*4.1. Risk Assessment Results*

After the application of the methodology presented in Section 3, based on hydraulic modelling, probabilistic functions, and GIS processes, the results are presented for both case studies in Barcelona and Bristol, and both scenarios presented, current (Baseline) and future (BAU) rainfall conditions.

#### 4.1.1. Barcelona

In Barcelona city, the results obtained for the risk analysis are given in Figures 9 and 10. These results are the output of the different analyses made with the different fragility curves FC1 (Softened fragility curve), FC2 (Original fragility curve) and FC3 (Hardened fragility curve) presented in Section 3.1.

The number of DCs affected in FC1 and FC2 was the same in the corresponding return periods, but with the difference that these DCs were allocated in different risk categories. While FC2 allocated more DCs in LFP and NAFP, FC1 did in MFP and HFP. However, FC3 diminishes the number of DCs affected due to those under LFP and MFP being dismissed (Figure 9).

Also, between scenarios, a percentage of increase over the total of elements analyzed was extracted (i.e., 1342 DCs).

Depending on the return period analyzed and the fragility curve observed, there is a different increase from current scenario to BAU. With increases of up to 32 DCs affected in the BAU scenario means 2.38% of the total number of DCs, although this happens in the lowest importance category (i.e., LFP). In MFP, an increase of 22 DCs was found in T500 return period, meaning 1.64% over the total and in HFP 7 DCs, that is a percentage of 0.52%. All the increases found for the maximum return period analyzed T500, are depicted in the map of Figure 10, colored in green.

**Figure 9.** Summary chart of the DCs at potential risk found by the implementation of the method developed in Barcelona.

**Figure 10.** Multiple Barcelona map representation of the DCs analyzed, regarding the different fragility curves (FCs) studied and the different scenarios analyzed for return period T500.
