BAUHAUS UNIVERSITY WEIMAR

PROJECT STRIPED
Flood Modeling and scenario

SUBMITTED TO:
DR HOLGER MAIWALD
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center (EDAC)
Bauhaus University, Weimar.
SUBMITTED BY :
YASIR KAZMI
Matriculation No : 117679
NHRE, Summer Semester 2017-18
 Declaration
I hereby declare that this project work of Project Striped which is submitted to Dr. Holger
Maiwald, is my original piece of work and this project work does not form the basis for
award of any degree and fellowship.

Signature
Yasir Kazmi,
Matriculation no.: 117679
Bauhaus University, Weimar
11.08.17

[i]
 Abstract
The aim of this project is to learn the various methods of damage assessment of buildings
due to flood hazard. The study area was a sector of the area of Mittelsachsen, affected
by Saxony flood of 2002. The approach to analyze the structures in the affected area is
empirical-statistical, which correlates damage and impact level and is in principle valid for
all natural hazards. The data was processed in MapInfo – Vertical software and water
levels and flow velocities were assigned to the buildings. Further calculation of mean
damage grades and calculation of loses was done as per formulae designed under EDAC
Flood model and GFZ-model FLEMOps.

[ii]
 INDEX
Sl. No. Contents Page No.
1 Introduction 1
2 Elaboration of input parameters 1
3 Calculation of Mean Damage Grade 7
4 Estimation of Losses 12
5 Comparison of result 18
6 List of values 19
7 References 24
8 Project SYMULTHAN

[iii]
 List of Figures
Figure. No. Content Page No.
1 Height levels 1
2 Damage function with respect to building type and number of 2
floors
3 Inundation level over ground floor 3
4 Flow Velocity 4
5 Specific energy height 5
6 Mean Damage Grade as per SVF type 1a 9
7 Mean Damage Grade as per SVF type 1b 10
8 Mean Damage grade as per SVF 2b 11
9 Map of losses based on SDF type 1 a 14
10 Map of losses based on SDF type 1b 15
11 Map of losses based on SDF type 2 16
12 Map of losses based on FLEMOps model of GFZ 18
13 Graphical representation of losses 19

[iv]
 List of Tables
Table Content Page No.
No.
1 Impact parameters vs damage types 4
2 Classification of buildings based on vulnerability class 6
3 Damage grades 7
4 Regression parameters for SVF type 1a 8
5 Regression parameters for SVF type 1b 8
6 Regression parameters for SVF type 2b 11
7 Regression parameters for SDF type 1a 12
8 Regression parameters for SDF type 1b 13
9 Regression parameters for SDF type 2 14
10 For calculating parameter L for losses based on FLEMOps 17
11 For calculating parameter C for losses based on FLEMOps 17
12 Comparison of losses 19
13 Table of values containing Specific Energy Height and 21
Inundation depth
14 Table of values containing Mean Damage Grades and Losses 23
according to different SDFs

[v]
1. Introduction
The method used for estimation of loses to a building due to damage caused by
flood is based on relationship between inundation height of building and other
building characteristics like building type, its vulnerability class etc, which makes
these relationships useable for any kind of flood. The area considered in this
project is a part of the city of Eilenberg, situated in Saxony, Germany. It was
affected in 2002 floods and this analysis as carried out to estimate the probable
losses to buildings.

In this analysis, the database was processed in MapInfo-Vertical software tool to

get the values of submergence depth and flow velocity of flood around the
buildings. Then, the data was modelled to generate the building specific mean
damage grade as per different Specific Vulnerability Functions. Similarly, the
losses to the buildings were estimated based on different Specific Vulnerability
Functions.

2. Elaboration of input parameters

a) Inundation level: this is the difference in height of the inundation level over
ground floor level and the height of ground floor level over ground level.

Fig 1 : Height levels

Page 1 of 24
 The presence of cellar in a building makes it more important to complicated
than a simple height. A cellar is a space in the building whose floor level is
below the ground level. This gets flooded and may or may not collapse,

Fig 2: Damage function with respect to building type and number of floors
(Schwarz et al., 2005 and Maiwald, 2007)
depending on the measures taken during the construction and during the
flooding. In some cases, when this height is negative, a correction is to be
applied for the derived values of parameters, which are used for further
calculation. The parameters A and B are chosen from the values of cellar side
whenever the value of inundation height is between 0 and -0.3.

This shows the slight jump in values between the ranges 0 and -0.3 of
inundation level.
Following map shows the difference inundation levels of different buildings in
the area under study.

Page 2 of 24
.

