Final Report Summary - FLOODPROBE (Technologies for the cost-effective Flood Protection of the Built Environment)
Executive Summary:
Technologies for the cost-effective flood protection of the built environment is a 4-year European project financed under the 7th European Union Framework Program. Starting in November 2009 its activities have been carried out by a consortium of 16 European partners coordinated by Deltares (NL). The total allocated budget for project activities amounted to 4.6 million Euros.
From Italy's Venice to England's Thames and from central Europe's Danube River to Holland's Amsterdam, and further north to Norway’s coast at Trondheim, floods have been threatening urban areas and coastal zones in Europe for centuries. Over EUR 40 billion are spent yearly on protecting assets and people from floods, prompting authorities to seek more effective ways to improve flood resilience and mitigation. Against this backdrop, the FloodProBE project rose up to the challenge.
The principal aim of the project was to provide insights on cost-effective means for flood protection and damage mitigation in urban areas. FloodProbe aimed at developing, testing and disseminating technologies, methods, concepts and tools for flood risk assessment and mitigation, focusing on the adaptation of new and existing buildings (retrofitting) and on infrastructure networks. Three main elements addressed by the project were:
a. The vulnerability of critical infrastructure and high-density value assets;
b. The reliability of urban flood defense;
c. Construction technologies and concepts for flood-proof buildings and infrastructure networks
For each of these elements the project aims, respectively were to:
a. provide insight on how to reduce direct and indirect flood damage;
b. improve understanding and assessment of critical failure processes by studying recent flood events and
c. provide insight on how to increase the flood resilience of the urban system and the retrofit of flood defenses in a financially viable way
To achieve its aims, the project team upgraded flood risk maps by creating a more sophisticated framework to assess vulnerability of the built environment. The method employed a complex strategy containing techniques ranging from simple assessment to advanced numerical models, and a geographic information system (GIS)-based solution to analyse critical infrastructure networks in a more comprehensive manner.
A powerful set of tools were developed to streamline risk assessment on various infrastructures and a sophisticated technique was devised to model the interdependency between infrastructure networks after a disaster. The project team also conceived a third system to identify the likelihood of damage to non-residential buildings in flood scenarios, considering construction methods, building materials and costs involved. Through rigorous testing and a series of case studies, FLOODPROBE successfully improved on the prediction of costs related to building damage.
In addition to the tools developed, the project team studied erosion processes and documented testing facilities in Europe to measure erosion parameters. It then developed a typology for structure transitions covering performance, design and repair solutions. Studies also involved a review of key flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred, identifying knowledge gaps related to erosion.
A workshop on geophysics held in 2011 also helped harmonise geophysical methods for assessing embankment conditions and urban areas. In parallel, the project team explored the potential of remote sensing, particularly high-density aerial and satellite light detection and ranging (LIDAR) surveys by helicopter, to gather flood defence information.
This was followed by an in-depth study of construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience of critical infrastructure and buildings.
Finally, the FLOODrisk 2012 conference helped analyse the science–policy interface to support decision making and looked at how to transform research in the field into practice. Since the project worked on enhancing knowledge on flood risk management, balancing investments in in this critical field within urban areas, the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders provided important guidance on the project program to directly meet industry needs, while facilitating international dissemination, and supporting the uptake and implementation of project deliverables. Many of the project's achievements have been highlighted on its comprehensive (http://www.FLOODPROBE.eu) website.
FLOODPROBE has overall successfully supported the improvement of European policy on flood risk management in a more cost-effective manner, contributing to valuable methods, tools and technologies to achieve this aim. The benefits to society, its people and its assets could be enormous.
Project Context and Objectives:
The FloodProBE project started as a FP7 research project in November 2009.
Floods, together with wind related storms, are considered the major natural hazard in the EU in terms of risk to people and assets. Between 1998 and 2004, Europe suffered over 100 major damaging floods, including the catastrophic floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in 2002. Severe floods in 2005 further reinforced the need for concerted action. Since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 1000 deaths and the displacement of about half a million people.
Thus floods are considered the major natural hazard in the EU in terms of risk to people and assets. Currently, more than 40 bn € per year are spent on flood mitigation and recovery (incl. compensation of flood damage) in the EU. More than 75 % of the damage caused by floods is occurring in urban areas (COST22, 2008). About 3 billion € per year are spent on large scale flood defence structures alone. Countries must map the risk of flooding by 2013. The measures to be taken must be known two years later. The principal aim of FloodProBE is to provide cost-effective means for the flood protection and damage mitigation in urban areas.
In order to adapt urban areas (in river and coastal zones) to prevent flooding or to be better prepared for floods, decision makers need to determine how to upgrade flood defences and increasing flood resilience of protected buildings and critical infrastructure (power supplies, communications, water, transport, etc) and assess the expected risk reduction from these measures.
FloodProBE helped the Member States to meet the legislative requirements by developing technologies, methods, and tools for assessment and adaption of new and existing buildings and critical infrastructure in the built environment. The project worked on enhancing knowledge in this critical field, as well as on balancing investments in flood risk management within urban areas.
Three priority areas were addressed by FloodProBE. These are: i) vulnerability of critical infrastructure and high-density value assets including direct and indirect damage, ii) the assessment and reliability of urban flood defences including the use of geophysical methods and remote sensing techniques and iii) concepts and technologies for upgrading weak links in flood defences as well as construction technologies for flood proofing buildings and infrastructure networks to increase the flood resilience of the urban system.
Specific objectives derived from these priority areas are:
o To improve methods for assessing the vulnerability of the urban environment related to floods, especially by extending conventional methods with the ability to assess indirect impacts of damage to networks and assets with a high value density.
o To improve the understanding and assessment of urban flood defence performance, in order to develop suitable protection measures and to increase the cost-effectiveness of future investments.
o To develop and test construction technologies and concepts to improve the performance of existing and new flood defences and for flood-proofing of the urban environment.
o To integrate the knowledge developed on assessment of vulnerability of urban areas and flood defences as well as the newly developed construction technologies and concepts to support holistic flood risk management strategies.
o To contribute to harmonisation of guidance in flood risk assessment and flood management in the urban context.
Pilots have an important role in the project to (a) test and validate research results, (b) involve stakeholders and (c) improve practical applicability of the products of FloodProBE.
Work Package 2 VULNERABILITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
The main objective was to enhance identification and assessment of the most vulnerable urban infrastructure (both networks and buildings) in case of flooding, for improved asset management.
“Critical infrastructure (CI)” has become a central concern in the emergency preparedness work of many nations, but there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term and failures of these increasingly interconnected and interdependent systems can cause severe consequences to society and economy.
Methods and tools for assessing the direct and indirect damage to the urban systems and buildings caused by failure of infrastructure networks were developed. These included network reliability analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), with focus on the indirect damage caused by urban floods.
A second task looked at advancing the knowledge on the susceptibility of the hot-spot buildings by developing more detailed assessment methods. These included the pathways on building level (how does flood loading, thus water, lead to damage) and the building functions that are affected and looking at the development of flood- proofing concepts and technologies for increasing building flood resilience. Existing damage models were refined by research on the expected repair of damaged assets, particularly buildings with public, commercial and industrial use with high concentration of persons and values.
Work Package 3 RELIABILITY OF URBAN FLOOD DEFENCES
Urban flood defences comprise both soft soil embankments and hard structures. Failures are very often caused by internal and / or external erosion processes, particularly at transitions between defence types. A description of physical processes of erosion was made and a framework was developed linking erodibility to identification parameters of soils and in-situ defense types and information was gathered on available testing facilities in Europe.
For structure transitions (performance, design and repair solutions) a typology was developed including a review of major flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred.
The reliability of urban flood defences in part depends on the performance of vegetation during flooding. Climate change and permitting “acceptable overtopping / overflow” as part of flood risk management requires extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data. This has confirmed that existing guidance is based upon quite limited data sets, some of which originates from the USA and most of which relates to grass lined channels rather than overflow on flood embankments. Three sources of guidance were identified.
As geophysical techniques promise rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions guidance has been developed for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences and in-situ cross-tests have been performed on the pilot sites Humber (GB) and Orléans (F).
To explore the potential of remote sensing, more specifically high density aerial and satellite LIDAR survey for cost effective extraction of different types of flood defence information a survey of 72 km of levees was made.
Work Package 4 CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AND CONCEPTS FOR FLOOD DEFENCES AND FLOOD RESILIENCE
This work package has been focused on improving the flood defence performance of critical infrastructure and high value assets and the improvement of existing and new urban flood defences for the following items:
1. In-situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance. The conclusion is that BioGrout is a technology that is suitable to prevent backward erosion in flood defences. A key advantage of BioGrout is that it can be applied in situ with light material, causing no disturbance in the surroundings and can hence be used at locations where access is limited. The costs to apply BioGrout however will be substantial, making it a high grade technology. Also the production of ammonium chloride means that applications should not focus on cases needing large volumes of BioGrout.
2. Multifunctional flood defences: a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) was developed and applied to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. A costs and benefits assessment method for multifunctional defences has been investigated with the ambition to increase safety over current defence designs and/or to provide additional benefits beyond safety.
3. Technologies for flood-proofing “hotspot” buildings. Guidelines on flood proofing technologies and concepts for retrofitting of non-residential buildings have been formulated that can be used by designers and decision makers to select and evaluate flood proofing concepts in different stages of the urban development process.
4. Technologies to integrate sheltering function to buildings. Multi-use shelter structures were looked at as being effective through two options. Firstly, a shelter aimed solely at flood relief with other functions added later. Secondly, existing public buildings that can be modified over time to act as shelters.
5. Technologies for flood-proofing road infrastructure. The limits in the application of floating technology for flood-proofing infrastructure were defined. The state of the art floating technology applied to infrastructure was described and a first analysis of multi-benefits, flexibility/compatibility, traditional/new materials application has been performed. Finally, concepts for the design of floating technology has been developed with a specific focus on floating and lightweight bridge research.
Work Package 5 INTEGRATION IN DECISION SUPPORT, PILOT STUDIES AND GUIDANCE
The general objective of WP5 is to facilitate cross cutting integration of project work, including the production of guidance material and through the involvement of pilot studies working in close collaboration stakeholders. An analysis of the science – policy interface, looking at barriers (and their solutions) to effective uptake of the research work into practice was undertaken following a generic review of science-policy barriers. Three workshops were held involving group working between researchers and policy makers in identifying and prioritising barriers and solutions.
An FloodProBE overall guidance provides end users with an overview and a first insight into the products, methods and knowledge developed within the context of the FloodProBE project. It aims at public authorities responsible for flood protection and water management as well as other asset managers and practitioners.
Project Results:
Work Package 2 VULNERABILITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
1. Background
Efficient, affordable and reliable systems of communication, power supply and waste management provide the foundations for economic and social development. The target is to ensure that these are accessible to the entire community at all times. Every day millions of people in Europe and elsewhere benefit from the development of a highly sophisticated network of essential infrastructure systems to sustain their communities. Responding to the pace and economics of modern life we expect that the systems work without failure and the level of tolerance to accept traffic jams, delays in the railway system and power supply breakdowns becomes lower.
Natural disasters such as flooding can cause entire lifelines in a city or larger area to fail. In some cases, the Government is forced to declare a state of emergency. Even if the flooding is of minor scale it can cause severe damage to infrastructure and critical buildings in which network control units are located. To implement the right protection measures, communities have to understand the risks from flooding. Risk assessment is a way to qualify and quantify the vulnerability of critical buildings and infrastructure. Numerous flood risk assessments methods exist that produce risk maps which show the likelihood of flooding from rivers and the sea and predict the flood risk in a certain area. Such flood risk maps are the first step to draw a picture about where the flood prone areas are located. However, most of the maps do not assess the vulnerability of critical infrastructure networks and buildings.
In the last two decades the term “critical infrastructure (CI)” has become a central concern in the emergency preparedness work of many nations, but there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Most definitions point toward systems that are of vital importance to the society (Rinaldi et al., 2001). Use of the term is often related to security challenges and exemplified by technological networks like energy supply, transport services, water supply or information and communication services (e.g. Røstum et al., 2008; Nie et al., 2009). Moreover, the critical infrastructure which has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, but only gained in importance in the last few years of their interdependency. Failures of these systems can cause severe consequences to society and economy. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify these “risk hotspots” and potential protection measures, hence the need for suitable vulnerability and risk analysis, including indirect damage.
State-of-the-art
Many international and national projects and programmes address the development and application of approaches to assess and reduce the vulnerability of urban and rural areas within the context of integrated flood risk management frameworks. Amongst these are FLOODsite, FRMC (UK), FLORIS (NL), RIMAX(DE), COST C22, NaTech (JRC), Era-Net CRUE and FloodResilienCity. Most developments in these programmes regarding vulnerability were primarily focused on assessing direct damage to buildings and other assets (often of land-use level of detail), using these parameters as main input for characterising the vulnerability of areas or assets.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 2 and main outcomes
The main objective of WP2 within FloodProBE was to enhance identification and assessment of the most vulnerable urban infrastructure (both networks and buildings) in case of flooding, for improved asset management.
The goals derived from the main objective were to:
• Combine direct and indirect consequences in the estimation of damage and vulnerability for infrastructure, networks and buildings;
• Improve the understanding and assessment of vulnerability for the most critical components of the built urban environment.
In order to achieve the objectives WP2 developed methods and tools for assessing the direct and indirect damage to the urban systems and buildings caused by failure of infrastructure networks. It included network reliability analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), with focus on the indirect damage caused by urban floods. The outcomes of such analysis lead to significantly different conclusions regarding protection measures compared to decisions based on the expected direct damage only.
The work carried out in WP2 was divided in two tasks:
Task 2.1. Identification and analysis of most vulnerable infrastructure in respect to floods
The work suggests a stepwise approach, from basic assessment to advanced modelling. This approach is oriented towards the stakeholders in charge of critical infrastructure and flood vulnerability in urban areas. The focus is on Critical Infrastructure (CI). The following definition has been adopted: critical infrastructure stands for the infrastructure which is essential for the functioning of society, whose failure would seriously affect many people. The selected approach aims to build guidance on vulnerability assessment on the role of critical infrastructure during flood events. Unlike other types of assessment, the vulnerability assessment incorporates the possible secondary and indirect effects through a well-organised pattern of analysis in three steps: network analysis, analysis of the resistance and resilience of the network elements, and analysis of the effects of element failure on the network. In addition to accounting for secondary effects, the focus of the methodology is on highlighting the interdependency between the infrastructures.
The innovative framework for vulnerability assessment of the various CI consists in four steps which match respectively with four totally different approaches of the flood event. It goes from step 1, a coarse overview, to step 4, the most sophisticated analysis. In case that all the steps are performed, the final result is a thorough insight in the CI, and its vulnerability towards flooding of the area under assessment. The four steps can be defined as following:
• Basic analysis, gathering the stakeholders, first collection of information
• Risk assessment performed on various infrastructures
• Urban flood simulation and risk mapping
• Advanced analysis, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis)
Within the frame of FloodProBE, steps 2 and 4 have been tackled, because they are the most important steps to meet the gap in the existing tools. The first tool developed allows fulfilling step 2 (Risk assessment performed on various infrastructures). It consists in a coarse analysis which results in the generation of risk matrices. These matrices are easy handy tools which support the discussion and the decision process for the stakeholders. This first tool only requires basic knowledge of the area under investigation and can be performed by users from different backgrounds. The second tool (step 4) is the most sophisticated one of the suggested stepwise methodology. It is a modelling tool based on Analysis of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). It enables the study of the interdependency between networks subsequently to a disaster. The tool shows how a simple disruption of one network can generate breakdowns on other networks through cascade effects. The output is a failure map of the assessed area, which identifies the most critical sectors. The tool is developed based on GIS analysis.
Both of the tools have been preliminarily tested in case studies in Trondheim in Norway and in Orléans in France. Other case studies are required to provide verification of the tools and for improvements.
In order to estimate the flood risk, a frequency used to describe the occurrence of a hazardous event is important to be estimated or decided upon according to available standards for flood protection or based on the statistics of historical events, or projects of future scenarios. For floods induced by extreme weather events, the frequency is usually expressed in terms of return periods, e.g. once in n years or n times per year; for other flood origins such as technical failures, the frequency of failure is often expressed in terms of expected number of occurrences per year.
Moreover, consequences are classified into direct and indirect consequences that can be are estimated according to tangible monetary damage, or intangible impacts to people, environment and community manageability as a whole. Examples of typical flood consequences are given in the deliverable report D2.1.
