On risk-informed approach for mechanical safety provision of the civic buildings
https://doi.org/10.37538/2224-9494-2026-1(48)-98-110
EDN: LEQRTQ
Abstract
Introduction. To ensure adequate modern requirements for the mechanical safety of civil buildings and structures (as complex technical systems with enhanced safety requirements), a transition from reliability management of building structures to risk management is necessary.
Aim. For an effective and legally sustainable transition to risk-informed regulation in the construction industry of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to summarize and critically analyze advanced foreign experience.
Materials and methods. Based on the analysis of the data available in the regulatory, scientific and technical literature, a critical analysis of the advantages and identified problems of scientific development and practical implementation of the risk-informed approach in the construction of the Netherlands, Great Britain and Japan was carried out.
Results. The advantages of using risk-informed and parametric approaches together are described, and the problems of their methodological support and regulatory implementation are listed.
Conclusions. Despite observed barriers and difficulties that have manifested themselves in foreign science and practice, the transition from structural reliability management to accident risk management is not only possible, but also capable of producing significant technical and economic effects and increasing the real safety of buildings and people in them. Further work should be aimed at the phased implementation of the proposed approach: the development and testing of industry-specific methods, the formation of criteria for acceptable risk, staff training and the integration of risk-informed procedures into the practice of design, expertise and supervision.
Keywords
building construction,
structural safety,
hazards,
load,
probability,
reliability,
scenario,
structural safety management,
risk-informed approach
Supporting agencies: The study was carried out within the framework of contractual work between JSC Research Center of Construction and the Federal Center for Regulation, Standardization and Technical Assessment in Construction (FAU “FCC”).
About the Author
I. A. Kirillov
Research Institute of Building Constructions named after V.A. Koucherenko, JSC Research Center of Construction
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor A. Kirillov, Cand. Sci. (Phys-Math), Leading researcher, Laboratory of building reliability
2nd Institutskaya str., 6, bld. 1, Moscow, 109428
References
1. Rasmussen N. The Reactor Safety Study WASH-1400, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975.
2. International Atomic Energy Agency. Development and Application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants: Specific Safety Guide. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG 3. Vienna: IAEA, 2010. 191 p.
3. Federal Norms and Rules in the field of atomic energy use “Basic requirements for the probabilistic analysis of the safety of a nuclear power plant unit” (NP 095 15). Approved by Order of the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision dated 08/12/2015 No. 311. Introduction. Effective from 09/19/2015. Moscow: Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision, 2015. (In Russian)
4. Regulatory Guide 1.174, Rev. 3, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk Informed Decisions on Plant Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, NRC, DOE
5. Federal Law No. 294-FZ of December 26, 2008 “On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control” (In Russian)
6. Resolution No. 806 of August 17, 2016 “On the Application of a risk-based approach in the Organization of Certain Types of State Control (Supervision) and Amendments to Certain Acts of the Government of the Russian Federation” (In Russian)
7. Order No. 414 dated November 28, 2022 On Approval of the Safety Guidelines “Methodology for Accident Risk Analysis at Hazardous Production Facilities of the Oil and Gas Processing, Oil and Gas chemical Industry” (In Russian)
8. Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated June 26, 2024 No. 533 “On Approval of the Methodology for Determining Calculated Fire Risk values at Production facilities” (In Russian)
9. Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated 30.06.2009 No. 382 “On approval of the methodology for determining calculated fire risk values in Buildings, structures and structures of various classes of functional fire danger” (In Russian)
10. Raiser V.D. Risk assessment in the design of buildings. Earthquake engineering. Constructions safety, 2007, no. 4, pp. 15–18. (In Russian)
11. Tamrazyan A.G. Basic principles of risk assessment in the design of buildings and structures. Bulletin of MGSU, 2011, no. 2, pp. 21–27. (In Russian)
12. Raizer V.D., Vedyakov I.I. Reliability of building structures. Theory and calculation: monograph. Moscow: Publishing House of the Association of Construction Universities. 2018. 412 p. (In Russian)
13. Baiburin A. Kh., Melchakov A.P. Technical regulation of the safety of buildings and structures based on the assessment of the risk of accident. Architecture, urban planning and design, 2017, no. 11, pp. 3–10. (In Russian)
14. State Standard R ISO 31000-2019 “Risk management. Principles and guidelines”. Moscow. (In Russian)
15. State Standard R ISO/IEC 31010-2011 “Risk management. Risk assessment methods”. Moscow. (In Russian) 16. State Standard R ISO 2394-2016 “Building structures. Basic principles of reliability”. Moscow. (In Russian)
16. ISO 13824:2009 “Fundamentals of structural design – General principles for evaluating systems that include structures. Moscow. (In Russian)
17. Performance-based structural fire engineering, https://ref2014impact.azurewebsites.net/casestudies2/refservice.svc/GetCaseStudyPDF/28187
18. Improving the financial and environmental cost of steel framed buildings, whilst raising structural performance, https://ref2014impact.azurewebsites.net/casestudies2/refservice.svc/GetCaseStudyPDF/44364
19. Vrijking K.K., van Gelder P.H.A.K.M., Ouwerkerk S.J. Criteria for ac-ceptable risk in the Netherlands. DOI:10.1061/9780784408155.ch05
20. Probabilistic seismic hazard and risk analysis in the TNO model chain Groningen, TNO Report, 2022.
21. Van Xanten N.H.W. et al. Rituals in risk evaluation for land-use planning. Chemical engineering transactions, 2013, DOI.:10.3303/CET1331015
22. Reducing Risks, Protecting People: HSE’s Decision Making Process. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2001. 74 p.
23. Fire in a residential high-rise building Grenfell Tower, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire. (In Russian)
24. Safety Risk Assessment for High-Rise Residential Buildings: A Comprehensive Guide, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-guides-for-accountable-persons/assessing-safety-risks-inhigh-rise-residential-buildings-a-detailed-guide. (In Russian)
25. BS 7974:2019 Application of fire safety engineering princi-ples to the design of buildings – Code of practice.
26. Vedyakov I.I., Soloviev D.V. Development of a methodology for assessing the risk of progressive collapse. Bulletin of the Research Center of Construction, 2021, no. 1 (28), pp. 5–15 (In Russian)
27. Building Safety Act, 2022 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/4
28. Suzuki A., Kusaka A., Nakashima M. Japanese attitudes toward risk control in seismic design in light of observation, prediction, and actual performance of building structures, Int. Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3853.
Review
For citations:
Kirillov I.A. On risk-informed approach for mechanical safety provision of the civic buildings. Bulletin of Science and Research Center of Construction. 2026;48(1):98-110. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37538/2224-9494-2026-1(48)-98-110. EDN: LEQRTQ
Views:
91
JATS XML
Email this article 