Uses. as ug Kea Cle Teck. Weg CERC_ Au ee7 TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-86-7 US Army Corps IRREGULAR WAVE OVERTOPPING OF of Eraineets SEAWALL/REVETMENT CONFIGURATIONS, ROUGHANS POINT, MASSACHUSETTS Experimental Model Investigation by John P. Ahrens, Martha S. Heimbaugh, D. D. Davidson Coastal Engineering Research Center DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631 September 1986 Final Report Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited Prepared for US Army Engineer Division, New England Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 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. AULA A 0 0301 0091253 1 Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Exp. Date: Jun 30, 1986 Ja. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS Unclassified 2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release; 2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution unlimited 4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) Technical Report CERC-86-7 6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION USAEWES, Coastal Engineering tiffepplicabic) Research Center WESCV 6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) PO Box 631 Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631 a. NAME OF FUNDING / SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL | 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER USFRAMFARSineer Division Wigs pplicabie) New England 8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS PROGRAM PROJECT WORK UNIT 424 Trapelo Road ELEMENT NO. | NO. See re-| NO. ACCESSION NO Waltham, MA 02254-9149 verse side 11. TITLE (Include Security Classification) Irregular Wave Overtopping of Seawall/Revetment Configurations, Roughans Point, Massachusetts; Experimental Model Investigation 12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) ; Ahrens, John P., Heimbaugh, Martha S., Davidson, D. D. 13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT Final report FROM To September 1986 64 16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) Experimental model Revetment RO ark esc Se ee) Irregular wave over- Roughans Point, Massachusetts [a eed | eae Raaeaenateaee) (pobeets Seared 19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) Laboratory tests to determine irregular wave overtopping rates on coastal structures were conducted at the Coastal Engineering Research Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. These tests were intended to solve a site-specific problem at Roughans Point, Massachusetts. The results have yielded specific information for Roughans Point and a general approach to calculating irregular wave overtopping rates which is superior to the method given in the Shore Protection Manual (1984). 20. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FO UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED [1 SAME AS RPT. Optic users Unclassified 22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) | 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL DD FORM 1473, 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted ECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE All other editions are obsolete = Gielass ified 10. PROJECT NO. (Continued) Intra-Army Order No. 84-C-0031. PREFACE The US Army Engineer Division, New England (NED), requested the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) to conduct numerical and physical model studies to determine flood levels at Roughans Point, Massachusetts. Funding authorizations by NED were granted in Intra-Army Order No. 84-C-0031, dated 1 May 1984. Physical model tests were conducted at CERC under general direction of Dr. R. W. Whalin, former Chief, CERC; Mr. C. E. Chatham, Chief, Wave Dynamics Division; and Mr. D. D. Davidson, Chief, Wave Research Branch. Tests were conducted by Messrs. Cornelius Lewis, Sr., Engineering Technician, and John Heggins, Computer Technician, under the supervision of Mr. John P. Ahrens, Oceanographer. This report was prepared by Mr. Ahrens, Mr. Davidson, and Ms. Martha S. Heimbaugh, Civil Engineer. Dr. James R. Houston was Chief and Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr., was Assistant Chief, CERC, during the preparation and publication of this report. This report was edited by Ms. Shirley A. J. Hanshaw, Information Products Division, Information Technology Laboratory, WES. Liaison was maintained with Mr. Charles Wener, Chief of NED's Hydraulics and Water Quality Section (HWQS), during the course of this study by means of conferences, progress reports, and telephone conversations. Mr. Donald Wood of the HWQS staff was sent to WES to assist in model testing and data analysis for a temporary assignment. COL Allen F. Grum, USA, was the previous Director of WES. COL Dwayne G. Lee, CE, is the present Commander and Director. Dr. Robert W. Whalin is Technical Director. CONTENTS Page 152010] Ree Rare erent CEMA OCIS lOO Old Gots G Gio OIC DIS AIOIO b DOG O10 Hinta oD a0.d do's OU 1 LIST OB ME IGURES ac cpsssnetd sistas veicuctagetenere ie aroha seayal cbepcvaus.clebewelan eropsieligs sarc ausearehe ar eteie aes 3 CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS (OF .MEASUREMENTD: 3.5, a6 siro/aie te vagaurelJotiewars cede) sueuaveneieyokers\isvorsueilersuehedsusperetemeiein moneeaeae 4 PART I: EN TRODUC TION is) seioyei/srre steps apapsyicuoueyenelierikevionsteuessnollieial 5, ey shy er evieuc i orolene rene einen 5 PEVOEIAOMINEL, oo oD GUO DOOD DD DOOD DDD DOOR DO DO OOOO DO AODOOD OD OONO OOO DUOODONDS 5 PUPPOSC iid iciiic e's o's sw ints sia. oe ee. raeie oierercce el ereenenee teste eis a ahaa coe aie eae 8 PARE Piss). STHE MODE. so a) ccscscs cele teal aneve revere one) eucttene ee eroveienevcreve eve rosie renere tolerate rereee 9 Model "Desittamisinans scl s nrere ore) eaiecels: sate) avenete evetonene tere alia eyeveue sia ecsieveneral ternal eee nara 9 Model Conditions and Testing ProcedureS..........cccecccccccccccccces 10 BARD sleltieis BRESENFALIONSOF PRESUETS pie ienettieietelcoiacie oii ei iecicreeeie cies 15 Development of Overtopping ParameterS.........ccccccccvccccccccccecs 15 Stabidii-ty of Armor (Stones. oi. rss eveieleueiens oiekeroser are cia ei senieie emo OEE 17 PART EVs! (DESCUSSTON 5 sii ccieutis: eps, apeyey ev eeies ela snesuoussnenevenstonsncnovecnsie elscecsee cael mere 19 PART V: SUMMARY. AND CONCLUSIONS eis oie ateieiercisleloisienersishstersnes hoe oir ae eee 30 REFERENCES iicci. iene stsceloverereis ousuelevs sy sgaiolaiensasusuecenay ouensceelonouevelene orshetelsusnarohepeicheeR eich eriere 34 PLATES 1-10 APPENDIX As.) DATA TABLES pir eneis;sporsioyencuscsuspaisie sue sis csuexsisyolelcusuoenonenecer Seo eee roroene Al ARPENDIX@B ANALYSTS TORS AVAIL EWS SDATAtyveielrienckerioreirici nici irene B1 20 21 22 LIST OF FIGURES Page Location and.vicinity imaps.as3 5.tedes «Sh cmes Gew. cee we sein Sm ee tines ¢ 6 Location of Reaches A through F at Roughans Point................... T Wave gage locations in 3- by 3- by 150-ft-long WEE GEINKo scone ncae coo K DD DDO DOOD DDO DOO OD OOD OD OD COOO OO OODDDDOADOOOS 10 Plan view of Configuration 1, seawall with no ITROMEMNS POVOUGUAMSs ocoonggc0n Gobo gbOOO DDO OOOO ODDO OODNUb00D0D000000 12 Configuration 1, seawall with no riprap revetment................... 12 Configuration 2, seawall with standard riprap IAENSIEMIEING 5 6 6.000000000000000000060000000000000000000000000000000000 20 Plan view of Configuration 2 in wave tank.............cccccesccccees 20 Comparison of data trends for Configurations 1 and 2................ 21 Configuration 2, seawall with standard riprap revetment as it appeared in the model study................ceecee- 21 Configuration 3, seawall with a wave absorber riprap AEVOUUMENG 5 p00 00000 DOOR ODO DD DODO DODO ODDO DOOD DDODODODDODDDDDGO0000000 22 Configuration 4, seawall with a riprap revetment havingeaswide bermyatr+ Okt eNGVD).. 8 okies Baran mers inden omete sire ole 22 Comparison of data trends for Configurations 2 and 4................ 23 Configuration 5, seawall with riprap revetment having audoubllesbermiat +6candy+i0 ft NGVD =. acs cisco lacincione oe oc ciere aera 23 Configuration 6, seawall with riprap revetment having a berm at +10 ft NGVD and 1.0-ft cap on seawall................... 25 Configuration 7, seawall with riprap revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a 1.0-ft cap on seawall............. 25 Configuration 8, seawall with riprap revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a 2.0-ft cap on seawall............. 26 Comparison of data trends for Configurations 1, 4, EAT Om we Meme tee A Rho reae, cat telet a tr eit ne ree bye miele cy orecese evans arn cueserepe etatete eres 26 Configuration 9, seawall with beach breakwater.............-..sceees 27 Configuration 9, seawall with beach breakwater as it appearedwingthesmodelsstudy-sae cystine 45 Se fins On Pe See 28 Configuration 10, sheet-pile seawall with standard riprap revetment designed for less severe wave CON GUCTONS cs ss Bice stare racer aie ak tree a citehcasane a ley euelnuele! one evel mmevene creuetemmte es sertre 28 Comparison summary of data trends for Configurations: 17 Sic5% (Ol, vA aac cys vercive opsnane terete areve otal ore eisteyaneneee dee 31 Comparison summary-of data trends for Configurations. 