Fig 3 : Inundation level over ground floor

b) Flow velocity: it is the velocity of flood near the building. Although direct
structural damage to buildings has not been observed 1, it affects roads
structurally whereas it has some influence on the monetary loss to the
buildings.

Page 3 of 24
 Table 1 : Impact parameters vs damage types
Following map shoes the flow velocities around the buildings in the area.

Fig 4 : Flow Velocity

Page 4 of 24
c) Specific energy height: It is the total energy of flood water at the inundation
level. It is the sum of both potential and kinetic energy of flood water.
H = hgl + [ Vfl2/ (2g) ]
Where,
hgl = inundation level over ground level
Vfl = flow velocity
g = acceleration due to gravity
Following image shows the specific energy height of different buildings.

Fig 5 : Specific energy height

Page 5 of 24
d) Vulnerability : It is taken as a measure for the resistance of the building against
comparable impact conditions (inundation height, flow velocity) and is related to the
differences in the damage (or loss) under these action parameters. Buildings of
different structural type of the same material belong to the same vulnerability class, if
for the relevant rage of flood action parameter, similar mean damage grades have to
be expected.
Five vulnerability classes are defined for the buildings:
A – very sensitive
B – sensitive
C – Normal
D – increased flood resistance

Table 2 : Classification of buildings based on vulnerability class

Page 6 of 24
3. Calculation of Mean Damage Grade (Dm)
Mean damage grade : The generalized damage definitions are related to the quality
of structural damage and non-structural damage as well as to the required extent
of rehabilitation or other damage replacement measures. Repeatedly observed
effects can be regarded as typical building response indicators for a comparable
level of damage, loss of integrity, stability etc. By the definition of damage grades
(Di), a unified evaluation of all damage data and reports is guaranteed. Damage
grades enable the logical link between flood impact and loss in an innovative way.
In all cases a minimum damage grade D1 (without the occurrence of structural
damage) has to be assigned due to humidity penetration effects.

Table 3 : Damage grades

Page 7 of 24
As per Specific Vulnerability Function SVF Type 1a (using linear approach)
Dm = 2 · tanh (A ∙ x + B) + 3
Where,
A and B are regression parameters, derived from table 4 below (Schwarz &
Maiwald, 2009).

Parameter for specific Vulnerability Functions SVF

Type 1a
Level Building Type A B
Cellar Masonry 0.143 -0.465
Reinforced Concrete 0.103 -0.569
Floors Prefabricated 0.49 -0.465
Framework 0.369 -0.465
Clay 0.655 -0.465
Masonry 0.13 -0.465
Reinforced Concrete 0.025 -0.569
Table 4 : Regression parameters for SVF type 1a

Similarly, As per Specific Vulnerability Function SVF Type 1b (using linear approach)
Dm = 2 · tanh (A ∙ x + B) + 3
Where,
A and B are regression parameters, derived from table 5 below (Schwarz & Maiwald,
2009).
Parameter for specific Vulnerability Functions SVF
Type 1b
Level Flood Vulnerability A B
Class
Celler HW-C 0.122 -0.495
HW-D 0.09 -0.571
Floors HW-A 0.683 -0.495
HW-B 0.381 -0.495
HW-C 0.148 -0.495
HW-D 0.026 -0.571
Table 5 : Regression parameters for SVF type 1b

Following maps represents the mean damage grades for SVF type 1and type 1b for the
buildings in the concerned area based on above relationship.

Page 8 of 24
Fig 6 : Mean Damage Grade as per SVF type 1a

Page 9 of 24
 Fig 7 : Mean Damage Grade as per SVF type 1b

for SVF type 2b (Maiwald and Schwarz, 2011)

Dm = 2 · tanh (A ∙ (H-2) + B) + 3 Where,
Where,
H is Specific Energy Height
A, B – Regression parameter taken from table 6 for SVF 2b (Maiwald and Schwarz, 2011).

Page 10 of 24
 Parameter for specific Vulnerability Functions SVF Typ 1b
Vulnerability Level H
class 0-2m >2m
A B A B
HW-A 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5
HW-B 0.057 -0.1 0.172 -0.1
HW-C 0.05 -0.446 0.185 0.446
HW-D 0.033 -0.549 0.05 0.549
Table 6 : Regression parameters for SVF type 2b

Fig 8 : Mean Damage grade as per SVF 2b

Page 11 of 24
4. Estimation of Losses
Following the proposed methodology, a set of rather new types of Specific Damage
Functions (SDF) for loss predictions were presented in [2, 3]. Functions refer to the
building type (SDF Type 1a) or flood vulnerability class (SDF Type 1b). A second type of
functions (SDF Type 2) transfers the calculated damage grades D i (see Table 1) into loss
statements.
For SDF type 1a, loss can be calculated by the following formula
L = A ∙ e(B∙ hgf)
Where,
L – Loss [%]
hgf – Inundation level over ground floor
A, B – Regression parameter Taken From following table (Schwarz et al 2005,
Maiwald 2007)

