TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-85-10 pr (ial cee WAVE STABILITY TESTS OF DOLOS AND STONE of Engineers REHABILITATION DESIGNS FOR THE EAST BREAKWATER, CLEVELAND HARBOR, OHIO Experimental Model Investigation by Dennis G. Markle, Willie G. Dubose Coastal Engineering Research Center DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-06 V cane ypehtution December 1985 Final Report Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited Prepared for US Army Engineer District, Buffalo Buffalo, New York 14207 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. iN 10001098 rai MBLWHOI! Lib Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When JRITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Ente Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER Technical Report CERC-85-10 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED WAVE STABILITY TESTS OF DOLOS AND STONE REHABILI- TATION DESIGNS FOR THE EAST BREAKWATER, CLEVELAND, OHIO; Experimental Model Investigation Final report 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 7. AUTHOR(s) Dennis G. Markle Willie G. Dubose 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS 12. REPORT DATE December 1985 ize RRR tras CRAT OP) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thia report) Unclassified 15a, DECTASS RIC ATION DOMNG RACING 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Engineering Research Center PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS US Army Engineer District, Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) 39180-0631 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report) Available for public release; distribution unlimited. 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abaetract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Armor stone Dolosse Breakwater Overtopping Cleveland Harbor Waves 20. ABSTRACT (Continue om reverses side if necessary and identify by block number) An experimental model investigation was conducted using a two- dimensional stability model at an undisturbed linear scale of 1:28.5 (model to prototype). The purposes of the stability tests were as follows: a. Evaluate the stability of the proposed 4-ton dolos trunk section (Plan 1) when exposed to design wave and still-water level (swl) conditions. (Continued) FORM DD . jan 73 1473 ~~ EDrTIow oF 1 nov 6515 OBSOLETE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Date Entered) 20. ABSTRACT (Continued). b. Determine the degree of breakwater damage that could occur in Plan 1 for a storm condition that exceeds the design condition. Te) Determine the maximum nonbreaking wave heights for which the exist- ing 2-ton dolos design (Plan 2) and the proposed 4-ton dolos and 9- to 20-ton armor stone designs (Plan 3) could be considered to be adequately designed. Test results indicated that Plan 1 was only marginally acceptable and would most likely require significant amounts of maintenance if exposed to design level wave conditions (7.0- to 9.0-sec, 13.4-ft nonbreaking waves at an swl of +4.9 ft low water datum (lwd)). Plan 1 also proved to be a very inade- quate design for wave conditions exceeding the design conditions (7.0- to 9.0-sec, 15.0-ft nonbreaking waves at an swl of +4.9 ft lwd). Plans 1, 2, and 3 proved to be adequate designs for 7.0- to 9.0-sec, 12.0-, 10.5-, and 13.4-ft nonbreaking waves, respectively, at an swl of +4.9 ft lwd. Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) PREFACE The model investigation reported herein initially was requested by the US Army Engineer District, Buffalo (NCB), in a letter to the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) dated 21 December 1984. Funding author iza- tions by NCB were granted in Intra-Army Orders NCB-IA-85-26JD dated 20 Decem- ber 1984 and NCB-IA-85-41JD dated 13 March 1985. Model tests were conducted at WES under the general direction of Dr. R. W. Whalin, former Chief of the Coastal Engineering Research Center, Mr. C. E. Chatham, Chief of the Wave Dynamics Division, and Mr. D. D. Davidson, Chief of the Wave Research Branch. Tests were conducted by Mr. W. G. Dubose, Engineering Technician, under the supervision of Mr. D. G. Markle, Research Hydraulic Engineer. This report was prepared by Messrs. Markle and Dubose. Mr. C. C. Calhoun, Jr., was Acting Chief of CERC during the preparation and publication of this report. This report was edited by Mrs. Beth F. Vavra, Publications and Graphic Arts Division. Liaison was maintained with Mr. Denton Clark, Chief of the Coastal Engi- neering Section, NCB, during the course of this study by means of conferences, progress reports, and telephone conversations. Director of WES was COL Allen F. Grum, USA. Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin. PREFACE CONTENTS eececeeee eee eee eee eee eee ee ee oe ee we ee ee ee eee oe eee eee eee see ee eee eee ee CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF ME ASUREME PART I: Woo co0d000 Background...... BurpOSeS! (Of Model! (Study icjaleiecs:: sworn eusnenss ol etter cueusitey si ete anevstslters) outenell men eh rekon rei PART II: Desig Test Facilities and Equipment THE MODEL.. n of Model. Ce CC CC eoceee ee eee ee ee eo ee eo ee ee ee we ee eo ee eo eee oe ee ew eo oo Oo 8 eoceee see eee eee ee eo ee oo eo eo ee eo eo eo ow eee oe eee ew we eo ew 8 8 CC i i i i i i CY Model Construction and Testing ProcedureS...........cesccceesscees TESTS AND, IRESUIETS sem ecrcucncrcrey rexcicteuencne cust sree eoi nereLenei (Orson caer went Plans: Y= tonqDolosseueu Lid. BAe Eiee Rail e, Dla. Aue i. San Planv2% 2k 3=ton; DOWOSS Cis eieterae ite revs atietete as alee 2 ei crelerereintie esters see sie eee Pleva S35 Sa eo) Zolsiwoin (Neier? MieCMS>ocoscog0bcguono000D0000G0000D0000 PART III: PART IV: PART V: TABLES 1-4 PHOTOS 1-43 PLATES 1-3 CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION. CC i i i i i i ey CC Oornrn Au VW W SS = Ss => —> —). — 2» oo Oe CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASUREMENTS Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI (metric) units as follows: Multiply feet miles (US statute) pounds (force) pounds (force) per cubic foot tons (force) By 0.3048 1.609347 4 448222 157.087467 8.896444 To Obtain metres kilometres newtons newtons per cubic metre kilonewtons dew AqtuToTA pue UoTzeIOT *| sun3Ty GNV13A]379 4O ALISO LY¥Oayiy 4ANOY43yy7 3yuNg Ke) NISV@ LSVI NISW@ LSIM Y3aLVMAVaYa LSVA YALVMAV3AYS NOILVLITIGVWHIY YOrVW 4IO dVW ALINIDIA SVIYV GISOd0¥d SYFILVMAVIYNG GVIHMOYYV MYOM §VHIY O86! W. FIYFI INVI WAVE STABILITY TESTS OF DOLOS AND STONE REHABILITATION DESIGNS FOR THE EAST BREAKWATER, CLEVELAND HARBOR, OHIO Experimental Model Investigation PART I: INTRODUCTION Background 1. Cleveland Harbor is located at Cleveland, Ohio, about 110 miles* east of Toledo, Ohio, and about 191 miles west of Buffalo, New York (Figure 1). The harbor is protected by a 20,970-ft east breakwater, 6,048-ft west breakwater, and two 1,250-ft arrowhead breakwaters. The easterly 17,970 ft of the east breakwater is a rubble-mound structure with a keyed-and-fitted system of specially shaped armor stone. Using construction techniques and armor stone Similar to the original construction, the east breakwater was repaired on numerous occasions between 1927 and 1978. In 1980, the eastern 4,400 ft of the east breakwater was rehabilitated. Two layers of 2-ton unreinforced dolosse were placed on the lakeside of the trunk and around the head. A total of 29,700 dolosse were used during the original construction and 200 addi- tional dolosse were used to repair damage that occurred on the breakwater head during the storm of April 1982. A survey in April 1984 reported that 659 of the 29,900 dolosse had been broken and remained on the structure. 2. At the present time, the US Army Engineer District, Buffalo (NCB), is planning the rehabilitation of an additional 3,300 ft of the east break- water trunk (Figure 1). Due to breakage observed on the original 2-ton dolos rehabilitation, NCB is proposing the use of either 4-ton dolosse or a 9- to 20-ton armor-stone mix on the new rehabilitation work. Purposes of Model Study 3. The purposes of this two-dimensional (2-D) breakwater stability study were to: * A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI (metric) units is presented on page 3. ie) Io Ke) Evaluate the stability of the proposed 4-ton dolos trunk section when exposed to design wave and still-water level (swl) condi- tions specified by NCB. Determine the degree of breakwater damage that could occur on the 4-ton dolos design for a storm condition (specified by NCB) that exceeds the design wave conditions. Determine the maximum nonbreaking wave heights for which the existing 2-ton dolos design and the proposed 4-ton dolos and 9- to 20-ton armor-stone designs could be considered adequately designed. PART II: THE MODEL Design of Model 4, Tests were conducted at an undistorted linear scale of 1:28.5, model to prototype. Scale selection was based on the size of model dolosse and armor stone available relative to the size of the proposed prototype dolosse and armor stone, elimination of stability scale effects,* and capabilities of the available test flume. Based on Froude's model law** and the linear scale of 1:28.5, the following model-to-prototype relations were derived (dimensions are in terms of length (L) and time (T)): Model-Prototype Scale Characteristic Dimension Relations Length IL Ls = 182305 2 _ pe : Area L An = Lp = 1:812.3 Volume L3 Ve = L2 = 1:23,149.1 ; aA eae Time T Ihe = Ly Ss 1385.3) 5. The specific weights of the model construction materials differed from their prototype counterparts; therefore sizing of the model construction materials was based on the following transference equation: Ca (da (‘sy [Cp =") 3 (B,C) IF subscripts m, p = model and prototype quantities, respectively where W, = weight of an individual armor unit or stone, lb Ve, = specific weight of an individual armor unit or stone, pcf L/L = linear scale of the model * R. Y. Hudson. 