Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation of Buildings: Published Online: 19 December 2017

Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation of Buildings
David Proverbs, Birmingham City University and Jessica Lamond, University of the West of

England, Bristol
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.111
Published online: 19 December 2017
Summary
Flood resilient construction has become an essential component of the integrated
approach to flood risk management, now widely accepted through the concepts of making
space for water and living with floods. Resilient construction has been in place for
centuries, but only fairly recently has it been recognized as part of this wider strategy to
manage flood risk. Buildings and the wider built environment are known to play a key
role in flood risk management, and when buildings are constructed on or near to flood
plains there is an obvious need to protect these. Engineered flood defense systems date
back centuries, with early examples seen in China and Egypt. Levees were first built in
the United States some 150 years ago, and were followed by the development of flood
control acts and regulations. In 1945, Gilbert Fowler White, the so-called “father of
floodplain management,” published his influential thesis which criticized the reliance on
engineered flood defenses and began to change these approaches. In Europe, a shortage
of farmable land led to the use of land reclamation schemes and the ensuing Land
Drainage acts before massive flood events in the mid-20th century led to a shift in
thinking towards the engineered defense schemes such as the Thames Barrier and Dutch
dyke systems. The early 21st century witnessed the emergence of the “living with water”
philosophy, which has resulted in the renewed understanding of flood resilience at a
property level.
The scientific study of construction methods and building technologies that are robust to
flooding is a fairly recent phenomenon. There are a number of underlying reasons for
this, but the change in flood risk philosophy coupled with the experience of flood events
and the long process of recovery is helping to drive research and investment in this area.
This has led to a more sophisticated understanding of the approaches to avoiding damage
at an individual property level, categorized under three strategies, namely avoidance
technology, water exclusion technology, and water entry technology. As interest and
policy has shifted to water entry approaches, alongside this has been the development of
research into flood resilient materials and repair and reinstatement processes, the latter
gaining much attention in the recognition that experience will prompt resilient responses
and that the point of reinstatement provides a good opportunity to install resilient
measures.
State-of-the-art practices now center on avoidance strategies incorporating planning

legislation in many regions to prohibit or restrict new development in flood plains. Where
development pressures mean that new buildings are permitted, there is now a body of
knowledge around the impact of flooding on buildings and flood resilient construction
Page 1 of 32
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Natural Hazard Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user
may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 24 May 2021
and techniques. However, due to the variety and complexity of architecture and
construction styles and varying flood risk exposure, there remain many gaps in our
understanding, leading to the use of trial and error and other pragmatic approaches.
Some examples of avoidance strategies include the use of earthworks, floating houses,
and raised construction.
The concept of property level flood resilience is an emerging concept in the United
Kingdom and recognizes that in some cases a hybrid approach might be favored in which
the amount of water entering a property is limited, together with the likely damage that
is caused. The technology and understanding is moving forward with a greater
appreciation of the benefits from combining strategies and property level measures,
incorporating water resistant and resilient materials. The process of resilient repair and
considerate reinstatement is another emerging feature, recognizing that there will be a
need to dry, clean, and repair flood-affected buildings. The importance of effective and
timely drying of properties, including the need to use materials that dry rapidly and are
easy to decontaminate, has become more apparent and is gaining attention.
Future developments are likely to concentrate on promoting the uptake of flood resilient
materials and technologies both in the construction of new and in the retrofit and
adaptation of existing properties. Further development of flood resilience technology that
enhances the aesthetic appeal of adapted property would support the uptake of
measures. Developments that reduce cost or that offer other aesthetic or functional
advantages may also reduce the barriers to uptake. A greater understanding of
performance standards for resilient materials will help provide confidence in such
measures and support uptake, while further research around the breathability of
materials and concerns around mold and the need to avoid creating moisture issues
inside properties represent some of the key areas.
Keywords: flood risk, flood resistance, mitigation, retrofit, protection
Subjects: Adaptation, Recovery, Resilience, Floods
Introduction
Resilient construction has been in place for centuries, but only relatively recently has it been
used as a systematic component of an integrated flood risk management strategy. Resilient
buildings are designed and constructed in such a way to avoid, prevent, or reduce the damage
caused when flooding takes place. They can play an important part in flood risk management
strategy by reducing damage and, importantly, speeding up the recovery process. This article
begins by charting the historical development of the concepts of resilient construction, the
use of engineered flood control systems leading to current thinking around living with water,
and the acceptance that flooding is unavoidable.
Page 2 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
The importance of buildings and the wider built environment within flood risk management is
illustrated. An account of the developments in the use of construction technologies and
materials follows, including the recognition of the need for more scientific research. The
developments of this technology and the understanding of property level measures then
follows. This leads to an account of the research and advancements in practice around the
repair and reinstatement of flood-damaged buildings.
Looking toward the state of the art, attention is given to the current and future directions
around the science of resilient construction, highlighting recent research trends and
discoveries. Current developments in the design, construction, and adaptation of flood
affected buildings are described. The discussion highlights the development of hybrid
approaches to property level resilience combining water exclusion measures with water entry
measures. Recent research around water resistant and resilient materials is highlighted, as
well as developments in considerate reinstatement practices. This leads to a section on future
developments in flood resilient construction before presenting conclusions.
Historical Developments in Flood Risk Management and the Built Envi

ronment
The wider built environment and the buildings and properties that shape this play an integral
role in flood risk management. Once structures are constructed on and around flood plains,
there is a natural priority to protect these assets, which leads to the development of flood
defense schemes or mechanisms to mitigate the damage and disruption that is caused.
Flooding can cause a range of damage to urban settlements, including the threat to personal
safety when normally dry areas are submerged, leading to the need to escape from buildings.
High-velocity floods can sweep people away before emergency services are able to reach
them. Damage to buildings and their contents is another major impact, leading to major losses
and in some cases severe costs to individuals, businesses, insurers, and government funds.
Infrastructure in the form of major transport links, including roads, railways and airports, can
also be affected, leading to widespread disruption and interruption to normal business.
Further, social impacts, such as the need to close schools, hospitals, and places of worship
and also the loss of essential services (electricity, water, and gas supplies), highlight the
essential need to protect the wide range of physical assets that make up the built
environment.
Engineered flood control dates back centuries for example to China in 400 BCE, where steps
to protect the agricultural community from the flooding of the Yellow River were undertaken
and included the construction of levees, fluvial channels, and natural channels. In the Nile
Delta, before the construction of the Aswan Dam, seasonal migration and evacuation were a
long-established flood risk management method and were reflected in the seasons of the
Egyptian year of Akhet (inundation), Peret (growth), and Shemu (harvest). This approach,
while effective, did not protect the built environment. However, these floods brought
important nutrients and minerals into the fertile soil, making it rich for farming since ancient
times.
Page 3 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
In the 20th century in the United States, flooding was the most damaging natural disaster in
terms of numbers of lives lost and damage to property. Levees were first built in the United
States some 150 years ago. Farmers were attracted to the fertile soils of the flood plains, and
were largely responsible for the construction of levees to protect farms and farmlands. Other
levees were built to protect cities and towns and following devastating floods. In the early
20th century, the 1917 Flood Control Act was introduced to reduce flood damage along the
Mississippi, Ohio, and Sacramento Rivers. Subsequent developments in the Flood Control Acts
of 1928 and then 1936 gave greater prominence to flood control as a national priority, giving
the US Army Corps of Engineers responsibility to design and construct flood-control projects.
These acts also placed a requirement on local communities to undertake maintenance and
operation of the levees.
During this era of increased flood control, Gilbert Fowler White, the “father of floodplain
management,” wrote his influential book Human Adjustment to Floods, published in 1945 by
the University of Chicago (White, 1945). White was critical of US government policy on flood
risk management and the overreliance on the development of structural flood defense
schemes, claiming that these were actually leading to increased losses when levees and dams
were overtopped. The development of areas located in flood plains but protected by these
structural systems leads to catastrophic flooding when these systems fail, as was witnessed in
Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans.
In Europe, a lack of farmable land in certain countries (e.g., the Netherlands and parts of the
United Kingdom) led to land reclamation schemes, resulting in large swathes of countryside
and associated settlements situated below sea level and mechanically drained. In such
circumstances, flood risk management is inextricably linked with pumping and drainage, and
in the United Kingdom regulated by a series of drainage acts and local drainage bodies.
National-scale flood risk management started with the Land Drainage Act 1930 and was
further amalgamated by the act of 1961. Massive coastal and riverine flood events in the early
to mid-20th century led to a shift in thinking towards engineered defenses and large-scale
infrastructure projects, including the Thames Barrier and the extended Dutch dyke system. In
recent years, the approach to flood risk management has evolved to a philosophy of living
with water (Fleming, 2001), the concept of blue-green cities where flooding is accepted and
embraced (Lawson et al., 2014), and the need for renewed understanding of flood resilience at
a property level.
Developments in Construction and Building Technologies