Parameter for Loss cal. based of SDF 1a

Building No. without With cellar
type of cellar
floors Floor Celler Floor level
level level
A B A B A B
Framework 1 12 0.93 see 24 0.73
2 11 0.73 masonry 22 0.53
3 9 0.53 or RC 20 0.43
Masonary 1 12 0.9 19 0.5 24 0.7
2 11 0.7 17 0.5 22 0.5
3 9 0.5 15 0.5 20 0.4
4 8 0.4 13 0.5 16 0.3
Reinforced 1 5.7 0.85 9.1 0.45 11.5 0.65
Concrete 2 5.3 0.65 8.1 0.45 10.5 0.45

3 4.3 0.45 7.2 0.45 9.5 0.35

4 3.8 0.35 6.2 0.45 7.6 0.25
Table 7 : Regression parameters for SDF type 1a

Similarly, for SDF type 1b, loss can be calculated by the following formula
L = A ∙ e(B∙ hgf)
Where,
L – Loss [%]
hgf – Inundation level over ground floor
A, B – Regression parameter Taken From following table (Maiwald 2007)

Page 12 of 24
 Parameter for Loss cal. based of SDF 1b
Building No. without With celler
type of celler
floors Floor level Celler level Floor level
A B A B A B
HW-B 1 12 0.94 see HW-C 24 0.74
2 11 0.74 or HW-D 22 0.54
3 9 0.54 20 0.44

HW-C 1 12 0.9 19 0.5 24 0.7

2 11 0.7 17 0.5 22 0.5
3 9 0.5 15 0.5 20 0.4
4 8 0.4 13 0.5 16 0.3
HW-D 1 5.7 0.85 9.1 0.45 11.5 0.65
2 5.3 0.65 8.1 0.45 10.5 0.45
3 4.3 0.45 7.2 0.45 9.5 0.35
4 3.8 0.35 6.2 0.45 7.6 0.25
Table 8 : Regression parameters for SDF type 1b

Also, it is important to take into consideration the following guidelines:

Upper bound: Recommendation L=115 % (replacement cost + demolition + disposal)
Jump point: Below the cellar slab (hgf ≈ – 0.30 m)
Number of floors: A developed roof is to be counted as an additional floor.

Further, for calculation of losses based on SDF type 2, same relationship as above is
used but the regression parameters are taken from :
Damage grade Number Without cellar With cellar
of floors Floor level Cellar level Floor level
A B A B A B
D1 1 1.5 0.89 2.3 0.49 2.9 0.69
2 1.3 0.69 2.1 0.49 2.7 0.49
3 1.1 0.49 1.8 0.49 2.5 0.39
4 1 0.39 1.6 0.49 2 0.29
D2 1 10.6 0.87 16.8 0.47 21.2 0.67
2 9.7 0.67 15 0.47 19.4 0.47
3 7.9 0.47 13.2 0.47 17.7 0.37
4 7.1 0.37 11.5 0.47 14.1 0.27
D3 1 12.9 0.94 20.5 0.54 25.9 0.74
2 11.9 0.74 18.3 0.54 23.7 0.54
3 9.7 0.54 16.2 0.54 21.6 0.44
4 8.6 0.44 14 0.54 17.3 0.34

Page 13 of 24
 D4 1 14.1 0.96 22.4 0.56 28.2 0.76
2 12.9 0.76 20 0.56 25.9 0.56
3 10.6 0.56 17.7 0.56 23.5 0.46
4 9.4 0.46 15.3 0.56 18.8 0.36
Table 9 : Regression parameters for SDF type 2
The respective maps show the losses estimation for above equations:

Fig 9 : Map of losses based on SDF type 1 a

Page 14 of 24
Fig 10: Map of losses based on SDF type 1b

Page 15 of 24
Fig 11 : Map of losses based on SDF type 2

Page 16 of 24
And based on the GFZ model FLEOMps, following relationship is used,
Loss = 𝐋×𝐂×𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠
Where,
L = Parameter based on Inundation level over ground level (Hgl)
C = parameter based on level of contamination and precautions taken

Inundation Damage ratio / Loss Terraced

level over [%] and
ground level One Apartment semi-
family buildings detached
houses houses
hgl (cm) (Single (Multi
family family
houses- houses-
SFH) MFH)
< 21 4 3 3
21-60 7 10 8
61-100 10 11 11
101-150 22 13 18
> 150 24 18 22
Table 10: For calculating parameter L for losses based on FLEMOps

Private precautions
None Good Very
Good

Contamination None 0.92 0.64 0.41

Moderate 1.2 0.86 0.71
Severe 1.58 -- --

Table 11: For calculating parameter C for losses based on FLEMOps

Following map is based on the above mentioned criteria.

