Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A damage model for the assessment of storm damage to buildings

Patrick Heneka a,b, , Bodo Ruck a
a b

Institute for Hydromechanics, University of Karlsruhe, Kaiserstrasse 12, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, University of Karlsruhe, Hertzstrasse 16, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany

article

info

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a new model for the calculation of number and monetary amount of damage to residential buildings exposed to winter storm winds. The damage model is derived based on physical evidence and logical assumptions and is embedded in a mathematical framework. The model is calibrated with damage data from German winter storm events of the last decades. It is shown that the model is capable of reproducing the total damage as well as the spatial distribution of damages. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 28 February 2008 Received in revised form 26 May 2008 Accepted 4 June 2008 Available online 17 July 2008 Keywords: Winter storm Storms Storm damage Damage function Residential buildings Germany

1. Introduction Each year, extreme storm events such as winter storms, hurricanes and tornadoes cause widespread damage to persons, buildings, nature and provoke intensive indirect damages due to infrastructure and network outages. Recent events as well as statistics of the reinsurance industry ([24,19]) demonstrate the large damage potential and show the importance of a reliable assessment in order to quantify the risks. Therefore, besides reasonable storm hazard calculation, the knowledge of the vulnerability of the affected structures to storm damage is of great importance. With this contribution, we want to propose a new vulnerability (damage) model for damage assessment of building structures. Building damage is not the only part of the overall storm damage, but represents a large proportion and is usually insured and therefore well recorded. For these reasons, a storm damage model for residential buildings is developed. Damage surveys of past storm events (e.g. [3,27,23,1]) give an overview of the typical damage patterns to building structures. Direct building damage occurs most frequently to roofs, walls, claddings and openings. Indirect building damage due to windborne debris is dominated by broken trees. In order to quantify building damage, a non-dimensional damage ratio DR (also denoted as damage index or loss ratio) was

Corresponding author at: Institute for Hydromechanics, University of Karlsruhe, Kaiserstrasse 12, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany. Tel.: +49 721 6082203. E-mail address: heneka@ifh.uka.de (P. Heneka).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.06.005

introduced in the 1970s and first used by Hart [8] and Leicester and Reardon [16]. The DR is defined as the ratio between monetary repair costs to the total value of the building. The latter is often defined as reconstruction costs. Between the lower border of 0 no damage and the upper border 1 total building damage the damage ratio is verbally related to the physical damage patterns [8,16,5,2]. In Table 1, a comparison of the assignment of damage patterns is given which also points out the regional differences in the estimation of repair costs. For example, the half loss of roof sheeting is equivalent to 0.25%0.8% damage ratio in Europe [5] and to 5%20% in Australia [16,2]. The aim is to find out the equivalent wind speeds which result in these damage patterns. It is obvious that due to the inhomogeneity of the existing building stock the statements are valid in an average sense and not for individual buildings. A common way is to develop a function for a certain amount of buildings in a spatially defined unit. Mesoscale assessments of storm damage aim at loss determination on the spatial unit of postal-code zones or municipalities with a country-wide extent. Damage assessment on the scale of single buildings requires a huge amount of specific data and is generally not feasible for a large spatial extent. For mesoscale damage assessment, a variety of models have been developed which can be summarized in qualitative and quantitative models. The latter are subdivided into empirical, theoretical and stochastic models. Qualitative models describe the consequences of extreme wind speeds by means of their visual effects of natural phenomena on structures. Examples are the Beaufort scale, the Torro scale [17], the Fujita scale (e.g. [7]) and SaffirSimpson scales. These models