Task 2.2. Assessment of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure buildings to floods
Flooding in urban areas causes damage to peoples’ homes and businesses and disrupts their lives. However, the effects of flooding can extend way beyond those directly affected by the water. This is the reason why this task examined the effects of flooding on critical infrastructures in urban areas and to explore ways to predict the consequences of flood events. Critical infrastructures include not only the physical networks of cables, pipes and roads, but also the organisational networks of health, security and emergency services. Buildings play an important role in protecting the equipment and personnel related to these networks (e.g. hospitals, fire stations, communications centres, power stations etc.). However, the variety of designs and constructions of these buildings make it unrealistic to categorise them into meaningful types when considering their vulnerability to flooding. In order to be able to predict the effects of flooding and costs of reinstatement of these buildings, an individual approach needs to be taken, taking into account the specific characteristics of each building.
The key risks used in flood damage estimation are first identified and those that are particularly relevant to the calculations required for devising a method of estimating flood damage to individual buildings are selected. These relate directly to the characteristics of the flood, namely flood depth, levels of pollution, velocity and debris and duration of flood; as well as the nature of the structure, construction and building materials used for the building. A collation of the effects of floods on buildings is carried out and a review of the effects on different parts of the building structure, construction and materials is summarised.
The state of the art of existing methods and tools for damage estimation was reviewed and summary is provided, with the conclusion that none of the existing methods is suitable for precise prediction of the damage of floods to individual buildings, taking into account all their individual characteristics. The necessary calculation factors that relate to the design of a new estimation tool aimed at individual buildings are described.
A review of standardized damage parameters/relationships used in flood repair practices in the UK is made. Although there are standard approaches for calculating the flood damage for residential and non-residential properties, based on a large dataset of building stock and experience from major flood events. However the available depth/damage curves are not applicable to critical infrastructure buildings.
The development of a prototype flood damage assessment tool related to individual buildings is described, taking into account the wide range of possible constructions and building materials, and estimations of the direct costs of flood damage to each, depending on the characteristics of the flood event. The calculations are based on percentage of new-build costs related to the extent of the damage to each construction, aggregated from the different effects of water ingress. Only the direct costs to the building fabric are considered. The workings of the tool are explained and the user interface illustrated.
The testing/verification of the prototype tool is described. Three case studies of different buildings subjected to flooding in 2007 are examined and the cost predictions of the tool are checked against the actual costs of repair and reinstatement. The predicted costs involved in two of the cases are closely aligned with the actual costs, though in the third case, the predictions were not sufficiently accurate. Reasons for this were difficult to ascertain due to the sketchy nature of the case documentation.
The conclusions are that this prototype tool demonstrates a viable methodology for predicting the direct costs of damage to individual buildings according to their construction, but that more work needs to be done to extend the range of constructions covered, and more detailed real-case information is needed both to inform the calculations and test the outcomes of the tool.
The results of this activity weres aimed particularly at enabling the development of flood- proofing concepts and technologies for increasing building flood resilience, thus decreasing their susceptibility to flood loading and / or increase the capacity to recover from flood damage. This is particularly relevant for critical buildings, i.e. those that need to remain operational during flood events: hospitals, fire stations, water supply and treatment works, and energy generating stations. Furthermore existing damage models were refined by research on the expected repair of damaged assets, particularly buildings with public, commercial and industrial use with high concentration of persons and values.
3. Outputs and deliverables
The following deliverable reports are available:
D.2.1. Identification and analysis of most vulnerable infrastructure in respect to floods
D.2.2. Assessment of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure buildings to floods.
The research and development process in Task 2.1 and 2.2 indicates a common challenge in the implementation of the vulnerability assessment when applying the prototype tools. It is difficult to get the complete sets of data of Critical Infrastructure networks, buildings and damage records from the real historical flood events.
Work Package 3 RELIABILITY OF URBAN FLOOD DEFENCES
1. Background
Urban flood defences comprise both soft soil embankments and hard structures. Failures are very often caused by internal and / or external erosion processes, particularly at transitions between defence types. Complex combinations of defence types are typical in urban areas. Since flood defence systems are only as strong as the weakest links (“hotspots”), these have to be identified, assessed and strengthened.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 3 and main outcomes
The overall objective of WP3 is to improve the performance (reliability) and assessment of urban flood defences. Two key goals of this work are to:
1. To improve fundamental understanding of erosion failure processes which have proven to be critical in recent major flood events in urban areas.
2. To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of risk based asset management by applying and refining innovative and cost-effective measurement and monitoring technologies in combination with other information sources for the identification of high risk areas (weak spots).
The work in this workpackage is divided in a number of task and actions and consisted of the following three main tasks:
Task 3.1: Performance characterization of urban flood defences
Action 3.1.1 Internal erosion.
Soil erosion is the cause of failure of the majority of dikes and composite flood defence structures whether through internal erosion, wave overtopping, overflow or contact erosion. For internal erosion the definitions of the ICOLD European Working Group on Internal Erosion of Embankment Dams (Granada, 2010) have been followed, stating that internal erosion is the “downstream transport of soil particles within an embankment dam or its foundation by seepage flow”. This includes (a) concentrated leak erosion through a pre-existing path in the embankment or foundation, (b) backward erosion involving the detachment of soil particles when the seepage exits to an unfiltered surface and leading to “worm-holes” and sand boils, (c) suffusion involving selective erosion of the fine particles from the matrix of coarse particles and (d) contact erosion, or external suffusion, involving selective erosion of fine particles from the contact with a coarser layer.
The dominant internal erosion mode is predominately dependent upon the characteristics (or configuration) of the soil layer, especially grain size distribution and compaction.
We distinguish four successive phases of internal erosion: (a) initiation when one of the phenomena of detachment of particles occurs, (b) continuation when erosion process can be (or not) stopped by filtering, (c) progression when internal erosion comes to a pipe through the structure or increase pore pressure in the downstream part, (d) breach resulting in uncontrolled release of water in the plain.
When looking at the problem as a whole, a number of key questions may be asked:
1. What internal and surface erosion processes exist?
2. How do you measure erodibility?
3. What (soil) parameters adequately reflect erodibility?
4. What models exist, covering the range of parameters above, for predicting internal and surface erosion?
These questions have been answered through the following actions:
1. A description of physical processes of erosion, in a way easily understandable by levee managers
2. A description of the different scenarios of failure by internal erosion through four successive phases leading (or not) to a breach, with a matrix representation
3. Information about testing facilities available in Europe and some other countries for measuring erosion parameters: parameters of erosion that can be measured, types of soils that can be tested, etc.
4. Performing cross-tests on two pilot sites of the project (Orléans and Humber) and reviewing existing data bases for erosion parameters.
5. And finally identifying key soil parameters reflecting internal erosion susceptibility.
Action 3.1.2 Structure transitions: performance, design and repair solutions
Analysis of recent flood events such as at Arles (FR), New Orleans (USA) has demonstrated the weaknesses in urban flood defences that can occur at transitions between structure types or at specific points. These transitions or specific points often create weak points within a system of defences, and undermines the performance of the overall system of flood defences. Until now the performance of transitions is typically not included within system risk models, that undermines the accuracy of overall system flood risk prediction.
The broad aim of this research action is to identify typical weak designs for structure transitions and specific points and provide guidance on repair or retrofit solutions. In particular, internal erosion processes at structure transitions, or below historical structures such as sluices, are poorly understood, since information on the current state of the subterranean part of the structure (e.g. foundation or sheet pile cut-offs) is often lacking. There is a need for better methods for assessment of the safety of those structures, being preferably fast, cost-effective and non-destructive, as well as a clear understanding of the erosion processes that lead to eventual failure.
The subject of transitions is particularly relevant in urban flood defence systems, as it is more common to find frequent variations in flood defence structures in urban areas and specific structures in or near levees in urban areas that are not directly linked to the levee or flood protection structure. Structures associated with levees can also cause risk and asset management problems since the owner/manager of a structure can be different from the levee owner/manager. In this case the structure is called an ENCROACHMENT. This situation can cause problems for efficient inspection and maintenance, and hence can restrict effective assessment and management of the levee safety.
For structure transitions (performance, design and repair solutions) a typology has been developed. Also a review of major flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred was made including identification of key physical processes involved in failure modes.
Fig. 1: Typology of structure transition.
Transitions have been studied and described in terms of:
1. the failure modes they can be related to,
2. if possible, the limit state equations, fragility curves, performance curves or indicators linked to these failure modes,
3. the geotechnical problems linked to these transition types or failure modes, in order to be able to propose mitigation and/or remedial measures,
4. the possible means of detection of unknown transitions,
5. the possible means of detection of a problem occurring.
Solutions for the improvement of safety of transitions are proposed in terms of:
1. management of the encroachments: organisation (coordination) of the management of the levee AND the structure,
2. inspections (pre, during or post flood),
3. assessment methods (in some cases this may lead to a need for further research, as we might not have a complete knowledge of the processes involved),
4. improvement works (decide between rebuild/remove/act on the soil or act on the structure, propose technical options).
Remaining ‘gaps in knowledge’ relating to transitions are identified and a list of possible actions is proposed.
Action 3.1.3 Performance of vegetation on flood embankments.
The grass surface cover on a flood embankment protects against soil erosion and can either prevent breach or delay the onset of breach. Assessing the performance of grass in this context is therefore an important aspect of the overall performance assessment (and hence flood risk assessment) for flood embankments.
The significance of grass cover performance is increased if “acceptable overtopping / overflow” is permitted as part of flood risk management practice. Under such conditions, the estimated performance of the flood embankment will include and depend upon the performance of the grass cover. The effects of climate change appear to be leading towards more extreme conditions for both hydraulic loading (magnitude of flood event) and climatic conditions (prolonged wet and dry periods). These changes pose an increasing pressure upon the performance of grass on flood embankments. Not only do the hydraulic load conditions increase, but the environment pressures affecting the quality and stability of the grass are also changing.
The longer term aim of this research action is the development of extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data from the last 25 years. This may arise through direct analysis and editing of guidance or identification of specific research steps required.
Specific research actions on grass performance comprised:
1. A review of project initiatives related to the performance of grass;
2. Investigation into grass performance data collected at the USDA Stillwater centre over the past 20 years, to identify what aspects might be relevant to European practice;
3. Confirmation of existing European and US guidance on grass performance, followed by identification of either (i) Updates to guidance using existing international research findings or (ii) clarification of longer term R&D needs to improve knowledge and performance of embankment grass cover layers.
The reliability of urban flood defences also depends on the performance of vegetation during flooding. Climate change and permitting “acceptable overtopping / overflow” as part of flood risk management requires the development of extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data from the last 25 years. The research undertaken has confirmed that existing guidance is based upon quite limited data sets, some of which originates from the USA and most of which relates to grass lined channels rather than overflow on flood embankments. Three sources of guidance were identified; the source most commonly used in Europe was also found to contain in built factors of safety, which whilst ‘safe’ for use in design, give misleading results when used for performance analysis.
Remaining ‘gaps in knowledge’ relating to grass performance are identified and a list of possible actions is proposed in order to get quality data relating to the performance of a range of grass types, on a range of soil types under steady overflowing conditions.
Task 3.2: Rapid and cost-effective dike condition assessment methods
As geophysical techniques promise rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions, whilst remote sensing is likewise attractive for the determination of surface related properties, guidance has been developed for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences.
Geophysical techniques allow rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions, whilst remote sensing is likewise attractive for the determination of surface related properties. Guidance has been produced for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences.
Action 3.2.1 Rapid, non-intrusive geophysical methods for assessing dikes.
Asset managers need more insight into the applicability and reliability of promising geophysical methods for assessing urban flood defence systems.
Understanding and acceptance of the basic principles and effectiveness of geophysical methods appears to be preventing wider use in practice. A number of research projects have tested and recommended geophysical approaches: the ERINOH project in France, the GMS project in the Czech Republic, USACE in USA, FRMRC in GB, Deistrukt in Germany, etc.
The objectives of the action undertaken in FloodProBE are (a) to gain wider agreement on the applicability of different geophysical methods for assessing embankment condition, (b) to get a better understanding, higher confidence and wider use by asset managers, (c) to work towards
European harmonization of guidance and (d) to disseminate among and involving a larger community of potential users.
An International Workshop on Geophysics was held in March 21-23, 2011 in Paris bringing together experts in the field to gain wider agreement on the applicability of different geophysical methods for assessing embankment condition, to get better understanding, higher confidence and wider use by asset managers and to work towards European harmonization of guidance. From the conclusions of this International Workshop on Geophysics guidelines have been produced on application of geophysical methods to urban areas for managers to implement and integrate geophysical investigation results into the asset support system. It focuses on technical, practical and economical features such as geophysical method applicability, reliability, rapidity, limitations (particularly in urban areas) and cost- effectiveness. Approaches based on method combination and comprising overall investigation followed by detailed investigation phases are confirmed. Slingram (electromagnetic induction) profiling and Electrical Resistivity Tomography are among the most preferred methods. However, all other methods can play important and specific roles, depending upon the stakeholder requirements and the asset features and setting. Temporal approaches have proved powerful tools for weak zone detection and monitoring and should be more widely used in the near future.
Fig. 2: Proposed approach for an effective geophysical survey
Apart from this workshop, and even though not included within the FloodProBE DoW, in-situ cross-tests have been performed on pilot sites in the Humber (GB) in July 2010 and at Orléans
(F) in April 2011. This additional work was achieved through alignment and collaboration with other research projects.
Action 3.2.2 Remote sensing.
High density aerial and satellite LIDAR survey has great potential for cost effective extraction of different types of flood defence information (geometry, condition, vegetation type etc). The broad aim of this action was to provide reliable and valuable asset management information, by refining automated data analysis and developing a methodology to couple aerial surveys with in-situ investigations and, if possible, with underwater surveys (sonar).
This task has been undertaken in very close collaboration with asset managers along the Loire River and Fugro International (who provided the survey technology FLIMAP) as a subcontractor to Irstea. Implementation of this action has been undertaken in Orléans (F) through a survey of 72 km of levees in November 2010. Quality control of data, and data processing have been performed in 2011 and at the beginning of 2012.
The deliverables contain an overview of the different remote sensing technologies available nowadays and are more specifically focused on the helicopter borne LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology, which provides extremely accurate topographic data at a highly efficient rate. In support of a real case study (“Val d’Orléans” Pilot Site), a methodology is described for performing an helicopter borne survey and for using remote sensing LiDAR data and high-resolution aerial imagery – acquired in “dry conditions” (e.g. not in a flood context) - to contribute efficiently to a rural or urban flood defense structure diagnostic or assessment.
The digital elevation model (DEM) contains information transmitted by the radar first echo
from the vegetation and frame cover. Items such as cars and people are filtered.
For the sake of the FloodProBE experiment, other DEM products were created: a no-vegetation
DEM to show only the constructions; and conversely a no-construction DEM to show only the vegetation and a digital terrain model (DTM) with no construction and no vegetation (Fig. 3).
Figure 3: Left to Right, and top to bottom, Digital elevation model (DEM), No-Vegetation
DEM and Digital terrain model (DTM) from the Same Area
Furthermore from this work a Generic terms of reference for a LiDAR survey has also been produced.
Task 3.3: Combination of information sources for dike diagnosis
Many different factors affect the performance of urban flood defences, for example, material type, condition, history, location, loading, etc. These different types of information could be integrated within a framework that allows the asset / flood risk manager to identify weak spots and make informed decisions based upon the current state. This task looked at generic solutions for hard (model parameters that can be measured) and soft (e.g. observations, real-time monitoring data or past experiences) data integration together with dike diagnosis, using a geographical information system (GIS).
Assessment tools based on performance indicators (“soft data”) and methods based on (physical based) performance models are currently being used separately. No tool integrates all types of data.
To support dike diagnosis by combining information sources methods (a framework) is developed to incorporate specific data sources geophysics and remote sensing and to combine all types of data sources (linked to relationships with new failure mechanism derived for transition structures, erosion and vegetation performance) that allows levee managers to better assess the reliability of the flood defences.
The deliverable report describes a number of data combination techniques from both a theoretical and a practical point of view and gives guidance on improving the assessment through adding additional data sources. Some improvements can be implemented directly without much cost; others need some research and development in order to be used in practice.
The theoretical approach to improve the assessment results is applied in several cases in this report. These cases show it is very well possible to combine fundamentally different data types for an assessment and thereby improve the quality of the assessment.
In order for these changes to take place in practice, both engineers and asset managers need to change the way they think about data. It needs to be gathered and maintained in a structured manner (GIS) and the assessment methods must not ignore important data because it does not suit the model. This report gives guidance on how to manage the data and how to improve the assessment models.
