PART IV: CONCLUSIONS 



60. Based on test results and observations presented herein, it is 

 concluded that: 



a. Plans 1-6, 9-l6, 19-23, 25, and 27 are not acceptable. 



b. Plans 7 and 8 had minor damage of the rehabilitation dolos; 

 however, the existing dolosse extending seaward of sta 37+00 

 were damaged for the selected test conditions. 



c. Plan 17 performed satisfactorily when subjected to the abbrevi- 

 ated hydrograph at a 90-deg angle of wave attack; however, it 

 was found that the number of dolosse in the seaward transition 

 could be reduced, thus creating Plan I8. 



d. Plan 18 was acceptable for the 90-deg but not the 67.5-deg 

 angle of wave attack. 



e. Plan 24 was considered marginal for the 90-deg angle of wave 

 attack. The rock buttress sloughed off during testing and 

 stone was washed down the dogleg creating a risk to the exist- 

 ing tetrapods and leaving the rehabilitation dolosse at the 

 seaward transition toe without protection. 



f. Plan 26 was acceptable for both the 90-deg and 67.5-deg angles 

 of wave attack. Modifying the shoreward transition by encom- 

 passing existing units with two rows of rehabilitation dolosse 

 seemed to improve the stability of this region. 



g. The end of the trench was referenced to mllw for Plans 18 and 

 26 to give an indication of constructability . Since the pro- 

 file of the existing material varies and is flat in some 

 places, it is suggested that for construction purposes the end 

 of the trench be referenced to a horizontal distance measured 

 from the outside edge of the cap. The minimum horizontal dis- 

 tances recommended from the model test results are 100 and 



35 ft for Plans 18 and 26, respectively. 



26 



