## 4 Conclusions  
This study presents a comprehensive framework for quantifying flood resilience at the community level, incorporating the fragility of individual buildings, the functionality of critical infrastructure sectors, and the interdependencies among these sectors. The methodology includes three key components: (1) the development of isolated building fragility curves through a performance-based engineering approach consistent with seismic resilience methods; (2) the formulation of fragility curves for community-level infrastructure sectors at the subassembly level; and (3) the synthesis of community-level functionality fragility curves to evaluate overall resilience. These elements are integrated into a community-level model via an interaction matrix to quantify residual functionality and support risk-informed decision-making. The application of this framework to a virtual community case study, consisting of 1000 archetypal buildings across the residential, business, educational, and public service sectors, demonstrates its efficacy. The findings reveal that community functionality decreases with increasing flood depth, with the critical threshold of proper functionality (0.87) occurring at a flood depth of 1.57 m. At this threshold, the residual functionalities for the residential, business, educational, and public service sectors are 0.80, 0.50, 0.55, and 0.67, respectively. The results highlight the dominant role of the residential sector in influencing overall community resilience, particularly when functionality drops below 90%. In extreme flood scenarios, the education sector demonstrates relatively higher resilience, providing critical support during recovery efforts. This study emphasizes the importance of incorporating functional interdependencies into resilience assessments. The sensitivity analysis results underscore that accounting for intersectoral dependencies significantly enhances the accuracy of community functionality evaluations. These insights provide actionable guidance for prioritizing interventions, such as strengthening the resilience of residential buildings and mitigating the cascading impacts of interdependent sector failures. While this study advances the field of flood resilience quantification, it acknowledges several limitations. The reliance on flood depth as the sole hazard intensity parameter simplifies the analysis but may not capture the full complexity of flood scenarios, such as flood duration or velocity. Additionally, the lack of post-disaster empirical data for validating the model highlights the need for future studies to incorporate finer-resolution inputs, such as data on power stations, wastewater treatment plants, or other critical infrastructure. Expanding the framework to include additional infrastructure systems, such as telecommunication networks or transportation systems, would further enhance its applicability. In conclusion, this framework represents a significant step forward in quantifying community-level flood resilience, integrating functional interdependencies to provide a holistic and actionable understanding of vulnerability and functionality. Future research should aim to refine and validate the model using real-world data, expand its scope to encompass additional hazard parameters and infrastructure systems, and incorporate human impacts to offer a more comprehensive perspective on community resilience. Incorporating social vulnerability metrics or applying the framework to real-world cases like the Houston flooding could further enhance its robustness and relevance. This study's results highlight critical insights for urban planning and flood risk management, revealing a community functionality threshold of 0.87 at a 1.57 m flood depth, driven largely by the residential sector's influence (0.80 residual functionality).