1452, 4% cand Gea. ds se 32 bteeeer ses see toemene 32 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 acres 4O46 .873 square meters cubic feet per second per foot 0.929 cubic meters per second per meter feet 0.3048 meters inches 2.54 centimeters miles (US statute) 1.609347 kilometers pounds (mass) 0.4535924 kilograms pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.01846 kilograms per cubic meter square feet 0.09290304 Square meters tons (2,000 lb, mass) 907. 1847 kilograms IRREGULAR WAVE OVERTOPPING OF SEAWALL/REVETMENT CONFIGURATIONS, ROUGHANS POINT, MASSACHUSETTS Experimental Model Investigation PART I: INTRODUCTION Background 1. This report discusses laboratory model tests of irregular wave over- topping for seawall and revetment configurations being considered for use at Roughans Point, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The tests were initiated by US Army Engineer Division, New England (NED), because of a lack of confidence in their Wave overtopping estimates made by using the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) (1984). Roughans Point is a 55-acre* residential area which is partially pro- tected from coastal flooding by seawalls on both its northern and eastern boundaries. The Roughans Point interior suffers damage from frequent flooding caused by the overtopping of seawalls. Laboratory tests discussed in this re- port were part of a more comprehensive study which included extensive use of computer models to calculate the frequency of occurrence of flood water levels for the interior of Roughans Point, along the open coast to the north, and for estuarine areas along the Saugus-Pines River system. The physical model tests provided wave overtopping coefficients only for the various seawall/revetment configurations used in the numerical flood routing model for the interior of Roughans Point. Water level calculations for the coastline north of Roughans Point and the estuarine areas did not include consideration of wave over- topping. For further information about the computer models and the organi- zation of the entire study see Hardy and Crawford (in preparation). The model tests described in this report were conducted primarily to develop methods to reduce wave overtopping of the eastern seawall (Figure 2, Reach E), to deter- mine objective criteria for judging the effectiveness of the methods to reduce overtopping, and to provide wave overtopping coefficients to the numerical flood routing model. * A table of factors for converting non-SI to SI (metric) units is presented on page 3. SAUGUS ) AIRPORT Figure 1. Location and vicinity map KO Ee \ =) eoocos - Q Aa? wa Ricar t Be 200 400 FT Figure 2. Location of Reaches A through F at Roughans Point 2. A number of different revetment configurations were constructed in front of the Roughans Point seawall, and the wall crest elevation was varied to determine their ability to reduce wave overtopping of the wall. Results of this effort have yielded specific information to help solve the Roughans Point site-specific problem and general information which will help to improve cur- rent techniques for calculating irregular wave overtopping rates given in the SPM (1984). A simple way to quantify the overtopping potential of the various seawall/revetment configurations is presented. Purpose 3. The purposes of this two-dimensional (2-D) wave overtopping study were to: a. Evaluate the effectiveness of 10 proposed seawall/revetment configurations at reducing wave overtopping of the Roughans Point seawall. b. Determine a simple method to predict wave overtopping of the Roughans Point seawall. PART II: THE MODEL Model Design 4. Model tests were conducted in a wave tank 3 by 3 by 150 ft long. This tank had a hydraulically actuated piston wave blade which was controlled by an Automatic Data Aquisition Control System (ADACS) computer. In order to reduce scale effects, the largest scale consistent with the available facili- ties was used. The undistorted Froude scale used was 1:16 (model:prototype). Although this study was primarily concerned with overtopping rates for various seawall/revetment configurations, armor stone size distributions for the model revetments were carefully determined to correspond with prototype sizes de- signed by NED in their planning studies (NED 1982). Based on Froude's Model law (Stevens 1942) and the linear scale of 1:16, the following model-to- prototype relations were derived (dimensions are in terms of length (L) and time (T)): Model-to-Prototype Characteristic Dimension Seale Relations Length L Lp = 1:16 Area Le a2 = 1:256 Volume L3 V, = L2 = 1:4,096 Time T Teen ASR EN 5. The specific weight of fresh water used in the model was assumed to be 62.4 pef and that of seawater 64.0 pef. The specific weight of armor stone used in the model and that proposed for the prototype was 165 pef. These variables are related using the following transference equation: Cy Ce (' ) ela (), = (a), L, (ea - 1 W. = weight of an individual armor stone, lb where m, p = model-to-prototype quantities, respectively y. = specific weight of an individual armor stone, pcf a Lin/Lp = linear scale of model Sa = specific gravity of an individual armor stone relative to the water in which the breakwater is constructed, LE@eq Ss. = AN eas specific weight of water, pcf Model armor stone sizes ranged from 0.38 to 0.70 1b with a median weight of 0.55 lb for all configurations tested except one, Configuration 9, which used armor stone ranging from 0.593 to 1.431 1b with a median weight of 1.0185 lb. Applying the above transference equation, the equivalent range of weights tested was from 1,745 to 3,255 lb in the prototype, with a median weight of 2,551 1b prototype, and from 2,747 to 6,629 lb in the prototype, with a median weight of 4,718 lb, respectively. Model Conditions and Testing Procedures Wave tank calibration 6. A 1V on 100H slope was selected as representative of the Roughans Point bathymetry seaward of the eastern seawall. Using this bathymetry, wave conditions in the wave tank were measured at various locations using parallel wire resistance wave gages but without any seawall/revetment plan in place. Figure 3 shows the location of the gages. This setup allowed calibration of the wave tank apparatus without significant wave reflections, which is analo- gous to wave forecast by hindcast procedures. 7. During the initial tests of Configuration 1 (vertical seawall with no fronting revetment) severe wave reflections were created in the tank be- cause of the vertical wall. To eliminate this reflection, the tank was divided into two sections, one containing the test structure and the other containing a wave absorber to reduce the unnatural wave tank reflections. Figures 4 and 5 show plan and profile views of the partitioned sections of the wave tank for the final tests conducted on Configuration 1. Dividing of the tank significantly reduced the wave tank reflections for all test conditions; thus, it was decided Gage 7 in the wave absorber channel could be used to mea- sure the incident wave conditions rather than depend on the original calibra- tion data. Gage 7 was used to measure the incident zero-moment wave height Hao » but the period of peak energy density Tp was assummed on the basis of GAGE #1 2 3 TOP OF TANK GAGE #456 7 SEAWALL LOCATION Ww ja) <= S OVERTOPPING CONTAINER ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 (0) DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT Figure 3. Wave gage location in 3- by 3- by 150-ft-long wave tank conservation of wave period to be the period that was programmed to be gener- ated by the wave machine and therefore will be referred to as the nominal Tp é Test conditions 8. A wide range of wave conditions was represented in these tests. The periods of peak energy density Tp tested were 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 sec in the prototype. The still-water levels (swl) tested ranged between about +8.58 and +10.80 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The tests produced local zero-moment wave heights ranging from about 2.5 to 9.0 ft with most heights in the 5- to 8-ft range. Tabulated test conditions and data results are given in Appendix A. Test procedures 9. During a single test run, irregular waves were generated contin- uously for 33 min. The ADACS was programmed to produce a modified Joint North Sea Wave Program (JONSWAP) wave spectrum for the water depth at the wave blade. Water depths at the wave blade ranged from about 32.0 to 35.0 ft. JONSWAP spectra tend to be rather narrow (Hasselmann et al. 1973), in that a large portion of the total energy is concentrated near the frequency associ- ated with the period of peak energy density T Since wave shoaling and D- breaking were very conspicuous between the wave blade and structure for most TO WAVE MACHINE PROTOTYPE, FT NGVD GAGE #7 © WAVE ABSORBER FROM 5’ TO SEAWALL 25-7/8"" 7°-8-1/4” DIVIDER WALL IN TANK OPEN TO SEAWALL POSITION OF SEAWALL SCALE 1 (0) 1 2IPY SSS Figure 4. Plan view of Configuration 1, seawall BEACH LINE 26 Figure 5. with no fronting revetment +17.6’ NGVD CONTAINER OVERTOPPING ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT Configuration 1, seawall with no riprap revetment 12 of the tests, the wave conditions in front of the seawall do not have a JONSWAP spectrum but represent a wider type of spectrum. 