1975 (Jun). "Reliability of Rubble-Mound Breakwater Stability Models," Miscellaneous Paper H-75-5, US army Engineer waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. #* J.C. Stevens et al. 1942. "Hydraulic Models," Manual on Engineering Practices No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. S. = specific gravity of an individual armor unit or stone relative to the water in which the break- water is constructed, i.e., S. = Wel Ven y.. = specific weight of water, pcf Test Facilities and Equipment 6. All of the 2-D breakwater stability tests (incident wave crests were parallel to the longitudinal axis of the breakwater) were conducted ina 6.75-ft-wide, 4-ft-deep, and 119-ft-long concrete flume. The test facility is equipped with a vertical displacement wave generator capable of producing monochromatic waves of various periods and heights. Model Construction and Testing Procedures 7. Based on prototype information showing that bathymetry lakeward of the east breakwater is quite flat and the fact that model tests would be con- ducted with nonbreaking waves, it was agreed by both NCB and the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) that model tests would use a flat- bottom bathymetry and a breakwater toe elevation of -30.0 ft low water datum (lwd). Selection of test conditions 8. An swl of +4.9 ft lwd and wave periods of 7, 8, and 9 sec were selected by NCB for use with a 13.4-ft design wave height and a 15.0-ft wave height. The 15.0-ft wave height was selected as an extreme high-wave condi- tion for which NCB wanted to know the degree of damage to a 4-ton dolos design. These conditions were combined into a design storm, Hydrograph A (Table 1), and an extreme event, Hydrograph B (Table 2). Additional test conditions are described in PART III: TEST AND RESULTS. Flume calibration 9. Prior to installation of the breakwater test section, the flume was calibrated for the wave and swl conditions described in paragraph 8. Test waves of the required characteristics were generated by varying the amplitude and frequency of the wave generator paddle motion. Changes in water-surface elevations with time (wave heights) were measured with an electrical wave gage positioned in the flume where the lakeside toe of the breakwater would be located. Method of constructing test sections 10. The typical existing east breakwater cross section supplied by NCB (Plate 1) was constructed to reproduce as closely as possible the existing breakwater construction. Core material was dumped by bucket or shovel, smoothed to grade, and compacted with hand trowels to simulate consolidation that has occurred due to wave action. The core was covered with one layer of specially shaped laid-up stone. Armor stones were placed one at a time in an effort to obtain the existing keyed-and-fitted construction. The bedding, berm, and underlayer rehabilitation materials, designated by NCB for their respective existing or proposed rehabilitation designs, were sequentially placed and smoothed to grade on the lakeside of the existing breakwater section in a manner that reproduced usual construction methods. The lakeside slope then was covered with two layers of randomly placed dolosse or armor stone, depending on the plan being tested. Model operation 11. After "before-test" photographs were taken, the flume was flooded to an appropriate depth and the structure was exposed to shakedown and test Wave conditions. Shakedown waves allowed some natural settling and nesting of the newly constructed section that would occur under lower level wave condi- tions prior to being exposed to a design level storm. Prototype test time was accumulated in 30-sec (model time) cycles, i.e., the wave generator was started, run 30 sec, and then stopped. This procedure prevented contamination of incident waves by waves rereflected from the wave generator. After each 30-sec cycle, sufficient time was provided for the flume to still out before the next cycle was run. During stilling time between cycles, detailed model observations of the structure's response to the previous cycle of test waves were recorded by the model operator. Observations included any movement occurring on the structure and a general statement of the structure's condi- tion at that point in the test. All test conditions were run for at least the durations indicated for each hydrograph step. Where damage did not stabilize during the normal duration of the hydrograph step, the test condition duration Was extended until damage had stabilized or the damage level exceeded an acceptable amount. At conclusion of the hydrograph, the flume was drained and the after-test condition of the structure was summarized in test notes and documented with photographs. Where test hydrographs were run back-to-back, the flume was refilled with water and the structure was exposed to conditions of the second hydrograph. The same test procedures used during the first hydrograph were used to accumulate test time and document structure changes that occurred during the second hydrograph. At the conclusion of the test, the cummulative response of the structure to both hydrographs was summarized in test notes and documented with photographs. The dolos or armor-stone layers then were removed, underlayer stone was straightened as needed, and the armor units once again were placed on the structure and the test was repeated. The purpose of the repeat test was to determine the presence of any uncontrolled variations in model construction technique that might affect stability of the structure. Methods of reporting model observations and test results 12. The following list of adjectives, in order of increasing severity, was used for recording model observations and reporting test results of damage for each test section: (a) slight, (b) minor, (c) moderate, (d) significant, (e) major, and (f) extensive. Slight and minor were used to describe accept- able results, moderate described borderline acceptability, while significant to extensive described unacceptable conditions of increasing severity. Use of these adjectives allowed some quantification of the severity and/or