My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07643
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD07643
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:12:22 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:07:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Physical and Economic Feasibility of Nonstructural Flood Plain Management Measures
Date
3/1/1978
Prepared For
US
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
232
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />value based on replacement cost (5). Separate depth-damage functions were presented for nine <br />locations of contents and seven type structures. This information was also developed from field <br />data, principally depth-damage functions from Corps of Enginee{s field offices and categorized <br />by structure type and location of contents. In 1974 FIA revised downward the 1970information <br />using flood insurance claims data from inception of the program through June 1973 (4). These <br />data were based upon the original acquisition cost for value of residential contents; original <br />acquisition cost or repair less depreciation for damage to residential contents; present <br />repiacement cost for value of residential structure and replacement or repair .cost less <br />depreciation for damage to residential structure (5). More recently the Huntington District, <br />Corps of Engineers contracted for a detailed survey of damageable property (contents and <br />structure) along the Ohio River (2). These data, in addition to segregating damage into structure <br />and content categories for several type structures, also segregates data for each type structure <br />by structure value. <br /> <br />A plot of these three sets of data for a one story structure, with and without basement is <br />shown in Figures A-2 arid A-3. For these Figures it was assumed the contents value is 35 percent <br />of the structure value, thus they represent total damage to contents and structure. The Figures <br />show considerable variation. For purposes of this investigation it was decided to use the 1970FIA <br />data as the basis for the analyses, but to modify these data slightly at and below the first floor to <br />reflect the detailed distribution of damage shown in the Huntington data. The principal reason <br />for using the 1970 data is that they were expected to yield higher expected annual damage than <br />the 1974 data, thus providing an upper bound on total damage and damage reduced. Table A-1 <br />shows the 1970 modified depth-damage data used in the analysis. Four type structures and four <br />location of contents were analyzed. These were, <br /> <br />1SNB One story, no basement. All contents on first floor. (Curves 01 and 27 in Reference 1) <br /> <br />2SNB Two or more stories, no basement. All contents on first two fioors (Curves 03 and 29.in <br />Reference 1) <br /> <br />1SWB One story with basement. All contents on first floor and basement (Curves 13 and 46 in <br />Reference 1) <br /> <br />2SW8 Two or more stories with basement. All contents on first two floors and basement. <br />(Curves 18 and 51 in Reference 1) <br /> <br />Since the ratio of contents value to structure value varies with value of structure it was desired <br />to test the sensitivity of total damage to these ratios. To do this it was assumed the ratio of value <br />of contents to value of structure (VC/VS) was .20, .35, .50, and .65. The computed percent <br /> <br />A-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.