Comprehensive analysis of the strength and safety of potentially hazardous facilities subject to uncertainties

Aim. This paper aims to compare the two primary approaches to ensuring the structural strength and safety of potentially hazardous facilities, i.e. the deterministic approach that is based on ensuring standard values of a strength margin per primary limit state mechanisms, and the probabilistic approach, under which the strength condition criterion is the nonexceedance by the target values of probability of damage per various damage modes of the standard maximum allowable values.. The key problem of ensuring the structural strength is the high level of uncertainties that are conventionally subdivided into two types: (1) the uncertainties due to the natural variation of the parameters that define the load-carrying ability of a system and the load it is exposed to, and (2) the uncertainties due to the human factor (the limited nature of human knowledge of a system and possibility of human error at various stages of system operation). The methods of uncertainty mitigation depend on the approach applied to strength assurance: under the deterministic approach the random variables “load” and “carrying capacity” are replaced with deterministic values, i.e. their mathematical expectations, while the fulfillment of the strength conditions subject to uncertainties is ensured by introducing the condition that the relation of the mathematical expectation of the loadcarrying capacity and strength must exceed the standard value of strength margin that, in turn, must be greater than unity. As part of the probabilistic approach, the structural strength is assumed to be ensured if the estimated probability of damage per the given mechanism of limit state attainment does not exceed the standard value of the probability of damage. Conclusions. The two approaches (deterministic and probabilistic) can be deemed equivalent only in particular cases. The disadvantage of both is the limited capability to mitigate the uncertainties of the second type defined by the effects of the human factor, as well as the absence of a correct procedure of accounting for the severity of consequences caused by the attainment of the limit state. The above disadvantages can be overcome if risk-based methods are used in ensuring structural strength and safety. Such methods allow considering uncertainties of the second type and explicitly taking into consideration the criticality of consequences of facility destruction.