3604

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

Table 1 Assignment of verbal damage descriptions and damage ratios Damage description Damage ratio (%) as reported by [5] Lower bound No damage Light damage to roof tiles Roofs partly uncovered, light damage to structure Half loss of roof sheeting, some structural damage Severe damage to roofs, loss of roof sheeting Loss of roof structure, some damage to walls Severe damage to structure, some collapses Loss of all walls, Collapse of some buildings Total collapse of all buildings 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.8 3 10 30 60 80 Upper bound 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.8 3 10 30 90 100 100 [8] Lower bound 0 0.5 1.25 7.5 65 100 Upper bound 0.5 1.25 7.5 65 100 100 [16] Lower bound 0 5 10 15 20 50 75 100 Upper bound 0 1 5 5 10 20 25 65 90 100 20 60 90 20 60 90 100 5 [2] Lower bound Upper bound

are often applied inversely, which means that wind speeds are estimated based on the observed damage effects. Quantitative models calculate building damage in relation to available meteorological and structural information such as wind speeds, storm duration, and building type. Some functions were acquired empirically by fitting simple functions to damage data [26,4,19]. The functions have the disadvantage that extrapolation to higher wind speeds than already observed is not satisfactory, as it is not based on physical processes. As an example, Munich Re proposed a power of 3 for the increase of damage with wind speed based on data of the European 1990 storm series and corrected it to the power of 45 for the 1999 storm series where higher wind speeds occurred. In contrast to empirical approaches, some authors chose to construct deterministic models [28,21]. However, these projects only refer to the US and need large amounts of specific building information that is not available on a large scale. Sill and Kozlowski [25] propose a model to assess hurricane damage to buildings. It is based on logical assumptions and provides some interesting approaches which are used for the construction of our model. Pure stochastic models have been developed by Rooten and Tajvidi [22] and Katz [12] under the assumption that the occurrence of storm events can be modelled by extreme value functions. More details of different damage functions are given by Heneka and Ruck [9] and Watson and Johnson [29]. To summarize the differences of the models, two most crucial factors can be pointed out: the trend of damage increase with wind speed and the implemented additional parameters. The relationship between wind speed and amount of damage is modelled either by potential, exponential, or composed functions and no consensus about the right trend has been reached. Certainly, regional differences in the building stock may also result in different trend curves. Secondly, the models differ in the parameters which are included in addition to wind speed which is obviously the most important. Some models also consider storm duration, building type, and surrounding surface roughness as important factors. However, due to the limited data available, most damage models published do not have additional parameters. In this paper, we propose a new way to model storm damage to buildings which at least is an alternative to the first unresolved problem of damage trends. 2. Storm damage model 2.1. Exact formulation of storm damage In the following, v denotes the maximum wind speed during a storm event in the surroundings of a building and refers to a 3 s gust

Fig. 1. Mean damage function for buildings.

in 10 m above ground level. This building suffers from damage, if v is higher than a wind speed vcrit . The latter is a wind speed, at which damage to a building occurs for the first time and is named as critical wind speed. At wind speeds v higher than vcrit , damage is expressed by a damage increase function g (v). Maximum possible building damage is reached at wind speeds higher than the total wind speed vtot . For every single building, the damage ratio G is therefore written in sections as G(v) = 0, g (v), 1,

v < vcrit vcrit v < vtot vtot v.

(1)

The qualitative trend of G for a single building is plotted in Fig. 1. The total monetary loss is obtained by multiplying G with the total value or the reconstruction costs W of the building. Summation of all single monetary losses results in the total loss of a number of N buildings. Total loss = loss1 + loss2 + + lossN

= G1 W1 + G2 W2 + + Gn Wn
N

=
i=1

Gi (vi )Wi .

(2)

For an exact solution of this equation one would have to know the function G with its variables vcrit , vtot and g (v), the maximum wind speed v as well as the total value W for every building(!). It is theoretically possible with a certain effort to determine W and v for every building. The damage functions G would have to be determined for every single building by deterministic approaches [28,20,21,6] which is practically impossible due to the large amount of buildings and the great diversity of building structures. However, known values are the number of buildings N within a postal-code zone or municipality, the total value W within this area and wind speeds v during storm events on a 1 km 1 km raster by numerical wind field simulation.

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

3605

Fig. 3. Probability density function of critical wind speeds. Fig. 2. Built-up areas with the borders of a zip code zone or a municipality.

2.2. Model derivation Due to the lack of data, assumptions have to be made to construct a fully applicable damage model. As the distribution of buildings and damages within a spatial unit is unknown, the model is used to calculate the total number and amount of damage in a spatial unit. The main assumptions for the derivation of the damage model are listed below: 1. All buildings have an equal value W = W /N . Consequently, the weight of the damage ratios for the summation is equal. 2. The calculated wind speeds are averaged over the built-up areas of the spatial unit and are therefore applied for all buildings (Fig. 2). 3. Critical and total wind speeds of all buildings within a stock (postal-code zone, municipality) can be described with suitable probability distribution functions f (vcrit ) and f (vtot ). Generally, every function can be used. 4. The function for damage increase g (v) is valid for all buildings within an area and represents therefore an averaged damage propagation. The distribution function for critical wind speeds f (vcrit ) simulates the inhomogeneities of the buildings resistance to wind loads. Damage will generally not start at a common wind speed. Moreover, some buildings will suffer at lower wind speeds than others and some will resist even very high wind speeds. For the same purpose, Sill and Kozlowski [25] are using a triangular function over the square of the wind speeds. In Fig. 3, a distribution function for the critical wind speeds is plotted for example. Integration of the function f (vcrit ) with the upper limit v (maximum wind speed) results directly in the ratio of affected buildings CR (claim ratio) for which the critical wind speed was exceeded and damage occurred. CR(v) =
0

Fig. 4. Graphical presentation of damage calculation.

For n , one receives the integral for the calculation of the damage ratio DR for a number of buildings: DR(v) =
0

f (vcrit ) G(v) dvcrit .

(5)

Consequently, Eqs. (3) and (5) are used to calculate damage and claim ratio of a building stock when hit by a wind speed v during a storm event. Up to this point, the derivation of the damage function was kept as general as possible to ensure a maximum of choices for the probability distribution functions f (vcrit ) and f (vtot ) as well as for the damage increase functions g (v). Within the presented mathematical framework, all types are possible and the following considerations will help to choose suitable functions. Distribution function for critical wind speeds The critical wind speed of a building is determined by the weakest construction detail and, therefore, depends on the construction design of the structure [20]. Additional factors like construction quality, age and maintenance also play an important but unknown role. We will have to face a large spreading of critical wind speeds in a building stock which shall be simulated by means of a suitable distribution function. As there is no further evidence about the shape of the distribution function, we use the Normal distribution function with the shape parameters crit and crit to describe this variation. Introduction of the Normal function in Eq. (3) and multiplication with the total number of buildings N results in the number of damaged buildings at a maximum wind speed v Buildings(v) = N
v

f (vcrit ) dvcrit .

(3)

The integral is equal to the cumulative density function of f (vcrit ) and plotted as the grey area in Fig. 3. The damage ratio of buildings in an area is calculated as follows and illustrated in a graphical way in Fig. 4. A small proportion of buildings f1 with high vulnerability suffers high damage ratios G1 up to the wind speed v . A larger proportion of buildings fn is damaged near the maximum wind speed v and each of those therefore suffers a smaller damage ratio Gn . Summation of these proportions yields DR(v) = DR1 + DR2 + + DRn

crit 2

exp

(vcrit crit )2 2 2crit

dvcrit .(6)

Hence, the number of damaged buildings is solely described by the shape parameters crit and crit . Damage increase function for buildings It is often discussed whether the increase of damage with higher wind speeds can be based on physical assumptions instead of pure empirical evidence [15,14]. From investigation of the

= f1 G1 + f2 G2 + + fn Gn
n

=
i=1

fi Gi .

