WD, at Cea. or Kea Chr Leole, Ree j HEU: =f? Fy
: TOBE ~
REPAIR, EVALUATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
US Army Corps
of Engineers TECHNICAL REPORT REMR-CO-1
STABILITY OF RUBBLE-MOUND
BREAKWATER AND JETTY TOES;
SURVEY OF FIELD EXPERIENCE
by
Dennis G. Markle
Coastal Engineering Research Center
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers
PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
December 1986
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
Prepared for DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Under Civil Works Research Work Unit 32278
The following two letters used as part of the number designating technical reports of research published under the Repair,
Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation (REMR) Research Program identify the problem area under which the report was
prepared:
pe Problem=Afeqeaees ——_—Problem Area
CS _ Concrete and Steel Structures EM Electrical and Mechanical
GT Geotechnical El Environmental Impacts
HY Hydraulics OM Operations Management
CO Coastal
For example, Technical Report REMR-CS-1 is the first report published under the Concrete and Steel Structures problem area.
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return
it to the originator.
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.
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.
COVER PHOTOS:
TOP—Field Research Facility, Duck, North Carolina.
BOTTOM—One layer of 7.5-ton tribars used on 8- to 12-ton toe
buttressing stone. Tribar and concrete ribcap
rehabilitation of a portion of the Hilo Breakwater, Hilo
Harbor, Hawaii.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Ta, REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release; distribution
2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
Technical Report REMR-CO-1
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
USAEWES, Coastal (if applicable)
Engineering Research Center WESCV
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
PO Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631
8a. NAME OF FUNDING / SPONSORING &b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (if applicable)
US Army Corps of Engineers
&c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
a ce
ELEMENT NO. } NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.
Washington, DC 20314-1000 32278
11. TITLE (include Security Classification)
Stability of Rubble-Mound Breakwater and Jetty Toes; Survey of Field Experience
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Markle, Dennis G.
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 5. PAGE COUNT
Final report FROM Feb 84 TOOct 85 December 1986 82
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
SUB-GROUP Armor units Rubble mound Wave stability
(a a a a os yes Toe scour
Jetties Water waves
19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
The purpose of this survey of field experience is to present an overview of the
coastal rubble-mound breakwaters and jetties built and/or maintained by the US Army Corps
of Engineers that have or have had stability problems related to structure toes. Exten-
sive discussions with US Army Corps of Engineers division and district personnel, along
with review of district office files, revealed that rubble-mound toe stability is a major
repair and rehabilitation problem that can be divided into two major design categories:
(a) design of buttressing stone placed at the toe of an armor slope to prevent downslope
slippage of primary armor, and (b) design of toe berm armor size and geometry that will be
stable for incident wave and flow conditions and will prevent, or at least slow down,
scour and undermining of a structure's toe. No firm guidance presently exists to aid
Corps personnel with these two design problems, and most design work is carried out using
(Continued)
20. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
GJ UNCLASSIFIEDUNLIMITED (J) same as RPT. Cloric users | Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIOUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) | 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
DD FORM 1473, 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
All other editions are obsolete. incarcerated
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
19. ABSTRACT (Continued).
limited local field experience on past successes and failures. Design guidance in this
area is urgently needed and will be addressed through the use of coastal hydraulic model
tests authorized and funded under the Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation
Research Program Work Unit titled "Rehabilitation of Rubble-Mound Structure Toes."
field survey was conducted under authority of this same work unit.
This
n¢l ifi
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
PREFACE
Authority to carry out this survey was granted the US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)
by the Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE), US Army Corps of Engineers, under the
Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation (REMR) Research Program
Civil Works Research Work Unit 32278, “Rehabilitation of Rubble-Mound Struc-
ture Toes."
The survey of field experience, which fulfills one milestone of this
work unit, was conducted under the general direction of Messrs. John R. Mikel
and Bruce L. McCartney and Dr. Tony C. Liu, REMR Overview Committee, OCE;
Mr. Jesse A. Pfeiffer, Jr., Directorate of Research and Development, OCE;
members of the REMR Field Review Group; Mr. John H. Lockhart, REMR Problem
Area Monitor, OCE; and Mr. William F. McCleese, REMR Program Manager, WES.
The survey was carried out by personnel of CERC, WES, under general super-
vision of Dr. James R. Houston, Chief, CERC, and Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr.,
Assistant Chief, CERC; and under direct supervision of Messrs. C. E. Chatham,
Chief, Wave Dynamics Division, and D. D. Davidson, Chief, Wave Research Branch
and REMR Coastal Problem Area Leader. Visitations to the US Army Corps of
Engineers division and district offices to acquire survey data were made by
Messrs. Dennis G. Markle and Robert D. Carver, Research Hydraulic Engineers;
Mr. John P. Ahrens, Research Oceanographer; Messrs. Peter J. Grace, R. Clay
Baumgartner, and Frank E. Sargent, Hydraulic Engineers; Messrs. Willie G.
Dubose and Maury S. Taylor, Engineering Technicians; Mr. John M. Heggins,
Computer Assistant; and Mrs. Lynette W. O'Neal, Engineering Aide, during the
period February 1984 through October 1985. Review of the field experience
data and preparation of this report were carried out by Mr. Markle. This
report was edited by Ms. Shirley A. J. Hanshaw, Information Products Division,
Information Technology Laboratory.
CERC would like to thank the personnel of the US Army Corps of Engineers
division and district offices contacted and visited during this survey. The
timely and thorough completion of this study would not have been possible
without the outstanding assistance and information provided by these
individuals.
Commander and Director of WES during publication of this report was
COL Dwayne G. Lee, CE. Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin.
CONTENTS
NIBWNCIISG Gooodo00GDDD0DU0D000000E FOOD ODOUDDOD GOD DDODODDODDOODDODDDDDONDDN 1
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)
UNDELS) (OF) MEASUREMENT yoe ojeleielse/eie soo0av0D0DDDDDDDDDNNDN eNehelMekeNonTekclenencisionone
PART I: DPN TROD U ClenkONrerleteieNeknelekckonekoiclonele do6000000000600006000 SOCIO
Beaveliewcowinels o 6G0 00 00D DD0DDD ODD 00DD D0 DDD OD GDOO00D000000 00000000000
Authority, Purpose, and Approach........ 9000000000000000000000000
PART II: FIELD EXPERIENCE. . 0... ccc cece cc ccc cer c cer er ccc crensssscsees
ReEvestizal@ Oeaeim IDINALATOING 5666000000 b ODDO 0ODDODODOD DODD DOD000GAD00000
Nowa Raewitsle Wak valeloing oooon 00000 0OD DOD DD DDDDDODDODDDDDNDDDDNDD0N000
Somtln PRevesiieske IWshylesleyno oo g600000000000000000000000000000000000000
Someiwastearan Daiwalsatoinoooq0000000000000000000000000 GHUOO OH OCO000000 D5)
Lower Mississippi Valley Division........ccccccsccccccccccecs 900 29
Some ‘Nelleyneste rbyalsaleins 66060066000000000000000000000000000000000 29
NomehwAGlant:cMDA VA SHO Metereneteneenolederclelekekehotonelevelohelali Reichel hellelelsteiehellenenetet one 40
New Bozileral Walyalestoine'so000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 42
Noreln Cemeraul Waking doococodsboddobon0dDOd DDD OO D00DDDD00D00D0N000 46
PART TITLE: DISCUSSION. 2.2.2. ecw cece merece vce crceceresessrsecs 5000000 76
PART IV: CONCLUSION oie). <2 esis) ele «cls oele « 66000000G00000000 o9g00d0000000 78
3
4
4
4
6
Summary of Contacts and VisitationsS......cscccccccccccccccrcccoss 6
8
13
25)
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI
(metric) units as follows:
Multiply By To Obtain
feet 0.3048 metres
miles (US statute) 1.609347 kilometres
pounds (force) 4.44822 newtons
tons (force) 8896.444 newtons
STABILITY OF RUBBLE-MOUND BREAKWATER AND JETTY TOES;
SURVEY OF FIELD EXPERIENCE
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Background
1. Failure of rubble-mound breakwater and jetty toes is a problem whose
solution has plagued the majority of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
divisions and districts responsible for designing, constructing, and main-
taining these structures. Instability of a rubble-mound structure's toe
directly impacts on the primary armor stability and overall performance of a
structure. In most instances, instability (failure) of a structure's toe does
not become evident until it has resulted in damage to the primary armor which
has progressed up to or above the still-water level (swl). This observable
damage can range from a minor slumping or reorientation of a few armor units
around the swl to the total disappearance of large numbers of armor units.
Left unattended, this type of damage could propagate upslope at a rate depen-
dent upon incident wave conditions and severity of the toe and lower slope
armor damage. In many cases, it will result in either localized or widespread
failure of the structure.
2. No guidance presently exists for the preparation of adequate repair
and/or rehabilitation designs for damaged or failed rubble-mound structure
toes. A concentrated effort to better understand the various types of toe
stability problems and to develop and document effective repair methods is
urgently needed. Through the development of sound design guidance, the need
for frequent repair work will be minimized which will result in substantial
dollar savings.
Authority, Purpose, and Approach
3. Under the Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation (REMR)
Research Program, the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station's (WES's)
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) has been authorized and funded to
carry out a work unit under the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Research Area titled "Rehabilitation of Rubble-Mound Structure Toes." The
prime objective of this work unit is to develop guidelines for repair and/or
rehabilitation of rubble-mound structure toes. This will be accomplished
through conduct of the following four work phases:
a. Through telephone contacts with design, construction, and opera-
tions personnel in the Corps' division and district offices it
will be determined where structures exist that have, are felt to
have, or have had toe-related stability problems. Once this is
accomplished, follow-up visits will be made to the division and
district offices to gain a better understanding of the problems,
and the steps that were taken (if any) to alleviate the prob-
lems, and the relative success or failure of the repair or
rehabilitation work.
Once an overall understanding is gained of the various toe
stability problems confronting field designers, they will be
categorized according to type. Subsequent to this, general
experimental model testing programs will be developed to address
the various problem types. The goal of these tests will be to
experimentally determine and document improved methodologies
through which successful toe repair and rehabilitation work can
be designed and carried out.
|o
c. The experimental model tests (both two- and three-dimensional)
will be carried out over a 2-year period. During this time, the
scope of the tests will be subject to periodic changes based on
continued information obtained and additional understanding
gained on the problems confronting field personnel.
d. A thorough analysis of the data compiled during the model tests
will be carried out in an effort to produce general rubble-mound
toe repair, and rehabilitation guidelines and a comprehensive
report covering the model tests and presenting the experi-
mentally developed guidance will be prepared and published.
Item a has been completed and is reported herein. Continued efforts will be
made to maintain contact with and to obtain additional information from field
personnel faced with rubble-mound toe stability problems. Item b has been
completed for the presently available data, and two-dimensional experimental
model tests (Item c) have been developed and initiated. A three-dimensional
test series (Item c) is being developed based on findings of the two-
dimensional tests. As previously stated, Item b and, in turn, Item c are
subject to change as more field experience information becomes available.
PART II: FIELD EXPERIENCE
Summary of Contacts and Visitations
4. During the period February 1984 to October 1985, 9 division and
21 district offices (Table 1) of the Corps were contacted by telephone in
order to determine whether any rubble-mound toe stability problems presently
exist or have existed on the coastal structures under the jurisdiction of the
various offices. The points of contact at each district office were those
recommended by the REMR Field Review Group members from the district's
division office. Of the 21 districts contacted, 12 responded positively
regarding existing or past toe stability problems.
5. Prior to a district office visit, a copy of the district's project
index maps was obtained in order to become familiar with the authorized
coastal structures and their current status. During the planning stages for a
district visit, it was requested through the district point of contact that
upon arrival at the district office a meeting be held so that a detailed
explanation of the purposes of the visit could be given and so that an over-
view of the district's coastal structures and the various problems and repair
histories related to them could be obtained. Notably, the Wave Research
Branch (WRB) of CERC is funded for three REMR work units other than the one
being addressed herein, namely, (a) "Use of Dissimilar Armor for Repair and
Rehabilitation of Rubble-Mound Structures," (b) "Repair of Localized Damage to
Rubble-Mound Structures," and (c) "Techniques of Reducing Wave Runup and Over-
topping on Coastal Structures." In addition to these, the WRB has been autho—
rized under the Coastal Program's Research and Development Work Unit titled
"Breakwater Stability" to write case histories on all breakwaters and jetties
built and/or maintained by the Corps of Engineers. All of these work units
require the gathering of field data; and for this reason when WRB personnel
visited a district office, data were gathered, when available, for each of the
work units. It was requested that, where possible, the meeting be attended by
district representatives from planning, design, engineering, construction, and
operations. In this way, it was assumed that the data obtained would reflect
all areas of concern relative to a district's coastal structures.
Table 1
Divisions and Districts Contacted
Method of Contact
District/Division Telephone ~=Visitation Problems
Honolulu/POD* Yes Yes Yes
Alaska/NPD Yes Yes No
Seattle/NPD Yes Yes Yes
Portland/NPD Yes Yes Yes
San Francisco/SPD Yes Yes Yes
Los Angeles/SPD Yes Yes No
Galveston/SWD Yes Yes Yes
New Orleans/LMVD Yes Yes Yes
Mobile/SAD Yes Yes Yes
Jacksonville/SAD Yes Yes No
Savannah/SAD Yes Yes No
Charleston/SAD Yes Yes No
Wilmington/SAD Yes Yes Yes
Norfolk/NAD Yes Yes No
Baltimore/NAD Yes Yes Yes
Philadelphia/NAD Yes Yes Yes
New York/NAD Yes Yes No
/NED Yes Yes Yes
Buf falo/NCD Yes Yes No
Detroit/NCD Yes Yes Yes
Chicago/NCD Yes Yes No
* POD - Pacific Ocean Division; NPD - North Pacific Division; SPD - South
Pacific Division; SWD - Southwestern Division; LMVD - Lower Mississippi
Valley Division; SAD - South Atlantic Division; NAD - North Atlantic Divi-
sion; NED - New England Division; NCD - North Central Division.
6. Following the entrance meeting, all available information on the
district's coastal structures (design memorandums, plans and specifications
texts and drawings, reconnaissance reports, photographs, etc.) were retrieved
from the district's files and duplicated. The data were then taken back to
CERC for scrutiny by the principal investigators assigned to the various work
units.
7. Where representative structures were near the district offices,
site visits were made to gain a better understanding of the type of construc-
tion used on the district's structure. During these site visits, photographs
were taken to document the above-water conditions of the structures. Because
of time constraints and remoteness of the structures, site visits were not
possible at some of the district offices.
8. Prior to departure from the district office, an exit meeting was
held for WRB personnel to summarize their findings to ensure that no miscon-
ceptions were drawn from the data gathered. Where possible, the same
personnel attended the exit meeting as had attended the entrance meeting.
9. In some instances, the quantity of data contained in the district's
files was so massive that time was not sufficient for WRB personnel to dupli-
cate the data during the time allotted for the visit. When this situation
occurred, a request was made for the district to provide personnel, when and
where available, to duplicate data and send it to CERC. In some instances, it
was determined that an additional visit to a particular district by WRB
personnel was needed to adequately review the available data.
Pacific Ocean Division
10. The Honolulu District of POD has three breakwaters which have
problems and/or design questions that are related to toe stability. Two of
the structures, Nawiliwili and Hilo, had a related problem. The head and
adjacent 500 ft* of breakwater trunk at Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii
(Figure 1), were rehabilitated in 1959 using 17.8-ton tribars. Model
* A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI
(metric) units is presented on page 3.
VICINITY MAP
B
HARBOR 10-TON STONE PACIFIC @HANALE!
1/2-TON STONE
1.5
MLLW EL 0.0°
1/2-TON STONE: -12.0°
(QUARRYRUN) ;
1/2-TON STONE @WAIMEA rere
NAWILIWILI)
BREAKWATER
HARBOR
TYPICAL SECTION A-A
“NAWILIWILI
BULK SUGAR PLANT-»S\\,
PIER SHEDS - <9 2
oS
Fetes ee
REVETTED FILL AREA. . |
aa
BREAKWATER
B SMALL B 4
; OAT &
% ARBOR H
CONCRETE POST~: a8
CONCRETE CAP
HARBOR
_MELWEL 0.0"
BREAKWATER
TYPICAL SECTION B-B
Figure 1. Nawiliwili Harbor Breakwater, Kauai, Hawaii
tests*, conducted at WES in 1958, revealed that two layers of randomly placed
tribars on the head and one layer of uniformly placed tribars on the trunk
were the best methods of rehabilitating the storm damaged structure. A survey
in 1975 revealed extensive tribar breakage, and later it was found that the
toe buttressing stone recommended for placement at the toe of the one layer of
uniformly placed tribars had not been incorporated into the construction
specifications. It was surmised that in the absence of these buttressing
stones the tribar toe slid on the hard bottom which resulted in an en masse
slippage and breakage of several tribars. This area was rehabilitated with
two layers of randomly placed 11l-ton dolosse onslope and through the use of
special placement of the toe dolosse. This latter work was also model-tested
at WES.**
11. A repair similar in design to that used on Nawiliwili in 1959 was
completed on the Hilo Harbor Breakwater, Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 2), in 1981.
One layer of uniformly placed 7.5-ton tribars was placed on the sea-side slope
of the breakwater between sta 11+00 and sta 20+00. Based on knowledge gained
through the failure of the Nawiliwili tribar section, a row of 8- to 12-ton
buttressing stone was incorporated into the toe repair. No design guidance is
presently available to aid in sizing the buttressing stone for an incident
wave environment, and no model tests were conducted. For this reason, close
monitoring of the repair work should be carried out after storm events. Thus,
POD and the Corps as a whole will gain from prototype experience which can be
used to complement the data acquired during the experimental model tests on
toe buttressing stone design proposed to be carried out under this work unit.
12. Haleiwa Harbor, located on the north side of the Island of Oahu,
Hawaii (Figure 3), was modified in 1975 by the addition of a revetted mole and
two stub breakwaters. Subsequent to this time, repairs were required on the
80-ft breakwater due to a slippage failure of the primary armor stone. Close
inspection of the structure revealed that the bedding and berm had been
* R. A. Jackson, R. Y. Hudson, and J. G. Housley. 1960 (Feb). "Design
for Rubble-Mound Breakwater Repairs, Nawiliwili Harbor, Nawiliwili,
Hawaii," Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-377, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
** D. D. Davidson. 1978 (Jan). "Stability Tests of Nawiliwili Breakwater
Repair," Miscellaneous Paper H-78-4, US Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
10
8 TON STONE
SEA SIDE
MLLW_EL. 0.0
Se BRE)
EL. -12.0
2 TON STONE
BREAKWATER (COMPLETED)
TYPICAL SECTION A-A
LOCATION MAP
ISLAND OF HAWAIL
: ea
TES.
oo E
BREAKWATER
10,080 FT LONG
KUHIO. BAY |
Coa o
WAILUKU RIVER f \ S <) Be \=
Whe
'
| WAIAKEA a HARBOR BASIN
A 2,300 FT. LONG 1,400 FT. WIDE
PROJECT DEPTH 35 FT
CONC RIBS DOWELED
INTO CREST STONE
OCEAN SIDE
ONE TRIBAR THICK
7.68 TON TRIBARS
10%
—~ SCALE \N FEET
2000
1 TO 2 TON
UMNDERLAVER
OME ROW OF & TO i2 TOM ARMOR STONES ALONG BREAKWATER TOE
TRIBARS REPAIR SECTION B-B
STA 11400 TO STA 20+00
Figure 2. Hilo Harbor Breakwater, Hawaii, Hawaii
iil
HALEIWA
2 LAYER OF 2 TO 4 HARBOR
TON STONES
EXIST GROUND REVETTED MOLE 125° BEDDING STONES
TYPICAL SECTION A-A SPALLS TO S0#
LOCATION MAP
ISLANO OF OAHU
O8466
SCALE IN MILES
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
740 FEET LONG
12 FEET DEEP
100/120 FT WIDE
AVE ABSORBER \:
140 FEET LONG
EXISTING
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
BOAT SLIPS
200
SCALE IN FEET
QUARRY : 1975 DESIGN
10,
RUN 2# SS SE
TO 50# BUDS 2 LAYERS
REVO 1T TO 2T STONE
2 LAYERS 100# TO
400# STONE
9 &LO
EXISTING
BOTTOM VARIES BOTTOM VARIES 2#TO50#STONE ‘BEDDING
TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION
110 BREAKWATER —_ 80’ BREAKWATER
Figure 3. Haleiwa Harbor Breakwaters, Oahu, Hawaii
12
omitted from the construction. Localized scour had undermined the armor stone
toe and resulted in the slippage failure. The structure was repaired by ex-
cavating around the perimeter of the structure down to firm bottom and over-
laying the structure head with an additional layer of 1- to 2- ton armor stone
which extended down to the toe. This repair was feasible due to the shallow
depth of the sand in the area of the west breakwater. No stability problems
have been observed since the repair was completed.
North Pacific Division
Seattle District
13. The south jetty at the entrance to Grays Harbor, Washington (Fig-
ure 4), has sustained severe scour on the channel side toe. The outer
5,600 ft of the jetty are presently below mean lower low water (mllw). It is
not known if the toe scour is the cause, or a portion of the cause, of the
present deteriorated condition of the jetty. Presently, no repair work is
planned for the Grays Harbor Jetties.
14. As of August 1985 plans were being developed for the repair of the
rubble-mound breakwaters at Edmonds Harbor, Washington (Figure 5). It is not
definitely known that toe stability was a cause of some of the existing
damage, but it is thought to be a probable cause. The bottom drops off on a
1V:2H slope to a deep depth just out from the toe of the breakwaters. There
is some thought that this deep water adjacent to the structure, which allows
large amounts of wave energy to reach the structure, could be initiating toe
stability problems. No firm decisions had been made on the repair design when
this report was being prepared.
Portland District
15. The north jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River, Tillamook
Bay, Yaquina Bay, Siuslaw River, Coos Bay, and Rogue River, the south jetties
at Nehalem Bay and Umpqua River, both jetties at the Chetco River, and Jetty
"A" at the mouth of the Columbia River have all shown toe stability problems.
The problems at these 11 sites (Figures 6-14) are the result of one or a
combination of the following: (a) ebb and/or flood flows training on the
channel side of the jetties which undermine the jetty toes, displace the toe
berm stone or a combination of both, (b) wave- and flow-induced displacement
of toe berm armor and foundation scouring and undermining at the jetty heads,
13
OCEAN
v
&
6
x
a
NORTH JETTY
SCALE IN FEET
so
evETTY
VARIES
5)
'
ROCK BLANKET
MIN. THICKNESS 3°
SOUTH JETTY
SCALE IN FEET
5
20° 0 0" 190)
TYPICAL_SECTIONS
(LOOKING WEST)
SURFACE
FAN SHORE
==
Z oc
2
> §
“ ae -
S . er a
S » GRAYS”
1975 JETTY “HA RBOR
REHABILITATION. %
S SUBMERGED JETTY ~ if f
= \,200)
w
~
S
NX
Q
‘Potht
Chehalis
Westport].
/ SUBMERGED JETTY
ans Rivet
BAR CHANNEL
fol
600° WIDE 966 ETTY BAY CITY CHANNEL
30’ DEEP REMABIEITATION 100' WIDE, 14’ DEEP
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE IN MILES 5000
10.000
Figure 4. Grays Harbor Jetties, Washington
14
uoj}3upzYysemM *‘Sieqemyeeig AOqieyY Spuowpy °¢ eAnsTy
oz % os Oo
1234 MI NYS 1334 MI aNW>S
YILVMAVIIG Jd BIVWIL ‘NOMDIS TWHdAL WILVMAVIIG NIVW NOIMLDIS IVDIdAL
Twit) _ SMuvA 1a ARES
S21UVA 13
oniogaee QNnOED aaeEnisiaNn
ANNOSD IanivN yi c }
sativa’ 7 > i z ABINWIG 19AVED WDIHL OL
AINNIEBIZAYEO TEL ~ ‘ Silvas AuuYNO 410
LDINVIG HHH Ot
~32v4 wiv
oO}
So) ul 0/095
dVW NOILV9O1
VIdWATO$#
Yeowersian die301)
NISV@ ONIUOOR
SQNOWG3 ; ;
(peujoiujow Aj}020)) y Santer [pevioiwiow djjosepe,
31L1vas UaLVMNVaNS 371d YaEHIL ok wanec en 4 ROTH CE
1S NOlAva “W’NNVHD =~
JNVULNI ~
=
G
3
a)
mS)
(Pewiojuiow djjosepe))
BRLVMNVINE Fld YIGWiL
a WAY SGNOWQ3
Foye
4134343 4Y
(paujojujow \10201)
Y3LVANV3aNe~ y
Y3ld ONIHSI4 9178Nd
15
uo8et9 ‘setj3ef AAATY ePTQUNTOD Fo yANoW *g eANnsTy
Ct Se
1334 Mi_3TWS
SNOILOSS IWOIdAL
ALL3a¢e HLNOS ALL3f HLYON
3-4 aa
OL) WijOvoRY 70 vsb27 (0104
perowny
oy woysed eared trai cg C1
eoyiaf
Jo pee iro +) ebooge p ywod eg
'BL0N ff
ie a, a
L,
VIUYOLSY
st
(2778), 602 — MYde MIVA “72 147A
.010/~ YAS MIV “79 “T1¥0H
say crqowon
-N22340
NOL ONTStT—
+ ONIHS VM o
mato.
