Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Probabilistic Methodology for Assessing Post-Earthquake Fire Ignition Vulnerability in Residential Buildings

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Post-earthquake fire (PEF) ignition events constitute a secondary consequence of an earthquake and may result in the loss of life and substantial property damage, especially in urban areas where the potential for fire spread and conflagration exists. These secondary hazards can cause severe structural and non-structural damage, potentially more significant damage than the direct damage caused by the initial earthquake, and can lead to catastrophic structural failures, devastating economic losses, and casualties. To manage the impact of PEF in urban areas, it is important to identify the potential ignition sources and quantify the vulnerabilities of these ignition sources as a result of earthquake-induced structural damage. The results of such analyses can be used to offer resiliency improvement investments and mitigation strategies in urban areas located in seismically active regions. Most of the previous PEF studies are data-driven, utilizing ignitions reported following recent earthquakes. However, in areas for which historical PEF data are not available, such as the Midwestern United States, a different methodology for developing a PEF model is needed. This paper describes an analytical model for quantifying the vulnerabilities of residential buildings to PEF by estimating the failure of ignition sources upon a probable seismic event. The underlying concept in developing the method is that (1) ignition sources in residential buildings remain unchanged before and after an earthquake, and (2) the total probability of PEF occurrence can be estimated by adjusting the probabilistic fire occurrence data for normal conditions (everyday operation of ignition sources) to account for the effect of the earthquake. This paper’s contribution to state of the art is in developing a new framework for estimating the probability of PEF for areas in which historical PEF data is unavailable. The developed framework uses the likelihood of ignition occurrence during normal condition as a baseline; this baseline is then adjusted using certain key parameters to capture spatial characteristics, ignitability, and potential seismic intensity of the study area to estimate the probability of PEF as a function of projected earthquake characteristics. The model was tested for St. Louis City as a populated area with potential future earthquake hazard because of its proximity to the New Madrid Fault zone. Using the National Fire Incident Reporting System dataset, the frequency of normal condition ignitions was determined as 1.97E−03 ignition per unit per year. Using the proposed PEF model considering PEFs caused by damage to drift and acceleration sensitive equipment and human actions, the projected frequency of PEF was estimated between 2.79E−06 and 2.81E−06 ignitions per household per year. Using this model, and the average number of households between 2010 to 2015, 175,854 households, it was estimated that in the next 50 years, approximately 25 households would experience fires related to probable earthquake events in St. Louis City.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/xls/statistics/residential_nonresidential_fire_loss_estimates.xlsx.

  2. NFIRS Pubic Data Release files (1980–2013).

References

  1. Anderson D (2014) Statistical models of post-earthquake ignitions based on data from the Tohoku, Japan earthquake and tsunami. University of Delaware

    Google Scholar 

  2. Trifunac M, Todorovska M (1997) Northridge, California, earthquake of 1994: density of red-tagged buildings versus peak horizontal velocity and intensity of shaking. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 16(3):209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kobayashi M (1985) Urban post-earthquake fires in Japan. In: Proceedings, US-Japan workshop on urban earthquake hazards reduction, pp 85–83

  4. Scawthorn C, O’Rourke T, Blackburn F (2006) The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire—Enduring lessons for fire protection and water supply. Earthq Spectra 22:135–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mohammadi J, Alyasin S, Bak D (1992) Investigation of cause and effects of fires following the Loma Prieta earthquake. Illinois Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Armour College of Engineering, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mousavi S, Bagchi A, Kodur VK (2008) Review of post-earthquake fire hazard to building structures. Can J Civ Eng 35 (7):689–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wellington Lifelines Group (2002) Fire Following Earthquake: Identifying Key Issues for New Zealand, Report on a Project Undertaken for the New Zealand Fire Service Contestable Research Fund. Wellington Lifelines Group, Wellington, New Zealand

  8. Baker GB, Collier PC, Abu AK, Houston B (2012) Post-earthquake structural design for fire-a New Zealand perspective. In: Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Structures in Fire, Zurich, Switzerland.