Page 17 of 24
 Fig 12: Map of losses based on FLEMOps model of GFZ

5. Comparison of results
Comparison of losses calculated by various approaches can be seen in Figure 13
it is evident that for the same building stock, SDF type 2 gives maximum losses
(6,390,322 Euros) followed by SDF type 1a (5,561,282 Euros), SDF type 1b
(5,535,016 Euros) and minimum losses by FLEMOPs (5,090,670 Euros).

Page 18 of 24
 Function/Model EDAC SDF Type EDAC SDF Type EDAC SDF Type FLEMOPs
1a 1b 2
Losses (Euros) 5561282 5535016 6390322 5090670
Table 12 : Comparison of losses

Comparison of loss estimates

7000000
6000000 6390322.277
5000000 5561281.972 5535015.658
LOSS IN EURO

5090670
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
1
LOSS VALUE AS PER DIFFERENT ESTIMATES

Loss_SDF_Typ_1a Loss_SDF_Typ_1b Loss_SDF_Typ_2_with_SVF__Typ_2b Loss_FLEMOps

Fig 13: Graphical representation of losses

6. List of values

Height of
Mean
Ground floor Specific
water Replacement Flow Hgf
ID Level above Energy
level value velocity (m)
Ground Height (H)
(m)
level(m)
520 0.7 181.6 378000 0.0588875 0.580856 1.2810327
525 0.7 151.035 314500 0.0895047 0.609728 1.3101363
530 0.5 177.38 369000 0.1213369 0.823382 1.3241324
533 1 549.762 1190000 0.1553099 0.306084 1.3073134
543 0 323.793 560000 0.0665954 1.893234 1.89346
544 0 270.591 371000 0.1579856 1.364725 1.3659971
545 0.3 311.853 678000 0.0498302 1.377426 1.6775526
550 1 266.099 606000 0.0504318 0.079856 1.0799856
1198 0.5 97.0452 204000 0.0721101 0.643027 1.143292
1203 0.5 95.4381 200500 0.0436475 0.684916 1.1850131
1204 0.5 93.6474 196500 0.0090787 0.77707 1.2770742
1206 0.5 93.5499 196500 0.0255654 0.741592 1.2416253

Page 19 of 24
 Height of
Mean
Ground floor Specific
water Replacement Flow Hgf
ID Level above Energy
level value velocity (m)
Ground Height (H)
(m)
level(m)
1208 0 107.051 174000 0.0003737 0.9138364 0.9138364
1209 0 78.7847 128000 0.0794106 1.606207 1.6065284
1216 0 209.798 253000 0.001488 0.7787927 0.7787928
1217 0 112.844 159500 0.0293092 1.133939 1.1339828
1224 0.8 171.337 356500 0.1644024 0.964608 1.7659856
1227 0 90.2423 77000 0.0998182 1.852507 1.8530148
1229 1.8 153.452 319500 0 -1E+37 -1E+37
1233 0.5 185.662 386500 0.1216122 1.169874 1.6706278
1235 0.5 175.751 366000 0.1061838 1.142059 1.6426337
1236 0 148.419 266500 0.0981429 1.632058 1.6325489
1238 0 158.03 150000 0.0970159 1.386613 1.3870927
1240 1.5 134.533 280000 0.0944962 -0.24033 1.2601251
1243 1.5 134.68 280500 0.0933615 -0.383656 1.1167883
1244 0 62.4612 66000 0.1266758 1.387058 1.3878759
1246 0 25.1725 20500 0.0641321 1.091803 1.0920126
1247 1.4 730.65 7164000 0 -1.026547 0.3734528
1249 1.4 730.119 7159000 0 -0.965927 0.4340731
1255 0 67.7783 63500 0.0254931 1.047633 1.0476661
1263 0.7 206.049 462000 0.0687093 0.362831 1.0630716
1264 1.2 132.641 276000 0.0304957 0.085527 1.2855744
1266 0 147.362 177000 0.1649456 1.429244 1.4306307
1270 1.2 198.72 413500 0.1265977 0.210083 1.4108999
1271 1.8 195.272 445000 0.1787955 -0.48419 1.3174393
1277 0 133.629 170000 0.5826627 1.608754 1.6260576
1278 1 190.096 413500 0.260115 0.189221 1.1926695
1279 0 77.3238 93500 0.1840692 1.327914 1.3296409
1280 0.8 182.703 397500 0.2496624 0.362306 1.1654829
1281 0 172.437 393000 0.1105682 0.9405909 0.941214
1296 1.4 118.136 262500 0.2611499 -0.881897 0.5215795
1300 0 176.398 212000 0.0701856 0.9604554 0.9607065
1620 0 50.9948 48000 0.0108862 0.948474 0.94848
1667 0.8 238.654 646500 0.2518899 0.20221 1.0054439
1725 1.4 217.791 640000 0.0783034 -0.288228 1.1120845
2113 1.2 226.383 585500 0.0379709 -0.466224 0.7338495
2114 1.2 161.232 318000 0.01215 -0.776238 0.4237694
2772 0.7 317.151 660000 0.1348671 0.637742 1.3386691
2842 0.4 131.887 181000 0.5850132 1.929876 2.3473194