(4)

3606

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

European 1990 storm series [18] a power 3 relationship was found (damage v 3 ) which was traced back to the fact that the available kinetic energy of a flow is a cubic function of wind speed. This may be true for observations of single buildings but not for a building stock where the increased monetary damage is mainly a result of the increased amount of damaged buildings and not of a significantly higher average damage. In the proposed model, these 2 mechanisms are treated separately; the damage increase denotes this of a single average building while the above mentioned distribution of critical wind speeds is valid for an amount of buildings. The damage increase function is assumed to be proportional to the power of a wind speed and writes with the boundary conditions g (vcrit ) = 0 and g (vtot ) = 1 as: g (v) =

v vcrit vtot vcrit

Fig. 5. Illustration of uncertainty of damage functions.

(7) explainable with the available information [4,11]. These variations have to be treated as random variation. It is therefore necessary to at least quantify these variations in order to obtain an estimate of the uncertainty of the damage assessment. The introduction of artificial uncertainty is a way of dealing with this problem in a practical sense. This is realised by a simple add-on to the model which consists of a random variation of the shape parameter crit following a distribution f (crit ). Here, also a Normal distribution is used with the mean crit = crit and standard deviation crit . With Monte Carlo simulations for each wind speed a variation for the damage is obtained (Fig. 5). The determination of crit was performed by meeting the percentiles of the modelled damage and the observed damage, e.g. the 16th and 84th percentile. 2.5. Remarks to the model parameters The parameters crit , crit , and v are needed in order to apply the model. Generally, there are two ways of obtaining these values: (1) determination of the parameters in an analytical way and (2) calibration to available wind speed and storm damage data of past storm events. In our case damage and wind speed data of 4 storm events are available. We therefore use both approaches: After the determination of reasonable starting values for the 4 parameters, the calibration procedure was performed as follows in order to minimize the difference between calculated and observed total building damage:

Here, for = 2 the average damage of a single building would be proportional to the wind force, for = 3 to the kinetic energy of the wind flow. Distribution function for total wind speeds Analogous to the critical wind speeds, the total wind speeds are also described by a distribution function. Generally, these two functions will not be independent from each other (correlated with correlation coefficient ) and can be written as a 2-dimensional probability distribution function f (vcrit , vtot , ). For reasons of simplicity and no further evidence, we assume that the total wind speeds also follow a Normal distribution and are fully correlated ( = 1) with the critical wind speeds. Consequently, vtot for every single building can be written as

vtot = vcrit + v.

(8)

As a result, the difference between total and critical wind speed is constant for all buildings within an area. Substitution of Eqs. (7) and (8) in (5) and multiplication with the total building value W results in the damage at a given wind speed v
Damage(v)
v

=W

v vcrit v

crit 2

exp

(vcrit crit )2 2 2crit

dvcrit . (9)

Besides the shape parameters crit and crit , damage is additionally dependent on v and . Again, the damage increase function and distribution functions chosen for vcrit and vtot are relatively simple approaches and, hence, subject to inaccuracies. However, within the proposed model equations (3) and (5), any function can be used. 2.3. Implementation of further parameters To describe damage in more detail, it would be desirable to have different damage functions for different types of buildings or different exposures. The influence of these additional parameters has to be quantified. For example, Sill and Kozlowski [25] and Khanduri and Morrow [13] proposed additional curves for different types of buildings, Schraft et al. [24] for storm duration. In our model, crit , crit , and v will have to be evaluated to best fit the damage data available which is classified by additional parameters. 2.4. Uncertainties of damage assessment The analysis of past storm events show a large variation of damages when plotted against wind speed which is not entirely

Calculation of number of buildings and damage for every postalcode zone and storm.

Summation of results for all postal-code zones for every storm. Calculation of difference to observed overall damage.
The mean of the normal distribution crit is equal to the wind speed where exactly 50% of the buildings in an area are damaged. Hence, given a suitable observation database of past building damages, this value can be directly determined. Sill and Kozlowski [25] propose 48 m/s for this wind speed; from publications of the Munich Re [19] a value of 4550 m/s is read. The standard deviation crit can roughly be estimated based on the following thoughts: First significant damage to buildings occurs at wind speeds approximately 2025 m/s. Taking into account that for a normal distribution of critical wind speeds, approx. 0.1% of the values lay below crit 3crit , we deduce values of 710 m/s as a starting estimate for the standard deviation. The mean of the total wind speeds tot represents the wind speed where 50% of the buildings suffer total damage (DR = 1). Wind speeds of this magnitude are not expected for winter storms in Germany and are even rarely observed in tornadoes. However, an approach to obtaining this wind speed is a comparison with F 5 tornado damage where values of 120130 m/s are observed

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

3607

Fig. 6. Damage model 1 (left) and 2 (right) and observed storm damage. Table 2 Suggested parameters for residential buildings in Germany Parameter Description Wind speed where 50% of the buildings are damaged Standard deviation of critical wind speed distribution Increase of damage with wind speed Difference in wind speed between start of damage and total damage Model 1 Absolute values 50.5 m/s ( = 2.5) 7.8 m/s 2 70 m/s Model 2 Relative values 1.31 ( = 0.04) 0.20 2 1.85

crit crit v

for these damage states [5]. Taking these values a first rough estimate for tot , the difference v between vtot and vcrit calculates 7090 m/s. There is also no evidence about the shape parameter for the damage increase function but, for reasons of model consistency, the above mentioned values indicate that = 2. A higher would have the consequence that the mean value for the total damage distribution tot is expected already at wind speeds of 70 m/s which is not a realistic value for the German building stock. Summarizing, with knowledge of building damage and corresponding wind speeds, starting values of the model parameters can be determined in a rational way. 3. Application to winter storms in Germany The model is used to calculate the number and monetary amount of damages caused by winter storms in Germany. Damage data on a postal code base are available for 4 storm events with different severities for the German state of BadenWrttemberg situated in the South-West of Germany. The maximum gust fields of these past events have been calculated in a raster with a horizontal resolution of 1 km 1 km by the IMK, University of Karlsruhe [10]. In a previous publication [11] it was found that the number and monetary amount of damage is rather a function of a relative wind than of the absolute wind speeds which occur during storm events. The relative wind speed is hereby defined as the ratio of the maximum gust during a storm event and the 50-year wind gust. The 50-year wind speed is denoted as wind climate and is exceeded with a probability of 2% in a time period of one year. This consideration of wind climate has the effect that wind damage

occurs solely if the local wind climate is exceeded. In regions with high wind climate the building structures are used to also withstand higher gusts, thus damage is not as high as in other regions with lower wind climate. In order to show the consequences for the damage calculation, we use both approaches to run the model. Model 1 is run with absolute wind speeds, model 2 with relative wind speeds. For the available damage and wind data, the parameters suggested for the damage model for residential buildings in Germany are listed in Table 2. The values fit very well to the theoretical considerations of Section 2.5. Both the damage data as well as the damage model are plotted in Fig. 6, for the two approaches, respectively. The plots show the damage ratio (above) and the claim ratio (below) in respect to the absolute gust speed (left) and relative gust speed (right). The dots show wind speeds and damage for single postal-code zones. Both models represent very well the mean increase of damage with wind speed. As the data points scatter very much, an uncertainty assessment is given. In each case, 16% of the data points lay below and above the slash-dotted curves and consequently more than 2/3 of the data points lay between these borders. The size of the area is therefore a measure for the uncertainty of the model; the smaller the better the model is capable of explaining the data. At this point it becomes clear that the damage model is solely representing the average damage trend without taking into account further local differences or uncertainties. The overall damage is calculated by the summation of the number and amount of damage for all postal-code zones in the state and compared with the observed damage (Table 3). The errors range from 0% to 40% for the number of affected buildings and

3608

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

Table 3 Observation and model calculations for four past winter storm events Storm Date Observed buildings (Thousand) Simulated buildings Model 1 (Thousand) Simulated buildings Model 2 (Thousand) Observed damage (Mil. e) Simulated damage Model 1 (Mil. e) Simulated damage Model 2 (Mil. e) Storm 1986 20.10.1986 3 3 (21%) 2 (41%) 5 2 (54%) 1 (71%) Wiebke 01.03.1990 34 40 (+18%) 34 (+0%) 51 61 (+21%) 45 (11%) Lore 28.01.1994 17 22 (+26%) 19 (+12%) 24 32 (+37%) 26 (+10%) Lothar 26.12.1999 197 175 (10%) 181 (7%) 304 278 (10%) 258 (15%)