10. Overtopping rates were determined by measuring the change in water level in the overtopping container behind the seawall during a test run. If overtopping rates were high, water was added to the seaside portion of the flume during the test run to compensate for the water lost over the wall and to maintain an approximately constant water level seaward of the seawall. Water levels were measured to the closest one thousandth of a foot before and after a test run, both in the overtopping container and the offshore portion of the wave tank, using point gages. 11. Information data presented in all the data tables are given in pro- totype dimensions. Table 1 is a list of the various seawall/revetment config- urations tested during this study with figure and plate numbers that corre- spond to their descriptions and data plots, respectively. Also note that the underlayer sizes shown in the cross-sectional figures are oversized in order to compensate for scale effects present in the model. 020 “0 81c0°O OnLO°O SS00°0 LEL0°O €800°0 eLl0°O GS10°0 O1€0°0 6120°0 8h °O 00° 0 L6L0°0 UOTSSe..4adJUON UOTSSaasay bY ‘quatotjjeog 3utqey Butddoquaag uotyeun3t juog 1S9"8L- 80S "601 €L0°€e- Leg" SOE be9°bLe- Oe 6Et 0) uoTSSaudajUuON €gl°Li- 681° SL Olh hl- 9ee°Sl Sl * ee~ LEO £6 69S" 61- 829° LS €t6° €2- LHS" €SE gee" Se- One’ 8SL L9h° Se- 6h LSL ‘1 Gg’ O2- Eth’ Set Leh EL- 6£S° 0€ gLO°Hl- HSS" 9L ° (0) uoTssauZey Ol eyed But mous Sayed ‘(2861 GAN) SuoTgest4seauy Zutuuetd uy Gan Aq papuewmooass uetTg a 0¢ 8l 9l Sl tL El LL Ol L‘9 S uoT4 -eun3Tt yuog suTmMous sounat 4 SUOTJTPUOD BAEM auaAaS SSaT JOJ peustsap ‘yueuqeaneu deudtu puepuejs uyImM [TTemMees attd-qaeus Jaq emyeouq yoraq uJIM [TTeMeas 4UTOg SUueUZNOY TTemees uo deo 4jJ-0°¢ © pue GADN 93 Qt qe wWueq aptm e BuTAeYy 4udMQaAeU deudtu ujIM TTemMees 4yUuTOg sueYsnoy TTemeas uo deo 4j-Q°| & pue GADN IJ Qt qe wueq apIm e BuTAeYy 4uoWQaAaU deudtu ujIM TTemMees 4yUTOg SueYsNOY TrTemeas uo deo 4J-Q°| pue GADN 4J OL+ ye Wuaq e& ZUTAeY 4UAaUIZaAaU deudtu uqImM [Temeas 4yuTog sueysnoy GADN 335 OL+ Pue gt qe wuaq atqnop e Zutaey 4uemyqaaed deudtu uqjIM TTemMeas yuTog sueysnoy GADN 33 8+ ye wueq optmM e ZuTAey yuoWwyaAoU deudtu ujIm TTemMeas JuTOg sueysnoy queuqeAed deudtu uaquosqe QAeM © UYIM TTeMBaS 4yUTOg SuUeYysNoY quowjaAed deudtu puep -ueyS UJIM TTeMees 4UTOg sueysnoy quowjeraeu deudtu ou uqtM TTemees yuyog sueysnoy BuTystxg uoTJedNsT JUD quauqeanay/TTemMeas jo uotydtuosag Ol RC Jaquny uoTyeustsaq uoTy -eungatjuog SqUeTOTJJao) UT 0449AQ pue Suequmy aun’tq “Suotzeunstjuog JuauyaAaY/T[eMeas SnoTueA JO 4ST | 8TOeL 14 PART III: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Development of Overtopping Parameters 12. One of the most important findings of this study was the develop- ment of a dimensionless relative freeboard parameter F' which consolidated all of the data for one structure configuration into a single trend. The term, F' is defined Es 173 (1) Where F is the freeboard, i.e., the difference between the crest height of the seawall and the local SWL, and L is the Airy wave length calculated p using the water depth at Gage 7 and the nominal T Equation 1 can be thought of as the ratio of the freeboard and the ald ine of the local wave action. The term F' combines a large amount of information into one param- eter which contains the seawall crest elevation, the local water depth or water level, the zero-moment wave height, and the period of peak energy density of the spectrum through the use of L This parameter, F' , seems to consolidate the data into a single trend Rise than other variables, in- eluding the parameter F/H,, suggested by the work of Goda (1969) and Seelig (1980) or the dimensionless freeboard parameter F/(T gH.) used by Owen (1982), where T, is the zero-crossing wave period, He is the significant wave height, and g is the acceleration of gravity. Using Ly in the F'! parameter seems to be a very effective way to account for wave period effects which are conspicuous when observing the laboratory tests. After a short time of model observation, it was obvious (other factors being equal) that the larger the T, of the spectra the greater the overtopping. Be Relivoniune the rationale given above, the overtopping rate Q is plotted versus F' (Plates 1-10) for all of the seawall/revetment configu- rations given in Table 1. The overtopping rate Q is defined as the volume of water overtopping the seawall per unit length of seawall per unit time. For this study, Q is given in units of cubic feet per foot per second. Also shown in Plates 1 through 10 is a regression curve which has been fit to the data shown in the respective plate. On some plates a second curve (nonre- gression) has been added. The second curve has been added where the data scatter suggests that for design purposes a trend more conservative than the regression curve should be used. The second curves are not regression curves but are curves that have been fit by eye on the basis of the judgment of the principal investigators. Where both curves are present the nonregression curve is the one that is recommended for use for design purposes. It should be noted that various vertical scales have been used in Plates 1-10. The vertical scales were chosen to help portray the observed data effectively, but the scales make direct comparisons between these plates difficult. Compar- isons between various configurations are made later in the text. 14, All of the curves shown in Plates 1-10 have been fit to an equation of the general form (2) where C, is a dimensionless coefficient, and % is a coefficient with the same units as Q (£t?/sec). The coefficients have been determined either by regression analysis or "fit by eye" as mentioned above. Equation 2 seems to have the proper form to fit all of the data sets rather well and is the same form as the overtopping equation developed by Owen (1982) in his laboratory study of irregular wave overtopping of sea dikes. Coefficients Q, and C, , for both regression and nonregression curves, are given in Table 1. 15. Although the parameter F' given by Equation 1 and used as the in- dependent variable for Plates 1-10 may seem a bit abstract at first, it is effective in consolidating the data into well defined trends that can be readily identified. Generally, there is a large change in Q in the range of F' between 0.3 and 0.5. For F' greater than 0.5 there is little wave overtopping, while for F' less than 0.3 there is considerable overtopping regardless of the seawall/revetment configuration. 16. These large amounts of wave overtopping result from the effect of large waves hitting the seawall or seawall/revetment at high water levels. The term high waves means those with crest elevations probably in the range of 70 to 80 percent of the freeboard. For these conditions it is difficult to envision a strategy which would be effective. The wave just surges up at the wall and inundates the recurve then spills over the crest of the seawall in 16 large masses of "green" water. It is hard to imagine any surface feature of the wall or fine tuning of the fronting revetment being particularly effective for this extreme situation. For the tests conducted in this study, the inundation mode of overtopping occurred primarily when F' was less than about 0.3. Because changes in the geometry of the various seawall/revetment configurations is not very important when overtopping is in the inundation mode, it was not deemed necessary to make comparisons of data trends for F' less than 0.3. 17. One simple way to evaluate the effectiveness of a seawall/revetment configuration is to use the area under the data trend curve. The less area under the curve the more effective the configuration. Because of the discus- sion given above, a logical lower limit for integration is 0.3, although other limits could be used. The overtopping ranking coefficient A is defined q oe C,|5% Q CBee i. 1 EES. 1 min Ay = Q, e dEU == g, e (3) PU min A, is shown in Table 1 using F',,, = 0.3. As with any complex phenomenon q no single parameter can be used to evaluate performance without considerable eare; but because this parameter seems to be such a logical extension of the method of computing overtopping rates developed in this report, it is pre- sented here. When evaluating structures, the smaller the value of Ag the more effective the seawall configuration. 