499f0ud 20130"
tala
5
‘ jesopog £4 porisoyiny
Jpaig yo ie) weassedn:
@ SNOIL93S TWOIdAL
a, ALLIS
Qu07 eo G2
Auer won
es
16
MEAD OF
NAVIGATION
MORIZ. CL. - 92°
VERT. CL - 20"
VICINITY MAP
°
Rox
L LAM OO K
2
wicGhway
ELEVATION IN FEET
16 i] To 10 0 10
DISTANCE IN FEET DISTANCE IN FEET
SECTION A-A SECTION B-B
NORTH JETTY SECTIONS
3
Beach
10 10.
DISTANCE IN FEET
EE a; | @SECTIONLC SCs SECTION D-D
Federal Project SOUTH JETTY SECTIONS
(EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN)
Nehalem
Base Point of mileoge is about 530 feet
shoreward from the outer end of the
Jet ties.
OREGON
SCALE IN FEET
2090 1500 o 1600 3000
Wheeler fo Tillamook
Figure 7. Nehalem Bay Jetties, Oregon
17
Twin Rocks
Sr) 4 SECTION A-A
18 Feet Deep, No
Width Specified | 35°
Sonica
‘eet Wide. Turni:
Basin 500 Feet Wide VICINITY MAP
pode im Bee
° 190
Mooring Basin
@ Approach i2 Ft Deep.
* XS g ==“ MORIZ. CL. - 937
a / VERT. cL. -HI"
South Jetty ariba 5 4
8,000 Feel Long 4 =~ =~ tf Miami R.
a Oi Upstream Limit
Federal Project
SECTION B-B
LL AM OO K
GS oO WIN mw ve
123°50"
Boulder Point
Rock Point : *
Dick Point : i MORIZ, CL. - 15"
1 VERT. cL. - 28°
Note: ee
Bose Point of mileoge is in za
line with shore line north of ir
Jetty ond is 4500 feet seaward ‘
(olong range tine) from U.S.
Highway No./0/.
\ fa)
‘\0ceanside es are.
\ PREF 68 ow
TILLAMOO
é
{
TRUE BORTH
MORIZ. CL. - OS"
VERT. Ch. - 14.5"
COR
fmol ia een oie oe ae ras =a B moRIE. CL. - 70"
ee aE ee Ee ae ae
20 ° Lr) @
TYPICAL DIKE SECTION
SCALE IN FEET
8000
as] Dara within boxes pertain to Authorized
Project
Figure 8. Tillamook Bay Jetties, Oregon
18
°
OurmPia
LINCOLN COUNTY
Channel 30 feet deep,
300 feet wide from end
of Entrance Channel to
McLean Pt,
VICINITY MAP.
TN MIL
Dato within boxes pertain
to Authorized Project.
Q
Base pointofmileoge is one
8°X 20" Sheeting mile downstream trom U.S.
Highway 101 Bridge.
MOORING lighway 101 Bridge.
BASIN
TYPICAL BREAKWATER SECTION Naa) EY SET) AB
SCALE IN FEET TYPICAL SECTIONS
10 9 i} SCALE IN FEET
SCALE IN FEET 500 1000
Figure 9. Yaquina Bay and Harbor Breakwater and Jetties, Oregon
19
igs EL. Varies
¢ Stone prior to
: a
Stone prior to
Mae Waeeaiinn TYPICAL NORTH JETTY SECTION
rehabilitation
TYPICAL SOUTH JETTY SECTION 25 ° 25 50
25 ° 25 50
NORTH JETTY
EXISTING ENTRANCE CHANNEL 7790 FEET
18 FT. DEEP BY SOO FT. WIDE FROM
DEEP WATER TOA POINT 1,500 FT.
INSIDE OUTER END OF EXISTING
NORTH JETTY.
600' FOOT NORTH
JETTY EXTENSION
UNCONSTRUCTED
SOUTH JETTY
4200 FEET
EXISTING CHANNEL 200 FT.
WIDE BY IGFT. DEEP TO
FLORENCE
STONE GROINS (5)
eG
CUSHMAN Va
MORIZ. CL. -110"
VERT. CL.-NO LiMiT CHANNEL 2 FT. DEEP
uy BY ISOFT. WIDE
PILE DIKE c FLORENCE TO Mi. 16.5
GROINS (6) GCENADE ae
EXISTING TURNING BASIN I6 FT.
DEEP BY 400FT. WIDE BY 600 FT.
LONG
VICINITY MAP.
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 10. Siuslaw River Jetties, Oregon
20
uose1Q ‘setzjer AeaaTy enbdug -*{{ esan3Tq
meus
oe 3 i
ss 1334 m1 a0v38 : : pias Strats v
atts ade aeons
Soo
C0cy COOK C00? CON OC) ALLaf ONINIVYL S0110{ 40 pue 10170 40 piomesoys 120) T*o x
4334 Mi Jos 3-3 NOlloas 006'2 inogo CE TIT) re 9
faig ce
ALLA? ONINIVEL peroyiny 0} voised serog ayia jog L—] ~
4-4 NOILOaS ”
svejpu0g N
826] s8nOny jo so eu/7 sn0IS pesowyjsz. 145/42
0u/7 punos. 9
Uy
H Ava ua1S3HONIM 77
—— > 6 ow
AS)
MT TW aa} > 9)
4 b CAD ILA LE) i ° nN are wale ‘\ Rien %
euols ¥ 8 80/9 aii es 4 i (heir i
<a) vjaog Sujuny A
Ok os puD BulL0OR fl x
By Toa mneuR Au
6 ©} jeuuoyD s0A}1 0
wou} PI 429) OO! ri
(deep i9e) 2) jeuoyD v 8)
el
oF oz ° oz
4334 NI 31WOS
SNOILI3AS WWOIdAL
ALL3a¢ HLNOS
“HOdspacy 0} yinow
Oy) W014 “epim 199) 002
Pwo deap ipejzz_jeuuouy ©)
120/014 jospoy
Pil] woensdp
YONOIIIGOYOL 820/09 BUOIE SRE
ATI" +B
Boy iy
SesiewA
ASS
»
S
Dy
)
% \w
ey 9
©)
dv ALINIOIA oyionitenva Toren AER foie
vavAIn [MamnoaraTs aus buyjsing
©)
~ )
ie 5 (71
| Vian,
| NoLoONtHS VM ®
100) 22 wuvoyd “7
1} a
i) oO)
21
100002 Prayyssom
uo8eig ‘setj}zer Aeg SOO) “ZT 2ANSTy
‘seyj10f Jo pue s0jn0
40 psompes 168j 009 inogo ¥
Puo prey 8009 Wel) Wwoe1sumcp
cy ey | 61 eBoRsw 10 Jury e80g
NOLONITIIA ‘(Pai SUR JOU O16)
UW POTIAUMY VONON//POR)
\
W9efosg perjsoyiny of
wroyied earoq uy ojog L—_]
WUEND *1) 006 11) 005
uitog Buls00R
y
{/
y
WS
WW, WWL30 33S SN
]
Q
; tai
‘
oy
We
4
ABT On = 72 LIK
(401 ~"7 WOH
° a
41334 3095
ALLar HLNOS
V-V NOILD3S
vori201)50020
(04 20110 B001S
v014904480301
9) 20110 ev0jS
ALL3f HLYON
Q,9-9 NOILDAS
Y3LIVMAVSY8 NOLSSTYVHD
G-d NOIL93S
was
u01s y 8801/9 =
0077:
"a
3
i
22,
PACIFIC
VICINITY MAP
“SCALE IN MILES
———
Bonk Protection
5 astcec erm of
3 Federal Project
i Gronnat t 13f1. deep Vp
300 ft. Gao y] eee
Am i
« Le, preckwater
_—_——
T
VE JCM OMIE NCL 200 By Locol interests
df
OCEAN
7a 38°
Turning Basin
1341. deep, SOOT.
wide & 65011. long
: [7 5
Two Jetties | j GOLD BEACH
PACIFIC
| Ge, Here TYPICAL JETTY SECTION
SCALE IM FEET
Channel 10 ft. deep
and (00f!. wide
Dato within boxes pertain to Authorized
Project.
Ej,
SCALE IN FEET
° 2p00
2p00_ poo
Figure 13. Rogue River Jetties, Oregon
23)
PROTECTIVE DIKE
(781_ FT. LONG, EL./8
DIKE CONSTRUCTED
OY LOCAL INTERESTS
Upstreom Limit of
Federal Project
\
\N
SMALL BOAT ACCESS CHANNEL
NORTH 100 FT. WIDE BY 12 FT. DEEP
AT MLL.
XN SMALL BOAT BASIN
12 FT. DEEP AT M.L.L.W.
PROVIDED BY
LOCAL INTERESTS
f HARBOR
| _ th] i VICINITY MAP
I: so ° so '
MILES
BARGE TURNING BASIN
250 FT. WIDE BY 650 FT. LONG
eT AND 14 FT. DEEP AT MLLW
‘ Ea
BARGE SLIP - PROVIDED
8yY LOCAL INTERESTS
BOAT BASIN
PROVIDED BY
LOCAL INTERESTS
woss r
NORTH JETTY| 8B
1350' LONG
SECTION B-B
& YY
4 OUTH JETTY).
Cheteo Rwe- A’ LSSONLONS: j ENTRANCE CHANNEL
On Entrance Light “0 120 FT. WIDE BY 14 FT. DEEP
2 7 ee CUP REEL NOTES:
7 aN
© E g DATA WITHIN BOXES PERTAIN
TO AUTHORIZED PROJECT.
ML
oo
F-14 Gravel Embontmen!
SECTION C-C
BEODING MATERIAL GROUND LINE
SECTION A-A
Ex/sting Stone
MLL,
SECTION D-—D
Figure 14. Chetco River Jetties, Oregon
24
and (c) wave-induced displacement of toe berm stone and/or scour of foundation
material which results in undermining of the structure's toe. As a result of
this displacement, scour, and/or undermining of the structure's toe, the pri-
mary armor stone layers become unstable and lead to structural failure. The
Portland District carries out repair in these scour areas by filling the scour
holes with small stone, core size or smaller, to form a foundation to rebuild
the toe and upper portions of the structure. During the repairs and rehabil-
itations of the north jetty at Yaquina Bay and Jetty "A" at the mouth of the
Columbia River, a sacrificial berm of core-sized material was placed at the
structure's toe after the primary armor layers had been placed. It was
thought that this material would help stabilize the jetty toes by slowing down
the scour rate as well as providing some degree of armoring of the scour hole
as the berm stone is displaced into the scour hole. In some instances, scour
at the jetty heads has been so severe that it was not economically feasible to
try to fill and stabilize the scour holes. The best approach in these cases
was to abandon the outer 200 to 300 ft of the jetty heads and rehabilitate the
remainder of the structure.
South Pacific Division
16. The San Francisco District sited the jetties at Humboldt Bay (Fig-
ure 15) as being the only area showing obvious toe stability problems. The
channel side of the north jetty and exposed side of the south jetty have shown
obvious signs of scour and undermining which resulted in instability and
slippage of the dolos toe. Condition surveys of the area have revealed the
depths of the scour holes appear to have a seasonal fluctuation. An armor
stone berm, extending from 70 to 100 ft out from the existing dolos toes, was
included in the jetty repair work conducted in 1985. The multilayered berm
consists of a 3- to 6-ton primary armor stone overlying two graded filter
layers (Figures 16 and 17).
