FLOOD03130

• County: Statewide
• Community: Statewide
• Stream Name: All
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Flood Proofing Technology
• Date: 4/1/1994
• Prepared For: State of Colorado
• Prepared By: US Army Corps of Engineers
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

planking and wood lattice to reduce the visual impacts of
this design (see figure 15).
Although the masonry pier foundation design was
proposed for several frame structures in the Tug Fork
Valley flood proofing program, only one structure was
eventually elevated on this design. The remaining struc-
tures were purchased under the voluntary acqusition pro-
gram in lieu of flood proofmg (see FWOD PROOFING
OPTIONS,page 3). When compared to the solid masonry
wall design, the chief advantages of the masonry pier
design are:
1) the reduced impedance of flood water flows around
the structure; and
2) a slight reduction in construction costs.
The disadvantages of the masonry pier design include:
1) limited use in supporting structures with masonry
walls or masonry veneel1l;
2) limited use of the lower area for storage and vehicle
parking due to the reduced security of the lower area;
3) increased costs for insulation offlool1l and utilities;
4) increased costs for aesthetic treatment; and
5) increased Operations and Maintenance (0 & M)
costs,

New 6' ~If'f"N

N'EW ~1N6
A;N'D~OIN.6:
A? e~~'O.
N/>.I\-lNG. -e<DGlO
e,"x Ib" 62>>=-1€-
~ (m:)

1'G.lW'j'
~~~IM P6 'FU/r7, (

WbXW

s- ~5 vel';11t;,\..
tlJ"",\..-rD~"",
LAf z.!.?,' AI
.wua&

[1
. DD

'^
'"
~
>"

""',*,,/-.E. 'N'l'T\t1:.
LA~~'7j'i\..E.
~Nl"Y~~
1tJ~ /If Ib"
'It: W-l11o.U- Y

'0
.1
N

"" ''''p
'f> "1"1. ~ ;... ~ ;,
. . .
I '5-.5 'e.:W. I
~3'-O/~ ~

Figure 12.-Masonry Pier Detail Section

10

Rgure 13,-lnsulated Util~y Pipe Chase

'/..'-0"

Wff.-n
f'A><<;L-

'0
"
~

~

"
"
L

-%efIDN v~w

Figure 14.-Pipe Chase Detail Section

Figure 15.-Wood lattice Panels