Page 20 of 24
 Height of
Mean
Ground floor Specific
water Replacement Flow Hgf
ID Level above Energy
level value velocity (m)
Ground Height (H)
(m)
level(m)
2903 0 102.931 117500 0.1784032 1.143751 1.1453732
2904 0.8 178.265 387500 0.1899342 0.1986103 1.000449
2905 0.8 239.488 759500 0.1933406 0.350295 1.1522002
3048 0.7 167.736 230000 0.1214556 0.126403 0.8271549
3053 0 46.7172 38000 0.0258695 1.515791 1.5158251
3179 0 115.491 169500 0.000917 0.3228353 0.3228353
3182 1 100.023 193000 0.0427807 0.126733 1.1268263
3183 1 165.164 344000 0.111273 0.358615 1.3592461
3184 0 157.225 346000 0.185493 1.473926 1.4756797
3187 1 129.776 183500 0.0102861 -0.063542 0.9364637
5186 0 187.561 359000 0.1098188 1.068258 1.0688727
5217 0 69.1592 58000 0.4682955 0.4895987 0.5007761
5220 0 149.521 285500 0.0413087 0.8701241 0.8702111
5228 0 126.526 120000 0.0965573 1.538393 1.5388682
5284 0 148.524 333000 0.0488401 1.272514 1.2726356
5285 0 83.1736 100000 0.0518302 1.071782 1.0719189
5296 1 209.881 604000 1.087065 1.606789 2.6670189
Table 13: Table of values containing Specific Energy Height and Inundation depth

Mean Mean Mean

Loss SDF Maximu
Damage Damage Damage Loss Loss
Loss SDF Type 2 m limit
ID Grade Dm Grade Grade Dm SDF FLEMO
Type 1a with SVF of
SVF Type Dm SVF SVF Type Type 1b ps
Type 2b damage
1a Tpye 1b 2b
520 2.2712221 2.1991826 2.1043947 85915.594 85915.594 74522.218 58968 434700
525 2.2783938 2.2051062 2.106723 72522.092 72522.092 62760.178 49062 361675
530 2.3321198 2.2494523 2.1078438 94682.653 94682.653 80582.319 57564 424350
533 2.2040678 2.1436534 2.106497 235755.14 235755.14 209220.6 185640 1368500
543 2.5691002 2.5768848 2.1540216 231811.76 231811.76 174683.56 120960 644000
544 2.4730401 2.365649 2.1112003 231456.79 231456.79 186306.41 57876 426650
545 2.476422 2.3684376 2.1363752 297000.12 297000.12 240700.19 146448 779700
550 2.1503244 2.0991113 2.0883941 107216.61 107216.61 96623.883 94536 696900
1198 2.2866917 2.2119588 2.0934168 47831.129 47831.129 41297.767 53856 234600
1203 2.2971703 2.2206102 2.0967348 48005.491 48005.491 41316.468 52932 230575
1204 2.3203777 2.2397642 2.1040783 49266.315 49266.315 42091.613 51876 225975
1206 2.3114182 2.2323706 2.101247 48400.086 48400.086 41470.694 51876 225975
1208 2.3339953 2.3100085 2.075281 36287.229 36287.229 30505.823 20880 200100