Southwestern Division
17. Several rubble-mound structures in the Galveston District have
experienced toe stability problems. Recent attempts to improve stability
include the construction of toe berms of core sized material at the toe
25
Arcota Whorf GZ
“AAbandoned)
i ARCATA CHANNEL
150 FT. WIDE, 18 FT. DEEP
: (Not Used)
TURNING BASIN
1000 FT WIDE, IOO FT LONG
35 FT DEEP
SAMOA CHANNEL
400 FT. WIDE, 35 FT. DEEP’
: EUREKA CHANNEL
. 1 4 f MILE 4.29 TO MILE 5.00
400 FT. WIDE, 35 FT. DEEP
. Y MILE 5.00 TO MILE 6.30
BAR AND ENTRANCE CHANNEL
1600 FT. TO 500 FT. WIDE,
40 FT. DEEP
E CHANNEL AND GUNTHER /SLAND)
zE =
See inset mop for details. |
Of this 0°00 ——y |
CROSS SECTION
NORTH AND SOUTH JETTIES
VIEW 1S SEAWARD
TYPICAL
CHANNEL SIDE| OOLOSSE
(Not to Scale)
Existing Ground, —
A’Stone Fill
: TURNING BASIN CROSS SECTION Too of 42 Ton
E00 FT. WIDE, 26 FT. DEEP RS. aa a EGE
| 800 FT. LONG NORTH AND SOUTH JETTY HEADS
ea te
jOTE.
AY BASE POINT OF MILEAGE IS 1800 FT, SHOREWARD
OF SOUTH JETTY BEACON,
SCALE IN FEET
5000 10000
Figure 15. Humboldt Bay Jetties, California
26
Gg6l ‘apedea Aaqer Y4IION Keg 4aprtoquny ‘91 e4n3Ta
00+Z2 VLS O1 00+99 VIS
NOILOISLOUd SOL :NOILDAS IWIIdAL
0az 09Z Oz ozz 00z O8t O9t Opt Ozt OO og 09 Ob
Ov-
(M71W) .Li- XOUddV
oz-
311dOUd ONILSIXI
=~
~ HLITONOW
ate
~
NIW 13939 E
HONI OL - 2/1
a
asso100
uf, NOOW38
9 | IWMONOO >> — .
YFAVT UILTIF
a)
\
NIW L334 &
GNNOd 005-Sb
YFAVT ONIGOIE
NIW 13348
NVA90 2N0LS NOL 9-E
¥3Av7 YOWYY
0z
Ov
301 SLVWIXOUddY
z0'01+99=£17
Ne ‘NZ :NOILOSS IVOIdAL
006 ogz 092 Ove O%% OOZ OBt O9t OPI OZ! O0t og 09 Op 0%
—————_—__—__——————
09- TivVLag GVaAH
(SH3AV1 Z DAV)
NIW 19348
INOLS NOL 9-E
43AV7 HOWE
v.08
"ol ‘Obl | ee YL)
JONVYLNS YOSYVH S Yy)
——
NT NOILOAS TWOIdAL
08% 092 ObZ ozz O0Z OBL O91 Ori OZ! COL OB 09 OF 0%
SaIBYA 3SS0100 NOL-2> NZ
ov- NL
(M71W .Lh- 3N4OWd Al ae a
ONILSIXI re 4 |3 >
NIW L334 E | Ss 02 6 Ws 3
HONIOL-zZ/1 |} WG VW YOSYVH IY IIe
waAv7HILTI9 |B 7) HLITONOW a ho JONVYULNA YO 3.18 g
NIW 1334+ |2 me Ye Ke
aNnnod 005-56 |= oz xoudd G we Ss
¥JAV7 ONIOGIE 2 ----f£--—
m
a4
ie]
im
01+89 VLS
Altar jod
09- pl+2Z VL
ae vn NOIVI:
y3LVMxvIua JO SHINYA ee ay
FOL ONILSIXI we 34018 a>
< (SU3AV1E DAV) =
(MTIW.L1) Hdd¥ ——508570q NOL tel O- ag
NIWL334 6, ~~ _ adoud = vaevuivddd x eo
HONI OL - 2/t ~. INILSIXI: G
usAv7uaits| & i She a 3LVWIXOUddV
NINLIII~ | (92 G Uh F
GNNOd 009-58 | & 47 4
waav7oniaaza —\R.d Be 8 NV300 x
NIN 19348 m F ‘2
4NOLS NOL 9-E 9 5 ; 790°" 2
W3AV7 HONEY. | 2
1p ¥,001 (091 NG
‘
JONVYLNA YOSYVH ) NB
NE
NL
No
N
S
2,
S861 “1atedei AI3aPr YANOS Keg aprToquny °/] aan38tq
00+68 VS O1 00+%8 VIS
NOILI510Ud SOL =NOILOSS IWOIdAL
08% 092 Oz Oz% 00 OB! 091 Obi Oz! 001 o8 09 OF oz oO
09-
Ov-
(M77W) .L1- XO¥ddv
NIW T3396 |< MTA) k= x08 Oz
HONI OL - 2/t PSs
YIAVT ILI SsSs5 LI70NOW ~ O
NIW L335 Sq Ladle
INNOd 005-s¢ Ss i
49Av7 NIGGA ‘eeocléa|
NIW L374 8
INOLS NOL 9-€
Nv390
YIAV7 YOWHY
: O41 aI
——
Sé SL : NOILDAS TWOIdAL
082 09% Op 02% oOz OB! O91 OF1 OZ! 001 of 09 ov oz o
A oS
NIW 1334 €
HONI O1- 2/t
YIAVT UIT Cre
= (M71W) .£1- XO¥ddY
~
~~
IMIOUd ONILSIXF 0z-
HLITONOW
IO dOL (0)
/ 4
ExT)
3
SYUFIAVTS OAV
3SSO100 NOL Ze
NIW L334 >
ONNOd 00S-Sb
¥JAV7 ONIGGIE
NIW 13358
INOLS NOL 9-E
YFAV7 HOWE
& NV1d
Sv
aa ee Sab) vo
—— Sa 2 es =: A) 313¥9NOD
ey aie so
sg
& Ds .» NODV38
& 2 SL
JONVYLN3 YOSYWH sé $8
B
TWVLIG :GV3H os eB
g 5 %y, eo
Z Nva00 3 5 G,. &
\ ;
ONCE, 5
<n F oy
a &
i lg :
2
3 |
= ——-Ss
$9
JONVYLN]S YOSYVH so
JLVWIXOUddy
28
of the structures. Insufficient data were available to make a judgment on the
success of the berms.
Lower Mississippi Valley Division
18. The New Orleans District has a unique design problem in that the
majority of their jetties are constructed on very soft foundations. It is
thought that a majority of the repair and rehabilitation work required on the
jetties results from the structures sinking into the foundation. The jetties
at Southwest Pass and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (Figures 18-20), have
required considerable repair work due to this subsidence, but it is thought
that some of the damage on small localized areas of these jetties is the
result of toe slippage. Toe slippage in turn results in downslope slippage of
the primary armor resulting in loss of jetty design elevations. Efforts have
been made to use toe berms to reduce toe slippage and help prevent foundation
slip failures caused by the loading of the jetty construction materials. The
berms have provided some additional toe stability, but subsidence of the
jetties and slippage of the jetty toes and foundations continue to plague the
New Orleans District.
South Atlantic Division
Mobile District
19. The Mobile District has a problem with jetty subsidence but, unlike
the New Orleans District's problem, theirs is not thought to be related to
low-density foundations. It is generally thought that toe scour is the
significant problem after major storms. Bedding layers slough off into the
scour holes, and this damage migrates back to the toe of the primary armor.
The resulting instability of the armor stone toe leads to downslope migration
of the onslope armor and eventual deterioration of the structures.
20. During the period 1937 to 1938 attempts were made to alleviate toe
scour problems on the Panama City Harbor Jetties (Figures 21 and 22) by encas-
ing the jetties with asphaltic concrete. Asphaltic concrete mats (2 in.
thick) were anchored on the channel side of the jetties and extended over the
jetties to a point 24 ft seaward of the existing jetty toe. A hot asphaltic
concrete was poured over the matting in an effort to bond the mats together
29
eueTStTnoyT ‘setaqer sesseg JsSemyynog pue YING “gT ein3styq
Payaidwos sjuawaroidw) ay
QN3931
Sain 30 3195
NV1d
"S = sesng Str}
3HOUNO,
ee
Sar
4s eA
HOBUVH SNV3TUO Man [FNL <o
S31IW eI I
“00S x Ob
e
aYDeH e] e ayUIOg
61-1 1224s 2aS CSE : - ; ‘
31L0N
7 r
ia
je
ts 6, sozroua (4 Wf CSS
pee AAG ne an.
AW IONVHD |
30
eueTSTNOT ‘setiqer ySeMyANog pue YyANoS Jo sTTejeq
"61 ean3ty
_ft-—~—
ALL asvy
ALL3f 1SV3_Y3NNI
NOLD3S SSOYD IWIIdAL
pia TWwuransi9N07
ALLIP A507
31
PARIS ROAD.
HIGHWAY BRIDGE
Bid NOSY3453P,
Yd S3TMvHO Is
PROJECT
LOCATION
GEE Inorovements completes
= Improvements outnorized
<
5
u
3
we
3
=9
Xo
S
wotee Sxfoce £100
TYPICAL SECTION
MILE 160 To MLE 202
°
DISTANCE IN FEET
100
{CHANNEL
TYPICAL SECTION
MILE 202 TO MILE 2315
ctee Swtoce E100
e
ay
32
MEXICO
1siana
River Gulf Outlet Jetties, Loui
ississippi
M
Figure 20.
DEPTHS ARE IN FEET AND REFER TO MEAN LOW WATER.
MILEAGE ON GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY |S FROM
HARVEY LOCK, NEW ORLEANS, LA
_\_
© MEMPHIS T ENN CnaTranoos
--prascacoury ,
wad yy wos {|
New \c 3
ORLEANS" 4
tpowt Pensa’
—-- s-=
q
37 CULE OF
(\s
PROJECT
MEXICO
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1@MiLES
AUTHORIZED |\~
TURNING BASIN |...
;
‘SS 2a
GUL
INTRACOASTAL >
WATERWAY.
(FOR DETAILS SEE foes
SHEET 9-2) CE CEHED
TS AUTHORIZED CHANNEL
Inside (Bay) 40° x 300°
Gulf Approach 42x 450°
GRAND LAGOON CHANNEL
8° x 100°
"S
ST. ANDREWS
STATE PARK &
WEST.
JETTY
EXISTING CHANNEL,
Inside (Bay) 32 x 300
FOR JETTY DETAILS
SEE SHEET 9-/
MEX/1CO
PLAN
SCALE IN MILES
CHAN
38 x
Fee
D>
Wz
——
NEL
300
Gulf Approach 32 x 450 :
<} PANAMA
AUTHORIZED ANCHORAGE
AND LOADING BASIN FOR
LASH TYPE INTERMODAL
CARRIERS - DEPTH 40
A WATSON BAYOU |
CHANNEL 10'x 100
ieee
[
|
BAY HARBOR
BEACON BEACH
Figure 21.
33
Panama City Harbor Jetties, Florida
19+65N
14+89N
COUNT ¥
10+ 25N
ROCK JETTY EXTENSION
ST. ANDREWS
: BAY
Ki STEEL SHEET
fj PILING 5
To:
ASPHALT
‘
2+ 30S oe ROCK JETTY EXTENSION
ahaa nN STEEL SHEET
PILING \
Ween i >, WE wy —— 9+99E
N
(©) 7T+O4E
) AY s——
ce CA O+00€
G24 <3. +005 0+00
1+ 00N
40s
“EAST JETTY Bis
PLAN
SCALE IN FEET
500 1000 1500
SECTION A-A
Cap Stone
Riprap Stone
i<«—Stee! Sheet Piling
SECTION C-C
SECTION B-B
Figure 22. Details of Panama City Harbor Jetties, Florida
34
as well as stabilize them to the existing armor stone structure. This design
proved to be unsuccessful. Scour initiated at the toes of the mats and, as
the mats subsided into the scour holes, they pulled the mats and armor stone
off the upper slope which resulted in general deterioration of the jetties.
Subsequent repairs were carried out by placing a toe berm of 100- to 200-1b
stone and, where needed, overlaying the old structure with additional armor
stone.
21. Toe scour also has been noted as a problem with the jetties at East
Pass Channel and St. George Island, Florida, and Perdido Pass Channel,
Alabama (Figures 23-25, respectively). Scour on the channel side of the east
jetty at East Pass is so severe that it is thought that portions of the jetty
may slide into the channel at any time. In the past, this type of slippage
failure has caused severe damage to the west jetty at Panama City.