The scientific study of construction and building technologies that are robust to the actions of
flooding is a relatively newer field than the study of measures to predict and prevent flooding.
There are several underlying causes. First, the relative perceived success of flood control
measures in the developed world and the framing of property level interventions as “residual
risk” with only a small contribution to integrated risk management. Second, the need to
accept that floods cannot be prevented and ultimately that floodwater may damage homes
despite the massive investment in flood prevention, whereas in developing countries, where
flood control has been less prevalent, Hughes (1982) contends that destruction of housing
during floods is an expectation and other factors (such as preservation of life) take priority.
Third, different vernacular architectures and construction types requiring a much more
Page 4 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
diverse consideration of materials and methods than that required for large-scale community
defenses. As a result, the development of domestic resilient construction technologies has
historically been largely a parallel process carried out locally within communities using
indigenous knowledge and supported by the construction industry and sometimes by small
expert groups. In the low-lying regions of the Netherlands, early houses were built on
dwelling mounds called terps (Beeftink, 1975); similar construction was practiced in the
United Kingdom (e.g., Glastonbury) (Barrett, 1987), where individual clay mounds were
constructed, and in Ireland, where crannogs of stone, earth, and wood were used (O’Sullivan,
2007). Later developments raised individual houses without earthworks, for example
traditional stilt housing in Thailand, the Queenslander style in Australia, and raised housing in
the United States and Nigeria, as shown in Figure 1. Among other things, raising on stilts
allows for free air circulation in hot and humid climates and also assists in flood avoidance.
Raising on masonry or concrete yields avoidance and is often more stable in high-velocity
flooding.
Figure 1. (a) Traditional stilt house in on a canal near the Chao Phraya River in Bangkok,
Thailand (by Ernie & Katy Newton Lawley from Bowie, MD, USA—Flickr, CC BY 2.0); (b)
Flooded Queenslander style architecture in Goondiwindi, Queensland, 1921 (archive of State
Library of Queensland) (c) Raised Creole Style building, downtown river corner of Esplanade
& Villere Streets, New Orleans (by Infrogmation of New Orleans—Flickr, CC BY 2.0); (d)
street of raised houses in Calabar, Nigeria
(photo copyright Olalekan Adekola).
Page 5 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Often progress has been driven by the reality of experiencing flood events and the process of
reconstruction after flooding, as after hurricanes Katrina (Popkin et al., 2006; Eamon et al.,
2007; Coulbourne, 2012) and Sandy (John Ingargiola et al., 2015). Some research has been
motivated by the need to provide better guidance to support planning restrictions in
floodplains, to enable continuation of insurance, and to maintain existing communities,
recognizing that they face increased flood risk due to climate change and environmental
degradation. As will be demonstrated in the section on State of the Art, the research
generated in the late 20th and early 21st century is being shared internationally, and a
growing number of studies are emerging that are specifically aimed at understanding the
action of flooding on different building types and designing improved technology to reduce
future damage to buildings.
The approaches to avoid damage at an individual property level are variously described but
basically categorized into three strategies: avoidance by choosing suitable locations or by
designing sites or elevating buildings to avoid flooding; water exclusion, also known as dry
proofing and resistance where water is prevented from entering the building by barriers and
other “resistant” technology; and water entry, also known as wet proofing and resilience,
where it is recognized that water will enter a building and the aim is to limit the damage and
disruption from flooding.
Avoidance Technology
Of the three approaches to property level measures (avoidance, water exclusion, water
acceptance), the avoidance approach is usually preferred. Elevation and landscaping is
advocated as a first recourse by most research and guidance (for example Sheaffer, 1960;
Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee, 2007; Bowker et al.,
2007). On a given building plot, avoidance can be achieved through landscaping, drainage,
and retention features and free-standing structures or barriers to prevent water reaching the
building. Much of this might be considered standard construction technology or directly
transferable from large-scale water engineering. Avoidance can also be achieved by elevation
of the building itself through raising on pillars, extended foundation walls or raised earth
structures, or flotation. In the United Kingdom, raising through extended foundation is
popular sometimes with garaging underneath. This trend for developments in the floodplain to
be elevated has existed for some time but has been accelerated and supported by recent
planning guidance (PPG/S25). The advantages of elevation are seen as self-evident if safe
access and escape can be ensured, leaving only questions around structural suitability and
performance during a flood.
Where wood framed construction is common, for example in the United States and Australia,
raising on pillars is more structurally viable. Riverfront/foreshore construction across the
globe has often been required to be built on piles for stability on shifting soils and subject to
powerful currents. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1998) examined the performance of
flood proofing, including elevation, and learning in the United States continued after
Hurricane Katrina (van de Lindt et al., 2007).
An alternative avoidance technique is to create buildings that rise and fall with the water,
either permanently floating or designed to float in flood conditions. Arguably avoidance via
floating reduces the vulnerability of properties to windstorm damage, as they are not
Page 6 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
permanently raised and exposed to increased wind loading. Traditionally, houseboats have
been a feature of river and coastal living—for example, in the Netherlands and the United
States—and based on technology associated with boats. Floating houses are a logical
extension from such concepts requiring new research around flotation devices (SGS
Economics and Planning Pty Ltd, 2011) and provision of services. However, houses designed
to float periodically are a more recent development, requiring studies into stability during and
after flood events (English et al., 2017; Mohamad et al., 2012). Much of this underpinning
research is based in the Netherlands and the United States.
Water Exclusion Technology

Water exclusion strategies, also known as resistance and dry flood proofing, are designed to
keep water out of a property. Temporary measures are frequently resorted to, and sandbags
and homemade flood boards are commonly used by communities to exclude water during an
emergency. Sandbags and temporary measures, while they may slow ingress and damage, are
neither adequate nor sustainable. In the United States, flood events, in particular the 1927
Mississippi flooding leading to the 1945 Flood Act handing responsibility to USACE, the 1961
Kansas and Missouri flooding, and the formation of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), prompted investment in research to reduce the residual impact of floods on buildings
(Perkes, 2011). A pioneering publication is Sheaffer’s (1960) thesis on flood proofing and the
ensuing 1967 guidance, and by 1972 the USACE had produced flood-proofing regulations and
guidance (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1972; Federal Insurance Administration,
1976). Canada followed suit in 1978 (Williams, 1978). Figure 2 shows the development of US
guidance and regulation up until 2011.
Figure 2. Development of regulation and guidance materials for resilient construction in the
United States (after Perkes, 2011).
Page 7 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
However, this was based on scant evidence, and the studies that followed by Pace (1978, 1984,
and 1988 in Fema, 1993) on waterproofing walls provided improved evidence for the 1993
FEMA technical bulletins. Research on building openings again harks back to Sheaffer (1960),
but this has more recently been pursued vigorously in the United Kingdom and Europe as a
result of flooding in the late 1990s and 2000s starting with Ogunyoye and Van Heereveld (200
2) and Elliot and Leggett (2002), assessments of existing technologies to protect openings and
resulting in a proliferation of “resistant technologies” designed to keep water out. Products
such as door and window guards, air brick covers, smart air bricks and non-return valves,
pumps, cladding systems, plastic skirts, flood-resistant doors, and wall coatings were
designed and sold, necessitating the introduction of standards and kite testing to protect
property owners and occupiers from investing in substandard technology (PAS1188). Much of
the early research on barrier products was conducted in-house and is too numerous to include
in this chapter. However, kite mark testing has been carried out in designed facilities in the
United Kingdom since 2004 (BSI, 2016). A recent EU-funded project also addressed the
performance of flood barriers (Schinke et al., 2013). In the United States, Aglan et al. (2004)
tested whole building construction for wood framed domestic buildings, and more recent
studies by Perkes (2011) and Uddin et al. (2013) for more contemporary forms of
construction. Ingress through masonry walls has also been studied in the United Kingdom by
Kelman (2002), Escarameia et al. (2007), and Beddoes and Booth (2015). Work sponsored by
CLG in the United Kingdom also examined floor construction technology (Escarameia et al.,
2006) and considered the properties of insulation. Water-resistant properties of insulation has
also been examined by the Smartest project (Schinke et al., 2013) and Perkes (2011). The
consideration of tanking technology has been led in the United Kingdom by the knowledge
derived from waterproofing basements, although in general the difference in hydrostatic
pressure between normal groundwater and flood conditions has not been studied.
Water Entry Technology