Page 21 of 24
 Mean Mean Mean
Loss SDF Maximu
Damage Damage Damage Loss Loss
Loss SDF Type 2 m limit
ID Grade Dm Grade Grade Dm SDF FLEMO
Type 1a with SVF of
SVF Type Dm SVF SVF Type Type 1b ps
Type 2b damage
1a Tpye 1b 2b
1209 2.4985373 2.4964981 2.1306059 43341.051 43341.051 33854.45 36864 147200
1216 2.3029621 2.275039 2.0646968 48003.286 48003.286 40821.775 30360 290950
1217 2.4121688 2.3154636 2.0926773 84663.525 84663.525 69841.547 42108 183425
1224 2.3682449 2.2792482 2.1435832 98168.108 98168.108 82185.267 77004 409975
1227 2.5590143 2.565384 2.1507036 30978.252 30978.252 23466.534 16632 88550
1229 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 367425
1233 2.4215725 2.3232162 2.1358119 152618.47 152618.47 125732.06 83484 444475
1235 2.4142913 2.3172134 2.1335365 142527.52 142527.52 117745.25 79056 420900
1236 2.5048413 2.5036719 2.1327175 54242.115 54242.115 43000.715 57564 306475
1238 2.4454267 2.436133 2.112894 43553.474 43553.474 34900.857 23400 172500
1240 2.0767613 2.037945 2.102724 54625.285 54625.285 50898.16 43680 322000
1243 2.0448118 2.0112923 2.0913122 39361.528 39361.528 36988.234 43758 322575
1244 2.4455335 2.4362543 2.112957 27598.003 27598.003 21829.894 17424 75900
1246 2.3754475 2.3568314 2.0893472 6571.7756 6571.7756 5383.0457 5412 23575
1247 1.823829 1.838771 1.9220979 279850.81 279850.81 1118770.2 859680 8238600
1249 1.8320279 1.8460271 1.9249397 287389.26 287389.26 1121132.9 859080 8232850
1255 2.3651019 2.3451339 2.0858355 19563.118 19563.118 16103.188 16764 73025
1263 2.2177709 2.1549947 2.0870546 94162.645 94162.645 82981.605 72072 531300
1264 2.151654 2.1002147 2.1047579 48969.983 48969.983 44299.101 43056 317400
1266 2.4556742 2.4477693 2.1163947 52949.87 52949.87 42225.004 27612 203550
1270 2.1810869 2.1246199 2.1148074 78080.643 78080.643 69986.882 64506 475525
1271 2.0227703 1.9928695 2.1073077 59383.858 59383.858 56899.396 69420 511750
1277 2.4991579 2.4972043 2.1321905 86783.239 86783.239 66666.316 48960 195500
1278 2.1761268 2.1205093 2.0973443 77270.417 77270.417 69151.94 64506 475525
1279 2.4313684 2.4201787 2.1082851 37070.463 37070.463 29535.188 24684 107525
1280 2.2176438 2.1548894 2.0951808 80995.297 80995.297 71444.686 62010 457125
1281 2.3401873 2.3169947 2.0774349 56608.517 56608.517 47733.071 51876 451950
1296 1.9386114 1.9222181 2.0447219 28712.885 28712.885 27171.521 31500 301875
1300 2.3447938 2.3221941 2.07897 45678.61 45678.61 38239.017 27984 243800
1620 2.3420144 2.3190568 2.078007 13525.328 13525.328 11252.18 5760 55200
1667 2.1792136 2.1230676 2.0824987 107292.44 107292.44 95438.099 85338 743475
1725 2.0660158 2.0289874 2.090939 114061.65 114061.65 105949.49 99840 736000
2113 2.0266867 1.9075851 2.6590214 69563.096 52080.193 88694.212 77286 673325
2114 1.9604929 1.8690284 2.6248064 36670.605 27602.015 51704.894 38160 365700
2772 2.2853728 2.2108697 2.1090085 154339.39 154339.39 133260.47 102960 759000
2842 2.6263839 2.4922412 3.9402863 167719.66 167719.66 65179.482 39096 208150

