Determination of the reliability coefficient by responsibility for the purpose of the architectural monuments structures calculating

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Architectural monuments are buildings and structures built mainly a hundred or more years ago, when there were no modern norms for new construction objects. The non-compliance of cultural heritage objects with modern norms in many cases proves to be an obstacle to simultaneously preserving its structures authenticity and ensuring mechanical safety, provoking excessive modern intrusion into the structure historical substance. It is noted that monuments can be classified as a separate type of structures based on a number of characteristics, including structural similarity, the presence of accumulated sediments exceeding the limits regulated by modern norms, the operation duration exceeding the service life according to modern norms, construction in a “pre-regulatory” era based on experience passed down from generation to generation. For such a specific type of structure modern norms allow additional requirements to be considered for the purpose of normative and calculated load values, as well as reliability coefficients. Particular attention is paid to determining the reliability coefficient by responsibility, which is related to ensuring the structures mechanical safety depending on the number of visitors in them. It is shown that ensuring acceptable social risk (which is equivalent to ensuring the required reliability) can be achieved not only by strengthening structural elements but also by limiting the number of visitors to individual premises, which is reflected in the value of the reliability coefficient by responsibility. The dependence allowing to determine the value of this coefficient is proposed. This approach makes it possible to preserve the authenticity of the protected structural elements without compromising the architectural monument reliability.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

N. A. Evseev

Institute “Georeconstruction”; St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Author for correspondence.
Email: 3763380@gmail.com

Candidate of Sciences (Engineering)

Russian Federation, 4, Izmailovsky ave., Saint Petersburg, 190005; 4, 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya Str., Saint Petersburg, 190005

V. A. Shashkin

Institute “Georeconstruction”; St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Email: vashashkin@pi-georeconstruction.ru

Candidate of Sciences (Engineering)

Russian Federation, 4, Izmailovsky ave., Saint Petersburg, 190005; 4, 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya Str., Saint Petersburg, 190005

A. G. Shashkin

Institute “Georeconstruction”; St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Email: 9563513@gmail.com

Doctor of Sciences (Geology)

Russian Federation, 4, Izmailovsky ave., Saint Petersburg, 190005; 4, 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya Str., Saint Petersburg, 190005

References

  1. Ulitskiy V.M., Shashkin A.G. Preservation of architectural monuments and ensuring their mechanical safety. Promyshlennoe i Grazhdanskoe Stroitel’stvo. 2017. No. 7, pp. 31–39. (In Russian). EDN: ZBTMVB
  2. Shashkin A.G., Shashkin V.A. Is it possible to ensure the preservation of monuments based on standards for new construction? Geotechnica. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 2, pp. 20–31. (In Russian). EDN: TUKFZN. https://doi.org/10.25296/2221-5514-2021-13-2-20-30
  3. Tiunov O.V. Rakhmanov: the art of restoration. Saint. Petersburg: Georeconstructsia. 2022. 448 p.
  4. Shashkin V.A. Accumulated deformations of the historical buildings of St. Petersburg. Zhilishchnoe Stroitel’stvo [Housing Construction]. 2023. No. 12, pp. 32–45. (In Russian). EDN: CITCIO. https://doi.org/10.31659/0044-4472-2023-12-32-45
  5. Shashkin V.A. The concept of ensuring the mechanical safety of architectural monuments. Promyshlennoe i Grazhdanskoe Stroitel’stvo. 2023. No. 5, pp. 32–39. (In Russian). EDN: POJBBM. https://doi.org/10.33622/0869-7019.2023.05.32-39
  6. Shashkin V.A., Shashkin A.G. Limited operational technical condition as the norm for architectural monuments. Geotechnica. 2024. Vol. 16. No. 1, pp. 6–22. (In Russian). EDN: ZYDYNN. https://doi.org/10.25296/2221-5514-2024-16-1-6-22
  7. Ho K., Leroi E., Roberds B. Quantitative risk assessment: application, myths and future direction. Proc. of the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. Melbourne, Australia, 2000. Vol. 1, pp. 269–312.
  8. Ulitskiy V.M., Lisyuk M.B. Risk assessment and safety in transport construction. Tekhnosfernaya i ekologicheskaya bezopasnost’ na transporte. (TEBTRANS-2012). Proceedings of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference 2012. pp. 245–254. (In Russian). EDN: SYGCHR
  9. Zhukov I.S., Lisanov M.V. On uniform criteria for acceptable risk at hazardous production facilities. Vesti Gazovoi Nauki. Scientific and Technical Collection. 2022. No. 2 (51), pp. 82–90. (In Russian). EDN: NDVVVM
  10. Plechkova I.L., Shashkin A.G., Shashkin K.G., Shashkin V.A., Evseev N.A. Ensuring the safety of the foundation of the structures of the Snetogorsky Monastery. Geotechnica. 2020. No. 2, pp. 52–66. (In Russian). EDN: HNOKEP. https://doi.org/10.25296/2221-5514-2020-12-2-52-66

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Probability density distribution curves for random variables: loads p(F) – red, strengths p(R) – green, reserve strength p(ψ) – orange; Fm and Rm – median load and strength; Fd and Rd – calculated load and calculated resistance; Fn, Rn – corresponding normative values; ψm=Rm–Fm – the strength reserve mathematical expectation; ψn=Rn–Fn – the strength reserve normative value; ψd=Rd–Fd – the strength reserve estimated value

Download (389KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Distribution curves of random variables: load P(F) – red, strength P(R) – green, reserve strength P(ψ) – orange; the designations explanation is given in the caption to Fig. 1

Download (256KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. The probability of structural failure depending on the parameters r, CvF and CvR under normal laws of strength and load distribution

Download (377KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Criteria of acceptable social risk in various European countries [18]

Download (100KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Diagrams of the structural failure probability dependence on the parameters r, CvF and CvR for values N=1,2,5,10 (people): the points where the actual failure probability Q exceeds the marginal probability [Q] are highlighted in red, and the points where condition (5) is satisfied are green

Download (695KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Distributive curve of the strength reserve value probability p(ψ)

Download (109KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. Diagrams of the γn structure dependence on the parameters rd, γf and γm/γc for values N=2–5 (people): orange circles circle the points where varying the values of γn can help eliminate the calculated reserve strength deficit

Download (594KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. Illustration of the reliability coefficient by responsibility determination, which provides an acceptable social risk according to criterion (25) for the simplest building visitors

Download (324KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Advertising publishing company "STROYMATERIALY"