3. Outputs and deliverables
Outputs from all of the research actions are in the form of guidance drawn from the process research. Three deliverables are listed below:
D3.1 Guidance on improved performance of urban flood defences. Report addressing (i) soil erodibility processes and parameter descriptions (internal, surface and at transitions), (ii) failure modes, design and repair at structure transitions and (iii) updated guidance on the performance of vegetation during overflowing.
D3.2 Rapid and cost-effective dike condition assessment methods: geophysics and remote sensing. Integrated guidance on levee assessment with a specific focus on the use of geophysical methods and FLIMAP (LiDAR) data for dike condition assessment.
D3.3 Combining information for urban levee assessment. A reported and evaluated method for GIS-based diagnosis of urban flood embankment performance, using multiple, integrated information sources.
Furthermore a document containing the generic terms of reference for a LiDAR survey have been produced.
Work Package 4 CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AND CONCEPTS FOR FLOOD DEFENCES AND FLOOD RESILIENCE
1. Background
The principal aim of FloodProBE is to provide cost-effective means for flood risk reduction in urban areas. For this purpose WP4 has developed new concepts and building technologies to reduce the vulnerability of urban areas to flooding. In this workpackage new concepts and technologies for essential flood management systems were developed. The systems that are addressed in this work package are flood defence networks, flood damage mitigation of critical vulnerable buildings, shelters and lifeline infrastructure.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 4 and main outcomes
Urban systems contain assets of high value and complex and interdependent infrastructure networks (i.e. power supplies, communications, water, transport etc.). The infrastructure networks are critical for the continuity of economic activities as well as for the people’s basic living needs. Their availability is also required for fast and effective recovery after flood disasters. The severity of flood damage therefore largely depends on the degree that both high value assets and critical urban infrastructure are affected, either directly or indirectly. This work package has been focused on improving the flood defence performance of critical infrastructure and high value assets and the improvement of existing and new urban flood defences. The concepts and technologies of 5 items were further developed.
1. In-situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance. The effectiveness of BioGrout for preventing backward erosion has been investigated with both small-scale and medium-scale experiments, and computer models have been used to determine the implications for practice.
2. Multifunctional flood defences: a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) was developed and applied to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
3. Technologies for flood-proofing “hotspot” buildings.
4. Technologies to integrate sheltering function to buildings.
5. Technologies for flood-proofing road infrastructure.
Task 4.1 Concepts and technologies for cost-effective construction and retrofitting of urban flood defences
Multifunctional Flood Defences
Multifunctional Flood Defences (MFD) is a newly developed concept to optimize allocation of urban space rather than constructing stand-alone dikes. Multifunctional Flood Defences are flood defences that combine the function of flood protection with other functions. In addition to flood protection, multi-functional flood protection fulfils functions like housing, recreation and leisure, commercial buildings, ecology, mobility and transport, underground infrastructure and is a functional part of the urban or rural environment. There are various forms of multifunctionality included in the body of a dike or around it, to optimize allocation of space.
The difference between traditional flood defences and a MFD is that instead of modifying the surrounding area for a traditional flood defence, the MFD is modified for the surrounding area. Functions in the surrounding area do not disappear, but they remain or are enhanced.
Because of this substantial difference, a MFD can be a spatial solution that allows many functions to be combined using the same area of land as a traditional flood defence, but without jeopardizing the strength of the MFD and the safety of the hinterland. In fact, in some situations functions are a crucial part of the MFD for those functions may serve as a flood defence.
Since a MFD allows more additional functions, more financial benefits can be generated. A MFD can be a expensive solution and therefore not an attractive solution to invest in. But the financial benefits can alter this fear of investment.
The focus of the final report (D4.2) is to provide a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) and to apply this guidance to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. A costs and benefits assessment method for multifunctional defences has been investigated with the ambition to increase safety over current defence designs and/or to provide additional benefits beyond safety. The outcome can be used as a guide for computing the costs and benefits for further studies in the future.
In situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance (BioGrout)
The research from the past months focusses on the results of activities executed for FP7 FloodProBE task 4.1 to develop and test cost effective and sustainable construction technologies to increase the flood resilience of the built environment, with a focus to improve the performance of existing and new flood defences. The sustainable construction technology tested for the feasibility of increasing flood resilience is the bio-based in situ strengthening technique called BioGrout. The application of BioGrout technology is tested and optimized to prevent, permit retrofit and to repair geotechnical failure mechanisms in flood defences.
BioGrout is an innovative technology for in situ strengthening of unconsolidated sediments using bacteria. This technique enables sustainable improvement of the erodibility of sandy soils by building calcium carbonate bridges between the sand grains through microbial processes. Contrary to traditional grout injection methods, BioGrout can be applied without a significant reduction of the permeability of the sand. The feasibility of BioGrout has been tested through lab experiments. Small-scale experiments and Hole Erosion Tests (HET) have shown the possibility of using BioGrout to prevent backward erosion. Also the effectiveness of BioGrout for preventing backward erosion has been investigated with both small-scale and medium-scale experiments, and computer models have been used to determine the implications for practice.
The main conclusion from this research is that BioGrout is a technology that is suitable to prevent backward erosion in flood defences. By applying BioGrout the critical head required to initiate internal erosion is increased at least three times, sufficient to withstand higher water levels in rivers and a rise in sea level. A key advantage of BioGrout is that it can be applied in situ with light material, causing no disturbance in the surroundings and can hence be used at locations where access is limited.
However, the costs to apply BioGrout at current are substantial, making it a high grade technology. Also the production of ammonium chloride means that large volumes of BioGrout should not be used; it will be mainly used at locations where other techniques cannot offer an acceptable solution.
Task 4.2: Concepts and technologies for damage mitigation in the urban built environment
Hotspot Buildings
Urban systems contain assets of high value, complex and interdependent infrastructure networks. These infrastructure networks are critical for the continuity of economic activities as well as for the people’s basic living needs. Hotspot buildings are defined in this research as essential nodes in critical infrastructure on which urban areas depend for their functioning. Examples of critical infrastructure are technological networks such as energy supply, transport services, water supply, information and communication services.
The availability and functioning of hotspot buildings is needed to maintain daily life as normal as possible during floods but is also required for fast and effective recovery after flood disasters. The flood vulnerability therefore largely depends on the degree in which both high value assets and critical urban infrastructure are affected, either directly or indirectly.
Failures of hotspots can cause major damage to society and the economy: hence, the need is urgent to identify these risk hotspots and develop potential protection technologies. Flood proofing is a building method to construct or reconstruct buildings to make them resilient against flooding.
The research included wet flood proofing, dry flood proofing, elevating structures, floating structures, amphibious structures, temporary flood barriers and permanent flood barriers.
Guidelines on flood proofing technologies and concepts for retrofitting of non-residential buildings have been formulated. These guidelines included in three tools that are incorporated into an excel model. These tools can be used by designers and decision makers to select and evaluate flood proofing concepts for flood proofing hotspot buildings in different stages of the urban development process.
Smart Shelters
Various and diverse mitigation plans have been implemented across the world to reduce the consequences of flooding. Examples include the building of embankments, constructing detention and retention areas, and other structural measures to protect people and properties especially in urban areas. However, the current records of flood damages indicate that these measures are so far not adequate to cope with flooding. Therefore, in addition to structural measures, other emergency measures such as flood shelters are also needed immediately and urgently when disaster strikes.
Extra attention during this research period was for cost benefit analysis. In order to realise economic benefits and be sustainable, shelter structures need to be used synergistically for multiple purposes for the periods when there is no flood risk or inundation, which are likely to be lengthy compared with their usage during periods of flooding. It was concluded that in this way, the investment in constructing new flood shelters can be offset against a variety of normal use functions that will ensure the structures are continually maintained. These multi-purpose flood shelters can then be used to manage hazard relief and rehabilitation activities as needed in a pre-planned way.
The core idea of the report has been produced as a deliverable is that practically, multi-use shelter structures can be effective through two options. Firstly, a shelter can be constructed aimed solely at flood relief with other functions added later. Secondly, any suitable existing public buildings such as schools, hospitals, and so on can be modified over time to act as shelters. So, to introduce ‘smart shelters’ that are not only a means of mitigation but also a means of development. Alternatively, the modification of existing buildings is a smart idea to reduce the need for a huge amount of investment that may be needed for construction and maintenance of new smart shelters.
The final deliverable report (D4.3) deals with the socio-economic aspects of smart shelters that have to be considered to design and implement shelters that are as cost-effective as possible.
Flood proofing road infrastructure
In the project, three stages have been developed. In the first stage, the limits in the application of floating technology for flood-proofing infrastructure in circumstances of flooding and post-flooding were defined. In the second stage the state of the art floating technology applied to infrastructure was described and a first analysis of multi-benefits, flexibility/compatibility, traditional/new materials application has been performed. Finally, the third stage consisted of concept development for the design of floating technology, applied to infrastructure as a quick response to maintain connection during a flood emergency event and in connection with shelters and hotspot buildings with a specific focus on floating and lightweight bridge research.
The final deliverable report 4.3 contains: a) the design and elaboration of select concepts, for this purpose, a floating pedestrian bridge has been developed in accordance with the necessities of the possible place of application, b) a scale prototype has been fabricated, according to designs defined on previous point, and c). based on the above points the final report on the integration of technology applied to floating emergency attention by flooding in vulnerable areas has been prepared.
Task 4.3: State of the art, guidelines and a roadmap for wider implementation of flood resilience technologies in Europe
The research covered building resilience measures and a roadmap to their acceptance. It includes guidance on the selection of flood proofing construction methods, a review of existing guidance on resilient building materials in various countries, a methodology for cost-benefit analysis and cost estimates of flood damage in individual buildings as well as a roadmap for increased uptake of building flood resilience.
Pilot Dordrecht
A key challenge is to implement the proposed adaptation measures (e.g. smart shelters) in the existing built environment. Yet, there are significant opportunities arising from e.g. building renewal to introduce adaptation measures incrementally and to keep additional adaptation costs low by timing these measures to coincide with broader public and private sector investments. In order to realize adaptation mainstreaming, the adaptation process should be tied as closely as possible to the time windows when renewal will occur. The main issue that remains to be solved is, thus, the timing of implementation of the proposed adaptation measures, in particular for integrating sheltering function to buildings.
The main issue that arose as a result of the FloodProBE research (WP 2.1) was the feasibility (especially, in terms public acceptability) of the Multi Level Safety strategy.
The City of Dordrecht (CoD) is setting out to achieve sustainable urban development and it is exploring opportunities to integrate water policy and water safety policy with the urban development process. To achieve this objective, the CoD is developing the Multi Level Safety approach. This is a three-tier approach to flood risk management. The first tier focuses on flood avoidance (i.e. protection). The other two tiers are aimed at limiting the effects of flooding; the second is intended to create a sustainable layout and design (i.e. prevention), and the third seeks to improve the organisational preparations for potential flooding (i.e. preparedness). The challenges, or rather stakeholder questions, for the CoD can be described in relation to the three tiers: Protection, Prevention and preparedness.
More information about the pilot Dordrecht has been included in the WP5 report on pilot projects.
Rotterdam-The Hague Emergency Airport
Global increase of flood casualties and damage (Munich Re, 2011), shifting policies of humanitarian aid, and the potential role of airports in sheltering flood victims in cities present an opportunity for emerging concepts which are making use of these developments and creating viable business cases. The ‘Emergency Airport’ is a concept first tested on a local airport between the cities of Rotterdam and The Hague, both in the Netherlands. This case-study describes the transformation of the airport into a public-private flood shelter facility. Research has been with the aim to create an assessment framework and research the cost effectiveness of different solutions for flood reduction in urban areas.
The Netherlands are using a Risk based approach policy and as well as a ‘Multi Layer Safety policy’, which the Dutch Government introduced in the National Water Plan (NWP) as a new steering philosophy in dealing with flood safety in the Netherlands (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management, 2008). In this approach, policies are not solely focused on flood prevention, but also on damage reduction and evacuation in case a flood does occur. The NWP presents shelters as a tool for achieving safety on another level than prevention or mitigation. Research on Multi Layer Safety pilot studies in the Netherlands shows that measures taken in the so called layer three – evacuation and crisis-management could be very cost-efficient if the reduced casualties are monetized in a cost benefit analysis.
With the plan for Rotterdam-The Hague Airport basically an extra (fourth) layer is introduced within the concept: the capacity to recover from a (catastrophic) flood. A high recover capacity makes it possible to recover quickly after a disaster and focus on reconstruction. That will reduce the vulnerability for floods.
More information about this pilot is included in the deliverable report on pilot projects produced in WP5.
4. Outputs and deliverables
D.4.1 Report on bio-technological strengthening of flood embankments, including the applicability based on experiments, and concepts close to industrial application
D.4.2 Design concepts of multifunctional flood defence structures
D.4.3 Report on concepts and technologies for damage mitigation and improved flood resilience and for integrated shelter functions in the urban built environment
D.4.4 Outline design guidance on building resilience measures, including roadmap for accelerated stakeholder acceptance of building resilience measures.
Work Package 5 INTEGRATION IN DECISION SUPPORT, PILOT STUDIES AND GUIDANCE
1. Background
The FloodProBE project contains a range of research actions addressing vulnerability of the urban environment (WP2), reliability of urban defences (WP3) and construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience (WP4). WP5 acts as a conduit to help with integration of work across the project, in particular through the involvement of pilot studies, and through the integration of work with existing decision support systems and the production of overall guidance material.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP5 and main outcomes
The general objective of WP5 is to facilitate cross cutting integration of project work, including the production of guidance material. Cross cutting integration will be focussed upon two processes; firstly, meshing of the research programme with a series of pilot sites drawn from across Europe, and secondly, the identification of existing European practice in terms of flood risk management practice and decision support systems (DSS) such that the outputs from the project are in a format that helps uptake and implementation of the science.
Specific objectives of WP5 are therefore:
1. To integrate pilot activities and standardise methods, approaches and procedures.
2. To support enhanced decision support (systems) (DSS) on urban flood risk management through the inclusion of new knowledge developed during the project.
3. To produce guidance on the methodologies and technologies developed during the project to facilitate uptake and implementation of the research results.
Task 5.1: Integration of pilot actions
There are extensive cross links between research undertaken within the various work packages. Figure 1 shows these links schematically.
The nature and extent of pilot work differs from site to site. Pilots had an important role in the project in order to:
a) test and validate research results
b) involve stakeholders and
c) improve practical applicability of the results of FloodProBE.
Figure 4: Summary of workflow links between FloodProBE work packages
There is a range of different pilot sites integrated within the FloodProBE project. Different aspects of the FloodProBE research are meshed within the different pilot sites. Given the range of research, no one pilot site reflects all of the research issues at a single location. The FloodProBE project focused RTD around pilot sites at the locations listed below. Links between WP research and the various pilots are summarised in Figure 4.
Pilot #1 Rotterdam (Netherlands) Dura Vermeer
Pilot #2 Dordrecht (Netherlands) Dura Vermeer
Pilot #3 Humber (UK) HR Wallingford
Pilot #4 Gloucester / AXA insurance (UK) Oxford Brookes University
Pilot #5 Trondheim (Norway) SINTEF
Pilot #6 Orleans (France) EIVP
Pilot #7 Prague (Czech Rep) REC/Metcenas
Table 1 Summary of pilot site – work package links
Ref Pilot Site WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5
1 Rotterdam Netherlands
Rotterdam Airport NL 2.1
Rotterdam Airport NL 4.1
Rotterdam Airport NL 4.2
2 Dordrecht Netherlands
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 3.1
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 4.1
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 4.2
3 Hull, River Humber UK
Hull, River Humber UK 3.1
Hull, River Humber UK 3.2
Hull, River Humber UK 3.3
4 Gloucester / AXA UK
Gloucester, River Severn UK 2.2
Gloucester, River Severn UK 4.2
Gloucester, River Severn UK 4.3
5 Trondheim Norway
Trondheim NO 2.3
6 Orleans France
AgglO, river Loire FR 2.1
DREAL Centre FR 3.1
3.2
3.3
7 Prague, Czech Republic Czech Rep.
Prague, Czech Republic CR 3.2 4.1
The aim of the Pilot Sites is to help ensure that direct end user / stakeholder needs are met and that the research outputs are practicable and usable.
Task 5.2: Integration of flood risk management decision support
This task facilitated the integration and uptake of the newly developed project knowledge into existing decision support models, systems and practice. There are many commonalities between models and concepts used for supporting decision-making in different countries and there is a common underlying need for improved science and methods. The work within FloodProBE aimed to meet those common needs. Existing decision support systems and practices from different partners have been looked at to determine the possible integration of new generic modules, methods or information developed in WP2, 3 and 4.
