A review of flood damage analysis for a building structure and contents

Abstract

As a natural hazard, flood can cause a significant damage to buildings. Buildings are one of the important components of an economy which are providing the necessary space for human activities. In this regard, any considerable changes to their serviceability affect living condition of people locally, regionally, and even globally. Thus, building damage analysis forms a crucial part of a flood risk analysis. This review paper provides an insight into flood damage analysis for a building structure and contents: past works, current state, and required improvements. The discussed buildings include residential, commercial, and industrial types. The methods are divided into two main categories: (1) using real data and empirical models, and (2) using what-if analysis and analytical models. Differences in damage analysis of a building structure and its contents are explained in a separate section. Flood factors influencing the damage to a building structure and its contents are presented. How a method considers some of those flood factors is described. Limitations and shortcomings of each method alongside their advantages and strength are discussed. Lack of reliable data for both model construction and validation is one of the main issues with the methods in both categories. Inability to convey the uncertainty is the other main issue identified in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

(adopted from Davis and Skaggs 1992)

Fig. 2

References

  1. Apel H, Aronica GT, Kreibich H, Thieken AH (2009) Flood risk analyses—how detailed do we need to be? Nat Hazards 49(1):79–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banks E (2005) Catastrophic risk: analysis and management. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Barkdoll BB, Melville BW, Chiew YM (2000) Time scale for local scour at bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng 126(10):793–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berni N, Molinari D, Ballio F, Minucci G, Munoz CA (2017) Best practice of data collection at the local scale: the RISPOSTA procedure. Flood Damage Surv Assess New Insights Res Pract 228:79

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black RD (1975) Flood proofing rural residences. Washington DC. Report to the US Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, USA

  6. Büchele B, Kreibich H, Kron A, Thieken A, Ihringer J, Oberle P, Merz B, Nestmann F (2006) Flood-risk mapping: contributions towards an enhanced assessment of extreme events and associated risks. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6(4):485–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cammerer H, Thieken AH, Lammel J (2013) Adaptability and transferability of flood loss functions in residential areas. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(11):3063–3081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang LF, Kang JL, Su MD (2009) Depth-damage curve for flood damage assessments industrial and commercial sectors. In: Proceedings of the 4th IASME/WSEAS international conference on water resources, hydraulics & hydrology

  9. Chatterton JB, Penning-Rowsell EC (1981) Computer modelling of flood alleviation benefits. J Water Resour Plan Manag Div 107(2):533–547

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chatterton JB, Pirt J, Wood TR (1979) The benefits of flood forecasting. J Inst Water Eng Sci 33(3):237–252

    Google Scholar 

  11. CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) (2019) EM-DAT: the international disaster database. Retrieved from https://www.emdat.be/. Last visit October 2019

  12. Custer R, Nishijima K (2015) Flood vulnerability assessment of residential buildings by explicit damage process modelling. Nat Hazards 78(1):461–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dahl KA, Fitzpatrick MF, Spanger-Siegfried E (2017) Sea level rise drives increased tidal flooding frequency at tide gauges along the US East and Gulf Coasts: projections for 2030 and 2045. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0170949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis SA (1985) Business depth-damage analysis procedures (No. WRSC-85-R-5). Corps of Engineers Fort Belvoir, VA Water Resources Support Center

  15. Davis SA, Skaggs LL (1992) Catalog of residential depth-damage functions used by the army corps of engineers in flood damage estimation (No. IWR-92-R-3). Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources Alexandria, V

  16. De Risi R (2013) A probabilistic bi-scale framework for urban flood risk assessment

  17. De Risi R, Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Kyessi A, Mbuya E, Yeshitela K, Yonas N (2012) D2. 4-Guidelines for vulnerability assessment and reinforcement measures of adobe houses. CLUVA project-Climate Change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa

  18. De Risi R, Jalayer F, De Paola F, Iervolino I, Giugni M, Topa ME, Mbuya E, Kyessi A, Manfredi G, Gasparini P (2013) Flood risk assessment for informal settlements. Nat Hazards 69(1):1003–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Risi R, De Paola F, Turpie J, Kroeger T (2018) Life Cycle Cost and Return on Investment as complementary decision variables for urban flood risk management in developing countries. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28:88–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DeGagne M, MacMillan DB (1999) Red river basin stage-damage curves update and preparation of flood damage maps. In: Proceedings of red river flooding–decreasing our risks, pp 27–28

