Damage Functions

EU CIRCLE
training course
Damage functions

Course Outline
 Terminology
 Introduction to damages and damage functions
 Development and features of damage functions
 Overview: damage functions for transport, electricity and (waste -) water

Course Objectives
1. Definition of damage, hazard and
damage functions
2. Differentiation of damage function types
3. Examination of damage function
construction approaches
4. Overview of damage functions from the
literature for different critical infrastructure
sectors

Introduction
Change of climatic conditions impacts Critical infrastructure
 Transport systems
 Electrical grid
 Water and sewage systems
 Communication systems
 Chemical sector
 Public sector
Research recently placed special emphasis on modelling of interdependent CI networks and
behaviour during climatic events
Research gaps:
 Quantification of climate impacts on critical infrastructure systems and users
 Models for infrastructure damage estimation

Terms and Definitions
Critical infrastructure
 Physical or virtual systems and assets, vital to people, economy and environment
 Disruption/ failure→ negative effects on public health, safety, security; major
economic losses and ecological damage
Impact of disruption/ loss
as most important factor in risk management
(Lange et al., 2015)

Hazard
 natural or human-induced physical event
 EU-CIRCLE definition:
Threats that have the potential to harm people (and the things they value) and places
(EU-CIRCLE consortium, 2016)

Damages
 Describe consequences of hazardous events
 Maximum damage: cost value for a scenario where everything is
destroyed by an event (Deckers et al., 2010)
damage categories:
Direct damages: resulting from direct contact with the hazard
Indirect damages: resulting from the event but not from its direct impact
sub-categories:
Tangible damages: easily specified in monetary terms
Intangible damages: difficult to assess in monetary terms

Damages
• Inconveniences
(e.g. due to time loss)
• Fatalities
• Injuries, diseases
• Structural damage
(to infrastructure)
• Operational damage
(traffic disruption)
Direct
Intangible
Tangible
Indirect

Damage functions
Damage functions
Mathematical relation between the magnitude of a (natural) hazard and the average damage
caused on a specific item.
(Prahl et al., 2016 and Prahl, 2016)
Hazard severity
Damage
• relative or
• absolute
functions are either described as mathematical
expressions or illustrated as graphs
x-axis: describes hazard severity
y-axis: represents estimated damages

Damage functions
Absolute damage functions allocate monetary losses to the hazard severity
Relative damage functions depict damages as proportion of the maximum possible
damage (percentage or proportion without unit)
Available data on values
Independent from market values
Value estimation causes
uncertainties
Regular calibration
Dependent on market valuesNo value estimation necessary
Relative
damage
Absolute
damage

Damage functions
Construction of damage curves:
Empirical: damage data collected after flood events (Merz et al., 2010)
 information on property types, hazard severity and occurred damages are collected through
surveys, which require large samples
 subsequent regression analysis reveals typical depth damage functions for different assets
Synthetic: hypothetical estimations by experts (Gerl et al., 2016)
 “what-if-analysis”
 damages estimation for standardised, typical asset types
 in the modelling, synthetic functions used as basis and are calibrated regarding real recorded
damages

Damage functions
Real data
Mitigation considered
Often poor quality data
Extrapolation causes uncertainties
Regular calibration
Dependent on market values
Mitigation not considered
Producible for each asset / hazard
Applicable to any area
Empirical
approach
Synthetic
approach

Damage functions
Inclusion of thresholds:
Assets are resilient to hazards up to certain severities
 E.g. Vanneuville et al. (2003) determined flood inundation threshold of 50 cm for
roads and railways
Design criteria influence the resilience of assets, since they prescribe standardised hazard
scenarios which the asset must be able to withstand

Damage functions - Transport
Infrastructure
Damage functions often for infrastructure in general
0
50
100
0 2 4 6
damage[%]
inundation depth [m]
Flood damage - transport
0
0.5
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - infrastructure
Rhine Atlas flood damage function
ICPR (2001) and (2016), Meyer and Messner (2005), Moel and Aerts
(2011), Bubeck and Moel (2010), Bubeck et al. (2011), Kellermann et
al. (2015)
Damage Scanner flood damage function
Bubeck, Vanneuville et al. (2006) and Klijn et al. (2007), Bubeck
and Moel (2010), Bubeck et al. (2011), Moel and Aerts (2011),
Kellermann et al. (2015)

Roads
Damage functions for structural damages from fluvial flooding
0
0.5
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - roads
0
0.5
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - roads
Flood damage function for Europe (Huizinga et al., 2017) Flood damage function (van der Sande, 2001)
Further damage functions in Tariq et al. (2013) and Huizinga et al. (2017)

