Technical Report CHL-98-22 July 1998 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Three-Dimensional Breakwater Stability Tests at Vale de Cavaleiros, Cape Verde by Ernest R. Smith, Jeffrey A. Melby Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Ries Zc Prepared for Joint Venture RRI-BCEOM The 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 of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so desig- nated by other authorized documents. & PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Technical Report CHL-98-22 July 1998 Three-Dimensional Breakwater Stability Tests at Vale de Cavaleiros, Cape Verde by Ernest R. Smith, Jeffrey A. Melby U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited AVON wi ON Joint Venture RRI-BCEOM Prepared for eat US Army Corps of Engineers 5 Ld, \ ~—"_GNEORMATION Waterways Experiment a f i "TECHNOLOGY Station Sl \ j ee aes | 4 | a} r\ 1 \ _— FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE i ON 4 f U.S. ARMY ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL \\ 4S SSS IN WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION CEN Oe i f ae ae 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI] 39180-6199 PHONE: (601) 634-2502 f—- STRUCTURES LABORATORY AREA OF RESERVATION = 27 sqkm Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, Ernest R. Three-dimensional breakwater stability tests at Vale de Cavaleiros, Cape Verde / by Ernest R. Smith, Jeffrey A. Melby ; prepared for Joint Venture RRI-BCEOM. 79 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. —(Technical report ; CHL-98-22) Includes bibliographic references. 1. Armourstone — Cape Verde. 2. Breakwaters — Cape Verde. 3. Seawalls — Cape Verde. 4. Cape Verde. |. Melby, Jeffrey A. Il. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Ill. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. IV. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) V. Joint Venture Rhein Ruhr Ingenieur-Gesellschaft mbH and BCEOM Societe Francaise d’Ingenierie. VI. Title. VII. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CHL-98-22. TA7 W34 no.CHL-98-22 Contents PTE LACS ab-svsgc Ven tats Suey Sass yaaa FoR on al Sa kG ths aia fia G Seem see Sees V Tr trO Gut Ome se ais hia eee en Seen oe ee oes toad ecLs Paeron el Gites eer eae 1 Backeround i s2 55 ete is csrme ye ata eee he oe a a crore 1 RUT POSE? staf st stagcrs:s) syape ars sicdae Sxl Der eas Senne onsale ooee sean scold ioiay caatusncke mnie 3 2 Mee MOM eli ed sics: Now ysccue es Buea eo eae SO ee ERE 6 ModelyDesigm gaits ieciiises aie cians stems Gatinestereipy ier ae amsecretekartyAeel aoa eet 6 Experiment Facilities and Equipment.........................-00005, 7 Selected|Study/Conditionsiee eerie eae eo eee 8 Expermentshroceduresia eee ae eee et race rir eerie 9 Model Breakwater Construction ........... 0.0.0.0 cee eee eee eee eee 12 Reporting Model Observations .............. 0.0 cece ee eee eee eee 13 RESETS iene rc kevorayey needa nso ete ae cores Sacer Saree Rar aR oe a rte oem 14 MTTKOGUCTTO Meee eel at ee came cera eas Po ce tea pep ek re rete eee 14 aD earn ea his yes ys ecm lua TON os Gd casa ata Al ON ea OR ell ee sm ca 14 ] AE Wal Ls Na Et Rr ee CR eta SAS hemi ere orleaan Bat cae | ee AN 14 lam lieth Fetters ietine sees ey sei do ct aes b I A oie hy Re LR agg AEE A EC Wt 16 Lambe Ge Sis ae tend antecd ce ott raictiod cane er seas oneahe A cy cil oe ane eae Eg AEG Wart 16 IP Learnt 2a is apes) By hctesrececnces br aetap te ied Rea es A eivelieasy Optra. ee 8 0U Suny Ay AE ae Pat. nn 19 PP ean A he sete te ee A A gh eA a a ag capt ec RR ATR P a 8 19 [PA BTV Bie Gus eosin ae ott eet eebaicear oer TEN a eae aeheg tit ty Te er Re a Ne a OO 22 [PART leoA Cyathea ea rian sags ere Wawa SOLAR ol a os aia ie RR in NE ee oR oat 22 1 Tn De re eee meen cs oO RIL Weare Sees ey MS ee Lee APace RTE che ira wee a 22 OVertOp pin Byes oh need arch chars Gate Seder, renhe ee seteodenahe enele lcevencucuetainnin alee 25 Stummany Ogee ecnsenin aevetucnanns Sees 5 Sisnee