At the outset it was made clear that this Task is focussed upon ensuring that new models and methods can be integrated with existing Decision support systems or methods and that the activities would not produce a new DSS. This approach has been taken because it is more effective in terms of science uptake to provide something which meshes easily with an existing DSS model or method than to try and encourage complete replacement of a DSS by many different end user organisations.
A first activity undertaken in previous reporting periods was to take a closer look specifically into decision support systems (DSS). This exercise revealed that:
• the range of problems and decisions as well as actors and stages within the decision making process for flood risk management is manifold,
• that there are many DSSs available each aimed at a specific situation and to be used within a certain context,
• that the policy arena is very dynamic as well as the decision making issues and thus the development of the DSSs,
• that the outputs of the FloodProBE project mainly comprises of knowledge that is not yet ready for uptake in a DSS or requires further development first but as a standalone product they can already be very useful for policy makers.
Having established the concept of ensuring that the research outputs were user focussed rather than academic it was decided in the previous reporting periods to adapt the focus of effort slightly, whilst still retaining the same goals for the work. The focus of effort shifted towards an analysis of the science – policy interface, looking at barriers (and their solutions) to effective uptake of the research work into practice. This widened the scope of work under WP5.2 from the original specification.
Following a generic review of science-policy barriers, three workshops were held; the last two were undertaken in conjunction with the FLOODrisk2012 conference. The first workshop was a trial event to test the approach for group working between researchers and policy makers in identifying and prioritising barriers and solutions. Subsequently, two special workshop sessions were held at FLOODrisk2012; the first on barriers and the second on solutions. In parallel, an online survey was set up via the FLOODrisk and FloodProBE websites in order to reach a wider audience. Social media was used to promote participation. The result is a policy paper providing suggestions on actions to overcome SPI barriers to be implemented within EU research projects, that is included in the deliverable report on this task. Furthermore the different outcomes of the FloodProBE-project were looked at from an SPI-point. The final deliverable report produced during this reporting period is thus looking at Tackling Science Policy issues to improve the usability of the FloodProBE outputs for policy and thus support the decision making process in the field of flood risk management.
Task 5.3: Future design guidance
This task dealt with the production of guidance on the design and implementation of measures for the reduction of urban flood vulnerability based on the DSS models of WP5.2 experience from the pilot projects (WP5.1) and new flood resilient technologies developed under WP4.
The guidance produced from the various WPs has been integrated into a guidance for practical application in urban flood management. The results from the pilots have been used to illustrate the application for practical cases. The Guidance Document draws material and knowledge from each of the work packages.
3. Outputs and deliverables
Three main deliverables arise from WP5. These comprise:
• D 5.1 Report detailing integrated pilot results and lessons learned
• D 5.2 Report on integration of methods and modules in decision support tools
• D 5.3 Handbook/guide for use of project results in urban flood management
Potential Impact:
3.1 Benefits of the project
The FloodProBE Project supported European policy on flood risk management through research which improved the ability to manage and reduce flooding in urban areas. The project included the development of practical solutions that can be used to benefit communities, by reducing the impact of flooding as well as measures which will help prevent flooding from occurring. The project included case-studies across a range of countries, and encouraged integration of the work with flood risk managers, planners and policy makers across Europe.
To achieve its aims, the project team upgraded flood risk maps by creating a more sophisticated framework to assess vulnerability of the built environment. The method employed a complex strategy containing techniques ranging from simple assessment to advanced numerical models, and a geographic information system (GIS)-based solution to analyse critical infrastructure networks in a more comprehensive manner.
A powerful set of tools were developed to streamline risk assessment on various infrastructures and a sophisticated technique was devised to model the interdependency between infrastructure networks after a disaster. The project team also conceived a third system to identify the likelihood of damage to non-residential buildings in flood scenarios, considering construction methods, building materials and costs involved. Through rigorous testing and a series of case studies, FLOODPROBE successfully improved on the prediction of costs related to building damage.
In addition to the tools developed, the project team studied erosion processes and documented testing facilities in Europe to measure erosion parameters. It then developed a typology for structure transitions covering performance, design and repair solutions. Studies also involved a review of key flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred, identifying knowledge gaps related to erosion.
Guidance has been written on the use of new, fast investigation and data collection techniques to support the necessary asset management (like condition assessment of aging flood defences) including the combination of a range of data types and sources to increase efficiency in data management. A project workshop on geophysics held in 2011 helped harmonise geophysical methods for assessing embankment conditions and urban areas. In parallel, the project team explored the potential of remote sensing, particularly high-density aerial and satellite light detection and ranging (LIDAR) surveys by helicopter, to gather flood defence information.
This was followed by an in-depth study of construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience of critical infrastructure and buildings. Furthermore a bio-based technology was further developed to reduce flood defence failure risks from the process of internal erosion by in situ increasing the strength and cohesion of materials thereby reducing the need for major reconstruction works.
Communication and dissemination has been a core-activity to create benefits from the project by linking up with policy-makers and practioners. Co-organising the FLOODrisk2012 conference has created significant impacts. Also the closing workshop, which was organized in collaboration with the International Levee Handbook ((ILH) project - coordinated by CIRIA (UK) - and discussed “Flood risk management in the build environment: back to the future” resulted in benefits from the project. The International Levee Handbook (to which projectpartners actively contributed also incorporated some of the research-outcomes from the FloodProBE-project) was officially presented at City Hall in Arles (F). The workshop was attended by 47 different organizations, embracing government agencies and departments, private consultancy companies and research institutes from Europe and the United States.
In addition to contributions to what is aimed at becoming an authoritive guidance, the guidance contributes to building an (international) network in flood risk management.
By focusing on the weakest and most vulnerable elements the primary impact of FloodProBE is a significant increase in the cost-effectiveness (i.e. performance) of investments in newly developed and existing flood protection and flood resilience measures, involving a wide range of stakeholders and pilot study sites from across Europe. The project outputs can be integrated into state-of-the-art flood risk management strategies and have been developed, tested and validated via pilot study sites (in so called “risk hotspots”). The methods developed can be integrated as modules in existing decision support models (UK, NL, GER, etc.). Integrating the knowledge in existing flood risk management strategies allows the end-users, mainly the responsible public authorities and asset managers, to manage flood risk using more holistic approaches. The guidance material produced on all developments in the project supports widespread uptake and will enable flood risk managers to apply the new knowledge in their flood risk management strategies. A policy brief on environmental policy-related results is available containing the main messages taken from the project results.
FLOODPROBE has overall successfully supported the improvement of European policy on flood risk management in a more cost-effective manner, contributing to valuable methods, tools and technologies to achieve this aim. The benefits to society, its people and its assets could be enormous. The final impact is a significant saving on the costs of flood damage and protection in Europe. Without action taken, the damage costs are estimated at 100-120 billion € per year in the near future. Realistic expectations for the cost reduction by application of the project results range up to tens of billion € per year.
3.2 Target groups
The core of the stakeholder involvement strategy is the FloodProBE associates programme. The project associates encompassed a wide range of stakeholders and end-users, such as public authorities, asset managers, ministries, construction companies and organisations or universities involved in flood risk research.
Three project-wide workshops were held and the members of the associates programme were invited to participate in the start phase as well as during the project in the definition or refinement of the key results and products from the project as well as in the definition of pilot activities. To this end, representatives of the responsible public authorities from the pilot sites were invited to the associates programme as well.
The involvement of the associates in the work and the feedback received ensured that FloodProBE produced results as close as possible to the end-users needs and with a high degree of practical applicability. This in turn, supports widespread uptake and acceptance of the methods, tools and technologies developed in the project.
FloodProBE also realized the coordination with projects on the topics ENV.2009.1.3.3.1 on Risk, prevention and management of urban floods, ENV.2009.2.1.5.1 on sustainable development of coastal cities by inviting representatives from relevant projects to participate in the associates programme.
3.3 Dissemination channels
A wide range of activities are necessary for the efficient and effective communication on the FloodProBE-project and its outcomes. The project-website is seen as core to internal and external communication and project management. In achieving the objectives, the consortium used the web site as working area and web based tools were developed to support them in bringing the newly developed knowledge into the field of flood risk management and releasing it to the public part of the website for implementation in practice.
Different audiences for communication are taken into account. For the FloodProBE project these are:
- The project participants
- Stakeholders (managing authorities, pilot projects, constructors, consultants).
- Public authorities
- Other asset managers
- The academic community incl. students (for educational training)
- The general public.
The language of communication is in all instances English.
By using web statistics on site visits, duration of the visit, number of pages viewed as well as the country of origin of the visit it was possible to monitor efficiency and impact of dissemination.
The table below gives an overview of the channels used for dissemination and the target groups that correspond with these channels.
Table 2. Overview of dissemination channels and its target groups
Target group
Channel EC Other policy organisation Research Public
Website X X X X
Newsletter X X X X
Public deliverables X X X X
Restricted deliverables X
Stakeholders workshops X X X
Congresses X X X
Posters, flyers, brochures X X X X
Scientific publications X
3.3.1 FloodProBE identity
A suitable and attractive logo was created to firmly establish FloodProBE’s identity and visibility and templates helped create output supporting the project-identity.
Figure 5 – The FloodProBE logo
This logo is consistently used in all dissemination products such as presentations, the website, the data portal, project reports and policy drafts.
3.3.2 FloodProBE flyer
A flyer with the FloodProBE project summary was disseminated and is available for downloading on the website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/). This summary contains the project essentials, a list of the participating institutions and an abstract explaining the objectives and dissemination channels.
3.3.3 FloodProBE website
The FloodProBE website is the primary entry point to get to know FloodProBE. The following domain name has been registered:
http://www.floodprobe.eu/
The FloodProBE website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/) has been made available to the project participants very early in the project and is in full working order. It features a lot of functionalities to support communication and dissemination activities and provides reference material. It serves as a central point for all project participants and stakeholders from the associate program.
Figure 6. Homepage of FloodProBE website
3.4 Exploitable results
In this section the exploitable results of the FloodProBE project are addressed.
All commercial participants will be exploiters and end-users of the knowledge generated in the project. The research institutes integrate the new knowledge into their ongoing long-term research programmes and improve their specialized consultancy work on flood risk management. The industrial partners and SMEs create new opportunities using the newly developed technologies and concepts for the development of new flood protection products and market opportunities in the field of urban building and infrastructure flood-resilience.
The detailed descriptions of the products can be found on the website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/project-research.asp) and contain:
- an overall guidance document
- description of pilot sites with fact sheets
- project outputs incl. all deliverable reports
- project documents
- visual material.
Exploitation of the results is basically open to any practioner in the field of Flood Risk Management through access to the public deliverable reports. All deliverable reports are relevant in this respect, but it is expected especially that the guidance documents that have been provided will contribute to the exploitation of project specific results.
The project activities and results have also clearly led to building a more extensive and active network in Flood Risk Management as can be seen from the organization of the FLOODrisk2012-conference and the upcoming FLOODrisk2016 conference as well as the submittal of a proposal “Flood Risk Management – Community of Practice (FRM-CoP)” under the HORIZON2020 Water4a Call from December 2013 with the submission deadline of April 2014. This indicates a better and wider access to the European and wider international market, thus increasing market opportunities and contributing to business growth.
Management of Knowledge and Intellectual Property by the consortium
The knowledge generated within the scope of the project has not only been recorded in the reports delivered to the European Commission, but also in the project files with the consolidated detailed information over the whole duration of the project. The infrastructure to support this knowledge database has been constructed at the beginning of the project and was continuously updated throughout the project. At current the document management system contains close to 600 documents. This knowledge base remains accessible to all consortium partners for future reference.
The management of this knowledge and IP is regulated by the Consortium Agreement (CA) which covers the following:
• All knowledge generated in the project is owned by the participating industry partners.
• To date no new patents have arisen from the project, but these would belong to those giving origin to the inventive step as far as it originates from a participating company. In case of patents arising from RTD performers, patents will belong to the participating companies.
Exploitation of the individual consortium partners is expected according to the following.
DELTARES, as a research institute and specialized consultancy firm, benefits from the entire range of developments in this project, these contribute significantly to their long-term research programmes on flood risk issues. Deltares acts as consultant for regional and national authorities and asset managers in their countries and worldwide on flood risk management matters as well as on the technological aspects prevention of floods and increasing flood-resilience. This encompasses all aspects treated in the project from vulnerability and risk analysis, flood defence reliability assessment, constructions technologies for infrastructure networks and buildings up to sophisticated decision support systems. FloodProBE enhances the consultancy capacities by widening the portfolio of products and potential measures in flood risk management that can be offered to their clients.
HR Wallingford and Samui France sarl (as third party linked to HRW) undertake both research and consultancy within the field of flood risk management. HR Wallingford also has a sister company – Wallingford Software – that produces commercial modeling software to aid flood risk analysis and management activities. HR Wallingford works closely with the UK government. Consequently, outputs from the project will be disseminated directly to the Environment Agency for uptake and implementation in managing flood risk within England and Wales. Equally, HR Wallingford and Samui France sarl will use the project research to enhance consultancy services to, and modeling packages for, use in the UK and International flood risk management community.
IRSTEA and IFSTTAR (formerly LCPC) are participating in FloodProBE as specialists in geotechnical aspects of flood defence structures. The institutes give advice to several French authorities on flood protection issues and participate in establishing rules, design codes and guidance in France. The developments in FloodProBE on erosion related failure processes of flood defences, non-destructive exploration methods and decision support on flood defence reliability contribute considerably to the research programs at both institutes and improved their consultancy skills for their main activities in France as mentioned above.
SINTEF, as research institute and specialized consultancy firm on a broad range of applied technological issues, will use the vulnerability analysis capacities on critical infrastructures related to floods to improve their developments on multi-hazard risk and vulnerability analysis and the analysis and identification of critical infrastructures. Both, ongoing and future research, as well as consulting work for public authorities worldwide benefit.
DuraVermeer Business Development (DVBD) generates projects from Dutch national policy development which considers compulsory flood risk assessments for new construction projects. Advanced knowledge of technologies and general flood risk assessment and management approaches has a direct value for all construction related activities of DVBD. The technologies developed contribute to the development of flood resilient building types part of a product line of pre-choice building structures. The development thus supports the development of concrete, cost-effective solutions for flood-prone areas.
ACCIONA Infraestructuras and MOSTOSTAL, as construction companies, have been working for last decades to make its business a way of improving the quality of live of the citizens following the concept of sustainable development. In this project, a first design of resilient structure has been developed to cope with the damages of floods and to reduce the environmental impacts due to the works of implementation efforts and time required for construction. Through their commercial networks, ACCIONA and MOSTOSTAL include this new concept of flood resilient bridge in the product portfolio presented in their respective national markets, for ACCIONA mainly in the Mediterranean region.
DELTASYNC will apply the concepts and technology that are developed in WP4 in their design and consultancy projects for government agencies, water authorities and the building industry in areas that are vulnerable to flooding. Results of this project will reduce the expected flood damage of DeltaSync’s clients significantly; hence increase the competitiveness of DeltaSync as a designer/consultant.
METCENAS as not-for-profit international research and training centre aims to establish mutual technical cooperation amongst the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and Balkan region and carries out research on integrated environment assessment, integrated water resources management, flood risk management and forward looking assessment. The project results will support delivering bespoke, capacity-building focused trainings primarily to public administrations.
SAMUI is an SME specialised in providing solutions for web-based dissemination, knowledge management systems and reporting as well as project management support, especially for European research projects. Samui Design has been involved as a partner in European Projects since 2006. This has enabled them to develop a number of highly advanced web-based tools and obtain feedback from other European partners as to their efficiency, easy of use and usefulness. This has in turn enabled them to provide better services to other businesses as well as to develop a reputation as a specialist in dissemination of technical and scientific research within Europe. Each project added to their experience and improved their ability to provide optimal solutions to their clients, including RTD projects for the European Commission.
SOLINTEL M&P is an SME specialised in construction using composite materials, mainly foundation design, which is a key issue in the development of the structure planned by ACCIONA and MOSTOSTAL and which furthers their engineering capabilities in this field and thus their competitiveness.
List of Websites:
www.floodprobe.eu
Projectcoordinator: C.C.D.F.vanRee@Deltares.nl
Tel. nr.: +31883357404
Technologies for the cost-effective flood protection of the built environment is a 4-year European project financed under the 7th European Union Framework Program. Starting in November 2009 its activities have been carried out by a consortium of 16 European partners coordinated by Deltares (NL). The total allocated budget for project activities amounted to 4.6 million Euros.