22. Jetties at St. George Island have suffered cover stone loss result-
ing from the undermining action of toe scour. The west jetty at Perdido Pass
presently has significant amounts of toe scour on the channel side, and Hurri-
cane Frederick produced significant amounts of toe scour on the east jetty.
The overall condition of the Perdido Pass jetties was said to be good; there-
fore, it is assumed that the toe scour has not caused any obvious damage above
the waterline.
Wilmington District
23. The 3,650-ft-long rubble-mound north jetty located at Masonboro In-
let, North Carolina (Figure 26), was constructed between August 1965 and June
1966. The north jetty required extensive repair on the channel-side toe of
the outer rubble-mound structure in 1969 and to the channel-side toe of the
inner weir section in 1973. This was prior to construction of the south
jetty (14- to 22-ton armor stone) in 1980. It was thought that ebb and flood
flows had caused the channel to move adjacent to the north jetty, creating the
scour problem. In both repairs, a 2- to 3-layer protection of bedding mate-
rial and riprap (25 to 2,000 1b) was used. This toe protection butted against
the existing armor stone toe or sheet-pile weir. The berm width varied from
30 to 50 ft. It is thought that this work had limited success because the
jetty has not totally deteriorated, but it is presently in need of repair work
in several areas. Presently it is unknown whether the deteriorated appearance
of the north jetty results from a toe scour problem or from the possibility
35
DESTIN Ee
iY
MORENO POINT
FIXED BRIDGES
HOR. CL.78'
VERT. CL. 38°
SAND DIKE
STONE JETTY SECTION 5
WEIR SECTION /
DEPOSITION BASIN: 7
OPEN WATER DISPOSAL SITE
PLAN
SCALE IN FEET
1000
GULF OF
DEPTHS ARE IN FEET AND REFER TO MEAN Low water. S/OME JETTY SECTION
MEMPHIS T ENN CHaTTANOOGA“
AS
Y)
Le
7
' T
Columbus. * JeiRMINGHAM Ce RATLANTA
¢ iy PY
\
cla €
\ | Symmetrico/ obout €
MONTGOMERY ¢
Ry
=
S i ~ Existing ground surface
z (Elev vories)
~"yRescacout PROJECT © TYPICAL JETTY SECTION
RIVER, ae
LA: ) ‘ FLA
\C Gul!port BRA CACHIC OLA! .
Cees ge mqoce yom" TALLAHASSEE
ORLEANS'
mw? GULF OF MEXICO
VICINITY MA
SCALE INMILES
so 9 50 100
Florida
Figure 23. East Pass Channel Jetties,
36
E N N CHATTANOOGA
APALACHICOLA
‘>
‘
é No
s Sir 4
ST. GEORGE f me
SIP Nec alGereyty 24
ci] s ey
CHANNEL 3 WS Ss
z . 4 3 =)
10'x 100' TO 200 aS at §
MISs li WALA
&
YAGKSON 3G Meridian AWER
ls : MONTGOMERY Py
fle Nl s :
AGE ya ey
> news z
N. fines) AZ S
\ a | MOBILE =
~-prascacoury ae
Dv aver {woae
“a,
NITY MAP
SCALE INMILES
° 50 100
VICI
GULF INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY /2°X 125°
EASTPOINT
CHANNEL
6 x/00
APALACHICOLA
AIRPORT
~NSWING BRIDGE
S BULKHEAD SHOAL
\ MOR.CL Me, CHANNEL 10'x 100",
i ——— 1 5 (NOT MAINTAINED) Mee
ST VINCENT TWO MILE BREA WATERS | \ ra
TWO MILE CHANNEL CLUECINE \\ i
SOUND 6x100' CHANNEL fi ee
AINNER BAR CHANNEL
10 x 100
awe” (MAINTAINED TO 12'X 125’ UNDER
te PROJECT FOR GULF INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY.)
=—eRWAY ;
a= WATE _-t FIXED BRIDGE «=,
ee i 388 =cut a HOR.CL 125°
=
“s.._ VERT. CL. 50°
ST. GEORGE ISLAND CHANNEL
10'x 100' TO 200°
TWIN RUBBLE MOUND JETTIES _.”
en"
os DEPTHS ARE IN FEET AND REFER TO MEAN LOW WATER.
MILEAGE ON GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 1S FROM
HARVEY LOCK, NEW ORLEANS, LA
PLAN
SCALE IN MILES
1 oO U 2 3
aaa
TYPICAL JETTY SECTION
Figure 24. St. George Island Jetties, Florida
37
N TERRY COVE
WALKER ISLAND)
PERDIDO BAY
STA. 32+00 ong
—Q ISLAND
a
FIXED BRIDGE CLEARAN
TO COTTON BAYOU
ee HORI
VERT. 29°
TO PERDIDO BAY
HOR. 80
VERT, 35°
FLORIDA POINT
€@ UNM
GULF OF MEXICO PLAN
SCALE IN FEET
800 oO 800 1600
SESE TR
DEPTHS ARE IN FEET AND REFER TO MEAN LOW WATER. Ca
MEMPHIS T(E NUN} CHATTANOOGA
CORESTONE
CAPSTONE 25 To 2 TONS
8 TO12 TONS, FOUNDATION BLANKET
3 Geen
.)
\ r
MONTGOMERY
TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH JETTY
«
x
é
5S
N
=
=
$
= psseaaouy t S SCALE IN FEET
Yama 10 oO 10 20
Ss )=SE
APALACHICOLA
RIVER
= _ Poromq
PROJECT *X"
GULF OF MEXICO
Figure 25. Perdido Pass Channel Jetties, Alabama
38
aN
NORTH 7T90.< >
CORE CREEK BRIDGE
is SIDE CHANNEL Ca
CAROLINA - & BASIN AT Y
& JACKSONVILLE SWANSBORO Whe,
= a 6] ‘
CHANNELS TO S. aNGe aS
JACKSONVILLE & > Z; 2/0
NEW RIVER INLET Ye \
G
oe SZ Bocue \PELTIER CREEK
oad Ld INLET N
= ZA
S. WA a2 CHANNEL TO p Bi
% BOGUE INLET € ~
hy 0 iG
CONNECTING CHANNELS
CG
MASON BORO INLET a
are OSI) LG AND CONNECTING iy
SOUTHPORT f CHANNELS Pang
f/ CAROLINA BEACH INLET p
CAROLINA BEACH HARBOR
——
| “342 CAPE FEAR
END A.1.W.W. SOUTHPORT HARBOR
WILMINGTON
DISTRICT
NEW
HANOVER
COUNTY
SCALE OF FEET
Figure 26. Masonboro Inlet Jetties, North Carolina
39
that the original 7- to 12-ton armor stone may have been an inadequate design
for the incident wave environment.
North Atlantic Division
Baltimore District
24. The south jetty at Ocean City Inlet, Maryland (Figure 27), is the
only structure within the Baltimore District that was reported as having
significant toe stability problems. The original north and south jetties,
both rubble mound, were constructed in 1934 and 1935, respectively. The crown
elevation on the shoreward end of the north jetty had to be increased in 1937
to stop flow of sand into the inlet. The landward end of the south jetty
required extensions in 1956 and 1963 to repair flanking caused by erosion.
The south jetty has suffered major deterioration along its outer leg caused by
ebb flow induced scour and undermining of the structure's inlet side toe.
During major repair of the south jetty in 1963, the center line of the struc-—
ture's repair section was offset outward from the inlet (Figure 27). This was
done to alleviate the need to fill the massive scour hole that existed where
the inlet side of the structure was originally constructed. The ocean side of
the existing structure that remained was used as a base against which the in-
let side toe of the jetty repair section was positioned. By 1982, the 1963
repair section of the south jetty was once again very deteriorated. Like the
original, this damage was only on the converging portion of the jetty and was
caused by ebb flow induced undermining of the structure's inlet side. In
order to prevent failure of the outer end of the south jetty, which would lead
to severe inlet shoaling, the scour hole adjacent to the structure was filled
with dredge material and capped with stone. The lower portion of the inlet
side of the jetty was overlaid with an intermediate stone size, and the
remainder of the inlet side slope was covered with primary armor stone. This
work was completed during 1983 to 1984, and a typical repair cross section is
shown in Figure 27. The majority of the south jetty's original repair section
still shows considerable deterioration and is highly overtopped. It is
unknown how well the scour protection is performing. It appears that scour on
the north side of the inlet has slowed down, and the north jetty is in good
condition; however, the overall scour in the throat of the inlet shows no
signs of stabilizing.
40
HOR. CL. 70°
VERT. CL. 18°
-DRAWBRIDGE
S. STNEPUXENT
MARYLAND . [-
O.65Mi
-€ PC RR. 6OR/W. _-N. HARBOR ROAD [7
= = = —F— =
10.
fo}
ey
», W. HARBOR
CESTERj# fF COUNTY
12°
ke | +4.N. JETTY, +6 S. JETTY
SCALE OF FEET
500 fo}
1
OCEAN SIDE
CAP STONE; 6TON
MIN. ABOVE -9.0;
1 500# MIN. BELOW -9
15 #TO 2 TON
1
ORIGINAL
JETTY
FILTER, RUN OF
CRUSHER STONE
1956 NORTH JETTY REPAIR
OCEAN SIDE
CAPSTONE;
9 TON MIN
“ELEVATIONS IN FEET
REFERRED TO MLW
1’ FILTER; RUN OF CRUSHER 1 TON”
1963 SOUTH JETTY REPAIR
150°
EXISTING
6.0 TO 10.0 TON STONE
MIN EL FOR TOP OF ARMOR STONE (-3.0) ~a,
0.6 TO 1.0 3 OCEAN SIDE
TON STONE 1
SAND A Se
Co
EXISTING GRADE —™ ~~ -
ee
FT
1983 SOUTH JETTY REPAIR
Figure 27. Ocean City Inlet Jetties, Maryland
41
Philadelphia District
25. The most common problem occurring on the Philadelphia District's
coastal structures is subsidence of structures below design elevation. It is
thought that toe scour contributes to this, but the primary cause is poor
foundation conditions in the areas where most of the structures have been
built. This is especially true for those structures located in the Delaware
Bay area.
26. The jetties located at Reedy Point, where the Chesapeake and Dela-
ware Bay Canal intersects the Delaware River, were originally constructed
prior to 1938 (Figure 28). Both structures were of rubble-mound construction.
In the 1960's the existing south jetty was removed, and a new south jetty was
constructed farther south. This was done to increase the entrance size to
accommodate larger vessels and improve navigation safety. The present jetties
are both 2,095 ft long, and it was reported that the north jetty has problems
with toe scour, loss of armor stone, and overall subsidence.
27. The rubble-mound and sheet-pile composite jetties at Indian River
Inlet, Delaware, were completed in 1939 (Figure 29). The jetties required
storm damage repairs in 1956 and 1957. At that time, the north jetty was
extended inshore a distance of 320 ft. At present both jetties are 1,566 ft
long. Both jetty heads have deteriorated significantly from a combination of
toe scour, armor stone slippage and displacement, and overall subsidence.
Because of the success of the Manasquan River Jetty repairs, dolosse are being
considered for inclusion in the repair and rehabilitation designs for the
structure slopes. No details on the proposed toe repair design are available.
New England Division
28. Based on review of historical repair data, it appears that three
project sites within the New England Division that contain rubble-mound jetty
structures have exhibited stability problems which could be related to in-
stability of the structure toes. Both jetties at the mouth of the Kennebunk
River, Maine (Figure 30), have a history of extension and repair. The latest
jetty rehabilitation work was completed in 1982. Recent inspections show that
both jetty heads are damaged and that 250 ft of the channel side of the east
jetty have been undermined. The most recent inspection reports (1973-74),
indicate that the north and south jetties at Newburyport Harbor, Massachusetts
42
Tf Peo Pac
‘stand
evancn cnannes >
envaance
Delawa
. >
\ SURAT BRIDGE
Ucn Neen
Oy aie |
. COUNTY IN |
= KO Teese ign
Pr
, he 5
Gity =
Baie!