This is also variously know as wet proofing, flood resilience, or water acceptance and involves
methods and technology designed to limit the damage once water has bypassed the building
envelope and entered the occupied space. This is the area least researched, specifically in the
flood scenario, much of the knowledge about resilience has emerged from the studies on
water exclusion as a side issue, perhaps because water entry has been seen as absolutely the
last resort by the risk management and property protection community. In this area, scientific
study is bounded and constrained by emotional barriers, and misconceptions and aesthetic
and safety considerations can outrank building technology. Historically, this is the area of
flood technology most informed by indigenous practice and flood experience. Testimonies tell
us that in the past, water was simply accepted and then swept out of buildings (Rogers-
Wright, 2013). For example, channels were provided in the floor to facilitate this in the
Netherlands. However, with the increased wealth and technology housed in buildings, in
building services, and in soft furnishings, the “old-fashioned” methods no longer suffice.
Water entry approaches can be subdivided into avoidance, resistant, resilient, and speed of
reoccupation, and a recent study identified over one hundred different interventions (Lamond
et al., 2016b). There is a large overlap with the research on reinstatement, especially in
avoidance and speed of reoccupation approaches. There is also a lively debate in this field
around the suitability of retrofitting modern waterproof building materials in existing
(sometimes heritage or character) properties (Fidler et al., 2004).
Page 8 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
The research specifically on flood resilient materials and methods has usually been a smaller
part and has run alongside research on water entry under the catch-all title “flood proofing.”
There is a separate branch of related research on building material properties which has been
drawn on (sometimes inappropriately) that has also informed the flood-specific studies.
Sheaffer is again a major starting point for the work, and FEMA issued guidance on flood
resistant materials in 1993 and superseded this in 1999 (FEMA, 1999). Meanwhile, in the
United Kingdom the Building Research Establishment also issued guidance (BRE Scottish
laboratory, 1996). Subsequently, the ensuing experimental research in the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Europe has progressed in parallel with Aglan’s study (Aglan et al., 2004)
dovetailing with Escarameia et al.’s (2006) work and some laboratory studies by Wingfield et
al. (2005). In Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) invested some effort in various studies by Cole (for example Cole and Bradbury, 1995,
as cited in Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee, 2007). Figure 3
shows the path towards the current British Standards around property level resilience in the
United Kingdom, clearly showing the influence of US research.
Figure 3. Development of research, standards, and guidance on water entry (Lamond et al.,
2016b).
Repair and Reinstatement of Flood-Damaged Property

Research into the recovery and reconstruction of property that has suffered flood damage
links to the topic of resilient construction through the simple fact that, particularly in the
developed world with increasing restriction on developing new buildings in areas at risk,
many construction activities in areas at risk from flooding arise as a result of damage and
reconstruction activities. Equally it has been observed that those most likely to prioritize
resilience in buildings are those with experience of the loss and damages flood events can
bring. Reconstruction, which is the demolition of damaged structures and rebuilding, can
Page 9 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
often follow design principles for initial construction as described in Jha et al. (2012).
However, there may be pressure to maintain cultural heritage that leads to a similar style of
buildings being constructed or even direct copies of previous structures.
In a large proportion of flood events, however, the recovery involves refurbishment of existing
structures that have been partially damaged and do not need to be demolished. This is
particularly the case in the United Kingdom, where structural failure due to flooding is a rare
event and the majority of flood damage repair falls under the category repair or
reinstatement. Under such circumstances, the property remains substantially intact, and the
tendency to replace like with like regardless of the risk of future flooding is strong.
Local practice and “common sense” has informed the damage management industry.
Guidance on how to recover from flooding was available as early as 1937 (United States
Department of Agriculture, 1945 revised from 1937). However, research in this area related to
the building fabric is of more recent origin and largely based in the United Kingdom, and has
examined the process and technologies entailed. Key studies in this regard are the 1992
Towyn study (Welsh Consumer Council, 1992) and the 1998 Trading Standards report that
followed the 1998 flooding in England (Warwickshire Trading Standards, 1998). The BRE
released a guide to repair in 1997 (BRE, 1997). This was followed by a benchmarking study
(Nicholas et al., 2001; Nicholas & Proverbs, 2002) of current practice in England and Wales
that formed the basis of a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for flood repair (Netherton,
2006) and a number of associated guidance documents (Proverbs & Soetanto, 2004). CIRIA
also released guidance in 2005 (Garvin et al., 2005), and the notions of speeding up drying
and resilient reinstatement began to be explored by researchers and industry alike
(Association of British Insurers/National Flood Forum, 2006; Lambert, 2006; Escarameia et
al., 2007). Further research on the satisfaction of insured households with claims handling
and repair (Samwinga & Proverbs, 2003) coincided with further flood incidents where reports
of uneven performance by insurers and their contractors demonstrated the difficulties of
maintaining standards in time of spate (Association of British Insurers, 2007). The Pitt review
(Pitt, 2008) following the 2007 flooding in England and Wales highlighted the delays in
returning households to their homes. A proliferation of research at this juncture included
Proverbs and Lamond (2008), Soetanto et al. (2008), Woodhead (2008), Association of British
Insurers (2009), Kidd et al. (2010), and Taylor et al. (2010). In the heritage arena, advice on
non-destructive repair strategies was developed (Fidler et al., 2004; Cassar & Hawkings,
2007).
A separate stream looking at the social and emotional aspects (e.g., Fernández-Bilbao &
Twigger-Ross, 2009; Samwinga, 2009; Whittle et al., 2010) concluded that speed of recovery is
an important consideration in designing repair strategies. The most recent study that
considered the reinstatement process is by Lamond et al. (2017).
Much of the literature in the United States concerns environmental and contamination issues
associated with flooded buildings, such as the medical dangers from mold. Curtis et al. (2000)
demonstrated that fungus and bacteria were not significantly higher in previously flooded
houses. Substantial work was carried out in the aftermath of Katrina where mold was more
prevalent (Chew et al., 2006). This research has recently become more widespread—for
example, ten Veldhuis et al. (2010), Taylor et al. (2013), and Johanning et al. (2014)—and this
has led to recommendations for recovery work.
Page 10 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Current State of the Art
Current thinking on flood resilient construction starts from the premise that new construction
on the floodplain should be avoided where possible, following the principles of “making space
for water.” Examples of planning statements that guide or restrict floodplain development
include the Australian Emergency Management Institute’s handbooks (Australian Emergency
Management Institute, 2013) and PPS25 in the United Kingdom. In the United States, the
USACE/FEMA guidance predominates.
However, where buildings are permitted in the floodplain or where redevelopment,

regeneration, or reinstatement activities are carried out in areas at risk from flooding, best
practice is represented in guidance documents as highlighted in Figure 3. For the United
Kingdom, relevant documents are BS85500, PAS1188, BS1999, and to some extent the CIRA
SuDs manual; underlying principles are laid out in PPS25.
The evidence is underpinned by knowledge of the potential impact of flooding on buildings as

outlined in Kelman and Spence (2004), an understanding of properties and limitations of
construction materials, structural engineering principles, and the science of water transport
and flood characteristics. Nadal et al. (2006) summarizes the state of knowledge based on a
combination of theoretical and empirical evidence. It is clear that construction elements,
furnishings, and occupants all need to be considered from the substructure to provisions. As
Kelman and Spence (2004) observed, the main flood actions on building components are:
Hydrostatic (lateral pressure and capillary rise)
Hydrodynamic (velocity, waves, turbulence)
Erosion (scour under buildings, building fabric)
Buoyancy (lifting the building)
Debris (items in the water colliding with the building)
Nonphysical actions (chemical, nuclear, biological)
Flood resilient construction seeks to minimize the impact of these actions on people and
property in the event of a flood using the principles of avoidance, water exclusion, and
resilience. The potential actions of flood depend on the likely source, depth, and velocity of
flooding within a given area; impacts of high velocity flooding may be dominated by
hydrodynamic and debris actions, whereas groundwater flooding may be dominated by
hydrostatic and buoyancy actions, and therefore design should always take into account the
likely flood attributes.
Local construction traditions also matter, as vernacular and contemporary architecture varies
with local climate and available materials. For example, raised housing is traditionally
adopted for air circulation in some hot climates and also aids flood avoidance. Therefore it is
not practical to propose a generic building design which will suit all flood-prone areas, even
where flood patterns are similar. Even within smaller geographical areas, it appears to be
accepted by practitioners and academics that there is no simple formula that can determine
appropriate adaptation approaches. General principles are offered, for example the USACE
flood proofing matrix (Table 1 below), the Australian Hawkesbury-Nepean guide (Hawkesbury-
Page 11 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee, 2007) and the UK guidelines
(BS85500). While these are a useful starting point and are based on the available evidence,
they somewhat reinforce the preference for water exclusion and categorization that is
beginning to be seen as unhelpful (Lamond et al., 2016b). While these matrices imply an
either/or approach, the evidence from the field is that many buildings occupants take a more
pragmatic and integrated approach. There are also many evidence gaps in the underpinning
science that mean practice is often reliant on trial and error techniques.
Page 12 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Table 1. USACE Flood Proofing Matrix
Flood Proofing Matrix Measures
Flood Characteristics
Site Characteristics
Building Characteristics
Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation relocation Walls