  21. Dottori F, Figueiredo R, Martina ML, Molinari D, Scorzini A (2016) INSYDE: a synthetic, probabilistic flood damage model based on explicit cost analysis

  22. Downton MW, Miller JZB, Pielke RA Jr (2005) Reanalysis of US National Weather Service flood loss database. Nat Hazards Rev 6(1):13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dutta D, Tingsanchali T (2003) Development of loss functions for urban flood risk analysis in Bangkok. In: International symposium on new technologies for urban safety of mega cities in Asia. International Center for Urban Safety Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

  24. Dutta D, Herath S, Musiake K (2003) A mathematical model for flood loss estimation. J Hydrol 277(1):24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Elmer F, Thieken AH, Pech I, Kreibich H (2010) Influence of flood frequency on residential building losses. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(10):2145–2159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Faure M, Hartlief T (2006) The Netherlands. Financial Compensation for Victims of Catastrophes, pp 195–226

  27. FEMA (2000) Coastal construction manual. FEMA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  28. FEMA (2002) National flood insurance program description. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/1150. Last visit January 2019

  29. FEMA (2016) Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/definitions. Last visit January 2019

  30. Fuchs S (2009) Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria—paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7(5):495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Grelot F, Richert C (2019) floodam—modelling flood damage functions of buildings—manual for floodam v1.0.0. IRSTEA. Retrieved from https://irsteadoc.irstea.fr/cemoa/PUB00061355. Last visit October 2019

  33. Haehnel RB, Daly SF (2004) Maximum impact force of woody debris on floodplain structures. J Hydraul Eng 130(2):112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hammond MJ, Chen AS, Djordjević S, Butler D, Mark O (2015) Urban flood impact assessment: a state-of-the-art review. Urban Water J 12(1):14–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. HAZUS-MH (2003) Flood model: technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  36. Higgings RJ, Robinson DJ (1981) An economic comparison of different flood mitigation strategies in Australia

  37. Islam KM (1997) The impacts of flooding and methods of assessment in urban areas of Bangladesh. Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University

  38. Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2012) Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards 60(2):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Elefante L, Manfredi G (2013) Robust fragility assessment using Bayesian parameter estimation. In: Vienna congress on recent advances in earthquake engineering and structural dynamics

  40. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Kyessi A, Mbuya E, Yonas N (2015) Vulnerability of built environment to flooding in African cities. In: Pauleit S et al (eds) Urban vulnerability and climate change in Africa. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–106

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jalayer F, Carozza S, De Risi R, Manfredi G, Mbuya E (2016) Performance-based flood safety-checking for non-engineered masonry structures. Eng Struct 106:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jalayer F, Aronica GT, Recupero A, Carozza S, Manfredi G (2018) Debris flow damage incurred to buildings: an in situ back analysis. J Flood Risk Manag 11:S646–S662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson WK (1978) Physical and economic feasibility of nonstructural flood plain management measures. Hydrologic Engineering Center Davis, CA. US Army Corps of Engineers

  44. Jonkman SN (2005) Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Nat Hazards 34(2):151–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kang JL, Su MD, Chang LF (2005) Loss functions and framework for regional flood damage estimation in residential area. J Mar Sci Technol 13(3):193–199

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kates RW (1968) Industrial flood losses: damage estimation in the Lehigh Valley. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kelman I (2003) Physical flood vulnerability of residential properties in coastal, eastern England. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge

  48. Kelman I, Spence R (2003) A flood failure flowchart for buildings. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-municipal engineer, vol 156, No 3. Thomas Telford Ltd, pp 207–214

  49. Kelman I, Spence R (2004) An overview of flood actions on buildings. Eng Geol 73(3):297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kreibich H, Neuhold C (2012) Cross-country transferability of flood damage models for residential buildings. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts, vol 14, p 1915