18. At the request of NED, overtopping coefficients and overtopping ranking coefficients were calculated for a previous monochromatic wave over- topping study conducted by Saville (1955). Discussion of this effort and tabulation of the coefficients are given in Appendix B. Stability of Armor Stone 19. All configurations tested used the 2,551-lb median stone weight, except Configuration 9 which used 4,718-lb medium stone weight (as described in paragraph 5). Occasionally during testing, one or two armor stones would be dislodged, but this movement was not significant; and the armor stone for all configurations, except the double berm in Configuration 5 was observed to 7 be stable for all swl/wave conditions tested. The double berm in Configu- ration 5 merged into a single slope and then stabilized. The armor slope for Configuration 6 was purposely constructed similiar to the stabilized slope in Configuration 5 and proved to be stable throughout the testing of Configura- tion 6. With the exception of Configuration 5, armor stone movement for all configurations was not significant, with only one or two stones being dis- lodged after long periods of wave attack. Thus the stone size represented in the model should be satisfactory for any storms within the conditions tested. PART IV: DISCUSSION 20. It was found that a standard riprap revetment (Configuration 2) in front of the sere (Figures 6 and 7 and Plate 2) reduced wave overtopping rates in the range of 40 to 50 percent over what was expected to overtop in the absence of the revetment (Configuration 1, Plate 1). A comparison of the data trends for Configuration 1 and 2 is given in Figure 8. In general, the standard revetment did not reduce overtopping rates very effectively. Two problems, which were not detected prior to the test, can be identified with the standard revetment: a. If the top of the revetment is too high, it interferes with the recurve causing the recurve not to function effectively. If the revetment acts as a ramp, which it often does, it causes the waves to ride up and over the wall without a major disconti- nuity in the flow. This "ramp effect" is pictured in Figure 9. In 21. The wave absorber revetment (Configuration 3, Table 1, and Fig- ure 10) was an attempt to make the revetment a better wave absorber by adding armor stone. Configuration 3's performance (Plate 3) was poor because it was not recognized at that point how important it was to maintain discontinuities in the configuration, such as the recurve and the wall itself, to disrupt the wave action and runup flow. In designing Configuration 3, the main goal was to try to dissipate as much wave energy as possible within the spatial constraints. 22. The revetment with a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD (Configuration 4, Table 1, and Figure 11) was designed to provide a discontinuity to wave action and runup flow, to allow the recurve to function effectively, and to still be a good dissipator of wave energy. Configuration 4 results (Plate 4) show it to be a very effective design in reducing overtopping, and its performance is better compared to the standard revetment (Configuration 2 in Figure 12). 23. Configuration 5 (Table 1 and Figure 13), with a double berm, was an attempt to fine tune the idea developed in Configuration 4. The slope con- necting the two berms was 1V on 2H and was not stable with the more severe wave conditions. As a consequence, the two berms had merged into a single, somewhat sloped, berm by the end of the tests. Configuration 5's performance (Plate 5) indicates it was effective in terms of reducing overtopping, but the need for two berms is probably not worth the added design and construction complexity. A single rather flat slope between +6 and +10 ft NGVD probably 19 PROTOTYPE, FT NGVD ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR,FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT , Ws Wa 2551 LB Ww, 347 LB Wo 45 LB Figure 6. Configuration 2, seawall with standard riprap revetment ABSORBER FROM 5 FT TO SEAWALL DIVIDER WALL IN TANK TO Vor 4 a OF DIFFERENT SIZE STONE ‘ iy oS 200) SEAWALL SCALE 1 0 1 2 Py Es SC Figure 7. Plan view of Configuration 2 in wave tank 20 CONFIGURATION 7 OVERTOPPING RATE, Q, CFS/FT CONFIGURATION 2 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F’ Figure 8. Comparison of data trends for Configurations 1 and 2 ROUGHAN’S POINT SEAWALL WAVE TEST NO. 120 Figure 9. Configuration 2, seawall with standard riprap revetment as it appeared in the model study 21 PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD ; +176’ NGVD +/56' NGVD Se = Q gS KR = NES) BS aS DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, W509 Wa 2551 LB W, 347 LB Wo 45 LB Figure 10. Configuration 3, seawall with a wave absorber riprap revetment 24 25.5 3 +176. NGVO +8.0' NGVD OVERTOPPING CONTAINER 27 26 25 24 23 22 2i 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, W5 Wa 2551 LB Wy 347 LB Wo 45 LB Figure 11. Configuration 4, seawall with riprap revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD 22 ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 CONFIGURATION 2 OVERTOPPING RATE, Q, CFS/FT 0.2 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F’ Figure 12. Comparison of data trends for Configurations 2 and 4 ’ 18.0 +/7.6 NGVD S Sy ge q~ SN SS LS 9 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, Ws Wa 2551 LBS Wy 347 LBS Wo 45 LBS Figure 13. Configuration 5, seawall with riprap revetment having a double berm at +6 and +10 ft NGVD 23 ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR,FT would have been just as effective as the double berm. Problems with armor stability would not have been encountered, and construction would be easier. 24, Configurations 6, 7, and 8 (Table 1 and Figures 14, 15, and 16) use a combination of fronting revetment and a cap on the seawall in an effort to further reduce overtopping rates. Data plots of Q versus F' for each of these configurations are given in Plates 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Since all the data trends indicate that there is an approximately exponential relation between the freeboard and overtopping rates, adding a cap (vertical height) to the seawall would be an effective means of reducing wave overtopping. Fig- ure 17 shows a comparison of data trends for Configurations 1, INS hy Glotel (S} atin which Configuration 1 is a seawall with no revetment and Configurations als and 8 represent a revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a seawall with no cap, a 1.0-ft cap, and a 2.0-ft cap, respectively. These data show that a wide berm revetment (Configuration 4) is better than no revetment (Configuration 1), but Configuration 4 can be made more effective by adding height to the wall (Configurations 7 and 8). One way to think about the effectiveness of added wall height is to consider the amount of stone that would have to be placed in front of the seawall to obtain a similar amount of reduction in overtopping as a 1.0-foot cap on the seawall. Although Figure 17 does not answer this question quantitatively, it suggests that a 1.0-ft cap is equivalent to a significant amount of stone in front of the seawall. The co- efficients given in Table 1 and the curves drawn using the coefficients were computed using a seawall crest height of 17.6 ft NGVD in all cases. This ap- proach is rather like treating the cap as just additional stone to dissipate wave energy and is necessary to compare the effectiveness of various configu- rations with various seawall crest elevations. In principle, the performance of a cap (added wall height) can be anticipated using Equations 1 and 2 and test data for a configuration without a cap, but this approach was not tried because of lack of confidence in the ability to extrapolate results using such a new method of predicting overtopping rates. 25. Configuration 9 (Table 1 and Figure 18) is an attempt to evaluate the ability of an offshore breakwater to reduce wave overtopping without going very far offshore. Since the breakwater was so close to the seawall, it is referred to as a beach breakwater in Table 1. The beach breakwater was rela- tively effective at reducing overtopping (Plate 9) but even so, its per- formance seemed to be something of a disappointment. The appearance of the 24 1’ CAP +/76 NGVD +/00' NGVO PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD S eg aS RR eS wy S8 27 26 25 24 23 22 2i 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, W509 Wa 2551 LB W, 347 LB Wo 45 LB ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT Figure 14. Configuration 6, seawall with riprap revetment having a berm at +10 ft NGVD and 1.0-ft cap on seawall 24 255 1’ CAP +176 NGVD 16 a o z 8 2 = = Ww ee g S eG oOo -18\— ss | a iss x a & RES “16 SS -24 Co) 27 26 25 24 23 22 2! 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, Ws Wo 2551 LB Wi 347 LB We 45 LB ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT Figure 15. Configuration 7, seawall with riprap revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a 1.0-ft cap on seawall 25 2.0' CAP +/76 NGVD PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD Se ry x= SS aS 6 is) RS ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT 27 26 25 24 23 22 2l 20 i9- DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, Ws Wa 2551 LB Wy 347 LB Wo 45 LB Figure 16. Configuration 8, seawall with riprap revetment having a wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a 2.0-ft cap on seawall 0.7 x CONFIGURATION 1 X CONFIGURATION 4 0.4 Bs CONFIGURATION 8 Ee w a w 1S) Si xs < itd 0.6 ° (¥) 2 e e) = ac S (eo) O CONFIGURATION 7 ~_ 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F’ Figure 17. Comparison of data trends for Configurations 1, 4, 7, and 8 26 ‘ 2 465 3 +/7.6 NGVD 16 Y +/14'NGVO_ || free 1 saaeeree ec BEACH LINE BEDDING LAYER PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD fe} S Si Pa aS WS 9 ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT a ie} 27 26 25 24 23 22 2\ 20 19 DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, W509 Wo 4718 LB Figure 18. Configuration 9, seawall with beach breakwater beach breakwater and the seawall inspired considerable confidence since both represent formidable discontinuities to waves and runup flow and a consider- able amount of armor stone was used to dissipate wave energy. Figure 19 shows how the beach breakwater appeared in the model study. It appears that one problem with the beach breakwater was the lack of distance between the break- water and the seawall to dissipate as much wave energy as could potentially be achieved from all the turbulence that was introduced by the breakwater. How- ever, if the breakwater were moved farther offshore it would be in deeper water and therefore require a larger structure making construction more dif- ficult. There is also the problem that the breakwater requires larger armor stone because it has to be built with steeper side slopes than the revetment in order to fit into the allocated space. In addition, the beach between the breakwater and the seawall needs to be armored to prevent scour. Probably because of the roughness and high porosity of all the armor stone there was no tendency for wave resonance to be observed in the pond formed between the breakwater and seawall. The added complexity of building a beach breakwater compared to a revetment against the seawall suggests that the breakwater would not be cost effective. 