on on piers on posts on piles and
foundation or levees
walls columns
Depth Shallow
(<1m)
Moderate
(1–2m)
Deep (>2m) X
Velocity Slow (<1m/

s)
Moderate
(1–2m/s)
Fast (>2m/s) X X X
Flash Yes X
Flooding
No
Ice and Yes X

debris flow
No
Location Coastal X
floodplain
Riverine
floodplain
Soil type Permeable X
Page 13 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Flood Proofing Matrix Measures
Flood Characteristics
Site Characteristics
Building Characteristics
Impermeable
Foundation Slab
Sub-floor
void
Basement X X X
Construction Concrete/ X
masonry
Wood/other X
Condition Excellent to
good
Fair to poor X X X X X
Page 14 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Avoidance
The latest guidance on raised construction in the United States following learnings from
Katrina was issued by the USACE (ASCE, 2015). A critical design factor is the required
elevation of structures to limit the chance that flooding will exceed the designed protection.
Overelevation causes unnecessary expense and exposure to wind loading, whereas
underelevation increases the probability of exceedance. Elevation is usually recommended to
above a probabilistic baseline flood (for example 1 in 100 year + climate change adjustment in
the United Kingdom, 1 in 100 year in the FEMA guidelines) as represented by flood hazard
estimation by government agencies. There is clearly the possibility that these levels will be
exceeded and properties may flood, particularly if flooding becomes more intense in the
future. UK research under the Technology Strategy Board’s “design for climate” project
examined the current and future requirements for flood avoidance (Baca Architects et al.,
2013), concluding that uncertainties around future flood risk may render elevated properties
more vulnerable than current estimates suggest. The use of the sub-floor space is also a
matter for debate. Where this space may be used for garaging or storage, the potential for
assets to be destroyed remains. Insurers pay out on loss of motor vehicles due to flooding
instead of contents. Furthermore, the items stored may become damaging debris, and
structural damage to the raised elevation may ensue.
Flexibly floating houses have the prima facie advantage of rising flexibly above the maximum
flood with little increased cost and no increased wind exposure. In practice, however, there
will be limitations set by the guidance and tethering mechanisms as well as from attached
services.
Concerns around access to raised housing (see examples in Figure 4) during a flood event for
emergency services has led to regulation in the United Kingdom that ensures access is
provided (Baca Architects et al., 2013).
Figure 4. Examples of raised construction in England

(copyright J. Lamond).
Page 15 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Property Level Flood Resilience Technology and Design
Moving away from the water exclusion/water entry dichotomy, the concept of property level
flood resilience combines the means to limit the amount of water entering a building (where
sensible) and approaches that limit damage where water does enter the building envelope, as
illustrated in the diagram (Figure 5). This is a concept gaining acceptance in the United
Kingdom in recognition that a hybrid approach is often the most pragmatic one. As many UK
floods are reasonably shallow, slow in onset, and of relatively short duration, water exclusion
is often possible and water entry can be controlled.
The decision about whether to attempt to exclude water from a building is informed by the
likely structural consequences in creating increased hydrostatic load due to differences in
water levels inside and outside a building. This has been studied In the United Kingdom by
Kelman (Kelman, 2002) for masonry structures and in the United States for wooden
construction (Aglan et al., 2004). Such research has led to recommended limits to the water
exclusion approach, depending on construction type, varying from 0.3 m to 1 m. However, the
research does not cover sufficient types of construction, and further testing of construction
stability is warranted. If water is to be allowed in for structural stability reasons, then a plan
to allow or control flow to ensure rapid equalization of levels may be needed; scant research
or guidance exists on this approach.
Other circumstances that may reduce the effectiveness of the water exclusion approach
include: groundwater flooding, although it may be possible to create a water resistant flooring
system that excludes it, albeit structural considerations may make this undesirable (Bowker et
al., 2007); fast onset flooding, which may limit the time for measures to be deployed; high-
velocity flooding, where hydrodynamic forces may cause structural issues at lower depths;
long-duration flooding, since most walls will allow water through eventually unless steps are
taken to treat the wall surface (Beddoes & Booth, 2015); attached property, where an
adjoining structure that has a different approach to limiting damage is of different
construction or is at a different elevation; historic/character properties, where there may be
constraints on the type of measures acceptable for use (Historic England/Pickles et al., 2015);
occupant considerations, where both the capacity and preferences are important (JBA, 2012);
nonstandard construction; poor-quality/porous brick and poorly maintained structures.
Excluding water requires the consideration of multiple entry points: windows and doors, floor
voids (particularly suspended floors), cracks or gaps in walls, air vents or air bricks (designed
for ventilation), service ducts and pipes, toilets and drains, or seepage through floors
(particularly earth or stone floors where there is no damp-proof membrane). In addition, the
quality of building components is critical, as failure of any one element can compromise the
whole design.
Page 16 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Figure 5. Graphic illustrating combined resistance and resilience measures (Dhonau & Rose,
2016).
Aperture technology has evolved from simple wooden boards held up by sandbags to an
industry creating innovative, ready-made door guards, smart air bricks, non-return valves, etc.
These products have been subjected to laboratory testing, particularly in the United Kingdom
as a result of the establishment of kite mark standards defining the acceptable leakage rates
of barriers (BSI, 2016).
In short-duration flooding, blocking apertures may be sufficient, but in long-duration flooding

water will potentially permeate through the building fabric itself. This has led to the increased
use of “tanking” technology to increase the water tightness of walls, led in the United
Kingdom by the knowledge derived from waterproofing basements. Membranes and
assemblages to improve water-tightness of walls have also been tested in the United Kingdom
by Escarameia and Tagg (Escarameia et al., 2006) and in the United States, showing that
combinations involving sprayed and sheet-applied water-resistant membranes, insulated
concrete formwork, and metal structural insulated panels were suitable to exclude water up
to 1 m (Perkes, 2011). Work has also been carried out by CSIRO in Australia and by Branz in
New Zealand. Further research in the United Kingdom on Silane-based products show that
coating walls and regrouting with admixtured grout can reduce ingress to levels that can be
controlled and expelled by pumps (Beddoes & Booth, 2015).
Page 17 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Once water enters the building, a wide range of building elements, fixtures, and fittings
become vulnerable to damage. Approaches to limit damage (as illustrated in Figure 6) within a
building mirror building-level approaches, avoidance, water-resistant materials, water-
resilient materials, and speedy recovery (Lamond et al., 2016a). The efficacy of avoidance
measures is self-evident, subject to the height to which building elements, fixtures, and
contents may be raised. Items may be permanently raised above the height of expected
flooding—for example, electrical sockets, wall-mounted cabinets, meters, control panels and
boilers, etc. Dropping electrical services from above and isolating circuits likely to be affected
from the rest of the wiring are in line with current electrical practice, and modern cabling and
piping within walls and floors are usually well protected (Lamond et al., 2016a).
Alternatively, items such as carpets and reasonably lightweight furniture may be moved in
anticipation of an impending flood, if a suitably high storage space is available or one that can
be raised temporarily on trestles. In these circumstances, construction should allow for ease
of removal (e.g., easy-remove hinges for doors and cabinet doors) and also allow easy access
to upper levels for removal (avoiding steep, narrow, and winding staircases).
Research on Water Resistant and Resilient Materials