  51. Kreibich H, Thieken AH (2008) Assessment of damage caused by high groundwater inundation. Water Resour Res 44(9):W09409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kreibich H, Thieken AH, Petrow T, Müller M, Merz B (2005) Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures—lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(1):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kreibich H, Piroth K, Seifert I, Maiwald H, Kunert U, Schwarz J, Merz B, Thieken AH (2009) Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modelling? Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(5):1679–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kreibich H, Seifert I, Merz B, Thieken AH (2010) Development of FLEMOcs—a new model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector. Hydrol Sci J 55(8):1302–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kreibich H, Thieken A, Haubrock SN, Schröter K (2017) HOWAS21, the German Flood Damage Database. In: Flood damage survey and assessment. Wiley, pp 65–75

  56. Krzysztofowicz R, Davis DR (1983) Category-unit loss functions for flood forecast-response system evaluation. Water Resour Res 19(6):1476–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. LGA (Local Government Association) (2017) Managing flood risk. Retrieved from https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/severe-weather/flooding/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management/managing-flood-risk. Last visit January 2019

  58. Ling D, Archer W (2012) Real estate principles: a value approach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  59. Mazzorana B, Simoni S, Scherer C, Gems B, Fuchs S, Keiler M (2014) A physical approach on flood risk vulnerability of buildings. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18(9):3817–3836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. McBean EA, Gorrie J, Fortin M, Ding J, Moulton R (1988a) Flood depth-damage curves by interview survey. J Water Resour Plan Manag 114(6):613–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McBean EA, Gorrie J, Fortin M, Ding J, Monlton R (1988b) Adjustment factors for flood damage curves. J Water Resour Plan Manag 114(6):635–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Melville BW, Chiew YM (1999) Time scale for local scour at bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng 125(1):59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Merz B, Kreibich H, Schwarze R, Thieken A (2010) Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage”. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(8):1697–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Messner F (2007) Evaluating flood damages: guidance and recommendations on principles and methods. Helmholz Unweltforschungszentrum (UFZ)

  65. Mitchell-Wallace K, Foote M, Hillier J, Jones M (2017) Natural catastrophe risk management and modelling: a practitioner’s guide. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  66. Molinari D, Menoni S, Ballio F (eds) (2017) Flood damage survey and assessment: new insights from research and practice, vol 228. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  67. Molk P (2016) Private versus public insurance for natural hazards: individual behavior’s role in loss mitigation. In: Gardoni P, Murphy C, Rowell A (eds) Risk analysis of natural hazards. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–277

    Google Scholar 

  68. Munich RE, NatCatSERVICE (2019) Loss events worldwide 1980–2018. Retrieved from https://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/natcatservice/index.html. Last visit October 2019

  69. Nadal NC, Zapata RE, Pagan I, Lopez R, Agudelo J (2009) Building damage due to riverine and coastal floods. J Water Resour Plan Manag 136(3):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. National Research Council (2015) Affordability of National Flood Insurance Program Premiums: Report 1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/21709. Last visit August 2019

  71. Nishijima K, Maes MA, Goyet J, Faber MH (2009) Constrained optimization of component reliabilities in complex systems. Struct Saf 31(2):168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. NSSL (National Severe Storms Laboratory—part of NOAA) (2019) Severe weather 101, flood basics. Retrieved from https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/floods/. Last visit January 2019

  73. NWS (National Weather Service) web page, Flood related hazards. Retrieved from https://www.weather.gov/safety/flood-hazards. Last visit January 2019

  74. NWS web page, Flash flooding definition. Retrieved from https://www.weather.gov/phi/FlashFloodingDefinition. Last visit January 2019

  75. Oliveri E, Santoro M (2000) Estimation of urban structural flood damages: the case study of Palermo. Urban Water 2(3):223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Papathoma-Koehle M, Keiler M, Totschnig R, Glade T (2012) Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat Hazards 64(3):2083–2105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes M, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Nat Hazards 58(2):645–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Parker DJ, Green CH, Thompson PM (1987) Urban flood protection benefits: a project appraisal guide. Gower Technical Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  79. Penning-Rowsell EC, Chatterton JB (1977) The benefits of flood alleviation. Saxon House, Farnborough

