Natural Hazards

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 243–256 | Cite as

Impact of storms and earthquakes on industrial installations – New risk control approaches required?

Original Paper


As consequences of heavy floods in Germany in August 2002, the Umweltbundesamt UBA—German Environmental Protection Agency—started a research project on the safety of industrial installations due to technical as well as natural risks. Although the main focus of this research was on floods, risks due to storms and earthquakes were studied too. The present paper offers a brief survey of the storm and earthquake regulations for all built environment in Germany, including industrial plants. It further shows how these natural hazardous risks are treated in National building standards, and how they are transformed into residual failure risks of buildings. Based on this knowledge the manuscript then elucidates exemplary safety gaps in combination with technical risks in industrial plants under operation.


Storm risks Seismic risks Structural safety Structural risk management 


  1. Bertero VV (1997) Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds), Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, 1–31. A.A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. DIN 1055-100 (2001) Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Teil 100: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung, Sicherheitskonzept und Bemessungsregeln. NABau im DIN, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. DIN 1055-4 (2005) Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Teil 4: Windlasten. NABau im DIN, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. DIN 4149 (2005) Bauten in Deutschen Erdbebengebieten. NABau im DIN, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. EC 8 (1994) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. CEN European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. EU (2003) SEVESO II-Directive 2003/105/EG from December 16, Control of accidents with dangerous substances, substituting 1996/82/EGGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA 310 (1998) Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings—A pre-standard. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington Google Scholar
  8. Fendler R (2008) Floods and safety of establishments and installations containing hazardous substances. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9209-z Google Scholar
  9. Krätzig WB (2006) Damage indicators for estimates of seismic vulnerability. In: Topping BHV, Montero G, Montenegro R (eds) Innovations in Computational Structures Technologies. Saxe-Coburg Publications, Stirlingshire, pp 111–132Google Scholar
  10. Krätzig WB, Meskouris K (1999). Assessment of seismic structural vulnerability as a low-cycle fatigue process. In: Bisch Ph, Labbé P, Pecker A (eds), Proc. 11th Eur Conf Earthq Eng, 161–178, A.A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Landers J (2004) Combined earthquake, windstorm legislation becomes law. Civil Eng 74(12):10–11Google Scholar
  12. Mileti DS (1999) Desasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henti Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Munich Re (1993) Winterstürme in Europa. Schadenanalyse 1990 – Schadenpotenziale. Münchner Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  14. Munich Re (2001) Winterstürme in Europa II: Schadenanalyse 1999 – Schadenpotenziale II. Münchner Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, MünchenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Krätzig & Partners Engineering ConsultantsBochumGermany
  2. 2.UmweltbundesamtDessauGermany
  3. 3.Ruhr-UniversityBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations