Data collection for a damage assessment after the flash flood in

Braunsbach (Germany) in May 2016 (http://doi.org/10.5880/fidgeo.2017.015)

Citation information

These data are freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY-
SA 4.0) Licence. When using the data please cite:

Vogel, Kristin; Laudan, Jonas; Sieg, Tobias; Rözer, Viktor; Winter, Benjamin; Thieken, Annegret
H. (2017): Data collection for a damage assessment after the flash flood in Braunsbach (Germany)
in May 2016. GFZ Data Services. http://doi.org/10.5880/fidgeo.2017.015

The data are supplementary material to:

Laudan, J., V. Rözer, T. Sieg, K. Vogel, A. H. Thieken (2017): Damage assessment in Braunsbach
2016: A data collection and analysis for an improved understanding of damaging processes during
flash floods. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2163-
2017
Vogel, K., U. Ozturk, A. Riemer, J. Laudan, T. Sieg, D. Wendi, A. Agarwal, V. Rözer, O. Korup,
A. Thieken (2017): Die Sturzflut von Braunsbach am 29. Mai 2016 - Entstehung, Ablauf und
Schäden eines “Jahrhundertereignisses”. Teil 2: Geomorphologische Prozesse und
Schadensanalyse. Hydrologie & Wasserbewirtschaftung, 61(3), 163-175.
http://doi.org/10.5675/HyWa_2017,3_2

Terms of use
Although efforts are made to ensure the quality of the data and metadata, we cannot guarantee that
they contain no errors. Therefore, the data are provided without a warranty of any kind.

General information
A severe flash flood event hit the town of Braunsbach (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) on the
evening of May 29, 2016, heavily damaging and destroying several dozens of buildings. It was only
one of several disastrous events in Central Europe caused by the low-pressure system “Elvira”. The
DFG Research Training Group “Natural hazards and risks in a changing world” (NatRiskChange,
GRK 2043/1) at the University of Potsdam investigated the Braunsbach flash flood. In this context
damage data for 94 affected buildings were collected ten days after the flood event. The applied
questionnaire was designed based on existing studies on flood damage (Thieken et al., 2005;
Schwarz and Maiwald, 2007; Molinari et al., 2014) and addresses the building characteristics, the
degree of impact, and the caused damage. The collected data form the basis for damage assessment
studies (Agarwal et al., 2017; Laudan et al., 2017; Vogel et al., 2017).
The questionnaire was implemented with the open source toolbox “KoBoCollect”
(http://www.kobotoolbox.org), which has been designed for a rapid data collection after natural
disasters or in humanitarian crises. The on-site data collection was conducted with mobile tablet
computers with the downloaded questionnaire and an integrated GPS function. Further, a
thermographic camera (model Testo 876, 160x120 pixels) was used to support the estimation of
inundation depth and the identification of building fabric.
Date of data collection: June 7th-8th, 2016
Number of records: 94

Design and implementation of the questionnaire by:

- Jonas Laudan (University of Potsdam)
- Viktor Rözer (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)
- Tobias Sieg (University of Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)
- Annegret Thieken (University of Potsdam)
- Kristin Vogel (University of Potsdam)

Data collected by:

- Jonas Laudan (University of Potsdam)
- Viktor Rözer (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)
- Tobias Sieg (University of Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)
- Kristin Vogel (University of Potsdam)
- Benjamin Winter (University of Innsbruck, alpS GmbH Innsbruck)

The data collection was supported by:

- Melanie Eckle (University of Heidelberg)
- Benjamin Herfort (University of Heidelberg)
- Carolin Klonner (University of Heidelberg)
- Chiao-Ling Kuo (University of Heidelberg)

Applied software: KoBoCollect (www.kobotoolbox.org)

Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; GRK 2043/1)
Description of collected data
In the following the recorded variables are listed with their possible answer options and the number
of recorded items per option. If required, a description for the meaning of the variable is provided.
To respect the privacy of the people concerned, we refrain from publishing identifiable data and
merged variable classes with few representatives to larger classes in the published data version.
Descriptions of non-public classes are given in gray color.

latitude – not public: precision 10m

longitude – not public: precision 10m

photo – not public

address – not public

building use
short name explanation counts
residential residential building 58
commercial commercial use - not public 8
public public services - not public 6
non-residential merged class: commercial or public 14
combined mixed use, usually residential and commercial 21
NA NA 1

specified use of building – not public

Specification of type of commercial or public use

building type
Type of residential building
single single-family house - not public 46
semi-detached semi-detached house - not public 3
single-family merged class: single-family or semi-detached 49
multi-family apartment house 25
NA mainly public or commercially used buildings 20

outbuilding
Existence of outbuildings like garage, carport, barn, etc.
yes 32
no 59
NA 3

type of outbuilding – not public

garage 11
carport 1
barn 8
shed 7
summerhouse 1
other 7
storeys
Number of storeys above ground floor (attic is not counted as storey)
0 not public 8
1 not public 26
2 not public 52
3 not public 6
4 not public 1
1- no or one storey above ground floor 34
2+ two or more storeys above ground floor 59
NA 1

basement
Existence of a basement
yes 30
no 57
NA 7

sealing
Sealing of the close (10 – 20 m) proximity of the building
yes 64
mainly yes not public 21
mainly no not public 8
partly merged class: mainly yes or mainly no 29
no 0
NA 1

exposition
The exposition of the building was judged by the portion of the building that was exposed to the
main runoff channel of the flash flood. The exposition was taken as proxy for flow velocity and
amount of debris load, which could not be determined in the aftermath of the event.
high at least one building wall is exposed to the main runoff 34
medium parts of the building walls are exposed to the main runoff 34
low the building is sheltered (e.g. by neighboring buildings) and not 26
exposed to the main runoff

year – not public

The estimated year of building construction can be considered as a rough estimate for the building
age, but is not in the expertise of the researchers involved in the data collection.

material
Building material - multiple answers were possible
masonry buildings were also classified as masonry, if it could not be 71
distinguish between concrete and masonry,
concrete 0
wood 10
half-timbered plastered half-timbered houses could be detected with the help of 26
a thermographic camera, model Testo 876, 160x120 pixels
NA 1
shop window
Existence of a large shop-window at/close to ground level
yes 18
no 74
NA 2

condition
The condition of the building before the flood event was estimated by considering building parts
that were not affected by the flood event (usually upper floors). In the published data set the states
moderate and bad are merged to moderate to maintain anonymity.
good facade shows no or hardly any signs of aging; doors and windows 45
match modern standard and not affected windows are in good
condition
moderate facade shows signs of aging; doors and windows do not match 46
modern standard - not public
bad larger parts of plaster is peeling from the building; doors and 1
windows do not match modern standard and are in bad condition
(e.g. broken) - not public
moderate- merged class: moderate or bad 47
NA 2

precaution
Structural precaution that was visible at outward appearance
elevated elevated ground floor 19
different different material at lower building part 24
protection protection of cellar well – not public 3
other includes protection of cellar well in public data set 7 (4)
no no visible structural precaution 49
NA 3

water level
The maximum water level in cm at each building was estimated based on visible moisture and mud
contamination at the building walls, traces of erosion and debris collision. Mud contamination due
to splash water was not considered. Supportive information was collected using a thermographic
camera (model Testo 876, 160x120 pixels) to detect remaining moisture in the building walls. Due
to the slope of the ground and accumulating water at the building front water levels at the different
building sites could differ strongly. The recorded values correspond to the maximum water level.
2 - 360cm 88
NA 6

damage
The caused structural damage was classified by applying a system with 5 damage grades, that was
developed by Schwarz und Maiwald (2007). The scheme was used to ensure comparability with
follow-up studies.
D1 no structural damage, slight nonstructural damage 39
D2 no to slight structural damage, moderate nonstructural damage 34
D3 moderate structural damage, heavy nonstructural damage 5
D4 heavy structural damage, very heavy nonstructural damage 6
D5 very heavy structural damage, very heavy nonstructural damage 5
no no damage 5
debris
The building was damaged by or shows signs of collision with debris
yes 55
no 37
NA 2

contamination
Warnings of oil contamination were sprayed at some buildings. Besides of that only visible
contamination was recorded.
yes 77
no 15
NA 2

type of contamination
Contamination with several materials is possible.
mud 77
oil 4
chemicals 0
waste water 0

date
Date at which the data point was recorded.

data quality
Two records were tagged, because the damage class (no damage) seemingly contradicts the
recorded damage by debris. It can be assumed that both buildings showed very little damage caused
by debris, but no significant structural damage.
References:
Agarwal, A., B. Boessenkool, M. Fischer, I. Hahn, L. Köhn, J. Laudan, T. Moran, U. Öztürk, A.
Riemer, V. Rözer, T. Sieg, K. Vogel, D. Wendi, A. Bronstert, A. Thieken (2017): Die Sturzflut in
Braunsbach, Mai 2016 - Eine Bestandsaufnahme und Ereignisbeschreibung.
http://urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-394881
Laudan, J., V. Rözer, T. Sieg, K. Vogel, A. H. Thieken (2017): Damage assessment in Braunsbach
2016: A data collection and analysis for an improved understanding of damaging processes during
flash floods. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2163-
2017
Molinari, D., S. Menoni, G. Aronica, F. Ballio, N. Berni, C. Pandolfo, M. Stelluti, G. Minucci
(2014): Ex post damage assessment: an Italian experience. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 14(4), 901–916. http://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-901-201.
Schwarz, J. and Maiwald, H. (2007): Prognose der Bauwerksschädigung unter
Hochwassereinwirkung, Bautechnik, 84, 7, 450-464. http://doi.org/10.1002/bate.200710039
Thieken, A. H., Müller, M., Kreibich, H., and Merz, B. (2005): Flood damage and influencing
factors: New insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany, Water Resources Research, 41, 12,
1-16. http://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004177
Vogel, K., U. Ozturk, A. Riemer, J. Laudan, T. Sieg, D. Wendi, A. Agarwal, V. Rözer, O. Korup,
A. Thieken (2017): Die Sturzflut von Braunsbach am 29. Mai 2016 - Entstehung, Ablauf und
Schäden eines “Jahrhundertereignisses”. Teil 2: Geomorphologische Prozesse und
Schadensanalyse. Hydrologie & Wasserbewirtschaftung, 61(3), 163-175.
http://doi.org/10.5675/HyWa_2017,3_2