Page 22 of 24
 Mean Mean Mean
Loss SDF Maximu
Damage Damage Damage Loss Loss
Loss SDF Type 2 m limit
ID Grade Dm Grade Grade Dm SDF FLEMO
Type 1a with SVF of
SVF Type Dm SVF SVF Type Type 1b ps
Type 2b damage
1a Tpye 1b 2b
2903 2.3876625 2.3706517 2.0935821 39470.387 39470.387 32139.588 31020 135125
2904 2.1783577 2.1223582 2.0821043 72752.565 72752.565 64862.473 51150 445625
2905 2.2147362 2.1524835 2.0941247 153830.44 153830.44 135804.06 118482 873425
3048 2.1612649 2.1081875 2.0684796 46551.052 46551.052 41685.145 30360 264500
3053 3.1880962 3.1646592 2.7461801 18671.686 18956.866 8996.7542 10944 43700
3179 2.2010377 2.1607771 2.0294546 27197.938 27197.938 23820.216 14238 194925
3182 2.1613427 2.108252 2.092109 39068.85 39068.85 35181.014 50952 221950
3183 2.2167499 2.1541498 2.1106586 69964.804 69964.804 61840.217 53664 395600
3184 2.4664479 2.460009 2.1200239 106795.1 106795.1 84727.113 53976 397900
3187 2.1170096 2.0714424 2.077061 42124.062 42124.062 38478.954 22020 211025
5186 2.3699281 2.3505898 2.0875139 55119.623 55119.623 46025.3 56004 412850
5217 2.2377893 2.2018649 2.043117 10813.748 10813.748 9371.5466 4872 66700
5220 2.3239096 2.2986352 2.0718546 39700.289 39700.289 33645.282 37686 328325
5228 2.4820509 2.4777454 2.1251265 38748.496 38748.496 30512.607 25920 138000
5284 2.4485849 2.3454857 2.1037235 138417.12 138417.12 114143.89 51948 382950
5285 2.3707535 2.3515231 2.0877552 23292.762 23292.762 19294.337 15600 115000
5296 2.5380311 2.4192573 4.0298348 229717.87 229717.87 147245.44 130464 694600
Total 5561282 5535016 6390322 5090670
Table 14: Table of values containing Mean Damage Grades and Losses
according to different SDFs

Page 23 of 24
7. References
a) Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modeling ?, H. Kreiblich et al.,
Nat. Hazards earth syst. Sci., 9, 1679-1692, 2009.
b) Damage and loss prediction model considering inundation level, flow velocity and
vulnerability of building types, H. Maiwald & J. Schwarz, WIT transactions on Ecology
and the Environment, Vol 159, 2012 WIT Press.
c) Task sheet: Elaboration of flood-relevant input data in small segment of a test area,
Moodle, Bauhaus University, Weimar.
d) Flood Damage Modelling, Lecture 2, Dr. Holger Maiwald, Dr.-Ing. Jochen Schwarz
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center.
e) Thieken, A., Olschewski, A., Kreibich, H., Kobsch, S., Merz, B. (2008): Development
and evaluation of FLEMOps - a new Flood Loss Estimation MOdel for the private
sector. -In: Proverbs, D., Brebbia, C. A., Penning-Rowsell, E. (Eds.), Flood Recovery,
Innovation and Response I, WIT Press, p. 315-324.
f) Kreibich, H., Piroth, K., Seifert, I., Maiwald, H., Kunert, U., Schwarz, J., Merz, B.,
Thieken, A. H. (2009): Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage
modelling?- Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS), 9, 5, p. 1679-1692.

Page 24 of 24
BAUHAUS UNIVERSITÄT WEIMAR

PROJECT SYMULTHAN
SUMMER SEMESTER 2016-2017

Danish Viqar Ahmed | NHRE | Matrikel No. 117694

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr.-H. Maiwald | Bauhaus Universität Weimar
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project work of Project

Symulthan which is submitted to Dr. Holger Maiwald
is my original piece of work and this project work does
not form the basis for award of any degree and
fellowship.

Signature.

Place- Bauhaus University, Weimar

Date- 11.08.2017.
 Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................. 1
ABSTRACT .................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 4
Highlights of Flood Damage in India (1953-2010),
Source: XII Plan 2011 ..................................................... 5
Chennai Floods ............................................................. 6
Kashmir Flood 2014....................................................... 7
Uttarakhand Floods ...................................................... 8
Flood Hazard Map ........................................................ 9
National Database........................................................ 10
Statistics ........................................................................ 11
Comparison of Natural Hazards in India ................... 12
Conclusion.................................................................... 13
 ABSTRACT
With the constant working and discussion on the topic
of Earthquakes, we have somewhere neglected the
other Natural Hazards. Project Symulthan
concentrates on the effects, consequences of Floods.
We also carry out a discussion and comparison
between various major Natural Hazards. The project
continues with the discussion on how important is
flood assessment with some major examples from past
events occurred in our home country. The project is a
prologue to Project Striped and hence establishes a
foundation for us to understand the details discussed
in Striped.
 INTRODUCTION
Floods have been an important part of the Hazard Family.
India has experienced number of floods and continues to do
so due to its various geographical features and massive river
side settlements. India currently is the 2nd most flood
affected country.

National Disaster losses equate to 2% India’s GDP and up to

12% of Central Government Revenue. As the statistics clearly
depict that the loss is massive, the assessment is an
important topic and must be dealt with utmost care and
focus.