Advice on the properties of materials in relation to flooding is provided in some guidance; for
example, the Hawkesbury-Nepean guidance (Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management
Steering Committee, 2007) contains tables of material absorbency and of suitability of
materials for 96-hour immersion. This information is based on research carried out in the
1990s by Cole for CSIRO. This information is also provided by UK publications (Bowker et al.,
2007) based on work carried out for CLG in 2003–2005.
Research on materials subject to hydrostatic pressure, which might be experienced during

deep flooding, demonstrates that the porosity of construction materials can affect both
ingress and drying properties. Properties can be constructed of materials such as engineered
bricks in an effort to limit water ingress into and through walls (Escarameia et al., 2006).
Different types of plaster and plasterboard have also been studied. The instability of gypsum-
based plasters is well documented, as they absorb large quantities of water and are
vulnerable to deterioration and salt transport (Environment Agency & CIRIA, 2001; Bowker,
2002; Drdácký, 2010). Therefore, lime-based or cement-based alternatives are often
recommended. However, gypsum is quick to dry out and may be suitable in circumstances
where short-duration floods are expected. Solid plaster directly applied to walls or on battens
on top of masonry represents an example of a traditional construction method that is
increasingly being replaced by alternatives such as “dry lining” with pre-prepared boards
made of gypsum and a light layer of skimming plaster. Standard gypsum boards suffer from
similar issues to gypsum plaster (Lambert, 2006; Escarameia et al., 2007). However, an
increasing range of moisture- and water-resistant boards are available, and some have been
tested for performance under flood conditions. Aglan et al. (2004, 2014) found that water-
resistant boards (Fiberock) were suitable for floods of up to three days’ duration. “Splash
proof” board (Fermacell) was found to resist water penetration by Escarameia et al. (2006),
although it was distorted due to hydrostatic pressure. Cement-based boards and fully
waterproof boards (for example, made of magnsium oxide) have been recommended by
professionals but no independent testing evidence is yet available (Lamond et al., 2016a).
Page 18 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
The role of insulation materials in property level resilience is complicated, because it is often
inaccessible, being situated within the cavity, under floor structure, or behind other finishes.
Therefore it is important for insulation to retain integrity when flooded and not slump within a
cavity, dry quickly and retain thermal performance, and not impede drying of adjacent
materials. Experimental evidence and experience suggest that fiberglass, mineral fiber (aka
mineral wool/rock wool/stone wool), and blown-in mica can slump and degrade during wetting
(Escarameia et al., 2006). Although recent tests on mineral batt insulation shows that it can
dry out without degradation when sufficiently supported and drained (Sanders, 2014), it is
slow to dry out, particularly within a cavity. Closed-cell insulation is more rigid and is
therefore often recommended, but there are very few tests that demonstrate the post-flood
thermal performance. Waterproof insulation materials have been tested (Technitherm), and as
they can be demonstrated to resist penetration by floodwater, their thermal integrity is
retained (Gabalda et al., 2012; CORDIS, 2015). Considerations of insulation and drying are
covered in the section on repair and reinstatement.
Page 19 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Figure 6. Examples of resilient materials in situ: a) Marine Ply Kitchen has survived a flood,
tiled floor; b) hydraulic lime plaster with salt resistant additive over a wire mesh to provide air
gap; c) Concrete floor with removable carpet tiles, sump and pump to control flow; d) Tiled
floor and well-seasoned, varnished, and painted hardwood stairs and skirting has survived
several floods.
Photos with kind permission of the homeowners (all rights reserved).
Timber is another commonly used building material that under some circumstances can be
regarded as highly resilient. Solid, dense, and well-seasoned wood building elements, fittings,
and furniture can survive inundation (Lambert, 2006; O’Leary, 2014; Lamond et al., 2016b).
But more modern, lighter-density, and fast-treated wood is less resilient; such wood can be
made more resilient by surface treatment with varnish and paints on all surfaces and renewed
as necessary.
Composite wood products, for example paneling and veneers and MDF/particleboard, are not
regarded as resilient, with the exception of highest-grade marine ply (e.g., compliant with
BS1088). The type of timber framing used in modern UK buildings requires specialist
treatment, and panels will usually need to be removed for restoration after a flood.
Table 2 shows an example of guidance helpful in selecting suitable materials for long-duration
flooding (over 96 hours’ immersion). This demonstrates how the research can be made highly
relevant in assisting competent building professionals in selecting materials and assemblages.
However, it needs to be considered in a whole-building context and also in the light of
occupant capacity and preference, availability, and cost of materials and skilled workers and
the reinstatement protocols that may be followed in the event of a flood.
Page 20 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Table 2. Example of guidance for selecting materials suitable for 96-hour immersion (adapted from Hawkesbury-
Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee, 2007).
* * *
Component Suitable Mild Effects Marked Severe Effects
*
Effects
FLOOR, SUB- slab-on- timber T&G (with standard grade timber floor close
FLOOR ground ends only epoxy plywood to the ground and
STRUCTURE suspended sealed and particleboard
concrete provision of side flooring close to
clearance for the ground
board swelling)
or plywood
WALLS reinforced or full brick/block brick/block Inaccessible

SUPPORT mass masonry cavity veneer with openings large
STRUCTURE concrete brick venting (stud windows low to
frame) the ground
WALL AND fiber cement common bricks exterior-grade particleboard

CEILING sheet particleboard
LININGS
face brick or solid wood, fully hardboard fiberboard or
blockwork sealed strawboard
cement exterior grade solid wood with wallpaper

render plywood allowance for
swelling
ceramic wall fully sealed exterior grade cloth wall

tiles plywood coverings
galvanized nonferrous Plasterboard standard plywood

steel sheet metals
glass and gypsum plaster

glass blocks
stone, solid
or veneer
plastic
sheeting or
tiles with
waterproof
adhesive
Page 21 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
* * *
Component Suitable Mild Effects Marked Severe Effects
*
Effects
INSULATION plastic/ reflective foil materials open-celled

polystyrene perforated with which store insulation (batts
boards holes to drain water and etc.)
water if used delay drying
under timber
floors
closed cell
solid
insulation
* KEY
SUITABLE: these materials or products are relatively unaffected by submersion and flood exposure and are
the best available for the particular application.
MILD EFFECTS: these materials or products suffer only mild effects from flooding and are the next best
choice if the most suitable materials or products are too expensive or unavailable.
MARKED EFFECTS: these materials or products are more liable to damage under flood than the above
category.
SEVERE EFFECTS: these materials or products are seriously affected by floodwaters and have to be
replaced if inundated.
Page 22 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Resilient Repair and Considerate Reinstatement
As an alternative or as a complement to designing a property to be resilient, it has to be
recognized that when a flood event occurs there will be a need to dry, clean, and perhaps
repair the affected buildings as quickly and sympathetically as possible. The trauma faced by
flood-affected occupants is well documented (Whittle & Medd, 2011), and the desire to return
quickly after a flood is widespread (Soetanto et al., 2008). Faster recovery can even limit
psycho-social symptoms from flooding (Lamond et al., 2015). Considerate reinstatement as
advocated by Woodhead (2011) and the sensitive and professional handling of the recovery
process are represented in guidance such as PAS64.
Fast and effective drying of flooded buildings is therefore a key criterion in recovery, and the
avoidance of trapped water, slow-drying material, or water vapor between building layers and
behind finishes is desirable. The potential exists for secondary damage to occur if drying is
delayed or badly controlled, and therefore the choice of resilience approaches should be
contextualized within a recovery/reinstatement plan.
Resilient materials that are slow to dry out—for example, lime plasters (Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, 2003)—can slow recovery, even though they can be retained. Solid plaster of
any kind that remains in situ has the potential to slow the drying of the underlying masonry
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003), so to avoid delay the option of removing the
plaster, an air-gap method such as plastering over a metal mesh, can be considered (Sheaffer,
1960).
Another consideration in the retention of resilient materials is the need to decontaminate

them. There is very little evidence available on the scale of the contamination issue in a post-
flood situation. However, professionals generally should provide drying and decontamination
certificates (PAS64), and biocidal cleaning agents are widely available for occupants to use if
professionals are not required for other purposes. Heat-assisted and speed-drying techniques
can accelerate the reinstatement of property, and there are a wide variety of specialized tools
to aid cleaning and drying and to access voids where water may be trapped. In planning a
resilient property scheme, it may be important to select materials that will not be damaged by
the cleaning and drying processes. However, there is very little research into the impacts of
cleaning and drying that can guide building occupants in these choices.
Future Developments in Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation

It is clear from the above that the materials and technology to create and retrofit properties
that are more resilient to flooding already exist. However, the adoption of such measures is
limited by a number of factors, underlying which are important limitations that indicate the
need for future developments in resilient technologies and construction (Proverbs & Lamond,
2008).
Recommended adaptations are often rejected on aesthetic or familiarization grounds because

they make properties look different (Harries, 2008; Thurston et al., 2008) or are designed to
be functional without adequate consideration of good design. In the United Kingdom, recently
Page 23 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
developed flood doors are designed to look more conventional and potentially enhance the
appearance of homes. Further development of flood resilience technology that enhances the
aesthetic appeal of adapted property would support uptake of measures.
Cost of adaptation is also a consideration (Thurston et al., 2008). Future developments that
reduce cost or that offer other aesthetic or functional advantages may also reduce the
barriers to uptake (Lamond et al., 2017). For example, better understanding of the link
between resilient insulation and thermal tightness might lead to the development of multi-
purpose flood resilience products or protocols.
Performance standards for resistance products exist, at least in the United Kingdom, but
performance standards for resilient materials and designed schemes are not available. Lack of
confidence in the performance of measures is a barrier to uptake, and therefore future
developments should aim to establish standards or performance indicators to enhance belief
that measures will limit damage and reduce disruption.
Breathability is also a major consideration that limits the specification of measures by

professionals concerned not to create moisture issues inside properties. Further
developments in technology may need to build on the vapor-permeable coatings already
existing (Beddoes & Booth, 2015). Mold inhibition through biocides or assemblages that can
be easily dismantled for cleaning and drying are alternative routes to circumvent moisture
trap problems.
As kitchens are typically the costliest area damaged in domestic flood incidents, there is
further scope to develop the science and resilience of white goods and appliances. The design
of kitchens that can easily be adapted or protected is useful. Practical steps using off-the-shelf
products can make real improvements to the resilience of kitchens. Again, recent research
involving flood-affected communities has highlighted the importance of aesthetic
considerations, as people prefer to keep to norms in design and appearance.
Lastly, much of the discussion here and in the literature generally relates to traditional
construction types typical for residential and small business premises. A greater focus on
modern construction types and commercial premises will be needed in order to meet
adaptation challenges in the 2020s and beyond.
Conclusions
Increasingly, flood resilient construction has become an important component of an integrated

approach to flood risk management. This largely underresearched area has become more
important in recent years due to development pressures and planning regulations and a
general acceptance of the need to live with flooding. The design and construction of new
buildings as well as the adaptation or retrofit of existing buildings to make them resilient to
flooding can play an important part in mitigating the damage caused by flooding and in
speeding up the recovery process. The concepts and principles of flood resilient construction
date back centuries, but the scientific study of construction and building technologies in this
context is a much more recent development, prompted by a growing realization that flooding
cannot be prevented, the advancements in building technologies and materials, and the
development of property level resilience and resistance measures.
Page 24 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Flood resilient construction strategies are categorized into three types as avoidance, water
exclusion, and water entry, with the avoidance approach being the most commonly adopted,
mainly through elevation and landscaping systems. Other approaches include buildings that
are designed to permanently float or to float in flood conditions. Water exclusion involves
steps to keep water out of a property, and recent interest in this has led to the development of
many new products designed to be installed at the individual property level. Water entry
technology or flood resilience approaches which assume water will enter the occupied space
is an underresearched area, but one that is gaining interest, especially in the United Kingdom,
due to the nature of flooding and the vernacular characteristics of buildings which lend
themselves to this approach.
Advancements in the domain of flood repair and reinstatement have been witnessed especially
in the United Kingdom, where much research followed the critical Pitt Report. This has led to
the introduction of more guidance and the development of standards which have improved
our understanding and raised awareness. Increased recognition of the importance of the
repair and reinstatement process has given rise to the need to dry and restore buildings as
quickly as possible. The need to avoid materials that can take a long time to dry out and the
avoidance of water traps and the need to decontaminate materials have also been highlighted.
The state of the art in flood resilient construction stems from the principle that construction
on the flood plain should be avoided wherever possible, in line with “making space for water.”
However, despite planning restrictions and guidance, other developmental pressures, and the
desire to be close to waterways, result in many buildings still being constructed within
floodplains. Flood resilient construction is therefore needed to minimize the impacts of the
main flood actions on buildings, including hydrostatic pressures and damages caused by
debris and erosion. The emergence of a hybrid approach to flood resilience which restricts the
amount of water entering a building while limiting the damage caused by water that does
enter is gaining recognition, especially in Europe. This hybrid approach involves a
combination of water exclusion measures together with some resilience measures to address
the residual risk. Developments in the technologies and products designed to keep water out
of buildings have advanced significantly, and standards are now in place to provide some
assurance of the efficacy of these to the extent that they are now becoming more
commonplace. There has been much research around the properties of materials under the
effects of water, and this has led to a better understanding of the need to consider material
specification as part of the overall strategy. This includes materials such as plaster, dry lining,
water tanking, insulation, and timber, with guidance now available to help select materials.
Future developments in the field of flood resilient construction and adaptation have been
highlighted; they include the need to develop a better understanding of the preferences of
property owners and the need to develop more affordable solutions. The importance of
resilient construction is likely to continue to increase with the demands for new housing,
increased likelihood of flooding, and continuing urbanization. There is much scope for further
research to improve the science around materials and new technologies as well as some of the
less technical themes linked to behaviors and preferences of property owners. A more
scientific understanding to the measurement of resilience at the property level would help to
gauge improvements and understanding around residual risk and the likely costs and
disruption to be expected.
Page 25 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
References
Aglan, H., Wendt, R., & Livengood, S. (2004). Field testing of energy-efficient flood-damage-
resistant residential envelope systems: Summary report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Energy.
Aglan, H., Ludwick, A., Kitchens, S., Amburgey, T., Diehl, S. & Borazjani, H. (2014) Effect of long-
term exposure and delayed drying time on moisture and mechanical integrity of flooded homes.
Journal of Flood Risk Management, 7, 280–288.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2015). Flood resistant design and construction (ASCE/SEI
24-14). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Association of British Insurers. (2007). Summer floods 2007: Learning the lessons. London:
Association of British Insurers.
Association of British Insurers. (2009). Resilient reinstatement—the cost of flood resilient