Table 4 Correlation coefficients for storm damage and number of damaged buildings Name Date Sturm 1986 20.10.1986 Wiebke 28.2.-1.3.1990 Lore 28.1.1994 Lothar 26.12.1999

Damage model 1 Damage Buildings 0.19 0.21 0.28 0.38 0.13 0.23 0.61 0.75

Damage model 2 Damage Buildings 0.25 0.28 0.57 0.64 0.34 0.47 0.87 0.86

from 10% to 70% for the monetary damage. Ignoring the weakest event of 1986 which generally caused little damage, model 2 is better capable to calculate storm damage of the 3 strongest events. Especially the number of affected buildings is sufficiently reproduced with a maximum error of 7% for the 1999 event. This holds also for the monetary damage where the maximum error is 15% compared to 40% for model 1. The reasons for the insufficient calculation of the 1986 event is of a general nature: At lower wind speeds where only very few damage per spatial unit is observed, an inaccurate calculation results easily in large errors. A comparison of the spatial distributions of storm damage for winter storm Lothar is shown in Fig. 7. The amount of monetary damage per postal-code zone is represented by black bars and the average wind speeds are marked in colour. By eye, a better correspondence of model 2 to the observed damage patterns is visible, especially in the western, southern and central parts of the state. This impression is proven by the calculation of the spatial correlation coefficients where we get 0.87 for model 2 and 0.61 for model 1. For the number of affected buildings and all the other winter storms, the correlation coefficients are listed in Table 4. It is obvious that model 2 reproduces the spatial distribution for all events much better than model 1. 4. Conclusions The most important conclusions of this work are listed below:

A damage model was developed which is embedded in a

mathematical framework and which offers space for arbitrary improvements. It is now possible to run this model with a minimum of available data. The advantage of the model compared to empirical damage functions is that the extrapolation for higher wind speeds is based on a set of logical assumptions instead of best-fit functions. The model was calibrated with damages of past storm events in Germany and was able to reproduce the damage numbers. It is shown that damage functions based on relative gust speeds

Fig. 7. Residential building damage per postal-code zone in Mil. e for winter storm Lothar in 1999.

(model 2) are better capable to calculate damage than those based on absolute gust speeds (model 1) as the precision

P. Heneka, B. Ruck / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 36033609

3609

and especially the spatial correlation coefficients are higher throughout. The developed storm damage model represents the average winddamage relationship of residential buildings within postal-code zones or equivalent spatial areas. However, the discrepancy between modelled and observed damage for single zones may be huge as at this stage no further influences like building structure, age or storm duration are considered. The derived set of model parameters is used to recalculate the damage of all storm events that have been available. Changes of the model parameters result in different overall damage predictions while the spatial correlation coefficients are mainly insensitive to changes. However, compared to the general uncertainty of the model, the sensitivity of the results to changes of the model parameters is low. This indicates that there should be no larger problems to determine the model parameters to further building data. Although calibrated to data of a specific region, model 2 with its model parameters is applicable also elsewhere as it uses the wind climate as a proxy for local vulnerability of buildings (see also [11]). This holds only for regions where the construction of buildings is similar to the calibration region which is at least true for Germany and Western Europe. However, due to missing damage data of other regions, this applicability could not yet be finally proven. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the SV Gebudeversicherung Stuttgart, Germany, for the provision of storm damage data and the Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research of the University of Karlsruhe for the provision of meteorological data. This work is part of the project Risk map Germany of the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology (http://www.cedim.de), a joint venture of the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ) and the Technical University of Karlsruhe (TH). We thank the GFZ Potsdam and the University of Karlsruhe for financial support. References
[1] Blackmore P, Tsokri E. Windstorm damage to buildings and structures in the UK during 2002. Weather 2004;59(12):3369. [2] Blong R. A new damage index. Nat Hazards 2003;30:123. [3] Buller P. Wind damage to buildings in the United Kingdom 19701976. Technical report CP42/78. Garston: Building Research Establishment; 1978. [4] Dorland C, Tol R, Palutikof J. Vulnerability of the Netherlands and Northwest

