ISO 2394:2015 General principles on reliability for structures

There are a number of databases and/or information services that might provide a fast review and the ability to obtain desired standards. Here is one:

https://global.ihs.com/

Another source for construction standards is:

https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html

As Monica S. Löfman pointed out, other independent standards organizations like ISO may also have relevant documents. See also, ANSI.

I'm sure that Japan and other SE Asian nations have references to building standards for things like earthquakes as well.

Hi Niklas Schwiersch ,

hereby information on Flood Hazard at European and Global Scale

JRC Data Catalogue - European Commission (europa.eu)

https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/collection/floods

This is a very wide subject area. There are many different approaches to managing risk in different fields. One philosophy to risk used by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK (and many other organisations) is that the risk (e.g. of a disaster or accident ) should be reduced to ‘as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). There is more information here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/managing/theory/index.htm

In terms of practical application the discussion in this paper on the Brumadinho tailings dam failure which occurred in Brazil just over two years ago gives you an idea of how the ALARP approach to risk can be used in practice to show that certain pieces of infrastructure, some related to flooding, may sit outside ALARP when it comes to the risks they pose to people. The paper is available here: Article Modelling the Brumadinho tailings dam failure, the subsequen...

Thank you all and I would like to further clarify my thoughts for the discussion. In the last decades, more and more advanced methods have been developed for risk assessment, but are there already standards on how risk itself can become a planning input variable? I mean, risk-based design already means that requirements for a cross-section or a construction, for example, have to be derived from the risk.

Niklas Schwiersch , yes, guidelines like the CCPS (https://www.aiche.org/ccps) and OSHA (https://www.osha.gov/) or HSE (https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ohindex.htm) define levels of risk quite explicitly. The real problem for any model (or standard) is that the ACCEPTABLE risk will necessarily be different for different people, organizations, or industries. A "Risk" (consequence vs. probability) can be defined fairly directly. BUT how that will influence a design (avoidance, prevention, mitigation, costs) remains a management decision. ONCE a decision has been made relative to risk acceptance, many standards exist to define how to meet the desired criteria, like SIS or building codes (ANSI, ASTM, others). Sometimes, industry or government REGULATIONS may define specific standards to use, but those regulations are not "standards".