eels Teeae ECA Dione steer ora 25 A—RiskiGonstderationsSesenc ocean eee I cele toon 28 AWENKO (Cy nC TL YG) 1 eee ee ee Gn pte in Re noe ii bee ner nre Sow td Sa Oi 28 Armor UnitsSelectiony a--ckc a tsdee icts oo ene cia cers oon 28 De SUMAN YP reset carey epercei ey coneto ron ouesuscer Ste caehn ec ertedces elton bum ate arava oapeee at es oreo 30 BRE SULES Hee tree eves ee era ea ace pe rset an na ney ray or ee Laer ATG as ne 30 MocwbrenchiConstructioneene see eee ee 31 IRETETEN COS ee ee on octet ee ee ee rer em UA ie ai aE 33 AppendixAc7Photosraphsia eric rer tracker tener Al Appendixé Notation see eee ere ire ere Bl SF 298 List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. ocationioti Cape Vicrden amr oor ere een eee 1 Cape Verdeslands® teraa winters asia nereteohact studenten eras cea 2 Existing:site locationimapiey. creer eee rea ier 4 EXIStiN © SHRUCHUTe oie este ayesct cate edener Speen crates alien areyshoch ten aveee 5 Three-dimensional stability model ....................----- 8 Three-dimensional model boundaries and wave gauge LOCAthOMS 5.2% coyisce on eiehsnetarerapes is: sven chen eoame tewahel emece ant seats ete 9 H,’ at -21.3 m CD versus generator stroke, 13-sec waves ....... 10 H,, at -21.3 m CD versus generator stroke, 16-sec waves ....... 10 H,, at -21.3 m CD versus generator stroke, 19-sec waves ....... 11 Elements ofeplantdy oa sietenete Figure 3. Existing site location map Chapter 1 Introduction ainjonajs Buysixy ‘y ainbi4 MI0NdsSE WOS Ov O£ OZ OL O S66l AVN peqoes joulbiuo ajqissod ( Bemus: @ s P — ‘ala la@x Tay MO] OF OFA me, = OO1F MWNA 4a}0m Yybiy og} + 4 sad0dvalat JWs0Yd GYVONVLS Chapter 1 Introduction 2 The Model Model Design Model experiments were conducted at a geometrically undistorted linear scale of 1:48.4, model to prototype. Scale was based on the size availability of model armor units and the capabilities of the available wave generator to produce required wave heights at modeled water depths. Time relations were scaled according to Froude Model Law (Stevens et al. 1942) and model-proto- type relations were defined in terms of length / and time ¢ shown in Table 1. Table 1 Model-Prototype Scale Relations (1:48.4 scale es ee Characteristic Model:Prototype The specific weights of water and construction materials differed between the model and prototype; therefore, the transference equation of Hudson (1975) was used to determine model material weights: CPs (a se) (1) WD. Gayl G) Gd, - 2 where m = model quantities Pp = prototype quantities Chapter 2 The Model W,, = weight of individual armor or stone y, = specific weight of an individual armor unit or stone !,,/1, = linear scale of the model S, = specific gravity of an individual armor unit or stone relative to the water in which it is placed; y,/y,, in which y, is specific weight of water Material sizes and densities for prototype and model armor layer W,, under- layer W,, and core W, are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Prototype and Model Material Sizes ees | eee Material 12.5 - 250 kg 0.15-3.1g Experiment Facilities and Equipment Experiments were conducted in a 29.3-m-long, 29.6-m-wide, 1.5-m-deep wave basin. The model was constructed and molded of concrete to represent approximately 825 m of shoreline encompassing the harbor and breakwater location. Contours were molded to -20 m CD, and a 1V on 5H transition slope was molded from the -20-m contour to the model floor elevation of -21.3 m CD. Wave absorber was placed around the perimeter of the basin to minimize the effects of reflection. A photograph of the model is shown in Figure 5. Waves were generated by a piston-type electronically controlled hydraulic system. Displacement of the wave board was controlled by a command signal transmitted to the board by a DEC Micro VAX II computer, and waves were produced by the periodic displacement of the board. Irregular wave command signals to drive the board were generated to simulate a Texel, Marsen, and Arsloe (TMA) shallow-water spectrum (Hughes 1984) for the design wave periods. Water surface elevations were recorded by single wire capacitance-type gauges, sampled at 20 Hz. Eight gauges were used for calibration and testing. Three gauges (Gauges 1 through 3) were positioned on the flat portion of the model floor (-21.3 m CD) 3 m from the generator in an array that allowed Chapter 2 The Model Figure 5. Three-dimensional stability model calculation of incident and reflected wave heights by Goda and Suzuki (1976). The remaining gauges were placed at locations around the breakwater shown in Figure 6. Data obtained from the gauges were analyzed using the Time Series Analysis (TSA) computer program of Long and Ward (1987). Operations per- formed on wave data from individual gauges were mean down-crossing analysis to obtain significant wave height H,, maximum and average wave heights, signif- icant and average wave periods, and mean water levels at each gauge. Opera- tions performed on the wave gauge array were unidirectional spectral density incident/reflection analysis to determine peak wave period T p and incident and reflected wave heights at the gauge array. Following calibration of the basin, Gauges 4 and 5 were removed and used in locations 9 and 10 during stability tests. Selected Study Conditions As indicated in Chapter 1 the most severe wave conditions approached the harbor from 300 deg from north; therefore, all tests were conducted for waves approaching from this direction. Prior to construction of the breakwater, wave absorber was placed over the quay wall to minimize reflection and the basin was calibrated for the design periods from the 300-deg direction. The selected water depth for all experiments was +1.8 m CD, which was based on tide and surge, and the design periods were 13, 16, and 19 sec. The maximum design storm wave height was defined by the sponsor to be as high as 6.7 m at the -21 m CD contour. Incident significant wave height H, obtained from Gauges 1 through 3 during calibration is plotted versus percent of generator stroke in Figures 7 through 9. Chapter 2 The Model boundary of modeled —20 m contour Figure 6. Three-dimensional model boundaries and wave gauge locations The series of wave conditions selected as design storm conditions for stability experiments are shown in Table 3. The total duration of the storm was approxi- mately 17 hr prototype. Significant wave heights recorded at Gauge locations 4 through 10 during calibration also are shown in Table 3. The basic breakwater configuration remained the same for Plans 1 through 1C, but the head portion of the breakwater was raised from +5 m CD to +8 m CD for Plans 2 through 2D. Therefore, representative wave heights for the two breakwater configurations are given by Plan 1C and Plan 2B in Table 3. For all of the wave events conducted, critical breaking waves were produced at or near some portion of the armor toe. Experiment Procedures Photographs were taken before each experiment was initiated without water in the basin. Following before-test photographs, the basin was flooded to +1.8-m CD and the structure was exposed to low-level waves, T, = 13 sec, H, = 3.0 m, Chapter 2 The Model 10 40 60 Percent of Stroke 40 60 Percent of Stroke Figure 8. H,' at -21.3 m CD versus generator stroke, 16-sec waves wave condition 1 in Table 3. The low-level series allowed settling and nesting of the newly constructed section which would occur under typical daily wave conditions prior to being exposed to a design-level storm, and the small motion of armor units under these conditions would not normally cause breakage of units. The remainder of the wave conditions listed in Table 3 were generated upon completion of the low-level waves beginning with 13-sec, 3.7-m waves and progressing to longer periods of constant height, i.e., 16-sec, 3.7-m and 19-sec, 3.7-m waves. Wave height was increased after all periods of a given height were completed. Chapter 2 The Model 40 60 Percent of Stroke Figure 9. H,' at -21.3 m CD versus