4.5 Article

An evaluation method for the urban post-earthquake fire risk considering multiple scenarios of fire spread and evacuation

Journal

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
Volume 54, Issue -, Pages 167-180

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2012.06.002

Keywords

Risk; Monte Carlo simulation; Urban fire spread model; Urban evacuation model; Fires following an inland earthquake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An evaluation evaluation method for urban post-earthquake fire risk is presented. Urban fires and urban evacuations are highly dependent on uncertain factors, such as the number and locations of fire outbreaks, the wind velocity and direction, and the population distribution. To implement effective measures to ensure the safety of buildings and individuals in fires, a method to evaluate the effectiveness of the various safety measures that consider the influence of the uncertain factors is essential. Risk is introduced into the proposed method, in which the risk is defined as the probability that the ratio of burned-down buildings or fire fatalities in a district will exceed a threshold within a given time period after an earthquake. The risk is calculated by a combination of Monte Carlo simulation and physics-based fire-spread/evacuation simulation, in which uncertainty is considered in the following inputs: (1) the number and locations of fire outbreaks; (2) the firefighting at the initial stages; (3) the weather; (4) the earthquake-related structural damage to buildings; (5) the initial evacuee locations and (6) the obstruction of roads. In this paper, the risk of Kyoto City was evaluated for eight types of inland earthquake to demonstrate the use of the model. As a result, the effectiveness of countermeasures that improve the fire resistance of buildings could be quantified in terms of risk reduction. This result indicates that the method could be an effective tool for disaster prevention. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available