From Italy's Venice to England's Thames and from central Europe's Danube River to Holland's Amsterdam, and further north to Norway’s coast at Trondheim, floods have been threatening urban areas and coastal zones in Europe for centuries. Over EUR 40 billion are spent yearly on protecting assets and people from floods, prompting authorities to seek more effective ways to improve flood resilience and mitigation. Against this backdrop, the FloodProBE project rose up to the challenge.
The principal aim of the project was to provide insights on cost-effective means for flood protection and damage mitigation in urban areas. FloodProbe aimed at developing, testing and disseminating technologies, methods, concepts and tools for flood risk assessment and mitigation, focusing on the adaptation of new and existing buildings (retrofitting) and on infrastructure networks. Three main elements addressed by the project were:
a. The vulnerability of critical infrastructure and high-density value assets;
b. The reliability of urban flood defense;
c. Construction technologies and concepts for flood-proof buildings and infrastructure networks
For each of these elements the project aims, respectively were to:
a. provide insight on how to reduce direct and indirect flood damage;
b. improve understanding and assessment of critical failure processes by studying recent flood events and
c. provide insight on how to increase the flood resilience of the urban system and the retrofit of flood defenses in a financially viable way
To achieve its aims, the project team upgraded flood risk maps by creating a more sophisticated framework to assess vulnerability of the built environment. The method employed a complex strategy containing techniques ranging from simple assessment to advanced numerical models, and a geographic information system (GIS)-based solution to analyse critical infrastructure networks in a more comprehensive manner.
A powerful set of tools were developed to streamline risk assessment on various infrastructures and a sophisticated technique was devised to model the interdependency between infrastructure networks after a disaster. The project team also conceived a third system to identify the likelihood of damage to non-residential buildings in flood scenarios, considering construction methods, building materials and costs involved. Through rigorous testing and a series of case studies, FLOODPROBE successfully improved on the prediction of costs related to building damage.
In addition to the tools developed, the project team studied erosion processes and documented testing facilities in Europe to measure erosion parameters. It then developed a typology for structure transitions covering performance, design and repair solutions. Studies also involved a review of key flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred, identifying knowledge gaps related to erosion.
A workshop on geophysics held in 2011 also helped harmonise geophysical methods for assessing embankment conditions and urban areas. In parallel, the project team explored the potential of remote sensing, particularly high-density aerial and satellite light detection and ranging (LIDAR) surveys by helicopter, to gather flood defence information.
This was followed by an in-depth study of construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience of critical infrastructure and buildings.
Finally, the FLOODrisk 2012 conference helped analyse the science–policy interface to support decision making and looked at how to transform research in the field into practice. Since the project worked on enhancing knowledge on flood risk management, balancing investments in in this critical field within urban areas, the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders provided important guidance on the project program to directly meet industry needs, while facilitating international dissemination, and supporting the uptake and implementation of project deliverables. Many of the project's achievements have been highlighted on its comprehensive (http://www.FLOODPROBE.eu) website.
FLOODPROBE has overall successfully supported the improvement of European policy on flood risk management in a more cost-effective manner, contributing to valuable methods, tools and technologies to achieve this aim. The benefits to society, its people and its assets could be enormous.
Project Context and Objectives:
The FloodProBE project started as a FP7 research project in November 2009.
Floods, together with wind related storms, are considered the major natural hazard in the EU in terms of risk to people and assets. Between 1998 and 2004, Europe suffered over 100 major damaging floods, including the catastrophic floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in 2002. Severe floods in 2005 further reinforced the need for concerted action. Since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 1000 deaths and the displacement of about half a million people.
Thus floods are considered the major natural hazard in the EU in terms of risk to people and assets. Currently, more than 40 bn € per year are spent on flood mitigation and recovery (incl. compensation of flood damage) in the EU. More than 75 % of the damage caused by floods is occurring in urban areas (COST22, 2008). About 3 billion € per year are spent on large scale flood defence structures alone. Countries must map the risk of flooding by 2013. The measures to be taken must be known two years later. The principal aim of FloodProBE is to provide cost-effective means for the flood protection and damage mitigation in urban areas.
In order to adapt urban areas (in river and coastal zones) to prevent flooding or to be better prepared for floods, decision makers need to determine how to upgrade flood defences and increasing flood resilience of protected buildings and critical infrastructure (power supplies, communications, water, transport, etc) and assess the expected risk reduction from these measures.
FloodProBE helped the Member States to meet the legislative requirements by developing technologies, methods, and tools for assessment and adaption of new and existing buildings and critical infrastructure in the built environment. The project worked on enhancing knowledge in this critical field, as well as on balancing investments in flood risk management within urban areas.
Three priority areas were addressed by FloodProBE. These are: i) vulnerability of critical infrastructure and high-density value assets including direct and indirect damage, ii) the assessment and reliability of urban flood defences including the use of geophysical methods and remote sensing techniques and iii) concepts and technologies for upgrading weak links in flood defences as well as construction technologies for flood proofing buildings and infrastructure networks to increase the flood resilience of the urban system.
Specific objectives derived from these priority areas are:
o To improve methods for assessing the vulnerability of the urban environment related to floods, especially by extending conventional methods with the ability to assess indirect impacts of damage to networks and assets with a high value density.
o To improve the understanding and assessment of urban flood defence performance, in order to develop suitable protection measures and to increase the cost-effectiveness of future investments.
o To develop and test construction technologies and concepts to improve the performance of existing and new flood defences and for flood-proofing of the urban environment.
o To integrate the knowledge developed on assessment of vulnerability of urban areas and flood defences as well as the newly developed construction technologies and concepts to support holistic flood risk management strategies.
o To contribute to harmonisation of guidance in flood risk assessment and flood management in the urban context.
Pilots have an important role in the project to (a) test and validate research results, (b) involve stakeholders and (c) improve practical applicability of the products of FloodProBE.
Work Package 2 VULNERABILITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
The main objective was to enhance identification and assessment of the most vulnerable urban infrastructure (both networks and buildings) in case of flooding, for improved asset management.
“Critical infrastructure (CI)” has become a central concern in the emergency preparedness work of many nations, but there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term and failures of these increasingly interconnected and interdependent systems can cause severe consequences to society and economy.
Methods and tools for assessing the direct and indirect damage to the urban systems and buildings caused by failure of infrastructure networks were developed. These included network reliability analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), with focus on the indirect damage caused by urban floods.
A second task looked at advancing the knowledge on the susceptibility of the hot-spot buildings by developing more detailed assessment methods. These included the pathways on building level (how does flood loading, thus water, lead to damage) and the building functions that are affected and looking at the development of flood- proofing concepts and technologies for increasing building flood resilience. Existing damage models were refined by research on the expected repair of damaged assets, particularly buildings with public, commercial and industrial use with high concentration of persons and values.
Work Package 3 RELIABILITY OF URBAN FLOOD DEFENCES
Urban flood defences comprise both soft soil embankments and hard structures. Failures are very often caused by internal and / or external erosion processes, particularly at transitions between defence types. A description of physical processes of erosion was made and a framework was developed linking erodibility to identification parameters of soils and in-situ defense types and information was gathered on available testing facilities in Europe.
For structure transitions (performance, design and repair solutions) a typology was developed including a review of major flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred.
The reliability of urban flood defences in part depends on the performance of vegetation during flooding. Climate change and permitting “acceptable overtopping / overflow” as part of flood risk management requires extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data. This has confirmed that existing guidance is based upon quite limited data sets, some of which originates from the USA and most of which relates to grass lined channels rather than overflow on flood embankments. Three sources of guidance were identified.
As geophysical techniques promise rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions guidance has been developed for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences and in-situ cross-tests have been performed on the pilot sites Humber (GB) and Orléans (F).
To explore the potential of remote sensing, more specifically high density aerial and satellite LIDAR survey for cost effective extraction of different types of flood defence information a survey of 72 km of levees was made.
Work Package 4 CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AND CONCEPTS FOR FLOOD DEFENCES AND FLOOD RESILIENCE
This work package has been focused on improving the flood defence performance of critical infrastructure and high value assets and the improvement of existing and new urban flood defences for the following items:
1. In-situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance. The conclusion is that BioGrout is a technology that is suitable to prevent backward erosion in flood defences. A key advantage of BioGrout is that it can be applied in situ with light material, causing no disturbance in the surroundings and can hence be used at locations where access is limited. The costs to apply BioGrout however will be substantial, making it a high grade technology. Also the production of ammonium chloride means that applications should not focus on cases needing large volumes of BioGrout.
2. Multifunctional flood defences: a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) was developed and applied to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. A costs and benefits assessment method for multifunctional defences has been investigated with the ambition to increase safety over current defence designs and/or to provide additional benefits beyond safety.
3. Technologies for flood-proofing “hotspot” buildings. Guidelines on flood proofing technologies and concepts for retrofitting of non-residential buildings have been formulated that can be used by designers and decision makers to select and evaluate flood proofing concepts in different stages of the urban development process.
4. Technologies to integrate sheltering function to buildings. Multi-use shelter structures were looked at as being effective through two options. Firstly, a shelter aimed solely at flood relief with other functions added later. Secondly, existing public buildings that can be modified over time to act as shelters.
5. Technologies for flood-proofing road infrastructure. The limits in the application of floating technology for flood-proofing infrastructure were defined. The state of the art floating technology applied to infrastructure was described and a first analysis of multi-benefits, flexibility/compatibility, traditional/new materials application has been performed. Finally, concepts for the design of floating technology has been developed with a specific focus on floating and lightweight bridge research.
Work Package 5 INTEGRATION IN DECISION SUPPORT, PILOT STUDIES AND GUIDANCE
The general objective of WP5 is to facilitate cross cutting integration of project work, including the production of guidance material and through the involvement of pilot studies working in close collaboration stakeholders. An analysis of the science – policy interface, looking at barriers (and their solutions) to effective uptake of the research work into practice was undertaken following a generic review of science-policy barriers. Three workshops were held involving group working between researchers and policy makers in identifying and prioritising barriers and solutions.
An FloodProBE overall guidance provides end users with an overview and a first insight into the products, methods and knowledge developed within the context of the FloodProBE project. It aims at public authorities responsible for flood protection and water management as well as other asset managers and practitioners.
Project Results:
Work Package 2 VULNERABILITY OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
1. Background
Efficient, affordable and reliable systems of communication, power supply and waste management provide the foundations for economic and social development. The target is to ensure that these are accessible to the entire community at all times. Every day millions of people in Europe and elsewhere benefit from the development of a highly sophisticated network of essential infrastructure systems to sustain their communities. Responding to the pace and economics of modern life we expect that the systems work without failure and the level of tolerance to accept traffic jams, delays in the railway system and power supply breakdowns becomes lower.
Natural disasters such as flooding can cause entire lifelines in a city or larger area to fail. In some cases, the Government is forced to declare a state of emergency. Even if the flooding is of minor scale it can cause severe damage to infrastructure and critical buildings in which network control units are located. To implement the right protection measures, communities have to understand the risks from flooding. Risk assessment is a way to qualify and quantify the vulnerability of critical buildings and infrastructure. Numerous flood risk assessments methods exist that produce risk maps which show the likelihood of flooding from rivers and the sea and predict the flood risk in a certain area. Such flood risk maps are the first step to draw a picture about where the flood prone areas are located. However, most of the maps do not assess the vulnerability of critical infrastructure networks and buildings.
In the last two decades the term “critical infrastructure (CI)” has become a central concern in the emergency preparedness work of many nations, but there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Most definitions point toward systems that are of vital importance to the society (Rinaldi et al., 2001). Use of the term is often related to security challenges and exemplified by technological networks like energy supply, transport services, water supply or information and communication services (e.g. Røstum et al., 2008; Nie et al., 2009). Moreover, the critical infrastructure which has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, but only gained in importance in the last few years of their interdependency. Failures of these systems can cause severe consequences to society and economy. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify these “risk hotspots” and potential protection measures, hence the need for suitable vulnerability and risk analysis, including indirect damage.
State-of-the-art
Many international and national projects and programmes address the development and application of approaches to assess and reduce the vulnerability of urban and rural areas within the context of integrated flood risk management frameworks. Amongst these are FLOODsite, FRMC (UK), FLORIS (NL), RIMAX(DE), COST C22, NaTech (JRC), Era-Net CRUE and FloodResilienCity. Most developments in these programmes regarding vulnerability were primarily focused on assessing direct damage to buildings and other assets (often of land-use level of detail), using these parameters as main input for characterising the vulnerability of areas or assets.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 2 and main outcomes
The main objective of WP2 within FloodProBE was to enhance identification and assessment of the most vulnerable urban infrastructure (both networks and buildings) in case of flooding, for improved asset management.
The goals derived from the main objective were to:
• Combine direct and indirect consequences in the estimation of damage and vulnerability for infrastructure, networks and buildings;
• Improve the understanding and assessment of vulnerability for the most critical components of the built urban environment.
In order to achieve the objectives WP2 developed methods and tools for assessing the direct and indirect damage to the urban systems and buildings caused by failure of infrastructure networks. It included network reliability analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), with focus on the indirect damage caused by urban floods. The outcomes of such analysis lead to significantly different conclusions regarding protection measures compared to decisions based on the expected direct damage only.
The work carried out in WP2 was divided in two tasks:
Task 2.1. Identification and analysis of most vulnerable infrastructure in respect to floods
The work suggests a stepwise approach, from basic assessment to advanced modelling. This approach is oriented towards the stakeholders in charge of critical infrastructure and flood vulnerability in urban areas. The focus is on Critical Infrastructure (CI). The following definition has been adopted: critical infrastructure stands for the infrastructure which is essential for the functioning of society, whose failure would seriously affect many people. The selected approach aims to build guidance on vulnerability assessment on the role of critical infrastructure during flood events. Unlike other types of assessment, the vulnerability assessment incorporates the possible secondary and indirect effects through a well-organised pattern of analysis in three steps: network analysis, analysis of the resistance and resilience of the network elements, and analysis of the effects of element failure on the network. In addition to accounting for secondary effects, the focus of the methodology is on highlighting the interdependency between the infrastructures.
The innovative framework for vulnerability assessment of the various CI consists in four steps which match respectively with four totally different approaches of the flood event. It goes from step 1, a coarse overview, to step 4, the most sophisticated analysis. In case that all the steps are performed, the final result is a thorough insight in the CI, and its vulnerability towards flooding of the area under assessment. The four steps can be defined as following:
• Basic analysis, gathering the stakeholders, first collection of information
• Risk assessment performed on various infrastructures
• Urban flood simulation and risk mapping
• Advanced analysis, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis)
Within the frame of FloodProBE, steps 2 and 4 have been tackled, because they are the most important steps to meet the gap in the existing tools. The first tool developed allows fulfilling step 2 (Risk assessment performed on various infrastructures). It consists in a coarse analysis which results in the generation of risk matrices. These matrices are easy handy tools which support the discussion and the decision process for the stakeholders. This first tool only requires basic knowledge of the area under investigation and can be performed by users from different backgrounds. The second tool (step 4) is the most sophisticated one of the suggested stepwise methodology. It is a modelling tool based on Analysis of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). It enables the study of the interdependency between networks subsequently to a disaster. The tool shows how a simple disruption of one network can generate breakdowns on other networks through cascade effects. The output is a failure map of the assessed area, which identifies the most critical sectors. The tool is developed based on GIS analysis.
Both of the tools have been preliminarily tested in case studies in Trondheim in Norway and in Orléans in France. Other case studies are required to provide verification of the tools and for improvements.
In order to estimate the flood risk, a frequency used to describe the occurrence of a hazardous event is important to be estimated or decided upon according to available standards for flood protection or based on the statistics of historical events, or projects of future scenarios. For floods induced by extreme weather events, the frequency is usually expressed in terms of return periods, e.g. once in n years or n times per year; for other flood origins such as technical failures, the frequency of failure is often expressed in terms of expected number of occurrences per year.
Moreover, consequences are classified into direct and indirect consequences that can be are estimated according to tangible monetary damage, or intangible impacts to people, environment and community manageability as a whole. Examples of typical flood consequences are given in the deliverable report D2.1.