Roads and railways
Many papers contain joint damage functions for roads and railways
0
0.5
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - roads and railways
0
0.5
1
0 2 4 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - roads and railways
Flood damage function
Kok et al. (2004)
Flood damage function
Vanneuville et al. (2003)
also in Deckers et al. (2010), Kellens et al. (2013),
Vanneuville et al. (2005), Verwaest et al. (2008)

Bridges
 No specific damage functions
 Bridges designed to withstand flood events to certain severity
(Department of Homeland Security FEMA 2013)
 Estimations for wildfire damages are scarce
• loss strength for steel under heat influence
(Pool, 2016 and Wright et al., 2013)
• collapse of bridges occurs in short time of fire duration
(Mostafaei et al. (2014)

Gasoline stations and train stations
Vanneuville et al. (2006) developed flood damage functions for industry
 applicable to gas stations, train stations and airports
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
damagefactor
Flood damage - gasoline stations, train stations,
airports
Flood damage function for industry
Vanneuville et al. (2006)

Airports
 Vanneuville et al. (2006) apply the flood damage function for industry
 Kok et al. (2004) developed a flood damage function for airports
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
damagefactor
Flood damage - airports
Flood damage functionfor airports
Kok et al. (2004)

Damage functions - Electricity
Control rooms
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
Percentageofdamage(%)
flooding depth (m)
Control room
Flood damage function for control rooms
Department of Homeland Security FEMA (2013)

Distribution Lines
0% 0% 0%
1% 1% 1% 1%
2% 2% 2% 2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
flooding depth (m)
Distribution circuits elevated crossings
Flood damage function for distribution lines

Substations
0% 2% 4% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 12% 14% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
flooding depth (m)
Low - Medium - Large Voltage Substation
Flood damage function for low, medium and large
voltage substations

Damage functions – Energy and Water
Conflated damage functions for energy and water supply from the literature
0
50
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
damage[%]
water and energy supply
0
50
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
damage[%]
damage water and energy supply
MURL (2000) Pflügner et al. (1995)

Damage functions (Waste -) Water
Water mains
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 2.7 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
damagefactor
damage factor for gas and water mains during flood
Flood damage function for gas and water mains
Kok et al. (2004)

Culverts
Flood damage function for buried river crossings
Kok et al. (2004)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
damage[%]
flood damage - burried collected river crossing

Pumping stations
Flood damage function for wastewater pumping
stations
Kok et al. (2004)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
damagefactor
damage factor for Pumping stations during flood

Wastewater treatment plants
Flood damage function for wastewater treatment plants
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
damage[%]
inundation [m]
damage wastewater treatment plant [%]

Control vaults
Flood damage function for wastewater control vaults
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
damage[%]
Flood damage control vaults

Prospective Research
 Majority of damage estimation approaches either omits infrastructure or just
addresses it in a rough-grained scale
 lack of research on interdependent infrastructure systems and their performance
affected by multiple hazards
 Indirect/intangible damages often mentioned, but not further estimated (due to a lack
of data or knowledge)
 Methodologies for measurement of intangible data and estimation of indirect
damages have to be further developed

References and Useful Links
 Bubeck, Philip: Memo: Flood damage evaluation methods.
 Bubeck, P.; Moel, H. de; Bouwer, L. M.; Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2011): How reliable are projections of future flood damage? In Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (12), pp. 3293–3306. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-11-3293-2011.
 Bubeck, Philip; Moel, Hans de (2010): Sensitivity analysis of flood damage calculations for the river Rhine.
 Deckers, Pieter; Kellens, Wim; Reyns, Johan; Vanneuville, Wouter; Maeyer, Philippe de (2010): A GIS for Flood Risk
Management in Flanders. In Pamela S. Showalter, Yongmei Lu (Eds.): Geospatial Techniques in Urban Hazard and Disaster
Analysis. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 51–69.
 Department of Homeland Security FEMA (2013): Hazus®-MH - Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology. Technical
Manual. Available online at https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-8292/hzmh2_1_fl_tm.pdf.
 EU-CIRCLE consortium (2016): D1.2 STATE OF THE ART REVIEW AND TAXONOMY OF EXISTING KNOWLEDGE.
http://www.eu-circle.eu/research/deliverables/
 Gerl, Tina; Kreibich, Heidi; Franco, Guillermo; Marechal, David; Schröter, Kai (2016): A Review of Flood Loss Models as Basis
for Harmonization and Benchmarking. In PloS one 11 (7), e0159791. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159791.
 Huizinga, Jan; Moel, Hans de; Szewczyk, Wojciech (2017): Global flood depth-damage functions. Methodology and the
database with guidelines. DOI: 10.2760/16510.