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

[9]

[10]

[11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

[28] [29]

Europe to storm damage under climate change. Climatic Change 1999;43: 51335. Dotzek N. Tornadoes in Germany. Atmos Res 2001;56:23351. Ellingwood B, Rosowsky D, Li Y, Kim J. Fragility assessment of light-frame wood construction subjected to wind and earthquake hazards. J Struct Eng 2004;30:192130. Fujita TT. Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized planetary scales. J Atmos Sci 1981;38:151134. Hart G. Natural hazards: Tornado, hurricane, severe wind loss models. Technical report NTIS no. PB 294594/AS. Redondo Beach (CA): National Science Foundation; 1976. Heneka P, Ruck B. Development of a storm damage risk map of Germany A review of storm damage functions. In: Proceedings of the international conference for disasters and society. 2004. Heneka P, Hofherr T, Ruck B, Kottmeier C. Winter storm risk of residential structuresmodel development and application to the German state of BadenWrttemberg. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 2006;6:72133. Heneka P. Schden durch Winterstrme - das Schadensrisiko von Wohngebuden in Baden-Wrttemberg. Ph.D. thesis. University of Karlsruhe; 2007. Katz R. Stochastic modeling of hurricane damage. J Appl Meteorol 2002;41(7): 75462. Khanduri, Morrow. Vulnerability of buildings to windstorms and insurance loss estimation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2003;91(4):45567. Klawa M, Ulbrich U. A model for the estimation of storm losses and the identification of severe winter storms in Germany. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 2003; 3:72532. Lamb H. Historic storms of the North sea. In: British Isles and Northwest Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991. Leicester R, Reardon G. A statistical analyses of the structural damage by cyclone Tracy. Civil Eng Trans 1976;18(2):504. Meaden GT. Tornadoes in Britain: Their intensities and distribution in space and time. J Meteorol 1976;1:24251. Munich Re . Winter storms in Europe (I): Analysis of 1990 losses and future loss potential. Mnchen: Mnchener Rckversicherungs-Gesellschaft; 1993. Munich Re . Winter storms in Europe (II): Analysis of 1999 losses and loss potentials. Mnchen: Mnchener Rckversicherungs-Gesellschaft; 2001. Nateghi-A F. Assessment of wind speeds that damage buildings. Nat Hazards 1996;14:7384. Pinelli J, Simiu E, Gurley K, Subramanian C, Zhang L, Cope A. Hurricane damage prediction model for residential structures. J Struct Eng 2004;130(11): 168591. Rootzn H, Tajvidi N. Extreme value statistics and wind storm losses: A case study. Scand Act J 1997;1:7094. Sacr C. Extreme wind speed in France: The 99 storms and their consequences. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2002;90:176371. Schraft A, Durand E, Hausmann P. Storms over Europe: Losses and scenarios. Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance Company; 1993. p. 28. Sill B, Kozlowski R. Analysis of storm-damage factors for low-rise structures. J Perf Construc Fac 1997;11(4):16877. Sparks P, Schiff S, Reinhold T. Wind damage to envelopes of houses and consequent insurance losses. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 1994;53:14555. Spence R, Fawcett W, Brown A. Windstorm vulnerability of the UK building stock. In: Proceedings of the wind engineering society conference. 1998. p. 2338. Unanwa C, McDonald J, Mehta K, Smith D. The development of wind damage bands for buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod 2000;84:11949. Watson C, Johnson M. Hurricane loss estimation models, opportunities for improving the state of the art. Bull Am Meteor Soc 2004;85:171326.