26. Configuration 10 (Table 1 and Figure 20) is a sheet-pile seawall With a standard riprap revetment fronting it. A plot of Q versus F' for 27 Figure 19. Configuration 9, seawall with beach breakwater as it appeared in the model study 24 65 65 3 STEEL PILING +/7.0' NGVD 2 & PROTOTYPE,FT NGVD ELEVATION ABOVE TANK FLOOR, FT DISTANCE ALONG TANK FLOOR, FT LEGEND SYMBOL STONE WEIGHT, W5o Wa 2551 LB W, 347 LB Wo 45 LB Figure 20. Configuration 10, sheet-pile seawall with standard riprap revetment designed for less severe wave conditions 28 Configuration 10 is presented in Plate 10. This configuration has offshore water depths somewhat shallower than those for the other configurations. It was being considered for sheltered areas along Broad Sound (Reaches A through D, Figure 2) and was not intended for use on the open coast (see Hardy and Crawford (in preparation) for details related to the strategy for reducing flooding at Roughans Point). In the model the shallower offshore depths were achieved by lowering the reference water level 1.6 ft. As a result there is greater truncation of the large waves in the wave height distribution for this configuration than for the other configurations, and the results cannot be compared. Attempting to compare the results leads to the conclusion that a standard revetment fronting a sheet-pile seawall is unusually effective in re- ducing wave overtopping when contrasted to a standard revetment fronting the recurved seawall. The reason for the anomaly appears to be that overtopping rates are unusually sensitive to a few large waves, and there are not many of these large waves because of the shallow offshore water depths used for Configuration 10. 29 PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 27. A number of revetment configurations were tested for effectiveness in reducing irregular wave overtopping of the Roughans Point seawall. Results of the study are summarized in Figures 21 and 22. The tests indicate that a standard riprap revetment in front of the wall with the top of the riprap close to the top of the wall (Configuration 2, as recommended by NED) is not the most effective configuration for reducing overtopping. Configuration 4, a riprap revetment with a relatively wide berm at +8 ft NGVD and a wall crest elevation of +17.6 ft NGVD proved to be the most effective overall revetment configuration unless a cap is added to the seawall. This berm configuration appeared to be high enough and wide enough to dissipate wave energy well but still low enough so that the seawall provided an effective discontinuity to the wave and runup flow and allowed the recurve to function efficiently. To obtain the maximum effectiveness, the berm should have an elevation equal to the average annual high water event, be as wide as possible, and intersect the seawall low enough so that a major discontinuity to wave action and runup flow is maintained. By higher expected water levels a recurrence interval in the range of 1 to 5 years is implied. These findings appear to be consistent with recent research conducted at H.R.S. Wallingford on irregular wave overtopping of sea dikes (see Owen (1982) and Allsop*). 28. Increasing the height of the seawall is also a very effective method to reduce wave overtopping, although for many situations this option is not acceptable. 29. A new method to compute overtopping rates caused by irregular wave conditions has been presented which seems to have several advantages over the current method of computing irregular wave overtopping rates given in the SPM (1984). The method's advantages are that it: a. Is simple. b. Does not use the runup or potential runup to compute overtopping rates» ec. Is naturally well adapted for use with irregular wave conditions. d. Provides a simple way to compare and rank the effectiveness of various structural configurations in reducing wave overtopping. * Personal communication with N. W. H. Allsop, Hydraulics Research Limited, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England, 1985. 30 g pue ‘9 ‘Gc ‘€ ‘| suoTyeuNsTyuoD ywoJ spussy eyep Jo Auewums uostueduog SM/3‘GYvVO833Ns JAILV13Y 970 bvO 2v0 1X0) 80 9¢°0 8 NOILVHDISNOD 9 NOILVENDIINOD G NOILVYNIIINOD &£ NOILVYENIIINOD 1 NOILVYNIIINOD beO 2e0 "Le eun3ty re) £0 Ae) so 90 20 80 60 Oo! ral 44/S49'3LVY ONIddOLYSAO 31 6 pue ‘) ‘h ‘2 ‘| SuoTyZeunstTyuoj uoJ spusuy eqyep jo Aueuums uostuedmog *zz aun3Ty SM/4‘ QYVOS33NS JAILVI13Y SO 8r0 970 bv0 cv 0 Ae) sco 9¢°0 i Aom @) 220 £0 [pu fee a ——— a = = 1+ 1___1 —1__ ———l mt LL 00 ime) —s < ~~ = rae) \ DS SI (NOISSIH9IANON) Z NOMLVYNOIINOD \. 4 £0 Ss AN Nlge (NOISSIY9FIANON) 6 NO/LY4NII-INOI 4 \ (NOISSI49FANON) & NOILVHNIIINOD ee \ 2 NOILVHNIIANOD oe -9'0 / NOILVHNIIINOD -2o 80 60 414/S49‘ 31VY INIddOLYSAO 32 It is also believed that this new method is more accurate than the SPM method because it was developed directly from irregular wave conditions rather than being adapted. from monochromatic wave overtopping tests. 30. The new method of computing overtopping rates and overtopping data presented herein was used by Hardy and Crawford (in preparation) to compute the stage frequency curves for interior flooding at Roughans Point. 33 REFERENCES Goda, Y. 1969. "Reanalysis of Laboratory Data on Wave Transmission over Breakwaters,'" Report of the Port and Harbor Research Institute, Vol 18, No. 3, Yokosuka, Japan. Hardy, T. A., and Crawford, P. L. In preparation. "Frequency of Coastal Flooding at Roughans Point, Broad Sound, Lynn Harbor, and the Saugus-Pines River System," CERC Technical Report, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hasselmann, L., et al. 1973. "Measurements of Wind-Wave Growth and Swell Decay During the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP)," Deutsches Hydrogrephisches Institute, Hamburg, Germany. Hughes, S. A. 1984 (Dec). "The TMA Shallow-Water Spectrum Description and Applications," Technical Report CERC-84-7, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Owen, M. W. 1982 (Sep). "Overtopping of Sea Defenses," Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydraulic Modelling of Civil Engineering Structures, Paper #3, Coventry, England, pp. 469-480. Saville, T., Jr. 1955 (Oct). "Laboratory Data on Wave Runup and Overtopping on Shore Structures," Technical Manual-64, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Seelig, W. N. 1980 (Jun). "Two-Dimensional Tests of Wave Transmission and Reflection Characteristics of Laboratory Breakwaters," CERC Technical Report 80-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Shore Protection Manual. 1984, 4th ed. 2 vols, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Stevens, J. C., et al. 1942. “Hydraulic Models," Manual on Engineering Practices No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. US Army Engineer Division, New England. 1982. "Roughans Point, Revere, Massachusetts, Coastal Flood Protection Study," Waltham, Mass. 34 .d‘QUV0833us SAILV13Y SL0 S90 sc'0 Sv0 seo Sc 0 14/S49 ‘0 ‘3LVY ONIiddOLYSAO M3IA 31150u¥d Oc oC PLATE 1 S9'0 MalA J114d0ud .d‘GQYVO83s3Se4 SAILV13Y Ss'0 Sv'0 Se 0 £0 30 OL 14/S49 ‘D ‘ALVY ONIddOLYSAO PLATE 2 0.7 0.6 = wW > uJ = w ro) ra a £ Si ~ SY fo) lo) fo) fo) 14/S49 ‘D0 ‘3LVY DNiddOLYSAO 0.1 0.58 0.54 0.5 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.3 RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F’ v9 90 950 M3JIA 311450u4d .d‘OYVO833Sys SAILV13Y cS'0 8r0 vv0 v0 NOISSFYDIYNON 9¢°0 ce 0 S00 LO SLO c0 Sc0 £0 Se0 14/S49 ‘DO ‘SLVY ONIddOLY3AO PLATE 4 0.22 PROFILE VIEW 0.18 © + = - ° fo) N - SS oO oO Gy (>) 14/S49 ‘0D ‘3LVY DNlddOLYAAO 0.58 0.54 0.5 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.34 RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F’ PLATE 5 id ‘GQUVO8SSY4 SAILV1SUY cv 0 14/S49 ‘DO ‘ALVY ONiddOLHYSAO M3IA 311d0ud PLATE 6 d‘auvogsasys SAILV 144 MAaIA 311d08d NOISSIY¥Y944d 14/S49 ‘OD ‘ALVY ONIddOLYSAAO PLATE 7 vS'0 s0 9v'0 M3IA 3114504d »4d‘GYVvVOdssays SAILV14Y cv'0 8e°0 ve 0 14/S49 ‘OD ‘SLVY ONIddOLYSAO PLATE 8 id ‘OYVO8sSus SAILV14SHY L0 90 s'0 v0 0 \ NOISSIY9IYNON \ M3IA 31140ud 14/S49 ‘D0 ‘3LVY ONIiddOLYSAO PLATE 9 4d ‘OYvogssdds SAILV 144 c9'0 8S°0 vs'0 s'0 900 cv 0 8e0 ve0 £0 ALVY ONiddOLYAAO ‘ ie) ‘ 14/Ss49 M3IA 411d08d PLATE 10 APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES Table Al Seawall With No Revetment Data, Configuration 1 Gage Gage Seven Nos. Seven Noa. Ave. Tor Qvtp. Ovtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth L SWL SWL2 FRED depth level! Jevel2 rate Frbd. No. ft. Selo ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. cfs/ft Flus 1 5.55 B 12.464 154 2.03) 2.027 9136 8.944 0.327 0.341 0.033620 0.543734. 