amount of rocking in place, reorientation and displacement of the primary armor units, wave overtopping, and resulting damage accrued by the breakwater's primary cover-layer units. PART III: TEST AND RESULTS Plan 1, 4-ton Dolosse 13. The proposed 4-ton dolos rehabilitation section (Plan 1, Plate 1 and Photos 1 and 2) was a two-layer system of randomly placed dolosse on a 1V-on-2H lakeside slope. The dolosse coverage extended from a 13-ft-wide crown (elevation +10.3 ft lwd) to a toe berm elevation of -22.0 ft lwd. Plan 1 was exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A (Table 1). During Step 1, minor to moderate rocking of several dolosse was observed around the Sswl and on the upper slope and crown. Two dolosse were displaced from the dolos crown area onto the old laid-up stone crown and one of these dolos then was displaced onto the harbor-side slope during a later cycle of Step 1. It also was noted that the combined upslope packing and downslope consolidation of the dolos armor around the swl created an area of dolos separation around the swl. In this area, the dolos armor porosity was much higher than other areas of the structure and the underlayer had become very visible but was showing no signs of movement. Four additional dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope and one dolos originally placed below the swl Was displaced down the lakeside slope during Step 2. The severity of dolos rocking and number of units rocking seemed to increase slightly at the start of this step, but appeared to decrease in severity by the end of Step 2. The Wave conditions of Steps 1 and 2 produced moderate to significant overtopping while major overtopping was observed during Step 3 of Hydrograph A. It ap- peared that the 9-sec waves were not impacting as hard on the dolos, but that most of the wave energy was passing over the breakwater crown and was being dissipated on the harbor-side of the structure. No additional displacement occurred during this step and the amount of dolos rocking appeared to have decreased from that observed during the previous step. At the end of Hydro- graph A, the dolos armor showed minor spot damage on the breakwater crown, Slight localized damage on the lower lakeside slope, and moderate amounts of dolos reorientation around the swl (Photos 3 and 4). The dolos reorientation around the swl was the result of the upslope packing and downslope consolida- tion of dolosse that occurred during Step 1 and did not seem to increase in severity during Steps 2 and 3 of Hydrograph A. 14. The structure showed only minor to moderate rocking of a few dolosse on the crown and upper lakeside slope during Step 1 of Hydrograph B (Table 2). The dolosse on the breakwater crown sustained significant damage during Step 2 of Hydrograph B. Eight dolosse were displaced from the crown down onto the harbor-side slope, 2 dolosse were displaced on the lower lake- side slope, and moderate to severe rocking of 10 to 15 dolosse on the crown and upper lakeside slope was observed throughout Step 2. Dolos displacement was continuing to occur at the end of Step 2 and the step duration was ex- tended 40 min, during which time the damage rate slowed down considerably but did not stop. During Step 3, 10 dolosse were displaced onto the harbor-side slope. Damage had not stopped at the end of the step and it was extended approximately 25 min. By the end of the Step 3 extension, all damage had stopped but continued minor to significant rocking of dolosse was occurring on the upper slope and crown. The structure then was exposed to a fourth hydro- graph step which consisted of 25 min of the Step 2 wave condition (8-sec, 15.0-ft nonbreaking wave). This was done to see if damage would be reini- tiated at this condition, which appeared to be the worst condition of Hydro- graph B relative to the overall stability of the dolos armor. (All three wave conditions of Hydrograph B produced major overtopping.) Seven more dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope and the test was stopped. It appeared that the damage (dolos displacement) would continue on the upper slope and crown, and the level of damage already exceeded an accept- able amount. Photos 5-7 show the breakwater condition at the end of Hydro- graphs A and B. During these hydrographs there appeared to be a slow shore- ward migration of a few of the existing crown armor stone and several addi- tional dolosse on the crown that were not referred to in the test results reported in this paragraph and paragraph 13. 15. In summary, during Hydrographs A and B, 24 dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope and 3 dolosse were displaced down the lakeside slope from their original placement location below the swl. Several crown dolosse and crown stone showed some shoreward migration and numerous dolosse around the swl and on the upper lakeside slope and crown exhibited in-place rocking that ranged from minor to major. All wave condi- tions produced wave overtopping which ranged from moderate to major. 