdI d3igcn* £c9 Gis9L “OU d3pgcn* €07OL "6L-92 ‘ou aeded [TeoTuysey *‘1tejueD YO1eesey ButTasauFBuq Teqseog *S'n :SeTzasg “TIJ ‘azoyjne jutol **q uyor Ssuezyy ‘IT ‘“eTAFL “1 *e307eG yanos SiAtoOAXasay ayeQ “hy *Ssa0T0J aAeM *¢ ‘deadTy *Z ‘“SaAaptnog *| *papnpout oste ST ‘ejoyeq yaNos SAToOAZeSey aeyeQ uo JueWjeAe1 deidtz pasewep e iatedosr 0} pesn qydadu0d AeTAsAO DUOJS & UO UOTJeWAOFUT UBSTSeq “*OYWD 3e S3se3 yue} aAeA oTeosS-odAjoj}02d pue Tepow aTeos-,[Tews Aq peuTwAsjzep sen yoej qe aaem 03 AeTAaAO |yQ Jo voueIstTsea ayy ‘“deadtai paustTsepizepun uo AeT4A9AO BATIOeIOId e Se pasn d9UuojS AOWAe |aB1eT JO AVheT oTSUTS e jo oouewiz0jied protTy pue sjseq yue. sAeM |Yyi SaqtzADsap jaodear sTYyL "ez ‘di AydeaBotTqta (6L-9L "Ou $ 1azUeD yoreesoy BuTJeeuTsuqy Teyseog *s°n — aeded Teotuyosy) “TTT : *d HE “Q/6| ‘e}JUeD YOARasey BuTAseuTSUq TeqseoD ‘s'M : “eA SATOATOG qaog -— ‘suertyuy ‘gq uyor pue Aeujzazegoy] “1 eonag Aq / AatTTqeas des -dta eseatoUuT 03 Sieptnoq pue vsuojsdAaienb peoetd ‘as3ae{T jo AeT1eagQ “JT aonag ‘§AauqzeDdI da,gcn- £79 61-9£ *ou dapesn* €0ZOL "61-92 ‘ou aaded TeoTuYysel, *teqUeD YOAvEeSdYy BursrssuTsug [TeIseop “Sf :SeTieg ‘III ‘toyqne qurof “*q uyor ‘suezyy “II “eTIFL “1 *eIONeC yanog SiatoArzesey. ayeQ *y *SeozT0y eaeM *E “deadty *Z ‘“Saeptnog “| *popn[out oste ST Seq0Heq YRNOS fATOATaSaYy eyeQ uo Jueu}ZeAer deadTa pasewep e atedoa 0} pesn ydaduod AeTAaAO |BUoRS e UO UOTJeWAOCFUT UBTSAay "“DJYAD 7e S3sSeq yue} aaen oTedSs-odAjo0j01d pue [Tepow ateos-[T[eus Aq pauTWAajep sen yoeqqe aaem 03 AeTAeAO |9y, Jo BsoUeqSTset ayy ‘deadta paustsapizapun uo A€TASAO BsAT}IaR0Id & Se pesn BUOJS AOWAe aBieT Jo AzadkeT aTsuTs e yO ooueudtojied pTetj pue sjzsaq yur} eAeM 9} Seqtadsep jJaodaa sTYL "ez ‘di Aydeasottqtg (61-92 ‘ou § taqUaD yorrasey Butzeoutsugq [Teqseog *S*n — zeded Teoruyosy) “TTT : *d HE ‘9/6, ‘equeD YyOIeeSey BuTAseuTZug [TejseopD “Sn : “eA *ATOATAY qaog — ‘sueayy *q uyor pue Aeuqiegog] *T aonag Aq / AQTTTqeas des -dTi aseaidUuT 03 saaptnoq pue auoqshaaenb paoetd ‘a8ie,T jo AeTasag "JT vgonag ‘AdUqAeD da 1gci* L£e9 GSO nou d31.gcn* €07OL “61-92 ‘ou aaded [eopTuYyde] *tequeQ yoivesey BuTAseuTsuyq TeqseoD *S"N 1SeTl9ag ‘TIT ‘azoyqne jutof ‘gq uyor ‘suerzyy “II ‘“eTITL ‘I = *eIONeG yanos SAtoArasey ayeg *7 *SseotOy |AeM *E ‘“deadtTy *Z ‘SaAeptTnog *1 *papnzpout osTe ST ‘eqoyeq yqInos SaToArasey ayeQ uo Juaujene1 deadta pedsewep e itedaa 03 pasn