2 6.8 B 12.455 158 2.031 2.026 9.148 8.936 0.341 0.383 0.100287 0.475287 Seeegy 8 12.52 154 2.031 2.038 908 , 9 0.383 0.431 0.114664 0.454255 C2 75 B 12.472 158 2.034 2.025 9128 8.952 0.431 0.486 0.131452 0.458343 5 3.79 9 12.472 175 2.031 2.028 9128 8.952 0.486 0.514 0.066948 0.506108 6 6.79 9 12.44 175 2.031 2.028 9%16 8.92 0.514 0,573 0.161129 0.456705 TaaTeg? 9 12.464 175 2,031 2.027 «94136 «= 8.944 ~=—00573 04 0. 160384 0.437238 8 7.82 9 12.424 175 2.031 2.022 9.176 8.908 0.68 0.72 0.191616 0.416392 9 4.09 10 12.496 195 2,031 2.031 9.104 8.978 0.729 0.734 0.011982 0.613863 10 4.08 10 12.488 195 2.031 2.03 9.412 8.968 0.734 0.74 0.014379 0.615405 15.78 10 12,408 195 2.031 2.02 9.192 9.888 0.78 0.77 0.071908 0.493308 12 &.76 10 12.448 195 2.031 2.025 9.152 8.928 0.77 0.83 0.143879 0.441441 ISeenye2i 10 12.416 195 2.031 2.021 9.186 8.895 0.83 0.91 0.191970 0.424355 147.84 10 12.4 «= 19S.s«2.031= 2.0019 «2S ~SsiBBBSSCL SSO 97 0.144075 0.416289 1S 5.88 7 12.472 133 2.031 2.028 9128 8.952 0.97 0.971 0.002801 0.548917 16 6.88 7 12,448 133 2.031 2.025 9.152 8.928 0.97 0.987 0.040838 0.510800 17,92 7 12.418 133 2.031 2.021 9.184 8.895 0.987 1.01 0.055260 0.495462 19 «7.29 7 12.408 133 2.031 2.02 9.192 8.688 1.01 1.033 0.055272 0.472989 196.28 7 12.424 {33 2.031 2.022 9.176 8.904 1.033 1.047 0.033650 0.532077 2 6.31 8 12.448 154 2.031 2.025 9152 9.928 1.06 1.085 0.060108 0.500022 216.35 9 12.448 175 2.031 2.025 9.152 8.928 1.081 1.931 0.120255 0.477149 22 ~»««6.S! 10 12.432 195 2.031 2.023 9.168 8.912 1.131 1,18 0.117907 0.453463 US 9 12.426 175 2.031 2.022 9.176 8.908 1.179 1.257 0.187802 0.412532 24 4.84 7 13.228 137 2.078 2.075 8.378 9.708 0.102 0.109 0.016672 0.547849 25 6.24 7 13.176 137 2.078 2.069 «8.424 «= 9.655 0,109 «0,129 0.087842 0.482119 ae ubee 7 13.168 137 2.078 2.068 8.632 9.648 0.129 0.168 0.092930 0.464256 mH Gab 7 43.152 137 2.078 2.065 8.448 9.632 0.148 0.228 0.143039 0.456389 28 4.56 @ 13.248 158 2.078 2.078 8352 9.728 0.228 0.288 0.038157 0.561817 296.05 B 13.184 188 2.078 2.065 8.456 9.628 0.244 0.348 0.248171 0.471095 30 a9 B 13.178 188 2.078 2.069 8.428 9.458 0.348 0.396 0.114625 0.497853 Sy 6e87, 8 13.16 158 2,078 2.067 8.44 9.68 0.396 0.489 0.222239 0.432001 324.95 9 13.168 180 2.078 2.068 8.432 9.648 0.489 0,505 0.038255 0.514165 336.08 9 13.16 180 2.078 2.067 8.44 964 0.505 0.59 0.205723 0.448727 Stab 9 13.072 180 2.078 2.056 8.528 9.552 0.591 0.723 0.316096 0. 40558 Suet 9 13.09 180 2.078 2.059 8.504 9.578 0.739 0.863 0.297354 0.396623 3b «4,98 10 13.152 201 2.078 2.066 8.448 9.632 0.863 0.898 0.079194 0.495869 STenbe2S 10 13.176 201 2.078 2.069 8.626 9.658 0.896 0.989 0.223322 0.424744 Ou aTALS 10 13.024 201 2.078 2.08 8.576 9.504 0.989 1.109 0.288455 0.395208 SH TASS 10 13.088 201 2.078 2.058 8.512 9.568 1.109 1.258 0.353814 0.33509! © 6.91 10 13.072 20L 2.078 2.056 8,528 9.852 1.256 1.359 0.288210 0.401294 re 9 13.088 180 2.078 2.058 8.512 9.568 1.359 1.458 0.238803 0.431077 (26.44 @ 13.16 158 2.078 2.057 8.84 9.68 1.458 1.519 0.147255 0.451023 83 72.03 8 13.176 158 2.078 2.069 8.426 9.658 1,519 1.625 0.258092 0.424815 4h 7.88 9 13.08 180 2.078 2.057 952 9.58 1.625 1.767 0.343476 0.38765! 43 6.15 12 13.86 243 2.078 +=. 2.067 8.44 9.64 0.012 0 46 6.56 12 13.46 243 «2.078 += 2.087 8.44 9.64 0.135 0 47 4.82 7 13.728 140 «2.125 2.091 7.872 10.208 06.267 0 e135 0.292873 0.402924 0267 0.394695 0.385955 ° 2281 0.033400 0.531305 48 6.22 7 13.792 140 2.125 =2.099 «= 7.808 §=10.272 0.281 0.323 0.100229 0.444600 49 6.73 7 13.792 140 «2.825 92.099 = 7.808 =10.272 0.323 = 0.429 0.253141 0.421845 30 7.3 7 14.982 140 «2.425 «2.139 39 7.488 = 10.592 = 0. 429 0.438 0.499888 0.376370 (Continued) Ae Table A1 (Concluded) ee Bage - Gage Seven Noa. Seven Noa. Ave. Toe Ovtp. Ovto. dvtp. Rel. Tast Hao Tp depth L SWL1 SWL2 FRBD depth leveli level? rate Frod. No. ft. SBC. fice tt, st. ft. ft, ft, ft. ft. cts/ft F/ws is: 4.74 B 13.912 162 -2..139 2. 7.688 10.392 0.638 0.679 9.098182 0.499792 52 6.2 8 13.992 162 2.125 2.124 7.608 10.472 0.679 0.809 0.311570 0.421758 53 7.85 9 14,4 Nes AnH} ad Sia 7.2 «10.88 «= 0.809 = $294 1.165847 6.334785 54 7.55 & 14.296 LO ZIr2 o)l\7 Oneal Ltt com to OS mn! Ony//7 Gnmmmel 20.6 1.58 0.641799 0.348143 33 5.1 9 13.832 184 2.12 2.104 7.768 16.312 1.56 1.649 0.215088 0.460952 5 6.47 9 14.2 184 0 -2.125 2.4 7.4 = 10.58 0.02 0.35 0.765195 0.374705 =7/ 7.69 os 164 of | An ilt Sy 7.24 = 10.84 0.35 9.791 1.055161 0.326728 5 7.95 9 «14.36 184 2.145 2.15 Yorks MEE OpaAihh 1.28 1.175301 0.319561 xi 5.0! 10 £4,392 206 2.15 2.1489 7.208 10,872 0.21 0.28 0.166955 0.416837 60 6.55 10 14.264 206 «2.149 92,134 = 7.336 10.744 0.28 0.535 0.609160 0.754821 ry 7.4 10 14.096 206 «2.134 © 2.128 = 7.504 §=610.576 = 053 0.84 0.730590 0.334592 62 8.21 10 13.952 206 = «2.125 2,119 =-7.64B8 )= 10.432 «0.039 =O. 289 0.595798 6.318197 3 6.97 el {stored 250 2.125 2.091 7.872 10.208 0.289 0.44 0.360567 0.342465 64 6.98 12 14.176 2502.12 2.147 7.424 = 10.654 0.44 0.784 0.823406 0.322666 65 3.84 7 14.176 £60 2.147 2.125 7.424 10.656 0.784 6.787 0.007192 0.583052 66 2.48 8 13.96 WP) Be leads} 2.12 7.64 10.44 6.787 0.788 0.002397 0.726382 67 6.84 8 13.928 162 2.125 2.116 = 7.672 10.408 »~= «0.788 = 1. 011 0.535269 0.390570 68 2.86 9 14.01 184 2.125 2.127 7.884 «610.496 ~=—s*1. 01! 1.025 0.033643 6.661782 69 NA 9 14,04 184 902.127 392.128 7.56 10.52 1.02 1.3537 0.750941 NA 70 2.7 10 14.04 LO Bien silvc Gimme att) 7.56 10.52 0.448 0.457 0.021509 0.640!71 71 7.6 10 13.896 2OG Te «11202 tl cum A NNO nS 7 GEN OST) 0.78 0.773188 0.337456 72 2.91 12 i 25h) in STa) Bl, Sa} 7.6 = 10.48 0.78 0.78 0 0.653207 73 8.05 9 13,744 184 92.125 2.095 7.856 10.224 0.78 1.146 0.879055 0.343973 74 4.44 7 14.736 US Scat 2.17 6.864 9 i1.215 0.08 0.059 0.065638 9. 485895 75 8.11 7 14.496 183 2.172 2.14 7.104 10.976 0.039 0.197 0.376375 0.334545 76 7.57 8 14.648 L6G pecelii2e sur als 6.952 11.128 9.197 0.526 0.785583 0.328102 77 8.55 8 14.496 166 = 2,172 21 7.104 10.976 0.528 0.946 1.006533 0.709140 78 8.82 7 15.056 {432.172 2.2 6.544 11.536 0.946 1.931 2.376665 0.293147 79 4.01 8 14,672 Gb Za 2 262 serss 928) wal S2) Senn ga! 0.51 0.164940 0.499431 2 $.59 9 14.744 189 92.17 2.171 6.856 11.224 0.51 9.568 0.138731 0.435086 al 7.83 9 14.504 189 2.172 2.141 7.096 10.984 0.025 0.41! ¢.920398 0.313582 82 9.05 9 14.288 1890241722114 = 7.312) 10.768 = 0. $12 0. 886 1.137374 0.293393 83 4.23 10 14.416 AU mere ale 2.13 7.184 10.896 0.886 0.913 0.064808 0. ce 84 7.86 10) 14.248 21 2.172 2.109 97,352 10.728 = 0. 016 = 0.328 0.743615 0.3123 85 8.59 10 «14.424 2! 2.172) 2.1310 7.176 = 10.908 »= 0.328 ~=—S 0. 783 1.088499 0. Fre 6 7 12 14.416 2oblmereeiic. 2.13 7.184 10.896 0.57! 0.786 0.514961 0.309186 a7 7.83 12 14.392 256 = 2.172, 2.127) 3S 7.208 »=6 10.872 »= 0.206 ~=s 0.578 0.888522 0.287890 88 3.93 5 i4.5 $6 2.172 2.148 7.04 =i1.04 0.578 0.583 0.011964 0.617581 89 6.9 5 15.224 96 3.172 02.238 0G 376 ti. 704 = 0.583 0.75 0.399946 0.384201 90 8.38 7 14.983 Mes afl 2.13 6.712 11.368 0.176 0.529 0.842816 0.311107 A3 Test No. Gage Seven Yao Table A2 Standard Revetment Seawall Data, Configuration 2 Gage Noa. Seven Tp Depth ft. Ovtp. level ft. Ovtp. Ovtp. Relative level2 rate Frbd. ft, cts/ft F/ws oo 4 oO WwW Oo hs = tf WD MD oe 2 RI WS ~O CO oe © O& o* = HPO UO CO S&S © wo NCA OH ON OO —- tN D- ~~ oO cn rw cn r= — es eo 2 mr Mr NY MH MH IY RIW ww SS SS pe ot co oa ee ee ee we SS o a 2 2 v c wearer) o> pe ee me er t-2 P23 (YD P-3 0-2 On 2 cn i ao oa oo moc — e-2 Lael on o 12.336 12.328 12.408 12.408 12.416 12.408 12.48 12,536 12.17 13.202 13,152 15.08 a 44 rnowvnvmomonwrrt oaowomonsnnrtwwmnrnrnnvranoonrc ao -O -o 13,872 13.92 13.96 14,688 14.536 14.2% 14,672 14,672 14,208 14.184 14,288 £4,256 NA 15.3 oow aw oO wD 4 co) o > a Doowwo om @Wonrna~ Hon. Lp Gage Ave. Toe Seven SWL1 SHLZ FRBD Depth ft, ft. ft. ft. ft, 154 = 2.021 Bold oa flit 8.968 153 Goths Boll Poked Ehatet USS mre 02 mre’ OCA NO er 9.016 ys Bote Botte 9.254 99.916 RS 2.021 Ao) Ook Bova} ayy A AOR Ge 8.744 73 2.012 2.93% 9.416 8.664 Siena! 2 9.432 8.648 173 2.021 2.914 9.344 8.736 1948 2.921 «2.021 9.264 8.816 UY oh aOR Ge GAGE May Bali Hol Dove Mie 90 2.025 2.021 9.264 8.816 ES) BoE AoW Gok Garars ALY ORS OU RR Sera 23 2.02! 2.021 9.264 8.816 i353 2.021 2.02 9.272 8.808 {SS ieee 051 2.02 9.192 8.888 1Spencst Ane) oS GoELT:) 15 2.031 2.021 9.184 8.996 332.031 2.02 9,192 98.888 WS Boel atte) Go lZ 8.96 Wa ANOS 20st anced USSG 136 2.078 2.069 8.424 = 9.856 ty oes oR ose AEE 15 7.078 2.066 8.448 9.622 15 Bo: AOR 8.52 9.56 Wk) Bae} aye 8.44 9.64 WA) Boles) OH) oss | asi 200 2.978 2,067 8.44 9,64 Wh nO ORES SG QaGBYS 13 Zia aN ork S@aasal 12 AoW) AoMOll Yorke MWazzt [620Reee ol Zone Ce Ov cumOne Cg 1G 202s)! 2 mmme onl lic mmm O Some Ostsi0 NEB etl} a SI) Yous Raw MS Api) GR orl} Mass AY Ah} Aa ili 7.68 10.4 206 Ieee 25 2.12 7.64 10.44 14300-25172 02.164 6.912) 1. 168 14200 2.72 2.145 7.064) 11,016 Re ee BGG) 7.38 10.72 We) alles II BoE} RB a BER Ws Galles Boh. Oot) Wo flee 163 2.872 2.104 =67.392 10.688 95 2.172 2.101 7.416 19.568 Me aofls of) = Yo | BGT A Qo hye Ril 7.384 10.726 NA 2.172 NA Na Na A) ae Bolles 7.24 10.94 (Continued) AY an ~ 2 >< S408 oo co CO CO D2 NY OM O&O OO CH mao wowo ss — CARI YM O — 0.099 0.046502 0.700666 0.146 0.062202 0.446889 0.227 9.107267 0.43995¢ 0.925824 0.977839 2 9.485135 3 Soe ebh v 7 iy 0.02 ). 