16. The 4-ton dolos armor was removed, the underlayer stone and exist- ing stones on the crown and upper breakwater slopes were restored to their original positions (Photos 8-10), and the dolos armor layers were rebuilt (Photos 11 and 12). The structure once again was exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A. By the end of the test, the dolos crown showed major damage with 35 dolosse displaced down onto the harbor-side slope and 5 additional crown dolosse had been displaced shoreward but had not moved down onto the harbor-side slope (Photos 13-15). Only one dolos was displaced on the lower lakeside slope. Several dolosse on the upper slope and around the swl and crown exhibited minor to major in-place rocking throughout the test and armor unit displacement did not subside by the end of the test. The hydrograph was not extended since it was thought that damage (dolos displace- ment) already had exceeded a desirable level. Due to the extensive damage accrued during Hydrograph A it was decided that there was no need to expose the section to Hydrograph B. 17. Prior to the second testing of the 4-ton dolos rehabilitation sec- tion NCB had decided, based on the first testing with Hydrograph A, that the 4-ton dolosse was an inadequate design for the 13.4-ft nonbreaking wave con- dition. NCB requested that at conclusion of repeat testing of 4-ton dolosse, WES initiate a test series to determine the actual design level wave height for which the 4-ton dolos showed acceptable stability. 18. It was noted during the second testing of Plan 1 with Hydrograph A that some of the dolos displacement occurred during impact of the last wave in the wave train produced during a 30-sec test cycle. The wave is typically of a longer period than the rest of the waves due to wave generator effects. To eliminate the possibility of this wave having an influence on the test re- sults, the last wave in the wave train was filtered out in all subsequent tests. 19. The 4-ton dolos armor was rebuilt and Plan 1 was exposed to 8.0-sec nonbreaking wave heights of 11.0, 11.5, 12.0, and 12.5 ft at an swl of +4.9 ft lwd. The 12.5-ft wave produced damage (dolos displacement) that exceeded an acceptable amount on the breakwater crown. Wave heights below this had caused only minor to moderate damage. The 4-ton dolos armor layers were rebuilt (Photo 16) and the structure was exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph C (Table 3). Two dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope during Step 1. Step 2 caused no dolosse displacement, but two additional crown dolosse were displaced onto the harbor-side slope during the early part of Step 3. All damage had stopped during the last 30 min of Step 3. Steps 1 and 2 caused only minor rocking of a few dolosse at the swl 13 and upper lakeside slope. Step 3 produced a slight increase in the severity of in-place dolos rocking, but this was still only moderate in its severity. Plan 1 was in good condition with only minor damage at the end of Hydrograph C (Photos 17-19). All of the displaced dolosse had come from the harbor side of the crown where, due to the random placement, some of the dolosse were not interlocked with other dolos armor. 20. Without rebuilding the dolos armor, the structure was exposed to Hydrograph A. No additional dolos displacement occurred during Hydrograph A, but the amount and severity of in-place dolos rocking showed a definite in- crease on the crown and upper lakeside slope. The structure was in good con- dition at the end of Hydrograph A (Photos 20-22), but the moderate to signifi- cant in-place rocking observed during this test showed that there was a high potential for possible dolos displacement and breakage. Plan 2, 2.3-ton Dolosse 21. With the proposed 4-ton dolos design (Plan 1, Plate 1) proven to be stable for the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph C, NCB requested that additional tests be initiated to determine the stable design wave height for the existing 2-ton dolosse (Plan 2, Plate 2) on the east breakwater at Cleve- land Harbor. 22. The existing 2-ton dolosse on the east breakwater in Cleveland Harbor could not be represented exactly in the model without changing the existing model scale and recalibrating the test facility. At the existing scale and with the available model dolosse, a 2.3-ton dolos with a specific weight of 143 pcef could be represented. NCB thought this representation would be the most cost-effective approach and results of these tests would provide the information they required. 23. The 2.3-ton dolos section (Plan 2) had a crown width of 13.0 ft at an elevation of +10.3 ft lwd. Two layers of randomly placed dolosse extended down to an elevation of -22.0 ft lwd on a 1V-on-2H slope. Plan 2 was exposed to 8-sec nonbreaking wave heights of 8.5, 9.0, 10.0, 10.5, and 11.0 ft at an swl of +4.9 ft lwd. Although no significant dolos displacement occurred, the 11.0-ft wave height produced significant amounts and degrees of in-place rock- ing of the dolosse on the crown and upper lakeside slope. Wave heights below this had caused only minor displacement and in-place rocking. The 2.3-ton 14 dolos armor layers were rebuilt using totally random placement (Photos 23-25), and the structure was exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph D (Table 4). Due to the limited number of model dolosse which reproduced the 2.3-ton dolosse, the outer 1-ft sections of the lakeside slope adjacent to the flume walls were constructed using a larger size of dolos unit. Therefore these areas were ignored and only the center 4.75-ft width of the test section was observed and reported on for the testing of Plan 2. The dolosse exhibited only slight in-place rocking on the crown and upper lakeside slope during Steps 1 and 2 of Hydrograph D. During Step 3, two dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope; a few crown dolosse showed a slight shift toward the harbor side and minor rocking was observed on the crown and upper slope. All damage occurred early in Step 3 and the structure was in good condition (slight spot damage to dolosse) at the end of the test (Photos 26-28). 