qdaou0d AeTAsAO BUOJS B UO UOTJeWAOFZUT UsTSeEqg “OUTDO We $7sSe9 yueq oaen aTeos-odAj0j301d pue [Tepow eTeos-[TTews Aq pouTWwAejep sem yor qe oaem 03 AeTADAO ayy Jo souejsTsea oy, ‘deadya peust~seprepun uo AeTie@Ao DATIOeI0Ad © se pasn sUoRS JOWAe aBAeT Jo 1sXeT STZuTS e Jo sourwtojaod platy pue sjseq yue} sAeM |Yy seqtaosep Jaodezr STYL ‘ez ‘dt Aydessot Tata (6L-9£ “OU f taqUED yoreaseay Bu~iseuT3uq Teqseog *S*q — daeded [Teotuysey) ‘TTT : *d HE ‘O/6, ‘4eqUeD YOARssey BuTiseuTSu™ Teqseog *s*n : “BA ‘ATOATAG qaoq — ‘sueazyy ‘gq uyor pue Aauqzegoj] “J aonag Aq / AITTEGBIS dea -d~i aseadoUT 0} Saaptnoq pue auoqyshazienb paoetd ‘as’aeq~ jo AeTIeAO “7 aonag ‘AouqIzeOdI Wanye like et d3igcn° £29 61-92 “ou daygcn* €0Z0L "6L-92 ‘ou zeded TeoTuysey *tejuepg yoreasey BSutTiseutTsug [eqseog “spn :SeTlesg “TIT ‘azoyujne jutof **g uyor ‘Ssuezyy “II “eTITL “I *eIOVeC yanos Satoazasay eayeQ “7 *Sa0z0y aaenyn *¢ ‘deadty *Z ‘sieptnog *1 *poepnpouTt osTte ST feqoyed yynosg SAtToOAATaSsYy ayeQ uo JuewjeAer deadta pesewep e atedar 03 pesn qdeouod AeTIeAO |auo JS e UO UOTJeWIOFUT USTSaq “OYTO We sqseq yueq aAeM oTeIS-adAjoj}0I1d pue Taepow aTeos-[ Tews Aq peuTWAajep sem yoeqqe aaem 07 AeTAVAO BY Jo soUeASTSeA ou ‘deadtA’ paustsapizapun uo A®TI@AO |BATIIe30Id e& se pasn suojJS JOWIe |81eT Jo AakeT oTZurs e jo asouewiojied platy pue sjseaq Yue, BsaeM ay. Saqtaosap jaodse1a sty ‘ez ‘d : Ayudeasottqrg (61-92 ‘Ou £ ataquaD yoieesey BuTieeuTsugq [eq3seog *s*n — azeded Teotuyoey) “TTT : *d HE "9/6, ‘2a}UeD YDeesey SuTIseuTsuq TeqseoD *S*n : “eA SATOATOG qaoy -— ‘suazyy ‘gq uyor pue Asuqaegodj] “J eonag Aq / AatTtTqeqs dea -dti aseaiout 0} sizaptnoq pue suojskiazenb paoseqtd Sa8r1eT jo AeTIVAO "JT vonag ‘AouqAeDdI dargcn* £69 6P-92£ -ou d3,gcn* £0201 "6L-92 ‘ou aeded TeoTuYyoey *taquaeD YoTessey ButarsouT3uq [Teqseog *S'n tseTzas “JIT ‘szoyjne jutof **gq uyor Ssuezyy “Il “eTIFL “1 *eI07eC yanos SATOAZasSeay ayeQ *h *Sadt0F aAeM *¢ ‘deadty *Z ‘“Ssaeprnog ‘| *pepnpour oste st ‘eqoyeqd yanosg SAToAASsey ayeQ Uo JUSWJeAeA deidtT1 pesewep e ATedser 03 pesn jdaduod AeTAaAO DUORS B UO UOT}eEWAOFUT UBTSeq ‘OYTD We S3Seq yur} eaen aTeos-adAjojoaid pue Tepow atTeos-[TTews Aq peuTWiajJep sem yoeqqe aaem 03 AeTzaAo oq Jo aoueqsTsea ayy ‘*deadta poaustsapszspun uo A®TA2@AO BATIIGIOAd e se paesn suoJS AOWAe adAeT Jo AaheT aeTSuUTS e jo souewz0jaod plotTjy pue sjsaq yUue. BAeM By SaqtaAIsep jaodea stuyL ‘ez ‘d : Aydeasottqtg (6L-9£ "OU £ taqUaD yoreesey BSuTrseuT8ug Teqjseog *s*n — aeded TeotTuyosey) “TTT : *d 4¢ “Q/6| ‘1Ae}UaD YDAeasey BuTAseuTSuq Teyseoyg *s*p : “BA SATOATOG qa0y — *sueayy “qd uyor pue AouzaegoyI “JT eonag Aq / AQTTTqGeqs der -dta aseaitout 03 saeptnoqg pue auojskarzenb paoetd ‘adze~T jo AeTAeag "JT vonag ‘AauqzeDdjI d3igcsn* LG9. (Sllicteye; SGN d3pecn* €0720L "6-92 ‘ou aeded [TeoTuysey *zejueg YyoIeasay BufrsauTZug Te yseog “Sf Vsetaes “TTT “zoujne qaurpof “sq uyor “suezyy “Il “eat *f “eI2OyEd yanos ‘itoAraseay. eyeOQ *y *Sseoz0zy saemM *E ‘“deadty *Z ‘“Siaprnog ‘1 *papnjTout oste ST f‘eq0Heq YRNOS fATOAASSaYy BsyeQ UO JUeUjeAe deadtTa pasewep e atedoz 03 pesn qdadu0d APTAGAO BUOjS eB UO UOTJeWAOFUT USTSay “OYA 3e sqseq yue} aaemn aTeos-adAjo0j01d pue [Tepow eTeos-T[Tews Aq pauTWiajep sen yoeqqe anem 03 AeTA@AO By Jo |aoueysTser sy, ‘deadta peustsapzspun uo A€TAVAO 3AT}DeI0AId & Se pasn |UuojS AJOWIe BBIeT Jo ABheT oTBuTs e jo aoueuzo0jied prety pue sjsaj} Yue, VAeM |Yy} SeqtaAdsep jaodetr sty ‘ez *d : Aydeasorttqrg (6L-9£ "ou $ AaqueD yoreesey Bup~ssouT3uyq Teqyseog *Ss*n — rzeded [eotTuyoey) “{TTT : ‘d HE ‘Q/6, ‘ejUeD YOAeeSeY BuTAseeuTsUuq TeIseOD "Sn : “eA SATOATEg qa0q — ‘sueryy *q uyor pue Aeuqaegay *7T esonag Aq / AAtTTTqeqs dea -dIi aseaiout 03 saeptnoq pue auojsdhaszenb pooetd ‘Sasaeyt jo AepTarang "7 aonag ‘Aauq1eOd}I d3peci* Le9 (HEL SCoNes d31,gcn° €02OL ‘6L-92 ‘ou zaded [TeotTuyoa] *Aeqjuep yorzrasey BuTarseuTsuq Te seoD *S‘N tS9T19S “III ‘zoyjne jutolf ‘*q uyor ‘suezyy “IT ‘eTATL “I = *BI0%ed yanos SatoArasey ayeg *7 *so0t0g BAeM *¢ ‘cdeadty *Z ‘Saeptnog ‘| *papnpourt osTte ST ‘eqoyeq yanos ‘AToOATesSey syeQ uo Jueujenez deadta1 pasewep e atedoe1z 03 pasn qydaoucD AeTAeAO |UOJS eB UO UOTJeWAOFJUT UBTSeq “OYTO We Ss3seq yuej} eae etTeos-odAj0j,01d pue Tapow aTeos-TTews Aq poeutTwiejep sem yoeqqe oAeM 03 ATADAO oY. FO VsoUeRSTSeA ayy ‘deadta’ peustTsepsrepun uo Ae[TIaAO DAT}DeI0Ad © se pasn 9U0}S AOWAe aBAeT jo JakeT aTBuTS e jo aouewtojsied prety pue sjzsaq yUe. eAeM |YyI SaqTaosep Jaoder sTUL "ez *d : Aydeaso0tT ata (61<9£ ‘OU ! taqueD yoreasay ButzroouTZuq ~Teqseog *S*n — aeded Teotuyoay) “TTT : *d HE ‘Q/6, ‘19]UeD YOTRESey BuTJseuTZuy TeqseoD *Ss*m : “eA SITOATEG jaoy — ‘sueayy ‘gq uyor pue Aeuqazego] “7 eonag Aq / AqtTTqeqs des -dTi oseaidUT 03 SaaptTnoqg pue svuoqsdaaenb paoetd ‘a8ie~T Jo AeTASAQ "7 aonag ‘AauqzeDI 5) ae