  9. Lee SW, Davidson RA (2010) Physics-based simulation model of post-earthquake fire spread. J Earthq Eng 14 (5):670–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Himoto K, Yamada M, Nishino T (2014) Analysis of ignitions following 2011 Tohoku earthquake using Kawasumi model. Fire Saf Sci 11:704–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khorasani NE, Gernay T, Garlock M (2017) Data-driven probabilistic post-earthquake fire ignition model for a community. Fire Saf J 94:33–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zolfaghari M, Peyghaleh E, Nasirzadeh G (2009) Fire following earthquake, intra-structure ignition modeling. J Fire Sci 27 (1):45–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelly EJ, Tell RN Modeling the number of ignitions following an earthquake: Developing prediction limits for overdispersed count data. In: Energy Department Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Workshop, Maryland, Tech. Rep. LA-UR-11-01857, 2011.

  14. Davidson R (2009) Generalized linear (mixed) models of postearthquake fire ignitions. MCEER Tech Rep 09:4

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li S, Davidson R (2013) Application of an urban fire simulation model. Earthq Spectra 29(4):1369–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee SW, Davidson RA (2010) Application of a physics-based simulation model to examine post-earthquake fire spread. J Earthq Eng 14(5):688–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li S, Davidson RA (2013) Parametric study of urban fire spread using an urban fire simulation model with fire department suppression. Fire Saf J 61:217–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farshadmanesh P, Mohammadi J, Modares M (2016) Further Development in Predicting Post-Earthquake Fire Ignition Hazard. W Acad Sci, Eng Technol, Int J Civil, Environ, Struct, Constr Archit Eng 10(6):681–685

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yildiz SS, Karaman H (2012) Developing a physics-based model for post-earthquake ignition. In: Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference Vancouver, Canada

  20. Gao C, Liu J (2017) Network-based modeling for characterizing human collective behaviors during extreme events. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern: Syst 47(1):171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernardini G, D’Orazio M, Quagliarini E (2016) Towards a “behavioural design” approach for seismic risk reduction strategies of buildings and their environment. Saf Sci 86:273–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jeong J-J, Park K-W, Mizuno M, Ohmiya Y, Ikeda K (2017) Analysis of combustion expansion and heat release rate during combustion of mattress installed at different heights. In: Fire Science and Technology 2015. Springer, pp 409–418

  23. Farshadmanesh P (2017) New directions in post-earthquake fire hazard analysis with applications to Midwestern United States. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mohammadi J, Alaysin S, Bak D (1992) Analysis of post-earthquake fire hazard. In: Proc. 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, pp 5983–5988

  25. Lee S, Davidson R, Ohnishi N, Scawthorn C (2008) Fire following earthquake—reviewing the state-of-the-art of modeling. Earthq Spectra 24(4):933–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scawthorn C (2009) Enhancements in HAZUS-MH, Fire following earthquake task 3: updated ignition equation. PBS&J and the National Institute of Building Sciences

  27. Yildiz S, Karaman H (2013) Post-earthquake ignition vulnerability assessment of Küçükçekmece District. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(12):3357–3368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Williamson RB, Groner R (2000) Ignition of fires following earthquakes associated with natural gas and electric distribution systems. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California

  29. Ren A, Xie X (2004) The simulation of post-earthquake fire-prone area based on GIS. J Fire Sci 22(5):421–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Elhami Khorasani N, Gernay T, Garlock M (2015) Tools for measuring a City’s resilience in a fire following earthquake scenario. In: Proceedings of IABSE conference-structural engineering: providing solutions to global challenges, pp 886–889

  31. Lu X, Zeng X, Xu Z, Guan H (2017) Physics-based simulation and high-fidelity visualization of fire following earthquake considering building seismic damage. J Earthq Eng 1–21

  32. Environmental Systems Research Institute (2011) ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.1 for Desktop. CA, Redlands

  33. U.S. Geological Survey (2016) USGS ShakeMap Archives. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/. Accessed Aug 2016