    Google Scholar 

  80. Penning-Rowsell EC, Green C (2000) New Insights into the appraisal of flood-alleviation benefits:(1) flood damage and flood loss information. Water Environ J 14(5):347–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Penning-Rowsell E, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Morris J, Chatterton J, Green C (2005) The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a manual of assessment techniques. Middlesex University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  82. Queensland TSO (2002) Guidance on the assessment of tangible flood damages. DONRA Mines, ed

  83. Roos W (2003) Damage to buildings. Delft Cluster

  84. Rotimi Dada J (2014) Development of a comprehensive systematic quantification of the costs and benefits (CB) of property level flood risk adaptation measures in England. Doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England

  85. Scawthorn C, Flores P, Blais N, Seligson H, Tate E, Chang S, Mifflin E, Thomas W, Murphy J, Jones C, Lawrence M (2006) HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. II. Damage and loss assessment. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):72–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Schneider PJ, Schauer BA (2006) HAZUS—its development and its future. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Schwarz J, Maiwald H (2008) Damage and loss prediction model based on the vulnerability of building types. In: 4th international symposium on flood defence, Toronto, Canada, pp 6–8

  88. Smith DI (1981) Actual and potential flood damage: a case study for urban Lismore, NSW, Australia. Appl Geogr 1(1):31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Smith DI (1994) Flood damage estimation—a review of urban stage-damage curves and loss functions. Water SA 20(3):231–238

    Google Scholar 

  90. Smith DI, Greenaway M (1988) The computer assessment of urban flood damage: ANUFLOOD. Technical report, Desktop Planning, Melbourne, Hargreen, Australia

  91. Smith DI, Den Exter P, Dowling MA, Jelliffe PA, Munro RG, Martin WC (1979) Flood damage in the Richmond River Valley. New South Wales

  92. Smith DI, Handmer JW, Greenaway MA, Lustig TL (1990) Losses and lessons from the Sydney floods of August 1986. Environmental management PTY. Ltd. and Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, A, Prepared for Public Works Department, NSW

  93. Sturgess R (2000) Rapid appraisal method (RAM) for floodplain management

  94. Thieken AH, Müller M, Kreibich H, Merz B (2005) Flood damage and influencing factors: new insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany. Water Resour Res 41(12):WR004177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Thieken AH, Olschewski A, Kreibich H, Kobsch S, Merz B (2008) Development and evaluation of FLEMOps—a new flood loss estimation model for the private sector. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 118:315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Torterotot JP, Kauark-Leite LA, Roche PA (1992) Analysis of individual real-time responses to flooding and influence on damage to households. In: Saul AJ (ed) Floods and flood management. Springer, Berlin, pp 363–387

    Google Scholar 

  97. Tschoegl L, Below R, Guha-Sapir D (2006) An analytical review of selected data sets on natural disasters and impacts. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Louvain

    Google Scholar 

  98. USACE (1998) Flood proofing performance: successes and failures. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) National Flood Proofing Committee, Washington, DC, December

  99. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, web page (2019) Coasts, high-tide flooding. Retrieved from https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/shallow-coastal-flooding-nuisance-flooding. Last visit August 2019

  100. Van den Bergh R (2006) Compulsory catastrophe extension of first party property insurance from a competition policy perspective. In: Faure M, Hartlief T (eds) Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes. Springer, Berlin, pp 361–387

    Google Scholar 

  101. Van Der Veen A, Logtmeijer C (2005) Economic hotspots: visualizing vulnerability to flooding. Nat Hazards 36(1–2):65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Vogel K, Riggelsen C, Merz B, Kreibich H, Scherbaum F (2012) Flood damage and influencing factors: a Bayesian network perspective. In: 6th European workshop on probabilistic graphical models (PGM 2012), University of Granada, Granada, Spain

  103. White GF (1945) Human adjustment to floods. Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Research Paper No. 29

  104. White GF (1964) Choice of adjustment to floods. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morteza T. Marvi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marvi, M.T. A review of flood damage analysis for a building structure and contents. Nat Hazards 102, 967–995 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03941-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Natural hazard assessment
  • Vulnerability
  • Fragility
  • Flood risk analysis
  • Flood damage estimation
  • Damage function