 ICPR (2001): Übersichtskarten der Überschwemmungsgefährdung und der möglichen Vemögensschäden am Rhein.
Abschlussbericht: Vorgehensweise zur Ermittlung der hochwassergefährdeten Flächen Vorgehensweise zur Ermittlung der
möglichen Vermögensschäden.
 ICPR (2016): Tool and Assessment Method for Determining Flood Risk Evolution or Reduction. Technical Report
 Kellens, Wim; Vanneuville, Wouter; Verfaillie, Els; Meire, Ellen; Deckers, Pieter; Maeyer, Philippe de (2013): Flood Risk
Management in Flanders. Past Developments and Future Challenges. In Water Resour Manage 27 (10), pp. 3585–3606. DOI:
10.1007/s11269-013-0366-4.
 Kellermann, P.; Schöbel, A.; Kundela, G.; Thieken, A. H. (2015): Estimating flood damage to railway infrastructure – the case
study of the March River flood in 2006 at the Austrian Northern Railway. In Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (11), pp. 2485–
2496. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-15-2485-2015.
 Kok, M.; Huizinga, H. J.; Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M.; Barendregt, A. (2004): Standard Method 2004 Damage and Casualties
Caused by Flooding.
 Lange, David; Sjöström, Johan; Hanfi, Daniel (2015): Losses and consequences of large scale incidents with cascading
effects.
 Merz, B.; Kreibich, H.; Schwarze, R.; Thieken, A. (2010): Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage". In Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (8), pp. 1697–1724. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010.
 Meyer, Volker; Messner, Frank (2005): National Flood Damage Evaluation Methods. A Review of Applied Methods in
England, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany

 Moel, H. de; Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2011): Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on flood
damage estimates. In Nat Hazards 58 (1), pp. 407–425. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-010-9675-6.
 Mostafaei, Hossein; Kashef, Ahmed; Sultan, Mohamed; McCartney, Cameron; Leroux, Patrice; Cowalchuk, Ron (2014):
Resilience of Critical Infrastructure to Extreme Fires - Gaps and Challenges.
 Pool, Kavi (2016): Fire Hazard Simulation of Bridge Hangers Exposed to Hazardous Material Fires using Fire Dynamics
Simulator.
 Prahl, Boris F. (2016): On Damage Functions for the Estimation of Storm Loss and their Generalization for Climate-Related
Hazards
 Prahl, Boris F.; Rybski, Diego; Boettle, Markus; Kropp, Jürgen P. (2016): Damage functions for climate-related hazards.
Unification and uncertainty analysis. In Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (5), pp. 1189–1203. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-16-1189-
2016.
 Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Hoes, O.A.C.; van de Giesen, N. C. (2013): Development of a risk-based framework to integrate flood
insurance. In J. Flood Risk Manage 7 (4), pp. 291–307. DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12056.
 van der Sande, Corné (2001): River flood damage assessment using IKONOS imagery.
 Vanneuville, Wouter; Gamanya R.; Rouck, Kristien de; Maeghe, Koen; Maeyer, Philippe de (2005): Development of a Flood
Risk Model and applications in the management of hydrographical catchments.

 Vanneuville, Wouter; Maddens, Ruben; Collard, Christophe; Bogaert, Peter; Maeyer, Philippe de; Antrop, Marc (2006): Impact
op mens en economie t.g.v. overstromingen bekeken in het licht van wijzigende hydraulische condities, omgevingsfactoren
en klimatologische omstandigheden.
 Vanneuville, Wouter; Maeyer, Philippe de; Maeghe, Koen; Mostaert, Frank (2003): Model of the effects of a flood in the
Dender catchment, based on a risk methodology.
 Verwaest, T.; Vanpoucke, Ph.; Reyns, J.; van der Biest, K.; Vanderkimpen, P.; Peeters, P. et al. (2008): COMPARISON BETWEEN
DIFFERENT FLOOD RISK METHODOLOGIES. ACTION 3B REPORT.
 Wright, William; Lattimer, Brian; Woodworth, Michael; Nahid, Mohammad; Sotelino, Elisa (2013): Highway bridge Fire
Hazard Assessment Draft - Guide specification for Fire Damage evaluation in Steel Bridges.

Damage Functions

More Related Content

Similar to Damage Functions (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Damage Functions