  34. NHGIS (2011) National Historical Geographic Information System, MN, Minneapolis. https://www.nhgis.org/. Accessed Aug 2016

  35. U.S. Fire Administration-National Fire Data Center (2015) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). https://www.nfirs.fema.gov/. Accessed Jan 2016

  36. Sandberg M (2004) Statistical determination of ignition frequency. Lund Institute of Technology

  37. Johansen P (1979) Early models describing the fire insurance risk. ASTIN Bull J IAA 10(3):330–334

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Tillander K (2004) Utilisation of statistics to assess fire risks in buildings. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,

  39. Ramachandran G (1980) Statistical methods in risk evaluation. Fire Saf J 2(2):125–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cousins W, Smith W (2004) Estimated losses due to post-earthquake fire in three New Zealand cities. In: Proceedings, New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference

  41. Zhao S, Xiong L, Ren A (2006) A spatial–temporal stochastic simulation of fire outbreaks following earthquake based on GIS. J Fire Sci 24(4):313–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. USGS (2018) Earthquake Facts and Statistics United States Geological Survey. Accessed Retrieved August 14, 2018

  43. Ohta Y, Omote S (1977) An investigation into human psychology and behavior during an earthquake. In: Proc. 6th World Conf. Earthq. Engr, pp 347–352

  44. Goltz JD, Bourque LB (2017) Earthquakes and human behavior: a sociological perspective. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 21:251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. HAZUS99 User’s Manual: Earthquake loss estimation methodology (1999). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

  46. Reinoso E, Jaimes MA, Esteva L (2010) Seismic vulnerability of an inventory of overturning objects. J Earthq Eng 14(7):1008–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Guidelines for earthquake bracing of residential water heater (2004). Department of general services division of the state architect

  48. Survey Reveals Inadequate Water Heater Seismic Bracing (n.d.). The Golden Gate Chapter, American Society of Home Inspectors, Inc. http://jmcinspections.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Water-Heater-Seismic-Braces.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016

  49. Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (1997) 1997 RECS Survey Data Independent Statistics & Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration

  50. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute(SEI) 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for building and other structures

  51. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. In: 2006. ASME

  52. Lasdon LS, Fox RL, Ratner MW (1974) Nonlinear optimization using the generalized reduced gradient method. Revue française d’automatique, informatique, recherche opérationnelle Recherche opérationnelle 8(V3):73–103

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. U.S. Geological Survey (2014) Introduction to the National Seismic Hazard Maps. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/learn/. Accessed Feb 2017

  54. Fire Departments by County Missouri Association of Fire Chiefs. http://www.mochiefs.org/Documents/2010%20Fire%20Departments%20by%20county.pdf. Accessed Feb 2017

  55. United States Census Bureau ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. Accessed Aug 2016

  56. United States Geological Survey Hazard Curve Application. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/hazardtool/application.php. Accessed Aug 2016

  57. UBC Code (1997) Uniform building code. In International Conference of Building Officials. Whittier, CA

  58. Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (2009) RECS Survey Data

  59. Österbring M, Mata É, Thuvander L, Mangold M, Johnsson F, Wallbaum H (2016) A differentiated description of building-stocks for a georeferenced urban bottom-up building-stock model. Energy Build 120:78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spielman SE, Singleton A (2015) Studying neighborhoods using uncertain data from the American community survey: a contextual approach. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 105(5):1003–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The assistance provided by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) staff, specifically Ms. Kathleen Carter, for sharing NFIRS Public Data Release Files, which formed the basis for this research, is greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    Pegah Farshadmanesh

  2. Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jamshid Mohammadi

Authors
  1. Pegah Farshadmanesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jamshid Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pegah Farshadmanesh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farshadmanesh, P., Mohammadi, J. A Probabilistic Methodology for Assessing Post-Earthquake Fire Ignition Vulnerability in Residential Buildings. Fire Technol 55, 1295–1318 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0811-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0811-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation