Articole

Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks: Temporary Structures Versus Stable Industrial Spaces

NM
N. MERLOI ( ENE )
National University of Science and…
DN
D.F. NIȚOI
National University of Science and…
MM
M.N. MARINESCU
National University of Science and…
CE
C.I. ENACHE
National University of Science and…
AT
A. TRIFU
National University of Science and…
CV
C. VÎNTURIȘ
National University of Science and…
Vol. 1 / Nr. 1 pp. 266–275 Engleză DOI: 10.65631/JFD.1(37).2026.32
Journal of Fiability and Durability · 2026
This paper compares the accident risks associated with temporary structures and stable industrial spaces, from the perspective of occupational safety and health. Although both categories of spaces can serve similar industrial, logistical or exhibition activities, differences in design, operation and maintenance determine distinct risk profiles. Temporary structures are characterized by a high degree of mobility, quick assembly, dependence on the quality of anchoring and direct exposure to meteorological factors. On the other hand, stable industrial premises benefit from permanent foundations, fixed protection systems and standardised operating procedures. The paper proposes a comparative risk matrix, a simplified HSE assessment model based on probability and severity, as well as a case study on the assembly and operation of a clear-span industrial exhibition pavilion. The results highlight that temporary structures can only achieve acceptable levels of safety through active risk management, frequent inspections and rapid interventions depending on environmental conditions.
temporary structures stable industrial spaces accident risk occupational safety and health anchoring risk management.
Publicat
01.04.2026
NM
N. MERLOI ( ENE ) Corespondent
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
DN
D.F. NIȚOI
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
MM
M.N. MARINESCU
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
CE
C.I. ENACHE
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
AT
A. TRIFU
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
CV
C. VÎNTURIȘ
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
N. MERLOI ( ENE ), D.F. NIȚOI, M.N. MARINESCU, C.I. ENACHE, A. TRIFU, C. VÎNTURIȘ (2026). Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks: Temporary Structures Versus Stable Industrial Spaces. Journal of Fiability and Durability, 1(1), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.65631/JFD.1(37).2026.32
[1]. ASRO, SR EN 13782:2015 – Temporary structures. Tents. Security.
[2]. European Committee for Standardization, EN 13782: Temporary structures – Tents –
Safety.
[3]. European Committee for Standardization, SR EN 1991-1-4: Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures. Wind actions.
[4]. European Committee for Standardization, SR EN 1999: Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures
[5]. European Committee for Standardization, SR EN 13501-1 – Fire classification of construction products and elements.
[6]. OSHA, 29 CFR 1926 – Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.
[7]. Ratay, R. T., Forensic Structural Engineering: Handbook of Temporary Structures, McGraw-Hill.
[8]. Brauer, R. L. (2016). Safety and health for engineers (3rd ed.). Wiley.
[9]. Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D., & Mohamed, S. (2007). The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Safety Science, 45(10), 993–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003
[10]. Eurostat. (2023). Accidents at work statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
[11]. European Committee for Standardization. (2015). EN 13782: Temporary structures –
Tents – Safety. CEN.
[12]. European Committee for Standardization. (2005). EN 1991-1-4: Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Wind actions. CEN.
[13]. European Committee for Standardization. (2007). EN 1999: Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures. CEN.
[14]. Gibb, A., Haslam, R., Hide, S., & Gyi, D. (2006). The role of design in accident causality. Construction Management and Economics, 24(5), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500213739
[15]. Hinze, J. (2006). Construction safety (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
[16]. Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2020). Introduction to health and safety at work (6th ed.). Routledge.
[17]. International Labour Organization. (2021). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2021. ILO.
[18]. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001: Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use. ISO.
[19]. Manuele, F. A. (2014). Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention (2nd ed.). Wiley.
[20]. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2023). Safety and health regulations for construction (29 CFR 1926). U.S. Department of Labor.
[21]. Ratay, R. T. (2010). Forensic structural engineering handbook (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [22]. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate.
[23]. Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Stanton, N. A. (2016). Human factors methods and accident analysis. Safety Science, 86, 24–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.008
[24]. Swuste, P., Frijters, A., & Guldenmund, F. (2012). Is it possible to influence safety in the building sector? Safety Science, 50(5), 1333–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.030
[25]. Toole, T. M. (2002). Construction site safety roles. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:3(203)
[26]. Zhou, Z., Goh, Y. M., & Li, Q. (2015). Overview and analysis of safety management studies in construction. Safety Science, 72, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.10.006
[27]. Lingard, H., & Rowlinson, S. (2005). Occupational health and safety in construction project management. Spon Press.
Scroll to Top