generator stroke, 19-sec waves Table 3 Stability Study Wave Conditions H, at Gauge, m Breakwater Plan T, = 13 sec ee rhea hein neers vars Si secmernMes ) ys a = aw A37 through A42 Same as Plan 2C except: Toe protection: Containers spaced end to end A43 through A46 Chapter 3 Results 28 4 Risk Considerations Wave Conditions The sponsor-predicted return period of the higher waves generated on the model was 50 years, 1.e., the storm event is predicted to occur only once every 50 years. Experiments conducted on the model showed that the design waves were depth-limited and broke seaward of the structure. Therefore, it was con- cluded that waves exceeding the design condition would also break seaward of the structure and would not increase damage. The most severe storms approach the site from the northwest and stability experiments were performed only from this direction. However, the structure also is subjected to southern swell; therefore, the entire structure, including the head section, should use 11-tonne armor units and the same toe protection scheme as the breakwater trunk. Armor Unit Selection The Core-Loc, a recently developed armor unit (Melby and Turk 1995), was selected for use in the armor layer for the rehabilitation. Construction of the Port Saint Francis breakwater in South Africa and experiments by Smith and Hennington (1995), and Smith (1996) have shown the Core-Loc is reliable and an improvement to the Accropode, which is an armor unit that has been used extensively and successfully for 20 years worldwide. Features of the Core-Loc included improved stability to the Accropode by increasing the porosity of the armor layer; no tendency for units to rock on slope; reserve stability for wave conditions exceeding the design event; hydraulic stability when placed as a repair with other armor shapes (in Vale de Cavaleiros, some tetrapod units will remain in the northern part of the jetty); and low internal stresses. The Core-Loc is presently the most efficient armor unit for rubble-mound breakwaters, because of these properties Displaced armor units were counted after each wave series to assess the reliability of breakwater protection. Several units were displaced during the initial plans, but only one Core-Loc was displaced over the entire breakwater for Chapter 4 Risk Considerations the final plan, Plan 2B, which included a 1.5-m-high toe trench. One displaced unit is low and does not indicate any endangerment to the structure. Chapter 4 Risk Considerations 29 30 5 Summary A three-dimensional physical model study was conducted to test stability of the proposed breakwater rehabilitation at Vale de Cavaleiros. The direction of storm waves was 300 deg from the north. The series of waves generated on the model was equivalent to a 17-hr storm prototype. The storms initiated with moderate waves of 3 m and were incrementally increased in height up to a depth- limited height of 6.7 m. Results Results of the model study indicated: a. The armor units selected for the original design were stable if the toe was stable. Plan 1C, which included 8- and 11-tonne Core-Locs, and bundled steel chain to anchor the breakwater toe, was stable during original and repeat tests. However, it was noted that the 8-tonne units rocked in place during tests and were considered moderately stable. Subsequent tests included 11-tonne Core-Locs on the entire structure, but a constructable prototype toe anchor was still required. b. Plans 2A and 2B included a board anchored to the model floor at the base of the breakwater to stabilize the toe. Analogous results would be expected if a toe trench was used to fix the toe. The board used in Plan 2A was 1 m deep and included a 45-deg angle adjacent to the toe units. The sloped trench was stable for waves up to 16 sec, 5.2 m but signifi- cant damage occurred between Profiles 8 and 9 for 16-sec, 6.7-m waves. The trench simulated in Plan 2B was 1.5 m high and had a vertical face. Plan 2B was stable for original and repeat tests; one unit