In recent times, the South Indian Floods in the year 2015

itself caused a massive damage. In terms of affected life and
property, is about 1.8 Million lives and 16 Billion US Dollars.
The frequency of mega floods has been increasing in the
recent years. We will further discuss some major floods and
see the extent of damage caused.
 Highlights of Flood
Damage in India (1953-
2010), Source: XII Plan 2011
Flood has been considered as one of the most
recurring and frequent disaster in India. Due to
recurrent prevalence, the economic loss and life
damage caused by the flood has put more burdens on
economy than any other natural disaster. The below
table illustrates the damages caused by the flood in the
recent years.
 Chennai Floods
The 2015 South Indian floods resulted from heavy
rainfall generated by the annual northeast monsoon in
November–December. They affected the Coromandel
Coast region of the South-Indian states of Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, and the union territory
of Puducherry, with Tamil Nadu and the city
of Chennai particularly hard-hit. More than 500 people
were killed and over 18 lakh (1.8 million) people were
displaced. With estimates of damages and losses
ranging from nearly ₹200 billion (US$3 billion) to
over ₹1 trillion (US$16 billion), the floods were the
costliest to have occurred in 2015, and were among the
costliest natural disasters of the year. The flooding has
been attributed to the 2014–16 El Niño event. Estimated
Rainfall: 490mm (1st Dec 2015) highest in 100 Years.
 Kashmir Flood 2014
The Jammu and Kashmir state and adjoining areas received
heavy rainfall from 2 September 2014 onwards, during last
stage of monsoon in India. This triggered flooding and
landslides in India and the adjoining areas of Pakistan. On 5
September, the Jhelum River in Srinagar was reported to be
flowing at 22.40 feet (6.83 m) which was 4.40 feet (1.34 m)
above the danger mark and at 33 feet (10 m) at Sangam in
Anantnag district above the danger mark. The discharge rate
in the river was recorded as 70000 m3/s against the normal
discharge of 25000 m3/s. By 24 September 2014, nearly 277
people in India and about 280 people in Pakistan had died
due to the floods. The preliminary assessment of damages to
property was estimated between INR 5000 cr to INR 6000 cr.
50 bridges were reported to have been damaged across the
state. This was considered as worst flood in 6 decades.
 Uttarakhand Floods
The Uttarakhand floods which occurred back in 2013
have been one of the deadliest in Indian Flood history.
The Uttarakhand floods have caused over 5000
casualties and massive property damage which is not
completely retained or fixed even till date. The main
cause of this was excessive rainfall, which was about
375% more than the usual benchmark, and also the
melting of Chorabari Glaciers at a height of 3800m.
This caused the river Mandagini River to overflow and
add more damage to the given situation. As of 16 July
2013, according to figures provided by the Uttarakhand
government, more than 5,700 people were "presumed
dead." This total included 934 residents. Destruction
of bridges and roads left about 100,000 pilgrims and
tourists trapped in the valleys leading to three of the
four Hindu Chota Char Dham pilgrimage sites.
 Flood Hazard Map
The flood hazard map shows us most of the flood
zones lie close to the river banks and the liable regions.
As discussed, the regions are heavily populated and
most of the agriculture is carried out in these regions.
The country has been involved in advanced
assessment and has been successful up to a certain
amount.
The flood hazards maps have been developed on a
frequent basis.
 National Database
India has been efficient and sophisticated in
maintaining the required and useful records of all
disasters and its after effects. The main reliable
databases are listed below:

1. Central Water Commission

2. National Disaster Water Management System

3. National Institute of Disaster Management

4. Indian Meteorological Department

 Statistics
The following tables provide us some insight on the
damages and affected lives:

Table 1 Different Types of Flood Damage in India (1953-2010), Source: XII Plan 2011

Table 2 Top 10 Disasters (2005-2014), Source: Various

 Comparison of Natural
Hazards in India

Flood Earthquake Drought

Flood Prone Area: Earthquake Prone Drought Prone Area:
40-45 Mha Area: 108.11 Mha
177.25 Mha

Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average

Flood Affected Area: Earthquake affected Drought affected Area:
7.57 Mha Area: 26.23 Mha 40 Mha

Property Loss – Property Loss – Varies Crop Loss – Varies

Rs 13,000 M

Human Loss – 1600 Human Loss – Varies Human Loss –Varies

Flood Prone Rivers: Earthquake Prone Drought Prone Region:

Ganga, Region: North & Western Coastline of
Brahmaputra, Eastern India India
Mahanadi, Godavari
 Conclusion
With the above study, we can see that along with other
studies India has been majorly affected by floods too.
The losses due to floods have been massive and
noteworthy. The assessment thus is important and
better measures must be taken in the future.