Task 2.2. Assessment of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure buildings to floods
Flooding in urban areas causes damage to peoples’ homes and businesses and disrupts their lives. However, the effects of flooding can extend way beyond those directly affected by the water. This is the reason why this task examined the effects of flooding on critical infrastructures in urban areas and to explore ways to predict the consequences of flood events. Critical infrastructures include not only the physical networks of cables, pipes and roads, but also the organisational networks of health, security and emergency services. Buildings play an important role in protecting the equipment and personnel related to these networks (e.g. hospitals, fire stations, communications centres, power stations etc.). However, the variety of designs and constructions of these buildings make it unrealistic to categorise them into meaningful types when considering their vulnerability to flooding. In order to be able to predict the effects of flooding and costs of reinstatement of these buildings, an individual approach needs to be taken, taking into account the specific characteristics of each building.
The key risks used in flood damage estimation are first identified and those that are particularly relevant to the calculations required for devising a method of estimating flood damage to individual buildings are selected. These relate directly to the characteristics of the flood, namely flood depth, levels of pollution, velocity and debris and duration of flood; as well as the nature of the structure, construction and building materials used for the building. A collation of the effects of floods on buildings is carried out and a review of the effects on different parts of the building structure, construction and materials is summarised.
The state of the art of existing methods and tools for damage estimation was reviewed and summary is provided, with the conclusion that none of the existing methods is suitable for precise prediction of the damage of floods to individual buildings, taking into account all their individual characteristics. The necessary calculation factors that relate to the design of a new estimation tool aimed at individual buildings are described.
A review of standardized damage parameters/relationships used in flood repair practices in the UK is made. Although there are standard approaches for calculating the flood damage for residential and non-residential properties, based on a large dataset of building stock and experience from major flood events. However the available depth/damage curves are not applicable to critical infrastructure buildings.
The development of a prototype flood damage assessment tool related to individual buildings is described, taking into account the wide range of possible constructions and building materials, and estimations of the direct costs of flood damage to each, depending on the characteristics of the flood event. The calculations are based on percentage of new-build costs related to the extent of the damage to each construction, aggregated from the different effects of water ingress. Only the direct costs to the building fabric are considered. The workings of the tool are explained and the user interface illustrated.
The testing/verification of the prototype tool is described. Three case studies of different buildings subjected to flooding in 2007 are examined and the cost predictions of the tool are checked against the actual costs of repair and reinstatement. The predicted costs involved in two of the cases are closely aligned with the actual costs, though in the third case, the predictions were not sufficiently accurate. Reasons for this were difficult to ascertain due to the sketchy nature of the case documentation.
The conclusions are that this prototype tool demonstrates a viable methodology for predicting the direct costs of damage to individual buildings according to their construction, but that more work needs to be done to extend the range of constructions covered, and more detailed real-case information is needed both to inform the calculations and test the outcomes of the tool.
The results of this activity weres aimed particularly at enabling the development of flood- proofing concepts and technologies for increasing building flood resilience, thus decreasing their susceptibility to flood loading and / or increase the capacity to recover from flood damage. This is particularly relevant for critical buildings, i.e. those that need to remain operational during flood events: hospitals, fire stations, water supply and treatment works, and energy generating stations. Furthermore existing damage models were refined by research on the expected repair of damaged assets, particularly buildings with public, commercial and industrial use with high concentration of persons and values.
3. Outputs and deliverables
The following deliverable reports are available:
D.2.1. Identification and analysis of most vulnerable infrastructure in respect to floods
D.2.2. Assessment of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure buildings to floods.
The research and development process in Task 2.1 and 2.2 indicates a common challenge in the implementation of the vulnerability assessment when applying the prototype tools. It is difficult to get the complete sets of data of Critical Infrastructure networks, buildings and damage records from the real historical flood events.
Work Package 3 RELIABILITY OF URBAN FLOOD DEFENCES
1. Background
Urban flood defences comprise both soft soil embankments and hard structures. Failures are very often caused by internal and / or external erosion processes, particularly at transitions between defence types. Complex combinations of defence types are typical in urban areas. Since flood defence systems are only as strong as the weakest links (“hotspots”), these have to be identified, assessed and strengthened.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 3 and main outcomes
The overall objective of WP3 is to improve the performance (reliability) and assessment of urban flood defences. Two key goals of this work are to:
1. To improve fundamental understanding of erosion failure processes which have proven to be critical in recent major flood events in urban areas.
2. To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of risk based asset management by applying and refining innovative and cost-effective measurement and monitoring technologies in combination with other information sources for the identification of high risk areas (weak spots).
The work in this workpackage is divided in a number of task and actions and consisted of the following three main tasks:
Task 3.1: Performance characterization of urban flood defences
Action 3.1.1 Internal erosion.
Soil erosion is the cause of failure of the majority of dikes and composite flood defence structures whether through internal erosion, wave overtopping, overflow or contact erosion. For internal erosion the definitions of the ICOLD European Working Group on Internal Erosion of Embankment Dams (Granada, 2010) have been followed, stating that internal erosion is the “downstream transport of soil particles within an embankment dam or its foundation by seepage flow”. This includes (a) concentrated leak erosion through a pre-existing path in the embankment or foundation, (b) backward erosion involving the detachment of soil particles when the seepage exits to an unfiltered surface and leading to “worm-holes” and sand boils, (c) suffusion involving selective erosion of the fine particles from the matrix of coarse particles and (d) contact erosion, or external suffusion, involving selective erosion of fine particles from the contact with a coarser layer.
The dominant internal erosion mode is predominately dependent upon the characteristics (or configuration) of the soil layer, especially grain size distribution and compaction.
We distinguish four successive phases of internal erosion: (a) initiation when one of the phenomena of detachment of particles occurs, (b) continuation when erosion process can be (or not) stopped by filtering, (c) progression when internal erosion comes to a pipe through the structure or increase pore pressure in the downstream part, (d) breach resulting in uncontrolled release of water in the plain.
When looking at the problem as a whole, a number of key questions may be asked:
1. What internal and surface erosion processes exist?
2. How do you measure erodibility?
3. What (soil) parameters adequately reflect erodibility?
4. What models exist, covering the range of parameters above, for predicting internal and surface erosion?
These questions have been answered through the following actions:
1. A description of physical processes of erosion, in a way easily understandable by levee managers
2. A description of the different scenarios of failure by internal erosion through four successive phases leading (or not) to a breach, with a matrix representation
3. Information about testing facilities available in Europe and some other countries for measuring erosion parameters: parameters of erosion that can be measured, types of soils that can be tested, etc.
4. Performing cross-tests on two pilot sites of the project (Orléans and Humber) and reviewing existing data bases for erosion parameters.
5. And finally identifying key soil parameters reflecting internal erosion susceptibility.
Action 3.1.2 Structure transitions: performance, design and repair solutions
Analysis of recent flood events such as at Arles (FR), New Orleans (USA) has demonstrated the weaknesses in urban flood defences that can occur at transitions between structure types or at specific points. These transitions or specific points often create weak points within a system of defences, and undermines the performance of the overall system of flood defences. Until now the performance of transitions is typically not included within system risk models, that undermines the accuracy of overall system flood risk prediction.
The broad aim of this research action is to identify typical weak designs for structure transitions and specific points and provide guidance on repair or retrofit solutions. In particular, internal erosion processes at structure transitions, or below historical structures such as sluices, are poorly understood, since information on the current state of the subterranean part of the structure (e.g. foundation or sheet pile cut-offs) is often lacking. There is a need for better methods for assessment of the safety of those structures, being preferably fast, cost-effective and non-destructive, as well as a clear understanding of the erosion processes that lead to eventual failure.
The subject of transitions is particularly relevant in urban flood defence systems, as it is more common to find frequent variations in flood defence structures in urban areas and specific structures in or near levees in urban areas that are not directly linked to the levee or flood protection structure. Structures associated with levees can also cause risk and asset management problems since the owner/manager of a structure can be different from the levee owner/manager. In this case the structure is called an ENCROACHMENT. This situation can cause problems for efficient inspection and maintenance, and hence can restrict effective assessment and management of the levee safety.
For structure transitions (performance, design and repair solutions) a typology has been developed. Also a review of major flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred was made including identification of key physical processes involved in failure modes.
Fig. 1: Typology of structure transition.
Transitions have been studied and described in terms of:
1. the failure modes they can be related to,
2. if possible, the limit state equations, fragility curves, performance curves or indicators linked to these failure modes,
3. the geotechnical problems linked to these transition types or failure modes, in order to be able to propose mitigation and/or remedial measures,
4. the possible means of detection of unknown transitions,
5. the possible means of detection of a problem occurring.
Solutions for the improvement of safety of transitions are proposed in terms of:
1. management of the encroachments: organisation (coordination) of the management of the levee AND the structure,
2. inspections (pre, during or post flood),
3. assessment methods (in some cases this may lead to a need for further research, as we might not have a complete knowledge of the processes involved),
4. improvement works (decide between rebuild/remove/act on the soil or act on the structure, propose technical options).
Remaining ‘gaps in knowledge’ relating to transitions are identified and a list of possible actions is proposed.
Action 3.1.3 Performance of vegetation on flood embankments.
The grass surface cover on a flood embankment protects against soil erosion and can either prevent breach or delay the onset of breach. Assessing the performance of grass in this context is therefore an important aspect of the overall performance assessment (and hence flood risk assessment) for flood embankments.
The significance of grass cover performance is increased if “acceptable overtopping / overflow” is permitted as part of flood risk management practice. Under such conditions, the estimated performance of the flood embankment will include and depend upon the performance of the grass cover. The effects of climate change appear to be leading towards more extreme conditions for both hydraulic loading (magnitude of flood event) and climatic conditions (prolonged wet and dry periods). These changes pose an increasing pressure upon the performance of grass on flood embankments. Not only do the hydraulic load conditions increase, but the environment pressures affecting the quality and stability of the grass are also changing.
The longer term aim of this research action is the development of extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data from the last 25 years. This may arise through direct analysis and editing of guidance or identification of specific research steps required.
Specific research actions on grass performance comprised:
1. A review of project initiatives related to the performance of grass;
2. Investigation into grass performance data collected at the USDA Stillwater centre over the past 20 years, to identify what aspects might be relevant to European practice;
3. Confirmation of existing European and US guidance on grass performance, followed by identification of either (i) Updates to guidance using existing international research findings or (ii) clarification of longer term R&D needs to improve knowledge and performance of embankment grass cover layers.
The reliability of urban flood defences also depends on the performance of vegetation during flooding. Climate change and permitting “acceptable overtopping / overflow” as part of flood risk management requires the development of extended or revised guidance based upon a review of international research results and existing grass performance data from the last 25 years. The research undertaken has confirmed that existing guidance is based upon quite limited data sets, some of which originates from the USA and most of which relates to grass lined channels rather than overflow on flood embankments. Three sources of guidance were identified; the source most commonly used in Europe was also found to contain in built factors of safety, which whilst ‘safe’ for use in design, give misleading results when used for performance analysis.
Remaining ‘gaps in knowledge’ relating to grass performance are identified and a list of possible actions is proposed in order to get quality data relating to the performance of a range of grass types, on a range of soil types under steady overflowing conditions.
Task 3.2: Rapid and cost-effective dike condition assessment methods
As geophysical techniques promise rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions, whilst remote sensing is likewise attractive for the determination of surface related properties, guidance has been developed for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences.
Geophysical techniques allow rapid and cost-effective characterization of subsoil and embankment conditions, whilst remote sensing is likewise attractive for the determination of surface related properties. Guidance has been produced for the safe use of these cost-effective methods for the asset management of urban flood defences.
Action 3.2.1 Rapid, non-intrusive geophysical methods for assessing dikes.
Asset managers need more insight into the applicability and reliability of promising geophysical methods for assessing urban flood defence systems.
Understanding and acceptance of the basic principles and effectiveness of geophysical methods appears to be preventing wider use in practice. A number of research projects have tested and recommended geophysical approaches: the ERINOH project in France, the GMS project in the Czech Republic, USACE in USA, FRMRC in GB, Deistrukt in Germany, etc.
The objectives of the action undertaken in FloodProBE are (a) to gain wider agreement on the applicability of different geophysical methods for assessing embankment condition, (b) to get a better understanding, higher confidence and wider use by asset managers, (c) to work towards
European harmonization of guidance and (d) to disseminate among and involving a larger community of potential users.
An International Workshop on Geophysics was held in March 21-23, 2011 in Paris bringing together experts in the field to gain wider agreement on the applicability of different geophysical methods for assessing embankment condition, to get better understanding, higher confidence and wider use by asset managers and to work towards European harmonization of guidance. From the conclusions of this International Workshop on Geophysics guidelines have been produced on application of geophysical methods to urban areas for managers to implement and integrate geophysical investigation results into the asset support system. It focuses on technical, practical and economical features such as geophysical method applicability, reliability, rapidity, limitations (particularly in urban areas) and cost- effectiveness. Approaches based on method combination and comprising overall investigation followed by detailed investigation phases are confirmed. Slingram (electromagnetic induction) profiling and Electrical Resistivity Tomography are among the most preferred methods. However, all other methods can play important and specific roles, depending upon the stakeholder requirements and the asset features and setting. Temporal approaches have proved powerful tools for weak zone detection and monitoring and should be more widely used in the near future.
Fig. 2: Proposed approach for an effective geophysical survey
Apart from this workshop, and even though not included within the FloodProBE DoW, in-situ cross-tests have been performed on pilot sites in the Humber (GB) in July 2010 and at Orléans
(F) in April 2011. This additional work was achieved through alignment and collaboration with other research projects.
Action 3.2.2 Remote sensing.
High density aerial and satellite LIDAR survey has great potential for cost effective extraction of different types of flood defence information (geometry, condition, vegetation type etc). The broad aim of this action was to provide reliable and valuable asset management information, by refining automated data analysis and developing a methodology to couple aerial surveys with in-situ investigations and, if possible, with underwater surveys (sonar).
This task has been undertaken in very close collaboration with asset managers along the Loire River and Fugro International (who provided the survey technology FLIMAP) as a subcontractor to Irstea. Implementation of this action has been undertaken in Orléans (F) through a survey of 72 km of levees in November 2010. Quality control of data, and data processing have been performed in 2011 and at the beginning of 2012.
The deliverables contain an overview of the different remote sensing technologies available nowadays and are more specifically focused on the helicopter borne LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology, which provides extremely accurate topographic data at a highly efficient rate. In support of a real case study (“Val d’Orléans” Pilot Site), a methodology is described for performing an helicopter borne survey and for using remote sensing LiDAR data and high-resolution aerial imagery – acquired in “dry conditions” (e.g. not in a flood context) - to contribute efficiently to a rural or urban flood defense structure diagnostic or assessment.
The digital elevation model (DEM) contains information transmitted by the radar first echo
from the vegetation and frame cover. Items such as cars and people are filtered.
For the sake of the FloodProBE experiment, other DEM products were created: a no-vegetation
DEM to show only the constructions; and conversely a no-construction DEM to show only the vegetation and a digital terrain model (DTM) with no construction and no vegetation (Fig. 3).
Figure 3: Left to Right, and top to bottom, Digital elevation model (DEM), No-Vegetation
DEM and Digital terrain model (DTM) from the Same Area
Furthermore from this work a Generic terms of reference for a LiDAR survey has also been produced.
Task 3.3: Combination of information sources for dike diagnosis
Many different factors affect the performance of urban flood defences, for example, material type, condition, history, location, loading, etc. These different types of information could be integrated within a framework that allows the asset / flood risk manager to identify weak spots and make informed decisions based upon the current state. This task looked at generic solutions for hard (model parameters that can be measured) and soft (e.g. observations, real-time monitoring data or past experiences) data integration together with dike diagnosis, using a geographical information system (GIS).
Assessment tools based on performance indicators (“soft data”) and methods based on (physical based) performance models are currently being used separately. No tool integrates all types of data.
To support dike diagnosis by combining information sources methods (a framework) is developed to incorporate specific data sources geophysics and remote sensing and to combine all types of data sources (linked to relationships with new failure mechanism derived for transition structures, erosion and vegetation performance) that allows levee managers to better assess the reliability of the flood defences.
The deliverable report describes a number of data combination techniques from both a theoretical and a practical point of view and gives guidance on improving the assessment through adding additional data sources. Some improvements can be implemented directly without much cost; others need some research and development in order to be used in practice.
The theoretical approach to improve the assessment results is applied in several cases in this report. These cases show it is very well possible to combine fundamentally different data types for an assessment and thereby improve the quality of the assessment.
In order for these changes to take place in practice, both engineers and asset managers need to change the way they think about data. It needs to be gathered and maintained in a structured manner (GIS) and the assessment methods must not ignore important data because it does not suit the model. This report gives guidance on how to manage the data and how to improve the assessment models.