was displaced during the repeat tests, but the structure remained stable. c. Different toe reinforcement schemes such as a stone buttress of 0.75- to 1.8-tonne stone (Plan 1A), 11-tonne Core-Locs (Plan 2) placed at the toe, and concrete-filled cargo containers (Plans 2C and 2D) placed at the toe were tested, but were unsuccessful in stabilizing the toe. Chapter 5 Summary Results from the three-dimensional stability tests indicated the most stable plan was Plan 2B, which consisted entirely of 11-tonne Core-Locs, a constant crest elevation of +8 m CD, and a vertical-face toe trench 1.5 m high. Toe Trench Construction For the conditions tested in the model, the breakwater was not damaged if a stable toe trench, 1.5 m deep and near vertical, was installed. The model tests were conducted on a fixed bottom, which in nature would be analogous to a smooth rocky bottom in the prototype. An example of a prototype toe trench constructed in a rocky bottom is shown in Figure 20. The seaward face of the trench should be as near vertical as possible. No model tests were conducted on stability with a movable bed; therefore, it was not possible to quantify the effects of a sandy bottom on the stability of the toe trench because the model floor was fixed. For structures placed in shallow water the Shore Protection Manual (1984) recommends a toe protection scheme similar to Figure 21, in which a wide trench is constructed and replaced with armor. The Shore Protection Manual suggests constructing the trench horizon- tally 2 times the water depth or 2 to 3 times the design wave height for the most severe scour. RANDOMLY PLACED ARMOR UNDERLAYER 1.5 Wy=WeL /10 CORE-LOC, Wa \ 2 2 ROWS PATTERN PLACED ARMOR Wc =WcL/200 O to Wc_/eoo0 SHS SYYSN co 4 \ YY)> TROT RROR RN KES RRO RRR RR RRR RR RRR ROE SNYSAMOLVOYO™OM LIN me CORE—LOC SUGGESTED PLACEMENT OF TOE UNITS AND SECOND COURSE DRAWN BY: ROBERT CHAIN JR. DATE: 01—NOVEMBER—1996 WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 20. Example of toe trench constructed on rocky bottom Chapter 5 Summary 31 RANDOMLY PLACED ARMOR UNDERLAYER Wu=We_ /10 We =Wei/200() to WcL/6000 elweNecoms 3 BU Figure 21. Example of toe trench constructed on sandy bottom 32 Cop =4.472 Ve '/5 Vop= VOLUME OF CORE-LOC aa ' SEAFLOOR te: CORE—-LOC SUGGESTED PLACEMENT OF TOE UNITS AND SECOND COURSE DESIGNED BY: JEFF MELBY & GEORGE TURK Chapter 5 Summary References References Goda, T., and Suzuki, Y. (1976). "Estimation of incident and reflected waves in random wave experiments," Proceedings of the 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, HI, pp 828-845. Hudson, R. Y. (1975). "Reliability of rubble-mound breakwater stability models," Miscellaneous Paper H-75-5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hughes, S. A. (1984). "The TMA shallow-water spectrum description and applications," Technical Report CERC-84-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Long, C. E., and Ward, D. L. (1987). "Time series analysis," unpublished computer program, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Melby, J. A., and Turk, G. F. (1995). “CORE-LOC: Optimized concrete armor units,” Bulletin No. 87, Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, pp 5-21. Shore protection manual. (1984). 4th ed., 2 Vol, U.S. Army Engineer Water- ways Experiment Station, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Smith, E. R. "Three-dimensional stability tests," in: "Wave response of Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, Hawaii," in publication, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. Smith, E. R. and Hennington, L. L. (1995). "Noyo Harbor, California, breakwater stability and transmission tests," Technical Report CERC-95-17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Stevens, J. C., Bardsley, C. E., Lane, E. W., and Straub, L. G. (1942). "Hydraulic Models," in Manuals on Engineering Practice No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 33 bint oe hry . NORERAT Ne i Appendix A