Plan 8R (Figure 13) was a rebuild of Plan 8. Subjection to the hydrograph 

 given in Table 8 verified results of the first test, i.e., a gap developed between 

 the slope and crest blocks as a result of toe slippage and subsequent downslope 

 slippage of the slope blocks. Again, no lifting or displacement of individual 

 blocks was observed. Photos 45 and 46 show the final condition of the test 

 section. 



Plan 9 (Figure 14) was similar to Plan 8, except that an additional row of 

 concrete blocks was added to the toe and a proportionate amount of 200- to 

 4,000-lb toe stone was removed. Testing with the same wave conditions as 

 Plan 8 produced similar results, i.e., a gap varying from a few inches to 1 ft 

 developed between the slope and crest blocks as a result of toe slippage. As 

 shown in Photos 47-49, the final condition of the structure was similar to that 

 observed for Plans 8 and 8R. 



Plan 9R (Figure 14) was a rebuild of Plan 9. It was tested with the 10-step 

 hydrograph given in Table 2. Again, a gap developed between the slope and 

 crest blocks as a result of toe slippage and subsequent downslope slippage of 

 the slope blocks. Final condition of the structure (Photos 50-52) was similar 

 to that observed for Plans 8, 8R, and 9, i.e., a gap that varied from a few 

 inches to about 1 ft developed between the slope and crest blocks. 



SEA SIDE 



LAND 



SIDE 



+ 7 FT MLT^ 

 2.5 ^""^ 



W 3 



— +5 FT MLT 



l-jx-., 



'-■ s — ^ 



-5 FT MLT — / 1 \i\r^^^^ 



EXISTING EMBANKMENT 

 (ASSUMED STABLE) 



\ -10.0 FT MLT 







MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS 







W 1 = 6 TON OPTIMIZED CONCRETE BLOCKS 







W 2 = 200-4000 LB STONE 







Wj = 200-2000 LB STONE 



MODEL SCALE 1 



24 



W 4 = 1-200 LB STONE 







Figure 14. Optimized concrete block revetment cross section, Plans 9 and 9R 



Chapter 3 Tests and Results 



17 



