PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 



Conclusions 



54. Based on the test results reported herein, it is concluded that: 



a. In regard to revetment stability testing, for the abbreviated 

 and full-length storm-surge hydrographs: 



(1) Plans R1S1, R2S1, and R3S1 are not acceptable revetment 

 designs. 



(2) The revetment design incorporated in Plans R4S1, R4S2, and 

 R4S3 is acceptable. 



(3) Of all wave periods investigated, the l4-sec waves are the 

 most severe in terms of revetment stability. 



b. In regard to wave pressure testing: 



(1) Wave pressures observed with the vertical seawall in place 

 were greater than comparable pressures observed with either 

 recurved seawall in place. 



(2) Wave pressures measured on the cutoff wall decreased when 

 the vertical seawall was replaced by the recurved seawall. 



(3) Highest wave pressures were observed at +8.6 ft swl. 



(4) Shock pressures measured on the vertical seawall for ap- 

 parently identical waves were extremely variable. 



(5) The variability of shock pressures for seemingly identical 

 waves was reduced with the recurved and modified recurved 

 seawalls in place. 



(6) With the vertical seawall in place, the greatest shock 

 pressures were measured near the swl. 



(7) With the recurved seawall in place, the greatest shock 

 pressures were measured near the swl and near the region of 

 the smaller radius of curvature. 



(8) With the modified recurved seawall in place, the greatest 

 shock pressures were measured on the lower face of the 2-ft 

 overhang. 



(9) Wall geometry had no significant effect on the magnitude or 

 duration of the secondary pressures. 



(10) The modified recurved seawall was the most suitable design 

 tested in terms of minimizing pressures on the face of the 

 wall and reducing runup and overtopping. 



Discussion 



55. Results of this model study indicate that Plan R4S3 is the most 



29 