24. The 2.3-ton dolos armor layers were rebuilt and the structure was exposed once again to Hydrograph D. Results of this test were very similar to the first testing with the observance of slight to minor rocking of a few dolosse on the crown and upper lakeside slope throughout the entire test. During Step 3, two dolosse were displaced from the crown onto the harbor-side slope and several of the crown dolosse showed a slight shift toward the harbor side of the test section. The damage had subsided and the structure showed only slight spot damage to the dolosse at the end of the test (Photos 29-31). Plan 3, 9- to 20-ton Armor Stone 25. With the completion of tests for Plan 2, tests were initiated to determine the design wave condition for the proposed 9- to 20-ton armor-stone rehabilitation design alternative (Plan 3, Plate 3). The model armor stone represented a uniformly distributed gradation of 9- to 20-ton armor stone randomly placed on a 1V-on-1.5H slope. The armor stone had a crown width of 26 ft at an elevation of +10.3 ft lwd and extended down to the -22.0 ft lwd toe berm. 26. After approximately 15 min of 8.0-sec, 7.0-ft shakedown waves, Plan 3 was exposed to 8.0- and 9.0-sec, 12.5-, 13.0-, and 13.4-ft nonbreaking waves. Wave heights below 13.4 ft caused only minor rocking and very slight in-place reorientation of a few armor stones on the crown and upper lakeside 15 slope, while the 13.4-ft waves caused some armor-stone displacement in these same areas. Based on these observations, Plan 3 (Photos 32-34) was exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A. During Step 1, two stones at the swl were displaced downslope and one crown stone was displaced down the harbor-side slope. Two additional stones were displaced downslope from the swl during Step 2. Five additional armor stones (one on the crown and four at the swl) showed moderate to significant in-place rocking throughout the test. No armor-stone displacement occurred during Step 3 and the structure was in good condition (slight to minor spot damage on crown and around swl) at the end of the test (Photos 35-37). The displaced armor stone and stone exhibit- ing in-place rocking during this test ranged in weight from the smallest to largest in the graded armor-stone mix. 27. The 9- to 20-ton armor stone was rebuilt (Photos 38-40) and Plan 3 was once again exposed to Hydrograph A. The structure accrued less damage during this testing. Three armor stones were displaced (two on the crown and one at the swl on the lakeside slope) during Steps 1 and 2. No displacement occurred during Step 3, but two armor stones on the crown and three at the swl continued to show minor to significant in-place rocking and reorientation throughout the test. Photos 41-43 show that the structure was in good condi- tion (slight spot damage on crown and around swl) at the end of the test. PART IV: CONCLUSIONS 28. Based on the test conditions and test results reported herein, it is concluded that: a. Io Ke) fe} 10 Plan 1 (4-ton, 140-pef dolosse) might prove capable of with- standing the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A, but the structure shows a high potential to sustain significant damage on the crown and upper lakeside slope. Thus it is thought to be a very marginally acceptable design that probably will re- quire significant amounts of maintenance if exposed to con- ditions similar to those of Hydrograph A (Table 1). Plan 1 is a very inadequate design for wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph B (Table 2) and could accrue extensive damage to the dolosse on the crown and upper lakeside slope if exposed to these conditions for any length of time. Plan 1 appears to be a stable design (sustaining only minor crown damage) for the wave and swl condition of Hydrograph C (Table 3). Plan 2 (2.3-ton, 143-pcef dolosse) appears to be a stable design and should sustain only minor crown damage when exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph D (Table 4). Plan 3 (9- to 20-ton, 155-pef armor stone) appears to be a stable design and should sustain only slight to minor damage in an area extending from the swl to the crown when exposed to the wave and swl conditions of Hydrograph A. 17 PART V: DISCUSSION 29. During construction and testing of the 2.3- and 4.0-ton dolos designs it was observed that stability of the crown dolosse tended to vary across the width of the test section. The dolos construction was totally random and tapered out to a one-layer placement on the harbor side of the crown. It was noted that if dolosse in this one-layer area were either inter- locked with an adjacent dolos unit or if a fluke of the dolos projected down into a void area between the armor stone, the dolos exhibited a higher stabil- ity than those which ended up in a solitary position on a flat portion of the crown. Based on these observations, it would appear that dolosse units placed in this one-layer area of the crown are subject to easy displacement by over- topping waves and they need to be keyed into the existing armor stone or adjacent dolosse units. In areas where this keying of the one-layer dolosse cannot be achieved, it may be a better alternative to not place a dolos unit, as it will most likely be displaced during the first overtopping storm condi- tion that occurs. 