reinstatement of domestic properties. Research paper. London: Association of British Insurers.
Association of British Insurers/National Flood Forum. (2006). Repairing your home or business
after a flood—how to limit damage and disruption in the future. London: Association of British
Insurers/National Flood Forum.
Australian Emergency Management Institute. (2013). Managing the floodplain: A guide to best
practice in flood risk management in Australia. Australian emergency management handbook
series. Canberra: Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department.
Baca Architects, JBA, UEA, UWE, Sweett Group, Lanpro, & Serruys Property. (2013). Climate
adaptive neighbourhoods (CAN), Final Report, April 2013. London: Technology Strategy Board.
Barrett, J. C. (1987). The Glastonbury Lake Village: Models and source criticism <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1987.11021208>. Archaeological Journal, 144, 409–423.
Beddoes, D. W., & Booth, C. (2015). Reducing floodwater ingress rates through an exterior
masonry wall of a domestic building: A pilot investigation <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
SS-01-2013-0003>. Structural Survey, 33, 196–209.
Beeftink, W. G. (1975). The ecological significance of embankment and drainage with respect to
the vegetation of the south-west Netherlands <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2258729>. Journal of
Ecology, 63, 423–458.
Bowker, P. (2002). Making properties more resistant to floods. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers. Municipal engineer, 151, 197–205.
Bowker, P., Escarameta, M. & Tagg, A. (2007). Improving the flood performance of new
buildings: Flood resilient construction. London: Defra.
BRE. (1997). BRE good repair guide 11: Repairing flood damage. Garston, U.K.: Building
Research Establishment.
BRE Scottish Laboratory. (1996). Design guidance on flood damage to dwellings. London:
HMSO for Scottish Office Development Department.
Page 26 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
BSI. (2016). Flood protection: Certification and testing services for flood protection
products <https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/our-services/product-certification/industry-sector-
schemes/construction/flood-protection-and-waterproofing-materials/> [Web log post].
Cassar, M., & Hawkings, C. (2007). Engineering historic futures: Stakeholders dissemination and
scientific research report. London: UCL Centre for Sustainable Heritage.
Chew, G. L., Wilson, J., Rabito, F. A., Grimsley, F., Iqbal, S., Reponen, T., . . . Morley, R. L. (2006).
Mold and endotoxin levels in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A pilot project of homes in
New Orleans undergoing renovation <http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9258>. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 114, 1883–1889.
CORDIS. 2015. SMARTeST Report Summary (Project reference: 244102) [Online]. Available
online <http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/155562_en.html>.
Coulbourne, W. L. (2012). Foundation design in coastal flood zones. Paper presented at 2012
ATC and SEI Conference on Advances in Hurricane Engineering: Learning from Our Past.
Miami, FL: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Curtis, L., Ross, M., Persky, V., Scheff, P., Wadden, R., Ramakrisnan, V., & Hryhorczuka, D.
(2000). Bioaerosol concentrations in the quad cities 1 year after the 1993 Mississippi river
floods <https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X0000900108>. Indoor Built Environment, 9, 35–43.
Dhonau, M. & Rose, C. B. (2016). Homeowners' Guide to Flood Resilience. [Online] Know Your
Flood Risk Campaign. Available online <http://goo.gl/8MSUDQ> and http://
knowyourfloodrisk.co.uk/ <http://knowyourfloodrisk.co.uk/>.
Drdácký, M. (2010). Flood damage to historic buildings and structures. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, 24, 439–445.
Eamon, C. D., Fitzpatrick, P., & Truaz, D. D. (2007). Observations of structural damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina on the Mississippi Gulf Coast <http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:2(117)>. Journal of the Performance of Constructed Facilities, 21(2),
117–127.
Elliot, C. R. N., & Leggett, D. J. (2002). Reducing the impact of flooding—extemporary measures.
London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
English, E. C., Friedland, C. J., & Orooji, F. (2017). Combined flood and wind mitigation for
hurricane damage prevention: Case for amphibious construction <http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001750>. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(6).
Environment Agency & CIRIA 2001. Damage Limitation - How to make your home flood
resistant. Bristol/London: EA/CIRIA.
Escarameia, M., Karanxha, A., & Tagg, A. (2006). Improving the flood resilience of buildings
through improved materials, methods and details work package 5—laboratory tests; WP5c final
report. London: Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
Escarameia, M., Karanxha, A. & Tagg, A. (2007). Quantifying the flood resilience properties of
walls in typical UK dwellings <https://doi.org/10.1177/0143624407079093>. Building Services
Engineering Research and Technology, 28, 249–263.
Page 27 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1999). Protecting building utilities from flood
damage: Principles and practices for the design and construction of flood resistant building
utility systems. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal Insurance Administration. (1976). Reducing flood damage through building design: A
guide manual, elevated residential structures. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration.
Fernández-Bilbao, A., & Twigger-Ross, C. (2009). Improving response, recovery and resilience:
Improving institutional and social responses to flooding. Leeds, U.K.: Environment Agency.
Fidler, J., Wood, C., & Ridout, B. (2004). Flooding and historic buildings. Technical Advice Note.
London: English Heritage.
Fleming, G. (2001). Learning to live with rivers. London: The Institution of Civil Engineers.
Gabalda et al. (2012) Tests of flood resilient products (report to the eu commission). SMARTeST
Project.
Garvin, S., Reid, J., & Scott, M. (2005). Standards for the repair of buildings following flooding.
London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
Harries, T. (2008). Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect
yourself against a natural hazard <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162>. Health,
Risk and Society, 10, 479–490.
Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee. (2007). Reducing

vulnerability of buildings to flood damage: Guidance on building in flood prone areas <https://
www.ses.nsw.gov.au/media/2247/building_guidelines.pdf>. Parramatta, Australia: Hawkesbury-
Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee.
Historic England/Pickles et al. (2015). Flooding and historic buildings. Historic England
(formerly Eng Heritage).
Hughes, R. (1982). The effects of flooding upon buildings in developing countries <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1982.tb00534.x>. Disasters, 6, 183–194.
Ingargiola, J., Sheldon, A., & Ghorbi, L. (2015). Building code changes resulting from FEMA’s
hurricane Sandy mitigation assessment team report <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/9780784479711.037>. Seventh Congress on Forensic Engineering. Miami, Florida,
November 15–18.
JBA consultants (2012). Evaluation of the Defra property-level flood protection scheme: 25918.
Environment Agency.
Jha, A., Lamond, J. & Bloch, R. (2012). Cities and flooding: A guide to integrated urban flood risk
management for the 21st century, Washington, GFDRR/World Bank.
Johanning, E., Auger, P., Morey, P. R., Yang, C. S., & Olmsted, E. (2014). Review of health hazards
and prevention measures for response and recovery workers and volunteers after natural
disasters, flooding, and water damage: Mold and dampness <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12199-013-0368-0>. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 19, 93–99.
Page 28 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Kelman, I. (2002). Physical flood vulnerability of residential properties in coastal eastern
England. (Unpublished PhD diss). University of Cambridge.
Kelman, I., & Spence, R. (2004). An overview of flood actions on buildings <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.01.010>. Engineering Geology, 73, 297–309.
Kidd, B., Tagg, A., Escarameia, M., Christierson, B. v., Lamond, J., & Proverbs, D. (2010).
Guidance and standards for drying flood damaged buildings—Signposting current guidance—
BD2760. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Lambert, P. (2006). Research on the impacts of speed drying. Presentation to EPSRC flood repair
network workshop on identification and facilitation of flood damage research. Sheffield,
floodrepairnet.
Lamond, J., McEwen, L., Twigger-Ross, C., Rose, C., Joseph, R., Wragg, A., . . . Proverbs, D.
(2017). Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: Final report (FD2682). London: Defra.
Lamond, J., Rose, C., Joseph, R., & Proverbs, D. (2016a). Supporting the uptake of low cost
resilience: Summary of technical findings (FD2682). London: Defra.
Lamond, J., Rose, C. & Proverbs, D. (2016b). Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: Rapid
evidence assessment final report (FD2682). London: Defra.
Lamond, J. E., Joseph, R. D., & Proverbs, D. G. (2015). An exploration of factors affecting the
long term psychological impact and deterioration of mental health in flooded households.
Environmental Research, 140, 325–344.
Lawson, E., Thorne, C., Ahilan, S., Allen, D., Arthur, S., Everett, G., . . . Wright, N. (2014).
Delivering and evaluating the multiple flood risk benefits in blue-green cities: An
interdisciplinary approach; Flood Recovery Innovation and Response IV. Southampton, U.K.:
WIT Press.
van de Lindt, J. W., Graettinger, A., Gupta, R., Skaggs, T., Pryor, S., & Fridley, K. J. (2007).
Performance of wood-frame structures during Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 21, 108–116.
Mohamad, M. I., Nekooie, M. A., Ismail, Z. B., & Taherkhani, R. (2012). Amphibious urbanization
as a sustainable flood mitigation strategy in South-East Asia <https://www.scientific.net/AMR.
622-623.1696>. Advanced Materials Research, 622–623, 1696–1700.
Nadal, N. C., Zapata-López, R. E., & Pagán-Trinidad, I. (2006). Building damage estimation due
to riverine floods, storm surges and tsunamis: A proposed methodology. Paper presented at the
Fourth LACCEI International Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and
Technology (LACCET’2006): “Breaking Frontiers and Barriers in Engineering: Education,
Research and Practice,” Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.
Netherton, C. (2006). Pas64. Presentation to EPSRC flood repair network workshop on

identification and facilitation of flood damage research. Sheffield, floodrepairnet.
Nicholas, J., & Proverbs, D. (2002). Benchmarking the assessment of flood damaged domestic
properties. London: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Page 29 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Nicholas, J., Proverbs, D., & Holt, G. (2001). An investigation into factors influencing the
assessment of UK flood damaged domestic properties. Paper presented at RICS COBRA 2001,
Glasgow.
Office of Deputy Prime Minister (2003). Interim guidance for improving the flood resistance of
domestic and small business properties. Wetherby: ODPM Publications Centre.
Ogunyoye, F., & Van Heereveld, M. (2002). Temporary and demountable flood protection—
interim guidance on use. Bristol, U.K.: Environment Agency.
O’Leary, P. 2014. Timber suits flood situations. TRADA Timber Industry Yearbook 2014 [Online].
Available online <http://www.trada.co.uk/publications/download/?id=9B9683DF-011E-4E4B-
BE9E-6E7D22D63DA1>.
O’Sullivan, A. (2007). Exploring past people’s interactions with wetland environments in Ireland.
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 107C, 147–203.
Perkes, D. (2011). Floodproof construction: Working for coastal communities. SERRI Report
80024-01. Mississippi State University: Southeast Region Research Initiative.
Pitt, M. (2008). The Pitt review: Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. London: Cabinet Office.
Popkin, S. J., Turner, M. A., & Burt, M. (2006). Rebuilding affordable housing in New Orleans:
The challenge of creating inclusive communities: After Katrina, rebuilding opportunity and
equity into the new New Orleans <http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
51026/900914-Rebuilding-Affordable-Housing-in-New-Orleans.PDF>. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Proverbs, D., & Lamond, J. (2008). The barriers to resilient reinstatement of flood damaged
homes. Paper presented at the 4th International i-Rec conference 2008. Building resilience:
Achieving effective post-disaster reconstruction, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Proverbs, D., & Soetanto, R. (2004). Flood damaged property: A guide to repair. London:
Blackwell.
Rogers-Wright, A. (2013). Rethinking the spaces and institutions of flood governance.