Sal
ce) sy
x OG -
CMESAPEAKE CITY> “US Engineer
ery BR (GH LEVEL) , Resident Office
rou, Chesepeate City sy
. Oy Aacheroge @ Meermg Basin 2
£ (@ece Crees! g
2
&
,
ST GEORGES
(HIGH LEVEL)
AR BR
(VERTICAL LIFT)
© H
5
oj $s
SE = fy
ad s IS
AEEOY PT OR d
(HIGH LEVEL)
MARYL
O€L aw
Te Delewere Bey =
LEGEND
u S Reservetion Boundery
,
SCALE OF FEET
3.0c0 ) S 10 ic} 2c 2500¢
[SS=S5=c —- == 2:
&
¢
2
‘Steed
Bultnecd 45
HEALTH CENTER
wary OR.
(FIXED) 2 LANES ya
SCALE OF FEET
Figure 28. Reedy Point Jetties, Delaware
43
REHOBOTH
BAY
To Rehoboth Beach.
INDIAN RIVER NECK
\
DELAWARE SEASHORE
STATE PARK
+;
CHANNEL SIDE
Prevent bottom tobe axceraied to 0 depth of -3.0
Fe permit o min secton of patty 08 shown
Stee! ance! poling Ihrw
Mi core @ Cop stone
u
TYPICAL SECTION
“TS.
() ©,
rire ANY) :
a
OCEAN
BOTTOM HILLS DRAIN
US COAST GUARD STATION
2 ag
\\se'J INDIAN RIVER
——= INLET
FIXED
BRIOGE
ELEV 35'MHW
ATLANTIC
——ro Bethony Beoch
TYPICAL SECTION OF REHABILITATED BULKHEADS
to conus! of 0 graced
(qwarry run stone, proces Mor stone{3'-0" deep) 10 conniet of preces exighing
n Win! rrom notions tnon «07 1484 (ham /3 bs @ nol more than 200 D4
TNS OE Tho/! be placed for Iho tui! wi81h of 1he jally of
25% ibs 16 200 ioe Jea1t 200' in adrence of placing the Core stone
35% 200108 ro 2/008
HALF SECTION-OUTER 300! OF JETTY
NTS
MTS
SCALE OF MILES
' ° '
_——— ———)
Figure 29. Indian River Inlet Jetties, Delaware
44
Behe entSee |
SWING 8B
SEEDEAL See heer KENNEBUNK ~
RIVER 4
LOCATION MAP
SCALE IN MILES
10 oO 10 zo 30
[es es |
6-FT. CHANNEL
@
GUERTIN
6-FT. ANCHORAGE
2 ACRES
100'7|
oh
MONASTERY
6-FT. ANCHORAGE
4 ACRES
NONANTUM
HOTEL \\
6-FT. CHANNEL
KENNEBUNK
RIVER CLUB
SEVERANCE r)
TOWN
LANDING
= ‘ =
OCH BEACH VT: 7 8- FT. CHANNEL
SAND
FENCE
WEST JETTY =~ sep ge
& EXTENSION
Figure 30. Kennebunk River Jetties, Maine
45
(Figure 31), which have an extensive repair and rehabilitation history, are
showing considerable damage. This damage appears to result primarily from
subsidence. Damage on four areas on the channel side of the south jetty most
likely result from undermining of the rubble toe. The jetties at Hampton
Harbor, New Hampshire (Figure 32), were originally constructed by the State
and were turned over to the Corps in 1964. During 1965 to 1966, considerable
work was done on both jetties. Since that time the south jetty has remained
in good condition, while the north jetty has required continuous maintenance.
Most of the repair and rehabilitation work has been needed on the seaward por-
tions of the north jetty. The last rebuilding of the north jetty was com-
pleted in 1980, and it is thought that part of this recurring damage can be
attributed to scour and undermining of the jetty toe.
North Central Division
29. There are 38 project sites within the Detroit District which have
breakwater and/or pier (jetty) structures that have exhibited stability prob-
lems related to the structure toes. At 14 of these sites problems are associ-
ated with rubble-mound structures, while at the remaining 24 sites toe prob-
lems occur on other structure types. Table 2 is a listing of these 24 sites
and the types of breakwater and/or jetty construction associated with each
site. The remainder of this section on the Detroit District deals strictly
with those 14 sites which are having and/or have had toe stability problems
with rubble-mound structures. At some of these sites, toe stability problems
have occurred on areas of the structures that are not rubble mound.
30. Structures at Black River Harbor, Cheboygan Harbor, Hammond Bay
Harbor, Harrisville Harbor, New Buffalo Harbor, and Point Lookout Harbor,
Michigan, are purely rubble-mound construction (Figures 33-40). Charlevoix
Harbor, Michigan; Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin; and Leland
Harbor, Muskegon Harbor, Pentwater Harbor, Port Washington Harbor, and
Traverse City Harbor, Michigan (Figures 41-55), have structures that are com-
posed of a combination of rubble mound, timber cribs, timber piles, steel
sheet piles, concrete caissons, steel cells, concrete caps, and concrete
superstructures. The head of the east jetty on the north end of the Keweenaw
Waterway, Michigan (Figures 56 and 57), is an old timber crib which is encased
in rubble. For this reason, its response is very similar to that of a purely
46
9.0 FOOT CHANNEL
(12-FT. DEPTH NOT
DREDGED-|NACTIVE)
Figure 31.
@ANCHESTER
LOCATION MAP
SCALE IN MILES
paease
NORTH JETTY
~~
SHORE
REVETMENT
12 FOOT CHANNE
(15-FT. DEPTH NOT
DREDGED- INACTIVE)
CROSS SECTION OF NORTH JETTY
TOP OF MOUND EL.12° RIVER SIDE
7——\_ _M.H.W. EL. 7.8'
aprii on U.L.w. EL. 0.0
hl od =
EXISTING BOTTOM
CROSS SECTION OF SOUTH JETTY
SCALE IN FEET
1000 2000
Newburyport Harbor Jetties, Massachusetts
47
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
i @ cCoNcoro é LOCATION MAP
SCALE Im MILES
ganting ground surtoce - E110 9-90 (vores) 7
NORTH JETT Y— SECTION
SCALE im FEET
. o >
STONE JETTIES
ry
HAMPTON®
HARBOR
8-FT. ENTRANCE CHANNEL
=)
Ore
Inner Sunk Rocks
SOUTH JETTY SECTION
SCALE m FEET
* ° 3
SEABROOK
SCALE IM FEET
Figure 32. Hampton Harbor Jetties, New Hampshire
48
Table 2
Project Sites in Detroit District with Toe Stability Problems
on Other Than Rubble-Mound Structures
Types of Structures at
Location Project Site*
Algoma Harbor, Wisconsin TP** and TC w/CS
Areadia Harbor, Michigan SC and TC w/SSP
Big Bay Harbor, Michigan RM, SC and SSP
Frankfort Harbor, Michigan G5 WP, SP5 SGy SSR25 CS ema Ger
Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan Se5 IH, GS eimel EGP
Harbor Beach, Michigan TC and CS
Holland Harbor, Michigan SSP, TC, RM, TP, CS and CCP
Kenosha Harbor, Michigan G5 SSP, SG5 GEP emma CS
Kewaunee Harbor, Wisconsin TP, CC, RM, SSP, SS, CCP and CS
Lac La Belle Harbor, Michigan SC and SSP
Ludington Harbor, Michigan TC Lee SOSP RM, (CGR and ics
Manistee Harbor, Michigan Soe, ING, IWe5 ame CS
Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin We, G65 Woy SSP5 IM, emal ES
Menominee Harbor, Michigan and Wisconsin S125 6, GG, Ca? aml CS
Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin TC, SSP, CC, RM, CCP and CS
Portage Lake Harbor, Wisconsin TC, TP and CS
Racine Harbor, Wisconsin WG, WP, IMI, SSP, CG, Gee ame GS
Saugatuck Harbor, Michigan WG, 12, SSP5 amal CS
Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin WG, WP, SSP, smal CS
South Haven Harbor, Michigan SSP, TC, CCP, and CS
St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan AG, S25 GIP ehial CS
Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin TP, TC, SSP, and CS
Two Rivers Harbor, Wisconsin TP, TC, SSP and CS
White Lake Harbor, Michigan WP, IEC, emal CS
* Not all structure types at each site are experiencing toe problems; how-
ever, tabulation presents all structure types existing at each site.
*x TP-timber piles; TC-timber cribs; CS-concrete superstructure; SC-steel
cells; SSP-steel sheet pile; RM-rubble mound; CC-concrete caisson; SP-steel
piling; CCP-concrete cap; SS-steel sheeting
49
-—\7
=f
je
f
yi
Note
Projec! depths ond soundings are referred to LWD 600.0 feet |
above MWL at Father Point, Quebec (IGLO 1955) (International VICINITY MAP
Great Lokes Datum 1955).
"99 'p 2 30 40 S0 Op 70 eo
SCALE IN MILES
GOGEBIC COUNTY (Gl eRseeraree
ies 2
MICHIGAN BOAT RAMP=——=P (reel)
; hoe
== Suspen
Foot Bridge
18 ft. clearance
B@LAC K RIVER
CLORURINIE any. Poy O03 Parking Area
eo
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 33. Black River Harbor Breakwaters, Michigan
50
Lakeward End to -5 Ft. Contour
-5 Ft. Contour to +2Ft. Contour
SCALE
10 io) 10 20 FT
=
+2Ft. Contour to Landward End
RUBBLE MOUND - BUILT 1957
EAST AND WEST BREAKWATERS
Eos! Breokwoter-825 FI. +
UOTE u es, Breokwoter-555 Ft. +
Figure 34. Details of Black River Harbor
Jetties, Michigan
51
LAKE HURON 8 /
=I /
7,
16.1.0. EL 576.8' /),’
0 G o r 0 ” 2 ty!
Ue
: > STRAITS OF “M AC KIN LA C2
/ 2 3
/ G2
/ &
‘4 s\n S
” 7)
Cheboygon Crib Lt Ws \
#L/ Nos
N
w 40
° 25
10 o
22 hl
27
2 0
D 2s
Little ee
SS Sa 10
SS 10
PROJECT DEPTH 2/ FT. ¥
Qs,
2
5 F :
-= == ’
oF
> As
A
= a
= a
= A
-~ =
- us
= -
-_ > _
a >
-_ -_ sie
eae WM we
An A
104 P g
ae x Atl, 3 TURNING BASIN
PROJECT DEPTH 2/FT.
— =
R g
z
isin & MICHIGAN
E y oS S oer ho
oR = ‘ 37 soszen fen
PROJECT DEPTH (ave INDIANA onIo
_ \ VICINITY MAP.
“| SCALE OF MULES
a s 16 0
PRI h 4 |
el a OTE CTs DEPTH 8.5F. 3
3 la] COVER STONE
a 5 CHANNEL SIDE WEST
CHANNEL
CINE
I-TOE STONE
WEST PIER
‘o| 4 TON MIN
LAKE si0g 2TONMIN
RUINS OF OLO Ss
fae
two EL 576.8"
CORE STONE
MATTRESS STONE
TLEVELARD
EXISTING coma
f>—Lwwc. tock SECTION A-A
TYPICAL SECTION OF RUBBLE-MOUND BREAKWATER
SCALE OF FEET
= 5 4
Figure 35. Cheboygan Harbor Breakwater, Michigan
52
COVER STONE PROJECT DEPTH
ENTRANCE CHANNEL /2 FT
HARBOR BASIN IO FT
_ CHANNEL WIDTH VARIES
EXISTING BOTTOM
TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE OF FEET
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
MICHIG
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
PROJECT DEPTH 12’
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
VICINITY MAP
SCALE OF Bai
MICHIGAN STATE HIGHWAY PARK AREA
HIGHWAY les
PUBLIC ACCESS AREA
FOR HARBOR
Project depths, saundings ond elevations are referred to
Internationa! Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Huron , elevation Scale of Feet
700
576 6ft above Mean Water Level (MW.L.) at Father Point, Quebec ""p o tao 200300400800 800
Figure 36. Hammond Bay Breakwater, Michigan
53
NOTE:
Cover stone 5 ton minimum in types 1 and 1
3 ton minimum in types II ond I
oe
Toe stone 7 ton minimum in types I ond I;
5 ton minimum in types If ond I t ee
I] wacxway
FA ee BB
HARBOR SIDE LAKE SIDE
o TYPES Row
* D> '
G.L.0. El 5768" Ro
——} ae) uy “
3 ;) CORE STONE Y_ }
ia R roe stonk ¢
A
——MaTTRESS STONE a
AKE BOTTOM
TYPICAL GROSS TI
Scole of Fest VICINITY MAP
SCALE OF WiLeD
ALCONA COUNTY |
A
NOTE
Project depths, soundings and elevations are referred to
International Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Huron, elevation
576.8f1. above Mean Water Level (MW.L.) at Father Point , Quebec.