80 Ns BO. “410967 6 9.023904 0. 484014 1 0.071761 0.461093 9 0.143635 0.430085 2 9.005952 0.645019 7 0.019861 0.537347 “162 0.086525 ¢. 469701 0.93 0.223913 0.431164 0.059 0.031739 0.460653 0.255 0.005206 0.537573 0.278 6.030482 0.482977 0.288 0.013255 0.507669 9.359 0.094150 0.445705 9.387 0.037147 0.488215 0.466 0. £04862 0.498007 Bae 0.026560 0.525482 0.56 0.098319 0.441901 9.597 0.049185 0.497709 0.728 0.187601 0.426521 0.932 0.125210 0.462862 pos! Douten) esta: 9,702 0.103775 0.435519 0.917 0.784482 0.383392 0,252 9.955644 0.45 0.414 0.224841 0.388764 3.29 0.100906 0.440722 9.765 0.565747 0.338513 0.881 0.175878 0.395521 1.172 9.388528 0.328366 0.647 0.186107 0.377527 1.104 0.609271 0.320571 1.22 0.132364 0.378484 0.791 0.228930 0.347684 1.046 9.340107 9.350379 1.191 9.193769 0.379516 0.944 0.414911 0.325483 0.712 0.356265 ¢.329661 0.722 0.279812 0.359230 1,272 O.467621 9.325435 1.298 9.956495 0.293785 KA NA NA O.SLE O.500517 O.T11871 ~ Table A2 (Concluded) Sa ee Gage - Gage Non. Lo . Test Seven Noa. Seven Sage Ave. Toe = Ovtp. Ovtp. Qvtp. Relative No. Hac Tp Depth Seven SWLi SWL2 FRED Depth laveli level2 rate Frbd. fits sec. ft. ft. ft. tt. ft. fi. ft. ft, cfs/ft F/us ~T42-909—~*«~‘”SiCTGSC207S72~S«2sdSC*«‘TC*A2A~=«*dWGSE OSE 1B1 0.883686 0.288001 143 5.35 12 14,564 255 2.172 2.161 6.936 11.144 O13 9.397 0.353850 0.357518 144 6.9 12. 14.792 256 2.174 2.17 6.848 11.252 0.357 0.9 9.669121 0.297628 145 7.71 12 14.744 256 2.172 2.171 6.856 11.224 0.607 1.046 0.589995 0.276746 144 6.98 3 14.52 sh) 2.172 2.143 7.08 {i 0.247 0.266 0.025178 0.426812 147 6.49 10 14.296 208 2.172 2.115 7.304 10.776 0.266 0.325 0.978216 0.354232 A5 Gage Seven Noa. Test Hao Tp No. ft. seco Baie RES 3 9, ey ba59 8 3 7.32 8 4 4.81 5 5 5.61 5 6 6.39 5 7 6.09 7 8 6.96 7 9 7.68 7 10 6.05 9 11 7.2 9 12 8.03 9 13 5.97 10 14 6.82 10 15 7.39 10 16 5.72 8 17 6.86 8 138 6.73 8 13.408 13.984 Table A3 Absorber/Revetment Seawall Data, Configuration 3 A6 Noa. Ave. Toe Ovtp. Ovto. Ovtp. Rel. Lp SWLY SHL2 FRED depth level! level2 rate Frbd. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. chs/ft Flus ga (aeser {eQl0S CDS Deas 728 LOTSA OLoGi |) 0; (250 loscasmmnNONaae 163.84 2.15 2.14 7.28 $0.8 0.125 0.304 0.237 0.379 163.22 Pils Aa fhe} 7.4 10.68 0.304 0.524 0.272 0.359 94.77 2.15 2.145 7.24 10.84 0.524 0.528 0.005 0.557 94.79 2.15 2.146 7.232 10.848 0.528 0.533 0.007 0.502 94.65 2.15 2.139 7.288 10.792 0.533 0.549 0.021 0.464 140.92 2.15 2.13 7.36 10.72 0.549 0.591 0.056 0.424 141.03 2.15 2.133 7.336 10.744 0.591 0.4688 0.129 0.387 141.23 2.15 2.139 7.288 10.792 0.688 0.835 0.195 0.360 185.19 2.15 2.12 7.44 10.64 0.855 6.984 0.172 0.393 185. 19 2.15 2.12 7.44 10.64 0.984 1.225 0.322 0.350 186.15 25) 2.14 7.28 10.8 1.225 1.678 0.607 0.318 207.25 2.15 2.121 7.432 10.688 0.045 0.35 0.404 0.382 207.47 2lSizales 7.4 10.68 0.35 0.665 0.418 0.348 207.19 2.15 2.12 7.44 810.64 0.665 1.075 0.547 0.331 159. 28 2.4 2.082 6.144 9.938 1.075 1.13 0.073 0.470 159.02 2.4 2.076 8.192 9.888 {.13 £214 0.112 0.419 162,09 254 25048) 7 bL6 N08S4 ZN 279) 297 eases Table A4 Riprap with Wide Berm Data, Configuration 4 Sage Gage Seven Noa. Seven Koa. Ave. Toe Qvtp. OQvtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth L SWLI SWL2 FRED depth lavell level2 rate Frbd. No. ft. sec. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. cés/ft F/us @ = eccceccocccesscesecscosccecses ec cooeoesooeesesscccecsccsccccesceceseceosceccccceccccoescccce Secs ec ceeesoeccoccesccoweeo 25 6.630 M312 1423 215-2139 7.288 10.792 00727 0.749 0.029 0.397 26 (7,244 14,376 141,51 2615 2.147 7.224 10.856 0.749 0.812 0.088 0.370 277.856 14.276 181.18 21S 2.137 76304 10.778 0.812 0.897 0.113 0.355 28 6,233 14.240 185.67 2.15 2.130 7.380 10.720 0.980 1.189 0.228 0.381 296.999 14.160 185.19 2.152.120 7.640 10.640 1.149 1.207 0.078 0.357 30 8.128 14,200 185.43 2.15 2.125 7.400 10.680 0.289 0.460 0.227 0.32 315.927 10 14.280 207.78 2615241307360 10.720 0.450 0531 0.088 0.379 326.9897 = 10.«sA4,240 207,74 = 2.15 2.130 7.380 10,720 0.531 0.852.161 0.340 337,732, 1014, 108 208.812.152.113 70495 10.588 0,852 0.793 0.188 9.324 344,769 12,47 251000 2.15 26122 7.424 10656 0,793 0.808 0.0170 815 356.070 = 12«14,320 252.22 «2.152.140 7.280 10.800 0.806 0.931 0,167 0.388 Jo 6.759 1214048 249.91 = 21S 26108 74552 10.528 0.931 1198 0.354 0.335 37 Wiigss2t @ 13.576 159.92 2.10 2.097 8.024 10.058 0.235 0.279 «0.058 0.824 397.191 B 13.568 159.88 2.10 2.096 8.032 10.089 0.323 0.399 0.101 0,397 40 4.873 5 13.576 92.82 2.10 2.097 8.024 10.058 0.399 0.400 0.0010. 617 415.989 5 13.600 92.88 2.10 2,100 8.000 10.080 0.400 0.401 0.001 0.534 (26.456 5 13.600 92.88 2.102.100 8.000 10.080 0.401 0.402 0.001 0.509 43 6.106 7 13,600 138.11 2.10 2100 8.000 10.020 0.402 0.407 0.007 0.882 446,939 7 13,600 138.11 2.10 2,100 8.090 10.080 0.407 0.420 0.017 0.425 457.480 7 13.584 138.04 2.10 2.098 8.018 10.064 0.420 0.454 0,045 0.405 4 6,315 9 13.528 181.30 2.10 2.091 8.072 10.008 0.454 0.502 0,088 0.417 477.116 9 13.546 181.40 2.10 2.095 8.056 10.024 0.502 0.573 0.098 0.385 487.764 9 13.498 180.80 2.10 2.081 8.152 9.928 0.573 0.873 0.133 0,349 49 S.7I3 10.13.5480 203,01 2.102.095 8.040 10.080 0.673 0.685 0.018 0.428 SO 6.800 = 1013.52 202.78 «2.102.091 8.072 10.008 0,685 0.780 0.073 0.383 51 6.819 10 13.552 202.95 2.102.098 8.088 10.032 0.780 0.795 0.073 0.281 52 4.660 «:12.—«*1S.S9P 246,05 2.10 26190 8.001 10.979 0.795 0.795.000 0.458 535.764 = 12-«13,580 245.71 2410 2.098 8.040 10,080 0.795 0.842 0.083 0.399 S$ 6.316 = 12,—«13.592 245.99 2.192.099 8.008 10.072 0.842 0.988 Oat 0.374 AT Table A5 Riprap with Two Berms Data, Configuration 5 a Gage Gage Seven Noa. Seven Noa, Ave. Toa Qvtp. Ovtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth L SWLI SWL2 FRED depth level! Jevel2 rate Frbd. Ne. ft. sec. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. #t. ft. cfs/it F/us 555.968 8 14.399 164.25 2.15 2.150 7.20! 10.879 0.200 0.227 0.036 0.400 56 6.985 8 14.328 163.88 2.15 2.161 7.272 10.808 0.227 0.300 0.097 0.368 577.368 8 14,208 163.28 2.15 2.126 7.392 10.688 0.300 0.414 0.151 0.357 584.880 5 14.399 94.86 2.15 2.150 7.201 10.879 0.418 0.818 000 0.549 59 5.806 5 16.392 94.84 2.15 2.169 7.208 10.872 0.414 0.417 0.008 0.489 60 6.456 5 16.399 94.86 2.15 2.:50 7.201 10.879 0.417 0.417 .000 0,455 b1 6.273 7 16376 141.51 2.15 2.147 7.224 10.855 0.417 0.430 0.017 0.408 62 7.180 7 16.368 141.47 2.15 2.846 7.232 :10.848 «= 0.430 0.470» 0.053 0,378 637.973 7 (6392 141.58 2.15 2.149 7.208 10.872 0.596 0.680 0.112 0.347 64 6 Ald 9 16.392 186.59 2.15 2.149 7.208 10.872 0.680 0.733 0.071 0.365 657.280 9 14.304 186.06 2.15 2.138 7.296 10.788 0.733 0.854 0.161 0.38 6b 8.008 9 14.080 184.70 2.15 2.110 7.520 10,560 0.654 1.069 0.287 0.330 67 5,703 10 14.320 208.29 2.15 2.140 7.280 10.800 1.069 1.095 0.035 0.385 68 6.816 10 14.360 208.58 2.15 2.145 7.240 10.840 1.095 1.215 0.160 0.340 69 7.672 10 14.260 207.74 2.15 2.130 7.380 10.720 1.215 1.300 0.114 0.319 70 4.709 12 14.400 252.90 2.15 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.720 0.759 0.052 0.405 11 5,972 12 14.280 251.69 2.15 2.135 7.320 10.760 0.75? 0.859 0.133 0.352 72) T8278 12 16,240 251.55 215 2.130 7.360 10.720 0.859 1.047 0.251 0.310 73 5.726 B 13,600 100.05 2.10 2.100 8.000 10.080 0.010 0.020 0.013 0.480 74 6,882 8 13.504 159.53 2.10 2,088 8.09 9.984 0.020 0.047 0.036 0.413 A8 Table A6 Capped Seawall with Berm Data, Configuration 6 Gage Gage Seven Nos. Seven Noa Ave. Tor Qvtp. Ovtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth (L SWLI SWL2 FRED depth levell level2 rate Febd. Ne. ft. sec. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. tt. cfis/{t Flus eccccconccc co ec oo ee seco oe ce coco oeeeseserorscesors cose cose esos cece oces cece ec cece ocoecocccccc ca. 7h 5.828 8 14.399 164.25 2.15 2.150 7.201 10.879 0.030 0.098 0.087 0.406 17 “7.040 8 14,360 164,05 2.15 2.145 7.240 10.840 0.098 0.152 0.078 0.380 78 7.809 8 14.352 164.01 2.152.148 7.248 10.832 0.152 0.225 0.098 0.338 79 5.157 S 14.400 94.86 2615 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.228 + 0.227-««0.001 0.52 80 6.241 5 14.400 94.86 2.15 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.227 «0.228 + 0.0010 bs B 6.945 5 14,280 94.48 © 2615 26130 7.360 10.720 0.245 0.282 0.089 0,488 82 6.780 7 14,400 141.61 2.15 2,150 7.200 10.880 0290 0.298 +0110. 388 a3 7.514 7 14.400 141.61 2615 2.150 7,200 10.880 0.298 0.320 0.028 0.340 Bs 8.250 7 14,208 180.78 2.152.128 7,392 10.688 0.320 0,880 0,159 0.348 BS 6.467 9 18.256 185.77 215 2,132 7.344 10,735 0.440 0.878 0.088 0.371 8 7.589 9 14.232 185.62 2.152.129 7,368 10.712 0.975 +0557 0.108 0.3% 878.445 9 14.280 185.67 2.152.130 7.360 10.720 0.557 0.890 0.177 0.311 8B 6.201 10 14.320 208.29 2.15 2.180 7.280 10.800 0.690 0.710 0,027 0.368 89 7.239 10 16.328 208.34 ©2415 2.141 7.272 10.808 +0710 0,788 «0.108 0,328 $0 7.945 = 10 14,248 207,80 «261524131 7.352 10.728 0.788 ~— 0.878 += 0.120 0.312 1 4.952 1214304 252.092.152.138 7.296 10.788 «9.878 0.898 «0.027 «0.398 92 5.918 12 14,280 251.55 2615-24130 7.360 10.720 0.898 0.985.118 0.356 93 6.786 12) 14.264 251.75 Coils} afl 7.336 10.744 0,985 Ag Table A7 Capped Seawall with Wide Berm Data, Configuration 7 Gage Gage Seven Noa. Seven Noa. Ave. Toe Ovtp. Qvtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth L SW SWL2 FRED depth levell level2 rate Frbd. No. ft. sec. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. cfs/it = F/us 121 8.102 9 12.792 176.68 2.05 2.069 8.808 9.272 0.201 0.219 0.028 0.389 122 7.258 7 12.720 134.08 2.05 2.040 8.880 9.200 0.219 0.223 0.005 0.463 123 6.047 5 12.788 90.78 2.05 2.048 @.816 9.268 0.223 0.227 «0.005 0.571 124 7.296 8 12.760 155.46 2.05 2.045 9.840 9.240 0.227 0.238 0,015 0.437 125 5.877 12 12,800 238.98 2.05 2.050 8,800 9.280 0.238 0.245 0,009 0, 435 126 6.451 10 12.778 197.37 2.05 «2.087 «8,824 9.258 «0.285 0.257 0.0190, 437 12774181 9 12.768 176.48 2.05 2.045 8.832 9.248 0.259 0.265 0.008 0,423 12g) ger27 Q 16.360 164.05 2015 2.148 7.280 10.840 0.321 0,395 0,098 0.338 129 6.841 @ 16.312 163.80 2.15 2.139 7.288 10.792 0.395 0.453 0.077 0.370 130 5.886 9 16.628 164.38 2.15 2.153 7.176 10.904 0.453 0.479 0.035 0.402 13L 6.460 5 16.440 94.96 2615 26152 7.180 10.920 0.479 0.479 0.000 0.452 132 5.932 5 16.38¢ 94.83 2615 2.146 «7.216 10.868 «0.87971 0.011 0.483 133. 5.196 5 18.376 98.81 2.15 2.185 7.224 10.855 0.471 0.472 0,001-—0.528 134 7,840 7 14.360 141.44 2.15 2.145 7.240 10.840 0.472 9.524 0.069 0.352 igh | Tue 7 {4.306 $91.20 2.15 2.138 7.29 10.788 0.524 0,553 0.039 0.372 136 6,308 7 16.320 141.27 2.15 2.140 7.280 10,800 0.130 0.147 0,023 0,409 137,286 9 14.400 186.63 2.15 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.187 0.180 0.084 + 0.370 138 7.390 9 16.260 185.67 2.15 2.130 7.380 10.720 0,180 0.268 0.14 = 0.340 139-8140 9 14.288 185.96 215 2.135 7.312 10.768 0.410 0.537 0,169 0.317 160 7.658 10 14.272 207.98 «2418 2.134 7.328 10.752 0.537 0.562 0,033 0. 318 141 7,088 10 14.312 208.28 © 2.15 2.139 7,288 10.792 0.562 0.718 ~— 0.202 0.333 142 6,008 10 14.368 208.62 «2.15 2.146 7.252 10.848 «0.714 §=— 04730 0,021 0.389 143 6,895 12 14.280 251.89 2.15 2135 7.320 10.750 0.730 0.86% 0.179 0,32 144 5.901 12 14.304 252,09 2.15 2.138 7.296 «10.784 = 0.BH$ 0.943 10S 0.384 145,880 12 14.352 252.49 2.15 2.144 7,248 10.832 0.943 0.980 0.023 0,399 A10 Table A8 Double Capped Seawall with Wide Berm Data, Configuration 8 ——————— —————————————————— Bage Seven Hao ft. Noa. Tp sec. Gage Seven depth ft. 14,408 14.360 14,288 14,280 14.304 14,346 14.336 14,288 14.216 14.320 14.352 14.400 18.384 14,352 14,280 14.320 18.400 14.400 Noa. Lp ft. 185.912 208. 180 252.428 252.359 208.071 185.526 163.841 141.404 94.864 252.763 208.509 185.912 163.841 141.610 94.864 SWL1 SwL2 ft. Ave. FRED #t. Toe depth ft. 10.784 10.828 10.816 10.768 10.696 10.800 10.832 10.880 10.864 10.832 10.760 10.800 10,880 10.880 Ovtp. Ovtp. Ovtp. Rel. levell level? rate Frbd. ft. ft. cfs/ft Flus Table AQ Seawall with Beach Breakwater Data, Configuration 9 Se ee eee ree ca 2 6age Gage Seven oa. Seven Noa Ave. Toa Qvtp. Ovtp. Ovtp. Rel. Test Hao Tp depth L SWL SvL2 FRED depth level! level2 rate Frbd. No. ft. $kC. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. fe ft. ft. cfs/ft Flws as 94 7.688 @ 14.280 163.63 2015 2.135 7.320 10.760 0.133 0.300 0.221 0.345. 95.016 2 16.280 163.63 2015 2.135 7.320 10.760 0,300 0.380 0,108 0.405 96 7.035 @ 16.266 163.55 2015 2.133 7.336 10.766 0,380 0.525 0.193 0,365 q7 5.162 5 16.386 94.73 2615 2.143 7.256 10.824 0.525 0.531 0.008 0,533 98 6.042 5 14.272 94.55 215 2.134 7.328 10.752 0.531 0.533 0.003 0.485 106 6.809 5 1$.400 94.8 2.15 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.081 0.085 0.007 0,439 107 7.175 7 18368 181.47 2015 2.148 7.232 10.888 0,046 «= 0071 «0,033 0,373 108 8.011 7 1.320 141.27 215 2.140 7.280 10.800 0.071 0.127 0.078 0,349 109 (8.481 7 16.280 141.09 2.15 2.135 7.320 10.760 0.127 0.214 0.115 0.338 110 6.998 9 14.344 186.30 2.15 2.143 7.286 10.824 0.216 0.300 0.118 0,387 111 8.106 9 16.200 185.43 2.15 2.125 7.400 10.680 0,300 0.446 0.198 0,322 112 8.403 9 16.208 185.48 2.15 2.126 7.392 10.688 0.470 0.689 0.291 0.314 113 5.750 10 14.400 208.88 2.15 2.150 7.200 10.880 0.689 0.737 0,064 0.378 147.330 10 14.240 207.78 «©2415 2.130 7.360 10.720 0.737 «08580157 0.329 115 7.856 10 14.216 207.58 «=. 2.15 2.127 7.384 10.698 0.855 1.050 0.280 0,318 116 4,658 12 14.280 251.89 2.15 2138 7.320 10.760 1.050 1.101 0.088 0.41 117 6,026 12 18.312 252.16 2.15 2.139 7.288 10.792 1.101 1.230 0.172 0.388 118 6.733 {2 Wleh272 aezsthe2 ot 2h15 | 2nSM)0 75528 100752 er te250/mua 1-425) Oso TS INORa cS 107.168 8 12.792 195.64 2.05 2.099 8.808 9.272 0.580 0.590 0.013 0.440 102 7.516 8 12.792 155.68 2.08 2.089 @.808 9.272 0.590 0.600 0.013 0.427 103 5.106 5 12.776 90.72 2.05 2.047 8.828 9.255 0.500 0.612 0,016 0.682 104 6.047 5 12.78 90.74 2.05 2.088 8.818 9.268 0.612 0614 = 0,003—0.594 105 6,254 § 12.792 90.76 2.05 2.049 8.808 9.272 0.618 0.618 000 0.577 119 «5.988 12 12.760 238.62 2.05 2.085 «8,840 «94280 «0.278 = 0.290 0.019 0,432 120 7.278 19 12.792 197.49 2.05 2.069 8.808 9.272 0.290 0.300001, 403 Al2 Table A10 Sheet-Pile Seawall with Standard Revetment Data, Configuration 10 Noa. Gage Gage Lp Seven Noa. Seven Sage Ave. Toe Qvip. Qvtp. Gvtp. Relative TEST Hao §=6rTp)«sDepth «= Seven = SLi SWL2 FRED Depth level! teavel2 rate Frbd. NO. ft. sec. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft, ft, ft. cfs/ft F/ws 13.152 91.724 2.072 2.072 4.256 5 9.632 0.015 0.015 0.000 9,427 149 7.000 «7 «13.080 135.570 2.072 2.058 6.368 9.520 0.015 0.145 0.172 9.339 150 7.075 8 13.056 157.098 2.072 2.060 6.352 9.536 0.015 0.425 0.543 6.339 iSt 7.539 9) 12.976 177.817 2.072 2.050 6.43 9.456 99.825 0.919 0.524 = 0.297 152 7.132 10 12.976 198.828 2.072 2.050 6.432 9.456 0.201 0.550 0.463 0.297 153.028 12 13,104 241.699 2.072 2.066 6.304 7.584 9.550 0.982 0.575 0,396 15 6.895 7 13.056 135.643 2.072 2.060 6.352 9.53 0.106 9.218 0.148 0.341 15 6.987 98 12.992 156.745 2.072 2.052 6.416 9.472 9.218 0.387 0.224 0.326 156 7,141 9 «12.664 175.808 2.072 2.011 6.744 9.144 0.387 9.595 0.276 0.32 157 8.705 10 «612.968 198.770 2.972 2.049 6.440 9.448 9.595 0.77 0.242 0,310 1538 7.279 7) 12.280 131.999 2.025 2.010 7.128 8.760 0.068 0.114 0.061 0.372 159 Fast By 2206) tS 25380) 28025) 28002) 792) R696) OTA Onze On221 oscil 160 7.868 9 12.280 :73.292 2.02 2.010 7.128 8.760 0.281 0.487 0.273 0.322 tol 7.324 10 12.248 195.462 2.025 2.006 7.160 8.728 0.487 0.605 0.157 0,328 162 6.628 7 12.400 132.573 2.025 2.025 7.008 8.680 0.645 0.645 0.000 0.39¢ 163 6.902, «8 «12.256 152.610 2.025 2.007 7.152 8.736 0.645 0.728 0.110 0.369 164 6.776 99 12.272 173.240 2.025 2.009 7.135 8.752 0.728 0.860 0.176 0.357 165 6.540 10 12.240 193.402 2.025 2.005 7.168 8.720 0.860 1.064 0.272 0,358 166 6.758 «97 )=12.592 133.483 = 1.978 = 2.096 439 B16 «= 9.072,)Ss«0.010)S 0.039 ~= 0.038 ~S «0. 373 167 NA 8 (11.088 145.712 1.978 1.908 8.320 7.568 0.039 0.190 9.200 NA 168 867.351 9 10.624 161.871 1.978 1.850 8.784 7.104 0.190 0.291 0.134 0.426 169 7.045 10 10.856 182.662 1.978 1.879 8.552 7.336 0.291 0.392 0.12 0.410 170 «66.452 7) 8.424 (127,791 «= 9781.95 7.984 7.904 0.392 0.402 0.013 0.457 17 6.566 8 11.480 148.075 1.978 1.957 7.928 7.960 0.402 0.435 0.084 0,427 172, 7.035 9 14.520 168.172 1.978 1.962 7.888 8.000 0.43 0.501 0.088 0.589 173 6.796 19 «11.488 187.658 1.978 1.958 7.920 7.968 0.501 0.575 0.098 0.386 174 = 7.026 «68 «(11.584 148.694 1.978 1.970 7.824 8.064 0.575 0.648 9.097 0,403 175 «5.525 3 11.648 (B7.531 1.978 1.978 7.760 8.128 0.980 0.080 0.000 0,559 176 = 602, 7) s1N.576 128.554 1.978 1.969 7.832 8.056 0.040 0.063 0.03 0,441 177 6.724 «6B L568 148.599 861.978 891.968 = 7.840 «= 8.048 = 0.063 i124 08L 178 7.390 9 «61.400 167.345 1.978 1.947 6.008 7.880 0.124 0.188 0.085 0.390 179 6.782 10 «11.008 183.879 1.978 1.898 8.400 7.488 0.188 0.202 0.15 0.412 180 6,158 12 1.512 227.061 1.978 1.961 7.896 7.992 0.302 0.443 0.187 0.385 181 5.183 5 11.648 87.531 1.978 1.978 7.760 6.128 9.4289 0.478 0.000 0.584 182 6.194 7 «11.560 128.47¢ 1.978 1.967 7.848 8.040 0.42 0.459 0.015 0.461 183 96.546 499 11.576 198.646 1.978 1.969 7.832 6.056 0.43 0.471 0.042 = 0. 423 184 6.627 9 11.656 169.103 1.978 1.979 7.752 8.136 0.471 0.509 0.050 0.297 1B5 5. 4t1 5 10.888 «985.219 = 1.931 201.930) 0.520 07.358 20.045 S048 «= 0.000) 0. 628 186 6.065 7 10.896 125.089 1.931 1.931 98.512 7.376 0.045 0.050 0.007 0.512 187 6.656 «68 «10.852 144.140 = L.95L 01.923) 08.576 «= 7.312 9.050 9065 0, 02L S042 188 «6.925 «9 «10.784 163.018 1.931 $.917 8.624 7.264 6.066 9.091 0,03 9.435 189 6,823 10 «10.336 178.425 1.931 1.861 9.072 6.815 0.991 0.118 6.036 9.448 190 5.297 12 10.872 220.862 1.93! 1.928 8.536 7.352 0.118 9.184 0.034 0.465 191 4.824 5 10.896 85.244 1.931 i.931 9.812 7.376 0.144 9.194 0.000 0,677 192 5.637 7) =«:10.896 125.089 1.931 1.931 8.512 7.376 0.163 0.167 0.905 0.537 1936243) BN. BBB 194.486 = 1.931 = 1.930 8.5200 7.248 2.167 = 0177S 0013S, 479 194 6.436 69 «= 10.816 163.246 81.93! 91.921 8.592 7.296 0.177 0.199 0.029 0.454 195 6.268 10 10,888 182.919 1.931 1.930 8.520 7.368 0.199 0.210 0.015 0.442 196 9.189 12 10.656 218.725 1.93! 1.901 8.752 7.136 0.210 0.249 0.052 0.485 ROU SOE , Pa iadl y vals di cronies ; iba ceapacon n° | By ARGAAR ASS ule yo. Mes A Pp rab: hi Pig tienhy, : + Ha ‘hme ies Pea ie itt toad, oe Wal ity BPS AO H3 = a « ~s Sm be 7. AY o ; és A a = al OL0\0 us > 7 A Fes) a ae az 7 ah nm wm .¢ " i ‘ t my ‘ A e " *! * ae aC, y Rns¥ " 3 é i ve | ‘ sn i Fi ; n rT ( i hi "4 vr ‘ #4 i ) Hi Wea iN ye | Mi a ne MA I i. Ey fl va ay i ; RO i Me ar 1 ve nD a \ ti ued) Ne eh ene nine ak ian Trai my » , i he i ti 0 od Hy i ty Hh " ih AN cy eh jem ut i Nin i Len TH They i ‘