3. Outputs and deliverables
Outputs from all of the research actions are in the form of guidance drawn from the process research. Three deliverables are listed below:
D3.1 Guidance on improved performance of urban flood defences. Report addressing (i) soil erodibility processes and parameter descriptions (internal, surface and at transitions), (ii) failure modes, design and repair at structure transitions and (iii) updated guidance on the performance of vegetation during overflowing.
D3.2 Rapid and cost-effective dike condition assessment methods: geophysics and remote sensing. Integrated guidance on levee assessment with a specific focus on the use of geophysical methods and FLIMAP (LiDAR) data for dike condition assessment.
D3.3 Combining information for urban levee assessment. A reported and evaluated method for GIS-based diagnosis of urban flood embankment performance, using multiple, integrated information sources.
Furthermore a document containing the generic terms of reference for a LiDAR survey have been produced.
Work Package 4 CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AND CONCEPTS FOR FLOOD DEFENCES AND FLOOD RESILIENCE
1. Background
The principal aim of FloodProBE is to provide cost-effective means for flood risk reduction in urban areas. For this purpose WP4 has developed new concepts and building technologies to reduce the vulnerability of urban areas to flooding. In this workpackage new concepts and technologies for essential flood management systems were developed. The systems that are addressed in this work package are flood defence networks, flood damage mitigation of critical vulnerable buildings, shelters and lifeline infrastructure.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP 4 and main outcomes
Urban systems contain assets of high value and complex and interdependent infrastructure networks (i.e. power supplies, communications, water, transport etc.). The infrastructure networks are critical for the continuity of economic activities as well as for the people’s basic living needs. Their availability is also required for fast and effective recovery after flood disasters. The severity of flood damage therefore largely depends on the degree that both high value assets and critical urban infrastructure are affected, either directly or indirectly. This work package has been focused on improving the flood defence performance of critical infrastructure and high value assets and the improvement of existing and new urban flood defences. The concepts and technologies of 5 items were further developed.
1. In-situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance. The effectiveness of BioGrout for preventing backward erosion has been investigated with both small-scale and medium-scale experiments, and computer models have been used to determine the implications for practice.
2. Multifunctional flood defences: a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) was developed and applied to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
3. Technologies for flood-proofing “hotspot” buildings.
4. Technologies to integrate sheltering function to buildings.
5. Technologies for flood-proofing road infrastructure.
Task 4.1 Concepts and technologies for cost-effective construction and retrofitting of urban flood defences
Multifunctional Flood Defences
Multifunctional Flood Defences (MFD) is a newly developed concept to optimize allocation of urban space rather than constructing stand-alone dikes. Multifunctional Flood Defences are flood defences that combine the function of flood protection with other functions. In addition to flood protection, multi-functional flood protection fulfils functions like housing, recreation and leisure, commercial buildings, ecology, mobility and transport, underground infrastructure and is a functional part of the urban or rural environment. There are various forms of multifunctionality included in the body of a dike or around it, to optimize allocation of space.
The difference between traditional flood defences and a MFD is that instead of modifying the surrounding area for a traditional flood defence, the MFD is modified for the surrounding area. Functions in the surrounding area do not disappear, but they remain or are enhanced.
Because of this substantial difference, a MFD can be a spatial solution that allows many functions to be combined using the same area of land as a traditional flood defence, but without jeopardizing the strength of the MFD and the safety of the hinterland. In fact, in some situations functions are a crucial part of the MFD for those functions may serve as a flood defence.
Since a MFD allows more additional functions, more financial benefits can be generated. A MFD can be a expensive solution and therefore not an attractive solution to invest in. But the financial benefits can alter this fear of investment.
The focus of the final report (D4.2) is to provide a step-by-step guidance for the identification of promising design concepts for multifunctional flood defences (MFD) and to apply this guidance to the pilot case 'Kop van 't Land' area in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. A costs and benefits assessment method for multifunctional defences has been investigated with the ambition to increase safety over current defence designs and/or to provide additional benefits beyond safety. The outcome can be used as a guide for computing the costs and benefits for further studies in the future.
In situ biotechnological treatment for increased erosion resistance (BioGrout)
The research from the past months focusses on the results of activities executed for FP7 FloodProBE task 4.1 to develop and test cost effective and sustainable construction technologies to increase the flood resilience of the built environment, with a focus to improve the performance of existing and new flood defences. The sustainable construction technology tested for the feasibility of increasing flood resilience is the bio-based in situ strengthening technique called BioGrout. The application of BioGrout technology is tested and optimized to prevent, permit retrofit and to repair geotechnical failure mechanisms in flood defences.
BioGrout is an innovative technology for in situ strengthening of unconsolidated sediments using bacteria. This technique enables sustainable improvement of the erodibility of sandy soils by building calcium carbonate bridges between the sand grains through microbial processes. Contrary to traditional grout injection methods, BioGrout can be applied without a significant reduction of the permeability of the sand. The feasibility of BioGrout has been tested through lab experiments. Small-scale experiments and Hole Erosion Tests (HET) have shown the possibility of using BioGrout to prevent backward erosion. Also the effectiveness of BioGrout for preventing backward erosion has been investigated with both small-scale and medium-scale experiments, and computer models have been used to determine the implications for practice.
The main conclusion from this research is that BioGrout is a technology that is suitable to prevent backward erosion in flood defences. By applying BioGrout the critical head required to initiate internal erosion is increased at least three times, sufficient to withstand higher water levels in rivers and a rise in sea level. A key advantage of BioGrout is that it can be applied in situ with light material, causing no disturbance in the surroundings and can hence be used at locations where access is limited.
However, the costs to apply BioGrout at current are substantial, making it a high grade technology. Also the production of ammonium chloride means that large volumes of BioGrout should not be used; it will be mainly used at locations where other techniques cannot offer an acceptable solution.
Task 4.2: Concepts and technologies for damage mitigation in the urban built environment
Hotspot Buildings
Urban systems contain assets of high value, complex and interdependent infrastructure networks. These infrastructure networks are critical for the continuity of economic activities as well as for the people’s basic living needs. Hotspot buildings are defined in this research as essential nodes in critical infrastructure on which urban areas depend for their functioning. Examples of critical infrastructure are technological networks such as energy supply, transport services, water supply, information and communication services.
The availability and functioning of hotspot buildings is needed to maintain daily life as normal as possible during floods but is also required for fast and effective recovery after flood disasters. The flood vulnerability therefore largely depends on the degree in which both high value assets and critical urban infrastructure are affected, either directly or indirectly.
Failures of hotspots can cause major damage to society and the economy: hence, the need is urgent to identify these risk hotspots and develop potential protection technologies. Flood proofing is a building method to construct or reconstruct buildings to make them resilient against flooding.
The research included wet flood proofing, dry flood proofing, elevating structures, floating structures, amphibious structures, temporary flood barriers and permanent flood barriers.
Guidelines on flood proofing technologies and concepts for retrofitting of non-residential buildings have been formulated. These guidelines included in three tools that are incorporated into an excel model. These tools can be used by designers and decision makers to select and evaluate flood proofing concepts for flood proofing hotspot buildings in different stages of the urban development process.
Smart Shelters
Various and diverse mitigation plans have been implemented across the world to reduce the consequences of flooding. Examples include the building of embankments, constructing detention and retention areas, and other structural measures to protect people and properties especially in urban areas. However, the current records of flood damages indicate that these measures are so far not adequate to cope with flooding. Therefore, in addition to structural measures, other emergency measures such as flood shelters are also needed immediately and urgently when disaster strikes.
Extra attention during this research period was for cost benefit analysis. In order to realise economic benefits and be sustainable, shelter structures need to be used synergistically for multiple purposes for the periods when there is no flood risk or inundation, which are likely to be lengthy compared with their usage during periods of flooding. It was concluded that in this way, the investment in constructing new flood shelters can be offset against a variety of normal use functions that will ensure the structures are continually maintained. These multi-purpose flood shelters can then be used to manage hazard relief and rehabilitation activities as needed in a pre-planned way.
The core idea of the report has been produced as a deliverable is that practically, multi-use shelter structures can be effective through two options. Firstly, a shelter can be constructed aimed solely at flood relief with other functions added later. Secondly, any suitable existing public buildings such as schools, hospitals, and so on can be modified over time to act as shelters. So, to introduce ‘smart shelters’ that are not only a means of mitigation but also a means of development. Alternatively, the modification of existing buildings is a smart idea to reduce the need for a huge amount of investment that may be needed for construction and maintenance of new smart shelters.
The final deliverable report (D4.3) deals with the socio-economic aspects of smart shelters that have to be considered to design and implement shelters that are as cost-effective as possible.
Flood proofing road infrastructure
In the project, three stages have been developed. In the first stage, the limits in the application of floating technology for flood-proofing infrastructure in circumstances of flooding and post-flooding were defined. In the second stage the state of the art floating technology applied to infrastructure was described and a first analysis of multi-benefits, flexibility/compatibility, traditional/new materials application has been performed. Finally, the third stage consisted of concept development for the design of floating technology, applied to infrastructure as a quick response to maintain connection during a flood emergency event and in connection with shelters and hotspot buildings with a specific focus on floating and lightweight bridge research.
The final deliverable report 4.3 contains: a) the design and elaboration of select concepts, for this purpose, a floating pedestrian bridge has been developed in accordance with the necessities of the possible place of application, b) a scale prototype has been fabricated, according to designs defined on previous point, and c). based on the above points the final report on the integration of technology applied to floating emergency attention by flooding in vulnerable areas has been prepared.
Task 4.3: State of the art, guidelines and a roadmap for wider implementation of flood resilience technologies in Europe
The research covered building resilience measures and a roadmap to their acceptance. It includes guidance on the selection of flood proofing construction methods, a review of existing guidance on resilient building materials in various countries, a methodology for cost-benefit analysis and cost estimates of flood damage in individual buildings as well as a roadmap for increased uptake of building flood resilience.
Pilot Dordrecht
A key challenge is to implement the proposed adaptation measures (e.g. smart shelters) in the existing built environment. Yet, there are significant opportunities arising from e.g. building renewal to introduce adaptation measures incrementally and to keep additional adaptation costs low by timing these measures to coincide with broader public and private sector investments. In order to realize adaptation mainstreaming, the adaptation process should be tied as closely as possible to the time windows when renewal will occur. The main issue that remains to be solved is, thus, the timing of implementation of the proposed adaptation measures, in particular for integrating sheltering function to buildings.
The main issue that arose as a result of the FloodProBE research (WP 2.1) was the feasibility (especially, in terms public acceptability) of the Multi Level Safety strategy.
The City of Dordrecht (CoD) is setting out to achieve sustainable urban development and it is exploring opportunities to integrate water policy and water safety policy with the urban development process. To achieve this objective, the CoD is developing the Multi Level Safety approach. This is a three-tier approach to flood risk management. The first tier focuses on flood avoidance (i.e. protection). The other two tiers are aimed at limiting the effects of flooding; the second is intended to create a sustainable layout and design (i.e. prevention), and the third seeks to improve the organisational preparations for potential flooding (i.e. preparedness). The challenges, or rather stakeholder questions, for the CoD can be described in relation to the three tiers: Protection, Prevention and preparedness.
More information about the pilot Dordrecht has been included in the WP5 report on pilot projects.
Rotterdam-The Hague Emergency Airport
Global increase of flood casualties and damage (Munich Re, 2011), shifting policies of humanitarian aid, and the potential role of airports in sheltering flood victims in cities present an opportunity for emerging concepts which are making use of these developments and creating viable business cases. The ‘Emergency Airport’ is a concept first tested on a local airport between the cities of Rotterdam and The Hague, both in the Netherlands. This case-study describes the transformation of the airport into a public-private flood shelter facility. Research has been with the aim to create an assessment framework and research the cost effectiveness of different solutions for flood reduction in urban areas.
The Netherlands are using a Risk based approach policy and as well as a ‘Multi Layer Safety policy’, which the Dutch Government introduced in the National Water Plan (NWP) as a new steering philosophy in dealing with flood safety in the Netherlands (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management, 2008). In this approach, policies are not solely focused on flood prevention, but also on damage reduction and evacuation in case a flood does occur. The NWP presents shelters as a tool for achieving safety on another level than prevention or mitigation. Research on Multi Layer Safety pilot studies in the Netherlands shows that measures taken in the so called layer three – evacuation and crisis-management could be very cost-efficient if the reduced casualties are monetized in a cost benefit analysis.
With the plan for Rotterdam-The Hague Airport basically an extra (fourth) layer is introduced within the concept: the capacity to recover from a (catastrophic) flood. A high recover capacity makes it possible to recover quickly after a disaster and focus on reconstruction. That will reduce the vulnerability for floods.
More information about this pilot is included in the deliverable report on pilot projects produced in WP5.
4. Outputs and deliverables
D.4.1 Report on bio-technological strengthening of flood embankments, including the applicability based on experiments, and concepts close to industrial application
D.4.2 Design concepts of multifunctional flood defence structures
D.4.3 Report on concepts and technologies for damage mitigation and improved flood resilience and for integrated shelter functions in the urban built environment
D.4.4 Outline design guidance on building resilience measures, including roadmap for accelerated stakeholder acceptance of building resilience measures.
Work Package 5 INTEGRATION IN DECISION SUPPORT, PILOT STUDIES AND GUIDANCE
1. Background
The FloodProBE project contains a range of research actions addressing vulnerability of the urban environment (WP2), reliability of urban defences (WP3) and construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience (WP4). WP5 acts as a conduit to help with integration of work across the project, in particular through the involvement of pilot studies, and through the integration of work with existing decision support systems and the production of overall guidance material.
2. Purpose and objectives of WP5 and main outcomes
The general objective of WP5 is to facilitate cross cutting integration of project work, including the production of guidance material. Cross cutting integration will be focussed upon two processes; firstly, meshing of the research programme with a series of pilot sites drawn from across Europe, and secondly, the identification of existing European practice in terms of flood risk management practice and decision support systems (DSS) such that the outputs from the project are in a format that helps uptake and implementation of the science.
Specific objectives of WP5 are therefore:
1. To integrate pilot activities and standardise methods, approaches and procedures.
2. To support enhanced decision support (systems) (DSS) on urban flood risk management through the inclusion of new knowledge developed during the project.
3. To produce guidance on the methodologies and technologies developed during the project to facilitate uptake and implementation of the research results.
Task 5.1: Integration of pilot actions
There are extensive cross links between research undertaken within the various work packages. Figure 1 shows these links schematically.
The nature and extent of pilot work differs from site to site. Pilots had an important role in the project in order to:
a) test and validate research results
b) involve stakeholders and
c) improve practical applicability of the results of FloodProBE.
Figure 4: Summary of workflow links between FloodProBE work packages
There is a range of different pilot sites integrated within the FloodProBE project. Different aspects of the FloodProBE research are meshed within the different pilot sites. Given the range of research, no one pilot site reflects all of the research issues at a single location. The FloodProBE project focused RTD around pilot sites at the locations listed below. Links between WP research and the various pilots are summarised in Figure 4.
Pilot #1 Rotterdam (Netherlands) Dura Vermeer
Pilot #2 Dordrecht (Netherlands) Dura Vermeer
Pilot #3 Humber (UK) HR Wallingford
Pilot #4 Gloucester / AXA insurance (UK) Oxford Brookes University
Pilot #5 Trondheim (Norway) SINTEF
Pilot #6 Orleans (France) EIVP
Pilot #7 Prague (Czech Rep) REC/Metcenas
Table 1 Summary of pilot site – work package links
Ref Pilot Site WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5
1 Rotterdam Netherlands
Rotterdam Airport NL 2.1
Rotterdam Airport NL 4.1
Rotterdam Airport NL 4.2
2 Dordrecht Netherlands
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 3.1
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 4.1
Dike ring 22: Island of Dordrecht NL 4.2
3 Hull, River Humber UK
Hull, River Humber UK 3.1
Hull, River Humber UK 3.2
Hull, River Humber UK 3.3
4 Gloucester / AXA UK
Gloucester, River Severn UK 2.2
Gloucester, River Severn UK 4.2
Gloucester, River Severn UK 4.3
5 Trondheim Norway
Trondheim NO 2.3
6 Orleans France
AgglO, river Loire FR 2.1
DREAL Centre FR 3.1
3.2
3.3
7 Prague, Czech Republic Czech Rep.
Prague, Czech Republic CR 3.2 4.1
The aim of the Pilot Sites is to help ensure that direct end user / stakeholder needs are met and that the research outputs are practicable and usable.