SOUTH
BREAKWATER
EXPANSION OF
STATE BERTHING ~
FACILITIES
3. 15.7
HARGOR BASIN /
10 FEET OEEP on
12.0 15.2 ‘ g ’ Bs
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
Wo YF te Ob 12 FEET DEEP
1.G.L.0. El. 576.8" Scale of Feet
100 0 100 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 1000
SS
Figure 37. Harrisville Harbor Breakwaters, Michigan
54
(WISCONSIN
rm
n
Vo
w
°
EXPERIMENTAL
VICINITY | MAP "a" FRAME
BREAKWATER
REACH -F
'
SCALE OF! MILES REACH-A 480'+
300 40
VILLAGE
PROJECT DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS ARE REFERRED
TO LOW WATER DATUM 576.8 FEET ABOVE MEAN SCALE OF FEET
WATER LEVEL AT FATHER POINT, QUEBEC. |.G.L.D. =Ss=o=————r
(1955) (INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM) ° 200 400
Figure 38. New Buffalo Harbor Breakwaters, Michigan
55
12-0"
AVERAGE |2 TON COVER STONE ¢
( RANGE 10 TO 16 TONS)
EXISTING
—=LAKE BOTTOM
CORE STONE (100-LB. TO1 TON
PLACE LARGER STONE ON OUTSIDE)
2-0" BEDDING STONE
(I-LB. TO 50-LB QUARRY
SPALLS )
16 TON TOE STONE
REACH-A
BUILT 1975
¢
AVERAGE 6 TON COVER STONE
(RANGE 5 TO 10 TONS )
EXISTING
ZLAKE BOTTOM
CORE STONE (I-LB. TO 1,000-LB
PLACE LARGER STONE ON OUTSIDE)
2-0" BEDDING STONE
(1-LB. TO 50-LB. QUARRY
SPALLS )
10 TON TOE STONE
REACH-B
BUILT 1975
AVERAGE 4 TON COVER STONE ¢ Leo!
(RANGE 3 TO 5 TONS )
EXISTING
LAKE BOTTOM
ra a aor
5 TON TOE STONE
2'-0" BEDDING STONE
(1-LB. TO 50-LB. QUARRY
SPALLS )
CORE STONE (1|-LB8. TO500-LB
PLACE LARGER STONE ON OUTSIDE )
REACH-C
BUILT 1975
fe) (e) 10 20
CORE STONE (I* TO 500°)
PLACE LARGER
STONE OUTSIDE
AVERAGE 3 TON
COVER STONE
(2 TO 4 TON)
SCALE OF FEET
EXISTING
LAKE
2-0" BEDDING STONE
(1° TO 5O0°QUARRY STONE)
REACH-D
BUILT 1975
Figure 39. Details of New Buffalo Harbor
Breakwaters, Michigan
56
1/4 TON MIN. VARIES +9° TO+I2
rors! COVER STONE aac tan
ey \/4 TON MIN 2/3 TOMMIN
ccs TONMIN j Zee: STONE
\
Yi
172 TON MIN 11/2 TON MIN,
11/2 TONMIN: 1/2 TON MIN- H {
TOE STONE TOE STONE TOE STONE TOE STONE
MICHIGAN
2 MATERIAL TO BE
EXCAVATED
LAKE
vote
re
SECTION A-A on Leute
NO SCALE ‘VICINITY MAP
SCALE
10 0 100 Mi
=
SAGINAW
OF CULVERT
8+00
18+00 "2 :
~ : DOWNSTREAM
: : LIMIT OF FEDERAL
PROJECT-
WEST ng j JETTY
/OFT. PROJECT DEPTH : 12 FT. PROJECT DEPTH:
NOTES:
Project depths, soundings & elevations are referred to
International Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Huron;
Elev. 576.8 ft, above Mean Water Level at Father Point, Que.
Figure 40. Point Lookout Harbor Jetties, Michigan
57
ueSTyotTW ‘Ssetaqer Aoqzey xPoneTseyD “1H ein3tq
oe 08)
Gaim 40 av2s
NTOONIT dV¥M ALINIDIA
wo
4 VNVIGNI
>
ey 0
m ce :
PCED
ei
ine qunH
| vOH
2901N8
NVOIHIIN INT
EPEDEDSED) 331Sinvn Y
agnviqsi
> Ae OILS 7 a7rg7
“2907 ONN0H¥
NOLNIT9
os
NvaYor 1Sv3}H > ee
Gem
br
Lo3dSO0ud
4IVHD TIVNS YOF
VIAY IOVYOHINY SNVAU3HLVIM
oz «OF 0
1334 40 3195
d¥W NOILV907 : NVOlLHIOIW"”
STOHIIN
4s
A3NSOL3d
58
SAFETY L 33.0°
€ RAILING r |
zh , x as | 46.75!
Z-27STEEL
SHEET PILING
Z-27 STEEL
SHEET PILING pis P
T- SUBSTRUCTURE 1079-80 Hposr
STEEL
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1078-9,1007-9 Bh oag =25.17' PILING 25125)
REHAB 190!
35.01' DIA SECTION—-AI
-38.75" = = =| SS
| ye ceELL NORTH PIER
_+7.0' BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1679-80
i a F SUPERSTRUCTURE 1676,1667-9
are 7 45.25" REBUILT 1966
bs 1G.L.0._ 5 Bei 76.80
_j—$-28
s-28 |
| STEEL PILING
STEEL PILING 1
lJ
a | 1
o |
i ‘
f |
I |
| |
el eee —--}---- eg ee al HER Kelop
SIE Cum hOUNi—vANe
NORTH PIER
BUILT i966
FE icd
SAFETY
RAILING
icGuo 576 8°
WALKWAY
SECTION-B
NORTH PIER
BuILT 1897
REHAB 1981
SER al : : 276.8"
| e210
z-27
STEEL PILING—\-
STEEL PILING
CHANNEL
-9.5'
Scale of Feet
"B % 2 on 30 40
arpa SECTION-—F
SOUTH PIER
ACBUILT 1930
PEPAIRED i966
Figure 42. Details of Charlevoix Harbor Jetties, Michigan
59
uTSUODSTM pue eJOSeUUTW ‘SteqeMYeeIg pue set ef Joqiey AOTAedns-yan[ng “Ey eANsTy
alee
Oboe
ae
oo
4334 i_31¥95
a
BG «|
:
S500
ODE
OD
Qy
Q
“e;
Lp
o Xs
"Vos
ye
=
=|
=
(ol
"7
Lal
il
Oo
[oa
eel
aa
cma)
e
LQ
A
raga
Sere
®
Q
i
(|
[oa]
(es)
le)
ea}
CO
onthe!
0
Ol
(onl)
0 ON
¥ kL er Ss:
Z osh
oS & J Gsose
‘ J 5 ¢/ Vl
I ss
60
pay citya fh a
-PSacinaw °-
VICINITY MAP
SCALE OF MILES
100 50 100
D CAUTION
Y sicn
Va
©
MICHIGAN
1.6.4.0. EL. 576.8’
NOTES:
Project depths, soundings and elevations are referred to
International Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Michigan, elevation
576.8 ft. above Mean Water Level (M.W.L.) at Father Point, Quebec.
Scale of Feet “€bap
100 ° 100 200
————————_———S=_—SSSSSSSSS==SS=)
Figure 44. Leland Harbor Breakwater and Jetty, Michigan
61
je DIA 17.5' = 2
eae 3 oO
re a ES he ‘ (one fe | Neale YU Sa
: Re AGGREGATE
(ARIE re = CELL FILLY
hal £2. Jo >): 3
ive | | ee
—SP-6 STEEL
SHEET PILE
=21.5°
SECTION-B
BUILT: 1936
REPAIRED: 1952
REHABILITATED: 1966
€
250-1000L 8.!
STONE |
S-28 STEEL
SHEET PILING —+
ER eee oe = el
uJ
oO
= SECTION-A
i¢p) CONSTRUCTED: 1968
8'-0"
[sa
BS
576.8 a ot Hs ; IPRs a bGLO,
CLOSE PILING
STONE MATTRESS
SECTION-C
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE: 1936
CONSTRUCTED: 1968
COVER STONE
5 TON MIN.
LAKE
SECTION I -10'
SECTION I-8'
1G6.L.D.
STONE MATTRESS
SECTION-D
RUBBLE MOUND
BUILT: 1941-3
TOE STONE
7 TON MIN.
EXISTING BOTTOM ~
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION-RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER
CONSTRUCTED: 1968
576.8'
LAL.0.
STEEL
SHEET PILING
SECTION—E
stv! vn
SHORE CONNECTION
QUILT! 1946
Figure 45.
62
Scale of Feet
ee
Details of Leland Harbor Breakwater and Jetty, Michigan
SIDE
HARBOR
35
UPSTREAM LIMIT OF
TAT!
SUMS Galas FEDERAL PROJECT
32
PROJECT DEPTH USK EGON
35
LAKE
> 44
NAVAL ”
- be
—. @ s
\
%
2
%,
By
a
6
XY 98 CANADA
30 MUSKEGON .
3 w)
ra COUNTY 2
Ce)
/GLO ELEV 576.8"
# 7 2
v q MANISTEE
2
bd
iS
=
S
=
ww
x
x
s
INDIANA
VICINITY MAP
r SCALE OF MILES A
NOTES ;
Project depths, soundings and elevations are referred to
NORTH Isternational Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Michigan, elevation
MUSKEGON 576.8 ft above Mean Water Level (MW.L.)at Father Point, Quebec.
Scale of Feet
500 o 500 1000 1500 2000
nt
LOCATION MAP
MICHIGAN ‘ SCALE OF FEET
4 ° 3,000 10,000 5,000 ul
Figure 46. Muskegon Harbor Breakwaters and Jetties, Michigan
63
=— 255' TO 195! A -aquarry RUN
B -1 To 5 Ton
C- 4 TO 5 TON
D - 8 To 10 TON
_ _576.8'_
IGLO
SECTION -—A
NORTH BREAKWATER
out 1930-1
3
veal SECTION-B
| NORTH BREAKWATER
BuILT 1930-1
SAFETY malenas|
OUTER 54 LINEAR FEET OF
SECTION "C" CONSISTS OF
2 RECTANGULAR CAISSONS
Wow We WNW
SECTION —
SOUTH BREAKWATER
But SUBSTRUCTURE 1927-30
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1927-30
10.
i i. it ne
3 3 3
—+71' - P
SAFETY RAILING
[4
fo}
a
a
< : Lye
= VS NY
oH coRECTION TE.
SECTION — O ovicT suastmucture 1927-30
SOUTH BREAKWATER SUPERSTRUCTURE (3877/39
i
ounT BUOSTRUCTURE 1927-30 . % ° . SAFETY RAILING
tT gupERSTRUCTURE 1027-30 liam 1
SAFETY RAILING
LAKE SIDE
ene Toe STONE SEGTION=G
SOUTH BREAKWATER
BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1926-30
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1930
UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1966
MATTRESS
STONE
SECTION-F
SOUTH BREAKWATER
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1926-30
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1930
UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1966
SAFEVY
RAILING
Scale of Feet
10 ° 10 20 yo 40
576.8' eee —$—— ees: }
SECTION-H
SOUTH BREAKWATER
BuILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1920-30
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1930
Figure 47. Details of Muskegon Harbor Breakwaters, Michigan
64
HARBOR
OR
CHANNEL
SAFETY RAILINGS (TYP.)
+ 8.5'
Z IML,
i
PRS
Scale of Feet
10 te} 10 20 30 40
TYPICAL SECTION
NORTH PIER
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1906
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1933-4
REHAB. 1980
S.R
1904 SECTION - N
LOS) SOUTH PIER
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1875
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1932-3
REHAB. 1966
-45.5
TYPICAL SECTION - O
SOUTH PIER
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1668,96°99
SUPERSTRUCTURE (932-3
REHAB 1966
Figure 48. Details of Muskegon Harbor Jetties, Michigan
65
1GL.D EL. 576.8"
CHARLES
MEARS
STATE
DUMP GND. 1-1/4 HI, & E
@ 270° AZ
MAINTAINED TO
12FEET
SUBM. CABLE
UPSTREAM LIMIT OF
FEDERAL PROJECT
LIMITS OF
APPROVED PROJECT-
NOTE: Work remaining to be done shown thus:
Project depths,soundings,and elevations are referred to
International Great Lakes Datum (1955) for Lake Michigan,
elevation 576.8 ft. above Mean Water Level (M.W.L.) at
Father Point, Quebec.