30. The 9- to 20-ton armor-stone design exhibited the highest stability of the plans tested, but regardless of whether it or the 4-ton dolos design is selected for the proposed rehabilitation work, care must be taken to tie the new protection into the existing keyed-and-fitted armor stone on the crown and ends of the rehabilitation areas and the 2.0-ton dolosse in the eastern limits of the new work. If a straight-line transition is used between either the 4-ton dolosse or 9- to 20-ton armor stone and the existing 2.0-ton dolosse, this area could prove to be an area of inherent instability and may require continual maintenance after storm-wave conditions. Efforts should be made to interlock this area of dissimilar armor. The end areas of the new rehabili- tation also could be subject to damage, especially for storm waves that approach this area from an oblique angle. These areas should be constructed so that a smooth transition exists from the new work into the existing break- water armor. If this cannot be achieved, large buttressing stone could be placed from the toe to the crown on the ends of the new rehabilitation work to prevent the displacement of new dolos or armor stone when storm waves approach the structure from oblique angles. Table 1 Hydrograph A Test Wave Prototype** swl Period Height* Duration Step ft lwd sec fat min Wave Type +4..9 7.0 o@ 15.0 Shakedown 1 +49 eo 13.4 40.0 Nonbreaking +49 8.0 13.4 40.0 Nonbreaking +49 9.0 13.4 40.0 Nonbreaking *# Wave height measured in a water depth of 34.9 ft. ** Test durations varied in some instances as designated in text of report. Table 2 Hydrograph B Test Wave Prototype** swl Period Height* Duration Step ft lwd sec ft min Wave Type 1 +4.9 7.0 15.0 40.0 Nonbreaking +49 8.0 15.0 40.0 Nonbreaking +49 9.0 15.0 40.0 Nonbreaking * Wave height measured in a water depth of 34.9 ft. *#* Test durations varied in some instances as designated in text of report. Table 3 Hydrograph C Test Wave Prototype swl Period Height* Duration Step ft lwd sec ft min Wave Type +49 fo) 7.0 15}50) Shakedown 1 +49 7.0 12.0 40.0 Nonbreaking 2 +49 8.0 12.0 40.0 Nonbreaking 3 +49 9.0 12.0 40.0 Nonbreaking * Wave height measured in a water depth of 34.9 ft. Table 4 Hydrograph D Test Wave swl Period Height* Step ft lwd sec ft +4.9 7.0 6.0 +49 7.0 10.5 +49 8.0 10.5 +4.9 9.0 10.5 % Wave height measured in a water depth of 34.9 ft. Prototype Duration min 15.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Wave Type Shakedown Nonbreaking Nonbreaking Nonbreaking CLEVELAND HARBOR a a Fa é ”n oe 2 = g Z ea) Fs > i= =) & ”n PLAN 1 SCALE 1:28.5 BEFORE TESTING Lakeside view of Plan 1 before testing, first test section Photo 1. UOTIOES 4Saq 4S4TJ ‘BuTyseq auojeq | ueTg Jo MaTA @PTS-soqueyH ‘2 oj0Ug ONILSAL aosag 9861 ATVOS NV Td AGNLS ALMIGVLS YaLVMVIUG YOPYVH ANVTSATTO uoTj0es 4804 4SsaTg ‘y ydeuSouphy ButT4seq seqge | UPTd JO MATA EpTSexe] “€ OF0Ud L = ye vy V HdVuoOudAH ONILSIL YaLIV 98a) ITVOS 1 NVId AdnLs ALNMIGVLS WaLvMavade YOUUVH GNVTSAITO TESTING -HYDROGRAPH A 1g iz = < ¥ (4 fe) iE < Harbor-side view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrograph A, first test section Photo 4. uoTjoas 4804 4suTg ‘gq pue y syudeisoupAy duTyseq uwaqge | UPTq JO MATA apTsayey] “G 040Ud ey Overhead view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrographs A Photo 6. and B, first test section uoT}0eS 48984 4ySuTZ ‘gq pue ¥ sudeuSoupAy Butyseq s9eqge | UeTd JO MeTA epTs-soqueyH ~) 030Ud : eS , } ; UOT}0ES 48984 puodsas ‘uoWUe SOTOP Jo JusuedeTd 04 soTud | UeTg JO MATA apTsayxe] ~g O40Ud Overhead view of Plan 1 prior to placement of dolos Photo 9. second test section armor, UOT}0aS 4884 puooss ‘uoWUe SOTOP Jo quameoeTd 07 uoTud | ULTd JO MeTA apTs-szoquey “Ol 040Ud uoTjoas 4884 puooas ‘But Seq asojeq | UPTd JO MATA epTsexe] “11 0F0Ud ONLLSAL Jest ATVOS 1 NV'ld AGAis AUTSVLS WalvAvsee YORIVH GNV TSAI es Photo 12. Overhead view of Plan 1 before testing, second test section uoTy0aS 48984 puodses ‘y YdeusoupAH 3uT4Sseq uwaqsje | UPTq JO META 9pTsexe] “€| 0730Ud i: AN Oe, B, “hy ek Overhead view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrograph A, Photo 14. second test section LAND HARBOR PLAN CLEV : : : STUDY SCALE 1:28.56 AFTER HYDROGRAPH A TESTING Harbor-side view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrograph A, second test section Photo 15. Overhead view of Plan 1 before testing, Photo 16. third test section uoT30eS 4899 putua ‘$9 ydeuSoupAy BuT4seq ueqgse | UeTq JO META aptTseye] “11 0F0Ud 0 HdVuDOudAH - ONILSAL USLIV - $884. FIOS TNVid : ~~ xaNLS ALMIGVLS YAIVMYVIEE | domiva anviaaato Photo 18. Overhead view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrograph C, third test section uoTj0es 4899 putua ‘9 ydeuSoupAy Butyseq szeqge | UeTd JO META epTS-doqueH *6| 070Ud “9 HdVudOUGAH © ONILSAL UaALAV 9°96) ATVOS J}. NW'Id AGNLS: ALUTIGVLS YaLVAV rae YOPUVH ANVTAAITO UOT}09S 4894 puTug ‘y pue Q SydeuZoupAH BuT4seq szaqge | UPTd JO META apTsaeyey] “OZ 070Ud 4 11° ¥ # ip pb Photo 21. Overhead view of