Task 5.2: Integration of flood risk management decision support
This task facilitated the integration and uptake of the newly developed project knowledge into existing decision support models, systems and practice. There are many commonalities between models and concepts used for supporting decision-making in different countries and there is a common underlying need for improved science and methods. The work within FloodProBE aimed to meet those common needs. Existing decision support systems and practices from different partners have been looked at to determine the possible integration of new generic modules, methods or information developed in WP2, 3 and 4.
At the outset it was made clear that this Task is focussed upon ensuring that new models and methods can be integrated with existing Decision support systems or methods and that the activities would not produce a new DSS. This approach has been taken because it is more effective in terms of science uptake to provide something which meshes easily with an existing DSS model or method than to try and encourage complete replacement of a DSS by many different end user organisations.
A first activity undertaken in previous reporting periods was to take a closer look specifically into decision support systems (DSS). This exercise revealed that:
• the range of problems and decisions as well as actors and stages within the decision making process for flood risk management is manifold,
• that there are many DSSs available each aimed at a specific situation and to be used within a certain context,
• that the policy arena is very dynamic as well as the decision making issues and thus the development of the DSSs,
• that the outputs of the FloodProBE project mainly comprises of knowledge that is not yet ready for uptake in a DSS or requires further development first but as a standalone product they can already be very useful for policy makers.
Having established the concept of ensuring that the research outputs were user focussed rather than academic it was decided in the previous reporting periods to adapt the focus of effort slightly, whilst still retaining the same goals for the work. The focus of effort shifted towards an analysis of the science – policy interface, looking at barriers (and their solutions) to effective uptake of the research work into practice. This widened the scope of work under WP5.2 from the original specification.
Following a generic review of science-policy barriers, three workshops were held; the last two were undertaken in conjunction with the FLOODrisk2012 conference. The first workshop was a trial event to test the approach for group working between researchers and policy makers in identifying and prioritising barriers and solutions. Subsequently, two special workshop sessions were held at FLOODrisk2012; the first on barriers and the second on solutions. In parallel, an online survey was set up via the FLOODrisk and FloodProBE websites in order to reach a wider audience. Social media was used to promote participation. The result is a policy paper providing suggestions on actions to overcome SPI barriers to be implemented within EU research projects, that is included in the deliverable report on this task. Furthermore the different outcomes of the FloodProBE-project were looked at from an SPI-point. The final deliverable report produced during this reporting period is thus looking at Tackling Science Policy issues to improve the usability of the FloodProBE outputs for policy and thus support the decision making process in the field of flood risk management.
Task 5.3: Future design guidance
This task dealt with the production of guidance on the design and implementation of measures for the reduction of urban flood vulnerability based on the DSS models of WP5.2 experience from the pilot projects (WP5.1) and new flood resilient technologies developed under WP4.
The guidance produced from the various WPs has been integrated into a guidance for practical application in urban flood management. The results from the pilots have been used to illustrate the application for practical cases. The Guidance Document draws material and knowledge from each of the work packages.
3. Outputs and deliverables
Three main deliverables arise from WP5. These comprise:
• D 5.1 Report detailing integrated pilot results and lessons learned
• D 5.2 Report on integration of methods and modules in decision support tools
• D 5.3 Handbook/guide for use of project results in urban flood management
Potential Impact:
3.1 Benefits of the project
The FloodProBE Project supported European policy on flood risk management through research which improved the ability to manage and reduce flooding in urban areas. The project included the development of practical solutions that can be used to benefit communities, by reducing the impact of flooding as well as measures which will help prevent flooding from occurring. The project included case-studies across a range of countries, and encouraged integration of the work with flood risk managers, planners and policy makers across Europe.
To achieve its aims, the project team upgraded flood risk maps by creating a more sophisticated framework to assess vulnerability of the built environment. The method employed a complex strategy containing techniques ranging from simple assessment to advanced numerical models, and a geographic information system (GIS)-based solution to analyse critical infrastructure networks in a more comprehensive manner.
A powerful set of tools were developed to streamline risk assessment on various infrastructures and a sophisticated technique was devised to model the interdependency between infrastructure networks after a disaster. The project team also conceived a third system to identify the likelihood of damage to non-residential buildings in flood scenarios, considering construction methods, building materials and costs involved. Through rigorous testing and a series of case studies, FLOODPROBE successfully improved on the prediction of costs related to building damage.
In addition to the tools developed, the project team studied erosion processes and documented testing facilities in Europe to measure erosion parameters. It then developed a typology for structure transitions covering performance, design and repair solutions. Studies also involved a review of key flood events where defence failure in relation to structure transition occurred, identifying knowledge gaps related to erosion.
Guidance has been written on the use of new, fast investigation and data collection techniques to support the necessary asset management (like condition assessment of aging flood defences) including the combination of a range of data types and sources to increase efficiency in data management. A project workshop on geophysics held in 2011 helped harmonise geophysical methods for assessing embankment conditions and urban areas. In parallel, the project team explored the potential of remote sensing, particularly high-density aerial and satellite light detection and ranging (LIDAR) surveys by helicopter, to gather flood defence information.
This was followed by an in-depth study of construction technologies and concepts for flood defences and flood resilience of critical infrastructure and buildings. Furthermore a bio-based technology was further developed to reduce flood defence failure risks from the process of internal erosion by in situ increasing the strength and cohesion of materials thereby reducing the need for major reconstruction works.
Communication and dissemination has been a core-activity to create benefits from the project by linking up with policy-makers and practioners. Co-organising the FLOODrisk2012 conference has created significant impacts. Also the closing workshop, which was organized in collaboration with the International Levee Handbook ((ILH) project - coordinated by CIRIA (UK) - and discussed “Flood risk management in the build environment: back to the future” resulted in benefits from the project. The International Levee Handbook (to which projectpartners actively contributed also incorporated some of the research-outcomes from the FloodProBE-project) was officially presented at City Hall in Arles (F). The workshop was attended by 47 different organizations, embracing government agencies and departments, private consultancy companies and research institutes from Europe and the United States.
In addition to contributions to what is aimed at becoming an authoritive guidance, the guidance contributes to building an (international) network in flood risk management.
By focusing on the weakest and most vulnerable elements the primary impact of FloodProBE is a significant increase in the cost-effectiveness (i.e. performance) of investments in newly developed and existing flood protection and flood resilience measures, involving a wide range of stakeholders and pilot study sites from across Europe. The project outputs can be integrated into state-of-the-art flood risk management strategies and have been developed, tested and validated via pilot study sites (in so called “risk hotspots”). The methods developed can be integrated as modules in existing decision support models (UK, NL, GER, etc.). Integrating the knowledge in existing flood risk management strategies allows the end-users, mainly the responsible public authorities and asset managers, to manage flood risk using more holistic approaches. The guidance material produced on all developments in the project supports widespread uptake and will enable flood risk managers to apply the new knowledge in their flood risk management strategies. A policy brief on environmental policy-related results is available containing the main messages taken from the project results.
FLOODPROBE has overall successfully supported the improvement of European policy on flood risk management in a more cost-effective manner, contributing to valuable methods, tools and technologies to achieve this aim. The benefits to society, its people and its assets could be enormous. The final impact is a significant saving on the costs of flood damage and protection in Europe. Without action taken, the damage costs are estimated at 100-120 billion € per year in the near future. Realistic expectations for the cost reduction by application of the project results range up to tens of billion € per year.
3.2 Target groups
The core of the stakeholder involvement strategy is the FloodProBE associates programme. The project associates encompassed a wide range of stakeholders and end-users, such as public authorities, asset managers, ministries, construction companies and organisations or universities involved in flood risk research.
Three project-wide workshops were held and the members of the associates programme were invited to participate in the start phase as well as during the project in the definition or refinement of the key results and products from the project as well as in the definition of pilot activities. To this end, representatives of the responsible public authorities from the pilot sites were invited to the associates programme as well.
The involvement of the associates in the work and the feedback received ensured that FloodProBE produced results as close as possible to the end-users needs and with a high degree of practical applicability. This in turn, supports widespread uptake and acceptance of the methods, tools and technologies developed in the project.
FloodProBE also realized the coordination with projects on the topics ENV.2009.1.3.3.1 on Risk, prevention and management of urban floods, ENV.2009.2.1.5.1 on sustainable development of coastal cities by inviting representatives from relevant projects to participate in the associates programme.
3.3 Dissemination channels
A wide range of activities are necessary for the efficient and effective communication on the FloodProBE-project and its outcomes. The project-website is seen as core to internal and external communication and project management. In achieving the objectives, the consortium used the web site as working area and web based tools were developed to support them in bringing the newly developed knowledge into the field of flood risk management and releasing it to the public part of the website for implementation in practice.
Different audiences for communication are taken into account. For the FloodProBE project these are:
- The project participants
- Stakeholders (managing authorities, pilot projects, constructors, consultants).
- Public authorities
- Other asset managers
- The academic community incl. students (for educational training)
- The general public.
The language of communication is in all instances English.
By using web statistics on site visits, duration of the visit, number of pages viewed as well as the country of origin of the visit it was possible to monitor efficiency and impact of dissemination.
The table below gives an overview of the channels used for dissemination and the target groups that correspond with these channels.
Table 2. Overview of dissemination channels and its target groups
Target group
Channel EC Other policy organisation Research Public
Website X X X X
Newsletter X X X X
Public deliverables X X X X
Restricted deliverables X
Stakeholders workshops X X X
Congresses X X X
Posters, flyers, brochures X X X X
Scientific publications X
3.3.1 FloodProBE identity
A suitable and attractive logo was created to firmly establish FloodProBE’s identity and visibility and templates helped create output supporting the project-identity.
Figure 5 – The FloodProBE logo
This logo is consistently used in all dissemination products such as presentations, the website, the data portal, project reports and policy drafts.
3.3.2 FloodProBE flyer
A flyer with the FloodProBE project summary was disseminated and is available for downloading on the website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/). This summary contains the project essentials, a list of the participating institutions and an abstract explaining the objectives and dissemination channels.
3.3.3 FloodProBE website
The FloodProBE website is the primary entry point to get to know FloodProBE. The following domain name has been registered:
http://www.floodprobe.eu/
The FloodProBE website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/) has been made available to the project participants very early in the project and is in full working order. It features a lot of functionalities to support communication and dissemination activities and provides reference material. It serves as a central point for all project participants and stakeholders from the associate program.
Figure 6. Homepage of FloodProBE website
3.4 Exploitable results
In this section the exploitable results of the FloodProBE project are addressed.
All commercial participants will be exploiters and end-users of the knowledge generated in the project. The research institutes integrate the new knowledge into their ongoing long-term research programmes and improve their specialized consultancy work on flood risk management. The industrial partners and SMEs create new opportunities using the newly developed technologies and concepts for the development of new flood protection products and market opportunities in the field of urban building and infrastructure flood-resilience.
The detailed descriptions of the products can be found on the website (http://www.floodprobe.eu/project-research.asp) and contain:
- an overall guidance document
- description of pilot sites with fact sheets
- project outputs incl. all deliverable reports
- project documents
- visual material.
Exploitation of the results is basically open to any practioner in the field of Flood Risk Management through access to the public deliverable reports. All deliverable reports are relevant in this respect, but it is expected especially that the guidance documents that have been provided will contribute to the exploitation of project specific results.
The project activities and results have also clearly led to building a more extensive and active network in Flood Risk Management as can be seen from the organization of the FLOODrisk2012-conference and the upcoming FLOODrisk2016 conference as well as the submittal of a proposal “Flood Risk Management – Community of Practice (FRM-CoP)” under the HORIZON2020 Water4a Call from December 2013 with the submission deadline of April 2014. This indicates a better and wider access to the European and wider international market, thus increasing market opportunities and contributing to business growth.
Management of Knowledge and Intellectual Property by the consortium
The knowledge generated within the scope of the project has not only been recorded in the reports delivered to the European Commission, but also in the project files with the consolidated detailed information over the whole duration of the project. The infrastructure to support this knowledge database has been constructed at the beginning of the project and was continuously updated throughout the project. At current the document management system contains close to 600 documents. This knowledge base remains accessible to all consortium partners for future reference.
The management of this knowledge and IP is regulated by the Consortium Agreement (CA) which covers the following:
• All knowledge generated in the project is owned by the participating industry partners.
• To date no new patents have arisen from the project, but these would belong to those giving origin to the inventive step as far as it originates from a participating company. In case of patents arising from RTD performers, patents will belong to the participating companies.
Exploitation of the individual consortium partners is expected according to the following.
DELTARES, as a research institute and specialized consultancy firm, benefits from the entire range of developments in this project, these contribute significantly to their long-term research programmes on flood risk issues. Deltares acts as consultant for regional and national authorities and asset managers in their countries and worldwide on flood risk management matters as well as on the technological aspects prevention of floods and increasing flood-resilience. This encompasses all aspects treated in the project from vulnerability and risk analysis, flood defence reliability assessment, constructions technologies for infrastructure networks and buildings up to sophisticated decision support systems. FloodProBE enhances the consultancy capacities by widening the portfolio of products and potential measures in flood risk management that can be offered to their clients.
HR Wallingford and Samui France sarl (as third party linked to HRW) undertake both research and consultancy within the field of flood risk management. HR Wallingford also has a sister company – Wallingford Software – that produces commercial modeling software to aid flood risk analysis and management activities. HR Wallingford works closely with the UK government. Consequently, outputs from the project will be disseminated directly to the Environment Agency for uptake and implementation in managing flood risk within England and Wales. Equally, HR Wallingford and Samui France sarl will use the project research to enhance consultancy services to, and modeling packages for, use in the UK and International flood risk management community.
IRSTEA and IFSTTAR (formerly LCPC) are participating in FloodProBE as specialists in geotechnical aspects of flood defence structures. The institutes give advice to several French authorities on flood protection issues and participate in establishing rules, design codes and guidance in France. The developments in FloodProBE on erosion related failure processes of flood defences, non-destructive exploration methods and decision support on flood defence reliability contribute considerably to the research programs at both institutes and improved their consultancy skills for their main activities in France as mentioned above.
SINTEF, as research institute and specialized consultancy firm on a broad range of applied technological issues, will use the vulnerability analysis capacities on critical infrastructures related to floods to improve their developments on multi-hazard risk and vulnerability analysis and the analysis and identification of critical infrastructures. Both, ongoing and future research, as well as consulting work for public authorities worldwide benefit.
DuraVermeer Business Development (DVBD) generates projects from Dutch national policy development which considers compulsory flood risk assessments for new construction projects. Advanced knowledge of technologies and general flood risk assessment and management approaches has a direct value for all construction related activities of DVBD. The technologies developed contribute to the development of flood resilient building types part of a product line of pre-choice building structures. The development thus supports the development of concrete, cost-effective solutions for flood-prone areas.
ACCIONA Infraestructuras and MOSTOSTAL, as construction companies, have been working for last decades to make its business a way of improving the quality of live of the citizens following the concept of sustainable development. In this project, a first design of resilient structure has been developed to cope with the damages of floods and to reduce the environmental impacts due to the works of implementation efforts and time required for construction. Through their commercial networks, ACCIONA and MOSTOSTAL include this new concept of flood resilient bridge in the product portfolio presented in their respective national markets, for ACCIONA mainly in the Mediterranean region.
DELTASYNC will apply the concepts and technology that are developed in WP4 in their design and consultancy projects for government agencies, water authorities and the building industry in areas that are vulnerable to flooding. Results of this project will reduce the expected flood damage of DeltaSync’s clients significantly; hence increase the competitiveness of DeltaSync as a designer/consultant.
METCENAS as not-for-profit international research and training centre aims to establish mutual technical cooperation amongst the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and Balkan region and carries out research on integrated environment assessment, integrated water resources management, flood risk management and forward looking assessment. The project results will support delivering bespoke, capacity-building focused trainings primarily to public administrations.
SAMUI is an SME specialised in providing solutions for web-based dissemination, knowledge management systems and reporting as well as project management support, especially for European research projects. Samui Design has been involved as a partner in European Projects since 2006. This has enabled them to develop a number of highly advanced web-based tools and obtain feedback from other European partners as to their efficiency, easy of use and usefulness. This has in turn enabled them to provide better services to other businesses as well as to develop a reputation as a specialist in dissemination of technical and scientific research within Europe. Each project added to their experience and improved their ability to provide optimal solutions to their clients, including RTD projects for the European Commission.
SOLINTEL M&P is an SME specialised in construction using composite materials, mainly foundation design, which is a key issue in the development of the structure planned by ACCIONA and MOSTOSTAL and which furthers their engineering capabilities in this field and thus their competitiveness.
List of Websites:
www.floodprobe.eu
Projectcoordinator: C.C.D.F.vanRee@Deltares.nl
Tel. nr.: +31883357404