Scale of Feet
500
———
INDIANA '
VICINITY MAP
Scole of Miles
CONCORD ‘90 5 !
N T WA
EOWELIE STREET
STREET
FIRST STREET
il
SECOND STREET
THIRD STREET
Figure 49. Pentwater Harbor Jetties, Michigan
66
SIDE
CHANNEL
2470 28°
+7"
SECTION— A
NORTH PIER
BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1872,99
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938 BUILT
SECTION—- D
NORTH PIER
SASBNAR|
SECTION— B
SECTION
ar 576.8"
(esmore= = — FH
SZLERGE
SECTION — C
N. 8S PIER NORTH PIER
NP SP BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1870,98899
SUBSTRUCTURE 1870,98499 869,99 SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938 1938
=JE SECTION -G
NORTH PIER SOUTH PIER
BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1870,98 6 99 BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 870,898 BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1887,9
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938 SUPERSTRUCTURE (938 SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938
+7
576.8"
SOUTH PIER SOUTH PIER
BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1870,99 BUILT SUBSTRUCTURE 1868,99
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938 SUPERSTRUCTURE 1938
10-0" 4
TOE STONE ‘
9 TON MIN a i 2 es LINE
1 Scale of Feet
MATTRESS STONE ad 10 0 10 20 30 a0
/ \ (2820-82828 = ————— —— ——
TYPICAL RUBBLE MOUND SECTION
BUILT 1959
Figure 50.
Details of Pentwater Harbor Jetties, Michigan
67
ST.
UPSTREAM LIMIT OF
FEDERAL PROJECT
6
WISCONSIN ST.
FRANKLIN
GRAND AV
U.S.141 & ST HWY. 32
: Y
RIVER
STATES
(o}
IPSTREAM LIMIT OF
FEDERAL PROJECT
MICHIGAN
27
27
PROJECT DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS
ARE REFERRED TO LOW WATER DATUM
576.8 FEET ABOVE MEAN WATER LEVEL
AT FATHER POINT, QUEBEC. 1.GL.D. (1955)
(INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM )
SCALE OF FEET
I =
i =
200 400 600 600 1000
VICINITY | MAP
SCALE OF NILES
CoAT 1
MILWAUKEE o = ct
4
Figure 51. Port Washington Harbor Jetty and Breakwaters, Wisconsin
68
SIDE
HARBOR
SUPERSTRUCTURE ON SOUTH
BREAKWATER 1-6 BELOW
TOP OF CAISSON.
NOTE: OUTER 54 LINEAR
FEET OF SECTION A, NORTH
BREAKWATER, CONSISTS OF
TWO RECTANGULAR CAISSONS.
N
NORTH & SOUTH BREAKWATER
NB SB
BUILT’ SUBSTRUCTURE 1934 1936
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1934 1936
CAP STONE
GROUTED IN
PLACE
+7.5'
PILES ARCH CELL
TYPE
cd ro oop 9,
P0004 aw 2Naa0.60-7--S8sle
i} -19'To-27'
SECTION-B SECTION-D
NORTH BREAKWATER NORTH BREAKWATER
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1934 BUILT: 1934
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1934
+7.0'
STEEL SHEET PILES
BUTTRESS, SINGLE WALL TYPE
Lw.o
13:1 SLOPE t1 SLOPE
i gl
ig
LUA = To-17
FRO PPPOE PPS
SECTION-E
NORTH SHORE CONNECTION
SES VOWS Quit 34
NORTH BREAKWATER SCALE OF FEET
BUILT: SUBSTRUCTURE 1934
SUPERSTRUCTURE 1934 L} ° 0 20 %»
Figure 52. Details of Port Washington Harbor North and South
Breakwaters, Wisconsin
69
KF
2
teres
wig
7 7
SAND & EARTH ty
FILL
Beye
™ en ee) i =|
(i an H
Sy a j |
N Nu
uJ
(2)
7)
SECTION-F SECTION=-G
x NORTH STUB PIER NORTH STUB PIER
BUILT: 1940 BUILT: 1940
(eo)
ao
a ‘
6
< +8.7- lr a
x=
—_ —L.W.D. 576.8
53%
Sa
a eS
J G NY >
fo) & e, ‘a> 0 Ce
4 £ON Aptech OF erSZ Orn
oc) eat TH by YB Weamleat.aet
4
WJ SECTION-I
z
Zz WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
<
x
U
SECTION —J
SOUTH BREAKWATER
BUILT: 1936
SCALE OF FEET
[=o 50S eS Se ee SS)
$ [*) Le) 2 30 4
Figure 53. Details of Port Washington Harbor North Jetty and South
Breakwater, Wisconsin
70
uesTyoTW
1m ae
woguyw |e!
ALID 9SU3AVUL
¢
ywo bat
ai
(WHY LSIM)
g
ISHIAVHL
ONvVY9
Van.
wois wotunya
4]
‘szozemyeorg 1oqaey AITO eSreAeAL, “*yG eAN3Ty
— =
Ene oes othe
GVM ALINIDIA
frital
1000 710) Dera
(uanao)
03) owt me
ALNNOD
NWNV1337
w3uv 193°0ud
1900 218M
dITHSHMOL QOOMATZ
anvu
PMmONNWT LvOo
“] vinuve
mouuva
~
(wav L575M)
Ava
IsHIaAvHd
Nisva
aNiuvy MOWuWO
aonvyd
71
uesTyotW ‘Sszeqemyverg zoqzey AIF) estoaety, JO STPRICT
9961-171N8
ys
UalvVMyVaua ONNOW 3188Ny—NOWI3S WOIIdAL
1661-1718
YyBLVMNV3NB8 Y3LNO
@-8 NOILI3S
"Gg aansta
——s — ES 2-8-8)
[e) ol
Ov Of
,8101,S
JTEVINVA
{aaj 40 0109S
waivanvaue
eee! sATING oeel aaine
@-NOILIISS W-NOILOIS
z- 0
w-0
—_ aa —
13aHS 133916 2¢-Z
Te 301s Ne gas
yosuvH yOGuWH
T+ c+
9961 :171N@
—_—-— +
4H9I1 YOS
uOuans t—se2-
YILVMAVINB 1S3M
vV-v NOILI3S
————-7-08e-
ONITId 13318 O2-S
Geer eee
3NO1S 9NIO038 Pon
“NOD Q32NO4NIZ.9-—2 | ~ 3d0TS
72
uesTYyOTW SAeMI07eM MeUdeMeY ‘SiojJeMYeerg VoOUeTIUY aeddg ‘*g9¢ ean3Ty
183m ¥ 1SV3 S3°Ym mi 39995
Cre a
BONVULNS B3ddN \
1LOaS
dUW ALINISIA
4324 Mi 37095,
Na
S
oF * : 5 Z j ie ion rw A oo nee nN x
NVOIHOIW Prinnos || \noLHonoH Fie: : ah |, F ‘ sr =
5 Las oI a “ at
- as
Vv
: Se (ey, : a
poopy Aiunoy — lo,
7) “% i BS
(S561 wniog sP¥07 | © vw» = S
x‘ $OaD JOUVE jOUs01 UI) 1 7191) FREAD "W9g 4H 10 TMI BAOG0 j
; 2 aa aD anon ie cD CA |
| mss i
; a BE “aay Fanaa Sater A 2
5 : m
z0ns7e 40 copatH |S
ONOd A7!7 im
403, . 19V3 S52
JONVHLN3 H3ddN
9 NOILOAS
3018 34v7
whee omy
S3UNLONYLS OVIHY3Id YILVMNVIEB
BONVHIN3 H3ddn
V_ NOILOSS Si BaP
99u0JjU7 Jeuop——
oA
Ate
™,
I >,
he
aoa
73
uesTyotW ‘Aemi107eM MeuUUAMey ‘iejeMyYeeTg aoUeAQUY AeMOT */cG aAN3Ty
dVW X30NI
= a
2ov0s4u7 Jamo),
AVE MYNIIMIN
BONVYLN3S —¥3MO7
TNOILOSS
ma]
ee
3018 YORYVH
(SS61 wnjog s6x07 joH9
Jouo!4ousB1¥) | (S56) O71) 22G8ND ‘iuIog YeYIOs 10 TMIY B4090
490) 9009 GM 0} pess24+s 940 sbuIpUNOS puo Fysa—p j22!01g
NOILO3S SSOUD WOIdAL
NOILO3LONd dvudie
3ONVHLN3 Y3MO7
4334 Mi 9109S :
WOT wu:
000)
a IavIWYA MOLDKARIO
NVOIHOIW| ALNNOD NOLHO NOH
esy vo}\0e.08y.
vig bursoon
se
abo,s0d) C
se 790438 40 8.
5a 0 DIAGE 0 : 1 3 7 waa cle eo
(Aste7
wavee
ae f Fen
2 psang.t009 5 04) Kua
Ausodoua sn Xhssiv soy Xe
N.ajqos sv0udajay ausowgns
NOISN3LX3
B3LVMNY 388)
Peoy Ayuno>
74
rubble-mound structure. The remainder of the structures at Keweenaw are tim-
ber crib with some rubble and steel sheet piles.
31. In general, the rubble-mound structures in the Detroit District
that show toe stability problems have shown the results of this problem
through damage to the upper slope and crown armor. It is not known defi-
nitely, but it is expected that the toe damage is a combination of toe armor
instability combined with foundation scour and undermining of the structure
toes. Repair to a structure is carried out by filling the scour holes with
stone and then reshaping and repairing the structure's armor stone layer(s).
Some repairs have been successful thus far, while other areas require frequent
repair work.
75
PART III: DISCUSSION
32. In general, there appear to be three major problem areas with
rubble-mound coastal structure toes. One of these pertains to the proper
sizing and placement of toe buttressing stone. The purpose of the buttressing
stone is to stabilize the onslope armor by preventing downslope slippage of
the armor layer. For these stone to function properly, they must be of suf-
ficient weight and placed in such a way that they are stable in a wave and/or
flow environment. The second major problem area concerns toe berms. A toe
berm's primary function is to protect a structure placed on an erodible bottom
from being undermined by wave- and/or flow-induced scour and to resist down-
slope slippage of the armor. For a toe berm to function properly it, like the
toe buttressing stone, must be composed of materials and be constructed in a
geometry that will be stable in the incident wave and/or flow environment.
Thirdly, toe buttressing stone and toe berms are susceptible to damage and
failure when placed on an erodible bottom material. The stone may be sized
adequately for the level of energy to which they are exposed, but the exposed
bottom material at the outer perimeter of the structure may readily erode
and/or an inadequately designed bedding material may allow the foundation
material to migrate through it and the toe berm armor. Either one or both of
these factors can result in the undermining and displacement of stone that
were otherwise able to withstand the wave and flow environment but failed
because of undermining induced displacement.
33. In summary, a toe failure may be the result of any one or a combi-
nation of the above. Guidance exists for proper design of bedding (filter)
layers based on soil types, but very little guidance is available for the siz-
ing and geometries needed for the proper design of toe berms and buttressing
stone for incident wave environments. Most work done by the districts in
these areas is based on field experience and engineering judgment. A scouring
bottom is a problem in itself. No matter how well a toe is designed, if the
local bottom materials (sands, silts, clays, etc.) are exposed to sufficient
energy levels for scour to occur, the toe of the structure is doomed to fail-
ure unless the toe berm is extended out to a point where the energy levels are
below those which will initiate scour. In most cases this is not practical or
feasible. In these instances, sufficient toe berm material, that in itself is
stable for the wave and/or flow environment must be placed so that as the
76
structure toe undermines, the berm material can slough off into the scour
hole. This will provide some armoring to reduce the rate of scour and thus
increase the usable, or functional, life of a structure.
77
PART IV: CONCLUSION
34. Based on extensive discussions with Corps division and district
personnel and after the review of prototype experience relative to rubble-
mound toe stability problems, it is concluded that design guidance is
seriously needed on the proper sizing and placement configurations needed to
provide adequate buttressing stone and toe berms for rubble-mound coastal
breakwaters and jetties. Once it is understood how to design toe berms and
buttressing stone for a range of water levels and wave conditions, these
designs need to be incorporated into a test series that addresses the way in
which varying toe geometries influence localized scour. The latter will pro-
vide some qualitative insight into how a toe berm can be configured or
positioned to reduce the quantity and/or rate of localized foundation scour.
78
i
=)
RN
isk
he IK:
ha
sone
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11