(Unpublished PhD diss.). University of Hull.
Samwinga, V. (2009). Homeowner satisfaction and service quality in the repair of UK flood-
damaged domestic property (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of Wolverhampton.
Samwinga, V., & Proverbs, D. G. (2003). Satisfaction of domestic property owners with respect to
flood damage repair works. Paper presented at the ARCOM 19th Annual conference, University
of Brighton.
Sanders, C. (2014) Laboratory tests and modelling to investigate the effect of flooding on
mineral wool cavity insulation batts in masonry walls (prep'd for MIMA). Centre for Research on
Indoor Climate and Health, School of Engineering & Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian
University.
Page 30 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
Schinke, R., Tourbier, J., Golz, S., & Naumann, T. (2013). Guideline for implementation of flood
resilience construction, technology and systems: Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and
Regional Development (IOER), SMARTeST.
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd. (2011). Coastal hazards—adaptations: Part 1 <http://
www.ccc.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Attwater_-_Coastal_Hazards_-_Adaptations_-
_23Feb2012.pdf>. Melbourne, Australia: Local Government Association of Tasmania.
Sheaffer, J. R. (1960). Flood proofing: An element in a flood damage reduction program.

Department of Geography research paper. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Soetanto, R., Proverbs, D., Lamond, J., & Samwinga, V. (2008). Residential properties in England
and Wales: An evaluation of repair strategies towards attaining flood resilience. In L. Boscher
(Ed.), Hazards and the built environment: Attaining built-in resilience (pp. 124–149). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Taylor, J., Davies, M., Canales, M., & Lai, K. M. (2013). The persistence of flood-borne pathogens
on building surfaces under drying conditions <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2012.03.010>.
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 216, 91–99.
Taylor, J., Davies, M., & Lai, K. (2010). The simulation of the post flood drying of dwellings in
London. Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment
(ICSBE-2010), Kandy.
ten Veldhuis, J. A. E., Clemens, F. H. L. R., Sterk, G., & Berends, B. R. (2010). Microbial risks
associated with exposure to pathogens in contaminated urban flood water <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2010.02.009>. Water Research, 44, 2910–2918.
Thurston, N., Finlinson, B., Breakspear, R., Williams, N., Shaw, J., Chatterton, J., & Defra. (2008).
Developing the evidence base for flood resistance and resilience. London: Defra.
Uddin, N., Dong, L., Mousa, M. A., Masters, F. J., & Fernandez, G. (2013). Evaluation of system
resilience of building panels through full-scale wind load and flood tests. Paper presented at the
11th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, ICOSSAR 2013, June 16,
2013–June 20, 2013, New York, NY.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1972). Flood proofing regulations. Washington, DC:
Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1998). Flood proofing performance: Successes &
failures. Washington, DC: United States Army Corps of Engineers.
United States Department of Agriculture. (1945 [1937]). First aid for flooded homes and farms.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
Warwickshire Trading Standards. (1998). A flood of claims. Warwick, U.K.: Warwickshire

Trading Standards Department.
Welsh Consumer Council. (1992). In deep water: A study of consumer problems in Towyn and
Kinmel Bay after the 1990 floods. Cardiff, U.K.: Welsh Consumer Council.
Page 31 of 32
date: 24 May 2021
White, G. (1945). Human adjustment to floods: A geographical approach to the flood problem in
the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Whittle, R., & Medd, W. (2011). Living with flood: Understanding residents’ experience of
recovery. In J. E. Lamond, D. G. Proverbs, C. A. Booth, & F. N. Hammond (Eds.), Flood hazards,
impacts and responses for the built environment. New York: Taylor CRC.
Whittle, R., Medd, W., Deeming, H., Kashefi, E., Mort, M., Twigger-Ross, C., . . . Watson, N.
(2010). After the rain—learning the lessons from flood recovery in Hull—final project report for
“Flood, vulnerability and urban resilience: A real-time study of local recovery following the
floods of June 2007 in Hull.” Lancaster, U.K.: Lancaster University.
Williams, G. P. (1978). Canadian building digest—198 flood proofing of buildings <http://

web.mit.edu/parmstr/Public/NRCan/CanBldgDigests/cbd198_e.html> [Web log post]. Institute
for Research in Construction.
Wingfield, J., Bell, M., & Bowker, P. (2005). Improving the flood resilience of buildings through
improved materials, methods and details. Project report Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Woodhead, R. (2011). The art of reinstatement. In Lamond, J. E., Proverbs, D. G., Booth, C. A. &
Hammond, F. N. (Eds.) Flood hazards, impacts and responses for the built environment. New
York: Taylor: CRC press.
Woodhead, R. (2008). Reinstatement—a considerate approach. Presentation to Joint CILA, CII

Scotland and FloodRepairNet workshop. Edinburgh, U.K.: Floodrepairnet.
Page 32 of 32
date: 24 May 2021

Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation of Buildings: Published Online: 19 December 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation of Buildings: Published Online: 19 December 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation of Buildings

David Proverbs, Birmingham City University and Jessica Lamond, University of the West of

State-of-the-art practices now center on avoidance strategies incorporating planning

Keywords: flood risk, flood resistance, mitigation, retrofit, protection

Subjects: Adaptation, Recovery, Resilience, Floods

Historical Developments in Flood Risk Management and the Built Envi­

Developments in Construction and Building Technologies

Water Exclusion Technology

Water Entry Technology

Repair and Reinstatement of Flood-Damaged Property

However, where buildings are permitted in the floodplain or where redevelopment,

The evidence is underpinned by knowledge of the potential impact of flooding on buildings as

Hydrostatic (lateral pressure and capillary rise)

Hydrodynamic (velocity, waves, turbulence)

Erosion (scour under buildings, building fabric)

Buoyancy (lifting the building)

Debris (items in the water colliding with the building)

Nonphysical actions (chemical, nuclear, biological)

Flood Proofing Matrix Measures

Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation relocation Walls

Velocity Slow (<1m/

Ice and Yes X

Soil type Permeable X

Figure 4. Examples of raised construction in England

In short-duration flooding, blocking apertures may be sufficient, but in long-duration flooding

Research on Water Resistant and Resilient Materials

Research on materials subject to hydrostatic pressure, which might be experienced during

WALLS reinforced or full brick/block brick/block Inaccessible

WALL AND fiber cement common bricks exterior-grade particleboard

cement exterior grade solid wood with wallpaper

ceramic wall fully sealed exterior grade cloth wall

galvanized nonferrous Plasterboard standard plywood

glass and gypsum plaster

INSULATION plastic/ reflective foil materials open-celled

Another consideration in the retention of resilient materials is the need to decontaminate

Future Developments in Flood Resilient Construction and Adaptation

Recommended adaptations are often rejected on aesthetic or familiarization grounds because

Breathability is also a major consideration that limits the specification of measures by

Increasingly, flood resilient construction has become an important component of an integrated

Association of British Insurers. (2009). Resilient reinstatement—the cost of flood resilient

Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee. (2007). Reducing

Netherton, C. (2006). Pas64. Presentation to EPSRC flood repair network workshop on

Rogers-Wright, A. (2013). Rethinking the spaces and institutions of flood governance.

Sheaffer, J. R. (1960). Flood proofing: An element in a flood damage reduction program.

Warwickshire Trading Standards. (1998). A flood of claims. Warwick, U.K.: Warwickshire

Williams, G. P. (1978). Canadian building digest—198 flood proofing of buildings <http://

Woodhead, R. (2008). Reinstatement—a considerate approach. Presentation to Joint CILA, CII

You might also like

Historical Developments in Flood Risk Management and the Built Envi