Photographs Appendix A Photographs Al Hulse} a1ojaq |. ueld Jo MaIA apis-eeS “Ly O10Ud ONLSTL 30) Appendix A Photographs A2 Buljsa} as0jaq peay seyemyeasq | ued JO MAIA apis ONLISAL ad049d | NV1d AGUIA advo". eas eV 0}0Ud A3 Appendix A Photographs £°61Z29 ONILSAL FNOIIg oD ONW1d FdNIA advo Bunjse} aiojeq peay Jayemyeoig | uR|d JO MAaIA “EY O]0Ud Appendix A Photographs A4 S8AEM W-E ‘ 09S “EL YM Buse} Joye | uejd Jo MalA episees ‘py O}0Ud 9) Ce) OF-61Z9 ONILSIL 3UOIIG OVEN Wid 2 FQN9A advo SEARM W-2°€ ‘088-91 YIM Buljse} a1ojaq peay Joyemyeaig | UeId Jo Mal “BY 0104 Appendix A Photographs A10 Appendix A Photographs PLAN CAPE VERDE A ARTER TESTING Photo A10. Sea-side view of plan 1A after testing aR SOAEM W-2' ‘998S-9| UM Hulse} a10jeq pesy Jayemyeesg |. UB|d JO MAIA Apis-eaS “| LV O}0Ud ss x Appendix A Photographs A12 tw a oa = re) a, < co) PLAN Appendix A Photographs th 16-sec, 3.7-m waves Photo A12. View of plan 1A breakwater head before test as w ing wi a) 6 1 SO@APM W-Z'G ‘98S-2 | UIM Hulse} Joye g} Ue|d JO MAIA apIs-eaS “ELV O}0Ud ONISHL BRI: @ HYY WOUGA advo: Appendix A Photographs A14 SSABM W c S 09aS Zt ym Bulse} eye ‘2 uBnosy) 7 Sejyoud ‘gy Ue|d jo MaIA apis-eag “PLY o}OUd ‘© r<@ Appendix A Photographs A16 ING tu =) [-J 28 i] a oO Be Zo SS ms ith 17-sec, 5.2-m waves ing wi Photo A15. Sea-side view of plan 1B breakwater head before test Appendix A Photographs is) we (=e “= gar G- Oe a2 es Re ise Appendix A Photographs Photo A16. View of plan 1B breakwater head before testing with 17-sec, 5.2-m waves 1 N S@APM W-2'9 ‘09S-6} YIM Buljse} Jaye D| UeId Jo MaIA apis-eeS “ZL 010Ud Eb-6129 ONLISGL Baldy UNV 30NGA adVd Appendix A Photographs A18 2 ge a aor i. 4 Sz uw <5 3 < PLAN Appendix A Photographs th 19-sec, 6.7-m waves ing wi Photo A18. Sea-side view of plan 1C breakwater head before test =, (ce) SO8ABM W-Z'9 ‘08S-6} ULIM Buljse} Jaye Peay seyemyeesg O| UeId JO MAI “BLY 010Ud Appendix A Photographs A20 eouUanbas WO}s [e}0} YIM Huljsa} yeadas aye DO) ued Jo MAIA Apis-eaS ‘Oz 010Ud 5 < ed BMASAL Wav #OL NYY AGYAA: IdVO) SOO Lad ~~ ty . Appendix A Photographs A22 ta o (7 re = i oe — i) ith total storm sequence ing wi Photo A21. Sea-side view of plan 1C breakwater head after repeat test Appendix A Photographs aouenbes WJO}s |2}0} YIM Buljs9e} yeodai Jaye peoy sayemyeaig D| uid Jo maIA ‘Zz 0]0Ud ise) < Appendix A Photographs 3 é & & BY Py 3 ij a Care VERE de view of plan 2 breakwater trunk before testi -Sl Sea Photo A23. ing side view of plan 2 breakwater head before testi Sea Photo A24 ing Appendix A Photographs A24 ]WOY iy Photo A25. View of plan 2 breakwater head before testing CAPE. VERDE PLAN 2 AFTER TESTING Photo A26. View from north of plan 2 breakwater trunk after testing with 13- and 16-sec, 3.7-m waves Appendix A Photographs A25 Photo A27. View of plan 2 breakwater trunk, profiles 6 to 8, after testing with 15-sec and 16-sec waves A26 Appendix A Photographs Huse} siojog yuns} Jayemyeaiq Wz Ue|d JO MAIA ApIs-eaS ‘gz O]OUd ONJISSL 440)4e ¥@ Vid AGUA BdV9. NR < Appendix A Photographs ONIJSAL aUOdaE: YG NVA “ 9qUGA BdVO. Buse} a10jeq peau Jayemyeaig Wz ued JO MaIA apIs-eaS “6zVV 0}0Ud Appendix A Photographs ONIISAL qyQuag Vz NVId- FdNIA gdVv9 Buljse} a1ojeq peay Jayemyeaig yz ue|d Jo Mal) Ulli ‘0€ 7 010Ud 0) A2 Appendix A Photographs soueNbes WJo}s |e}0} ym Buyse} Jaye yun) Joyemyeo1g yz Ue|d Jo MaIA epis-eas “Ley 010uUd Be-61L9 ONUSIL MALY. Ve NYT AMNaA adV9 Appendix A Photographs A30 Appendix A Photographs eR th total storm sequence ing wi Photo A32. Sea-side view of plan 2A breakwater head after test & gouanbes WJO}s |e}0} uM Buse} Jaye peey Jayemyeasg Wz Ue|d JO MaIA ‘EE 010Ud Appendix A Photographs ou | } 4 . . S d owes) BaLay dé NV WUaaA ad¥I~ tap) A3 Appendix A Photographs eduENbas WO}s [e}0} YIM Huljse} Joye Jayemyeelg gz Ue|d JO MAIA ApIS-easS ‘sey C]OUd ONLISS] NOLAV. U2 NV Id 3qu3gA. IdVo Appendix A Photographs A34 ee =x ONLLSAL YaLV d@ NV1d NIA IdV9 gouanbas WAO}s je}0} UM Huljse} aye peay Joyemyeoig gz ued JO MaI/A 9geV 010Ud 9) isp)