Plan 1 after testing Hydrographs C and A, third test section uoTjoes 4894 puTyA ‘y pue D syudeiS0upAy Zut4seq Jaqge | UeTd JO MATA apTS-soqduey *¢¢ 040Ud _¥ Hdv¥OOuGAH ‘ONELSAL WaLdV ‘geal Ivos uoTJOaS 4804 4SuTJ ‘BuTysSeq ssoJeq Z UeTd JO META aptsayxe] “Ee 070Ud AUTMGVLS WILVMAVINE YOUVH INV TAIT Photo 24. Overhead view of Plan 2 before testing, first test section YOTIOES 4894 4SuTJ ‘ButTyseq auojeq g ueTq JO MaTA epTS-doquey *G2e ojoug ONILSAL AYougIg S'8e1 F1vos @ NV'ld AdnLs ALMAVLS YILVMIVa YOPUVH INVTFAITO uoTj0es 4804 4SsuTz ‘q ydeusoupAy 3ut4seq ueqje g UBTd JO MATA SpTsaeyxe] “g9¢ O40Ud | ALMIGVLS WaLvMDIVaE _ ORIVH ONVTIATTO Overhead view of Plan 2 after testing Hydrograph D, Photo 27. first test section uoTjoas 4894 4SuTJZ ‘q udeiZ0upAy BuTy4seq 4saqje ~@ UPTq JO META epTS-sOqueH “gz O40Ud ra ANS TH AUravis WaLvMOIvaRr | uoguva anv7aaa70 uoTyjoes 48984 puooas ‘q ydeusoupAy 3uT4seq uwoqge Z@ ULTg JO MATA SpTSaeye] “G2 070Ud — a : moe ROE Sy Pap @ HdV¥SOUCAH ONILSSL YaLIV YOMUVH GNVTSAITI Photo 30. Overhead view of Plan 2 after testing Hydrograph D, second test section uoT}0es 4889 puooes ‘q ydeusoupAy 3uT4seq saqge g ueTg JO MATA 9pTS-uoquey “LE 09O0Ud 08-9619 ad HdVuo0udAH ONILSAL YWaALIV 98a} ATVOS & NV'Id AALS ALTMAVLS YALVMAVINE YOPUVH GNV TIA uoT}OeS 4894 4SuTJ ‘BuUTISeq auo0jeq € UeTd JO MATA apTsexe] “Ze o4oud ONILSaL JuoIIa gee) 31VOS © NVI first test section Overhead view of Plan 3 before testing, Photo 33. uoT}9aS 4894 4SuTJ ‘BuT4Sseq su0jeq € UeTq JO MATA apTSs-soOqueH “PE OJ0Udg _oNUSg1 quoI7a uoTj09s 4804 4SuTy ‘y udeuZoupAy BuTyseq 4seqge € UPTd JO MATA apTsayxe] “GE 090Ud 98-Se19 WV HdVuo0udAH ONILSAL YaLiv 98%) ATVOS © NV Id AGNLs AIMIGVLS YALVMAVANS YOdUVH GNVTIAITO Overhead view of Plan 3 after testing Hydrograph A, Photo 36. first test section uoTJOeS 4899 ASuTZ ‘y ydeuZoupAy BuT4seq uweqge € ueTd JO MATA aptTs-soquey “LE o40Udg Le-9s10 VY HdVud0UdAH ONILSAL YILAV 99a: 1 JIVOS €& NV1d AdnLls ALNIGVLS YLVMAVAT YOdUVH INV TAAITO UOTJOaS 4894 Ppuodes ‘3uTySEeq suO0Jaq € UETq JO META epTsaye] “QE OJ0Ud 4S “yp fe S ty iS ss Overhead view of Plan 3 before testing, Photo 39. second test section uoT}0eS 4889 puooss ‘3uT4Saq VIOJeq € UeTq JO MATA SpTS-soqueH “Ot 090Ud OF-ScEh9 ONILSAL JWOAIT o'82:1 JIVIS ALTHGVL YOPUVH INVTIAT1 uoT40es 4809 puooes ‘y yderZ01pAH 3UTYSe4 eqye € UeTg JO META Optseyey “|b 040d V HdVuooudAH ONILSAL WILIV 98s 1 FWOS © NWId AGALs ALTGVLS USLIVAAVINS YOMUVH GNVTSAIT9 Photo 42. Overhead view of Plan 3 after testing Hydrograph A, second test section uoT30eS 4899 puooeas ‘y ydeuZoupAy ButTqyseq seqge € ueTd JO MATA apTSs-soquey “Ef 0F0Ud €v-S610 V HdVuoOUudAH ONILSAL YILIV $8e: 1 JIVOS © NVId AdGNLs ALITUGVLIS YALVMAVaAA » YOPUVH GNVTIAITO ‘ a Sere Sao, 4SSO10d NOL-V L NVld NOILOSS NOILVLITIEVHAY 40d SS © NOLS 97-095 9m 40d SS © 3NOLS 97-000’ > 2M 4Od SSL © ANOLS 91-000’ OL -O0E'l = 4d SSL © INOLS 91-000'9l OL -000'9 = & 40d SSL © ANOLS 81-00L'Z OL -OOL'l = 49d Ol © 3SSO10G a+000's = 'm AdALOLOUd INAWSOVId dN GIVT ‘Y3AV1 ANO 14 LNAWS0V1d WOGNVY ‘SHSAV1 OML SIVIHALVW NOILVLITISVH3Y GNq OL Gayya43Y 1334 NI $NOILWASI3 49d 691 © ANOLS 87-L00°0> 2m 49d S91 © ANOLS 97-SEL'0S 2M 40d 691 © 3NOLS 97-SE1'0 01 -bv0'0 = "M 49d S91 © 3NOLS 87-1pS'0 OL -z0z'0 = ©M 49d S91 © NOLS 97-120°0 O1 -ZE0'0 = “M 49d v'bvl © ASSO10G 91-0620 = 'm 1dq00W SOILSIMSLOVYVHO IVIYALVIN NOILIAS ONILSIXI TVIIdAL AO SLIWIT AdgIS HOSUVH AGISANV1 4SSO10G NOLE'¢ € NW 1d NOILD]SS NOILVLITISWHSY AINAW30V1d dN GIVT ‘Y3AV1 ANO 44 LN3SW39V1d WOGNVY ‘SY3AV1 OML + SIVIYALVW NOILVLITISVHSY «x GM1 OL G3¥H4354y 13354 NI SNOILVAS13 + 4Od SSL © ANOLS 97-09> 2m 49d S9L © NOLS 91-100'05 2m 40d SS1 © NOLS 91-000'rS 9m 49d S9L © SNOLS 81-SEL'0> 9M 40d SSL © NOLS 97-000'r O1 -00e'l = "M 40d S91 © SNOLS 81-SEL'0 OL -~r0'0 ="M 49d SS1 © NOLS 97-000'91 O1 -000'9 = ®&m 40d S9L © ANOLS 81-1~S'0 O1 -Z0z'0 = *M 4Od SG1 © NOLS 81-19 OL -z6L'L =“M 49d S9L © ANOLS 81-8Z0'0 OL -150°0 =°M a) 4Dd OV © ASSO1OG 91-009'h = ADd LEL © ASSO1OG 81-vET0 = aN) ddALOLOUd 1400W SOILSIYSLOVYVHO IVWIYALVI NOILIIS DNILSIXI TVIIdAL JO SLIWIT Sy AGIS YHOSYVH ACGISANV1 PLATE 2 ANOLS YHONWYV NOL-O¢2 O1-6 €NW1d NOILOAS NOILVLITISWHAY |LNSW39V1d dA GIV7 ‘Y3aAW7 SNO IN3W39V1d WOGNVY ‘SYSAV1 OML STVIMALVI NOILVLITISVHaY GM1 OL G34u3434 13354 NI NOILWA313 49d GG1 © ANOLS a1-09 2m 40d G9L © INOLS A1-L00';0> 9M 4Od SSL © NOLS 91-000'r > "mM 49d G91 © ANOLS 97-SEL'0S "mM 49d SG1 © ANOS 9871-00091 O1 -000'9 = =m 4Od G9L © ANOLS G1-LvS'0 OL -z0z'0 = *m 49d GGL © INOLS 81-000'0r OL -000'81 = 40d G9L © ANOLS A+SE'l O1 -19'0 = 'm ddALOLOUd 14acd0W SOILSIYALOVYVHS IVWIYALVIN NOILIAS INILSIXA TVIIGAL AO SLIWIT » EOL+ AGIS YHOSYVH ACISANVI] PLATE 3 of 4 a ‘ y ie 4) d cs i ? Fo 8 ap omy matetin * ¥ ; ey et rd + “te ue oy ba ch — | = ; % + 3 hi q ieOTt SB tmhost oY “sic r # Sty ss Secs on at ; } i ee ¥-22 ee as 4 Mant ae ? ¥2% EG a? SITS SPOOLS Sa) a = : a Bes Bes! Bet ‘ i m3 eas J” Sa areaa 43 SHE Ge BOTS Aw = ! . ie ae 7 le, if ase in ? owe 5 3 x tl x “ OWT t : iz a ae aan ee es are . ie Pa gf 3333 a 3 = is 3 ro +7 ‘! = - | eee 7 = Hi { : 3 : 3 h 3 5 - = 4 4 OT SARI ERA AOE A NN LE TREK ERE NOTIN IAEA IAT ty cei a il = re 5 ; ¥ ’ ) & hid) Aen 4 0) hie hai i bi i i uy vis V. on ie \ oy 7 nt a Mit. 1, : ih my hye! lity vid iW ity an hehe A! Ney Weel ay ait Nana att ) en ! ; it +> Ty sian ; An ae ay Viv j RAK, PRR ThA Tne es ne wh i] i; } Me titabeay i Sams te a tee