[Objective] Rapid and accurate assessment of dynamic threats to surrounding assets, such as transmission lines, chemical storage tanks and nuclear facilities, during the propagation of forest-grassland wildfires is critical for emergency response and disaster mitigation. Traditional fire risk assessment methods typically rely on static hazard maps or single-time fire-front predictions and therefore fail to adequately account for the continuous spatiotemporal evolution of fire behavior influenced by changing environmental factors (e.g., wind and fuel), leading to cumulative error propagation in dynamic risk prediction. Furthermore, the complex and heterogeneous failure mechanisms of different infrastructure types are seldom incorporated into a unified, dynamically updating risk framework. Therefore, this study aims to develop a novel, integrated risk assessment method capable of continuously updating infrastructure failure probabilities as wildfire intensity and extent evolve. [Methods] The proposed framework synergistically integrates a data-driven wildfire spread prediction model with a dynamic Bayesian network (DBN). The fire-affected landscape and key protected assets were first discretized into interconnected spatial nodes. A DBN structure was then constructed to capture two fundamental dependencies: the temporal autocorrelation of fire conditions at each node (how the state evolves) and the spatial dependencies between adjacent nodes (how fire spreads from one location to another). The core parameters of this DBN were informed by a data-driven fire spread model. Specifically, predictions of key fire behavior metrics, namely, spread rate and fireline intensity, were generated for each node. Then, DBN conditional probabilities were updated over time using the predicted spread rate and the fireline intensity, which were further mapped to asset-specific fragility models to infer evolving failure probabilities. [Results] Using the proposed framework, we built a kilometer-scale synthetic fire scenario using every single protected asset and showed that the 24-h failure probabilities of transmission lines, chemical tanks, and nuclear facilities increased by up to 22%, 68% and 20% across wind-fuel scenarios. In addition, a case study based on observations from the 2022 Oak Fire (California, USA) was conducted using multiple protected assets. The 24-h failure probabilities reached 0.24 for transmission lines, 0.14 for hazardous-chemical tanks, and 0.53 for the nuclear facility. Furthermore, we evaluated a firebreak construction strategy: as the suppression effect on the rate of spread increased, the failure probability could be reduced to as low as 0 for transmission-line nodes and to 0.12 for the nuclear facility, whereas the probability reduction for hazardous-chemical tanks was not significant due to their spatial distribution and structural differences. [Conclusions] This study proposes a novel dynamic wildfire risk assessment framework that integrates data-driven spread prediction with probabilistic graphical modeling. By continuously updating a DBN using fire behavior model outputs, the proposed approach effectively mitigates cumulative prediction errors in a spatiotemporally evolving environment and provides quantitative support for rapid response, emergency resource allocation, and intervention strategy assessment.
Key words
wildfire /
key protected assets /
dynamic Bayesian network /
failure probability /
fire intervention
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] ZHONG M H, FAN W C, LIU T M, et al. Statistical analysis on current status of China forest fire safety [J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2003, 38(3): 257-269.
[2] CHOWDHURY E H, HASSAN Q K. Development of a new daily-scale forest fire danger forecasting system using remote sensing data [J]. Remote Sensing, 2015, 7(3): 2431-2448.
[3] JOHNSTON L M, FLANNIGAN M D. Mapping Canadian wildland fire interface areas [J]. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2018, 27(1): 1-14.
[4] HAJIAN M, MELACHRINOUDIS E, KUBAT P. Modeling wildfire propagation with the stochastic shortest path: A fast simulation approach [J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2016, 82: 73-88.
[5] KHAKZAD N. Modeling wildfire spread in wildland- industrial interfaces using dynamic Bayesian network [J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, 189: 165-176.
[6] SAYARSHAD H R, GHORBANLOO R. Evaluating the resilience of electrical power line outages caused by wildfires [J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2023, 240: 109588.
[7] MANDEL J, BENNETHUM L S, BEEZLEY J D, et al. A wildland fire model with data assimilation [J]. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2008, 79(3): 584-606.
[8] WANG Z, LI X D, ZHA M X, et al. Experimental and numerical study on data-driven prediction for wildfire spread incorporating adaptive observation error adjustment [J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2024, 148: 104230.
[9] WANG Z, ZHA M X, JI J, et al. Dynamic risk assessment of wildfire-induced transmission line breakdown based on data assimilation method [J]. Fire Technology, 2025, 61(5): 3293-3321.
[10] PEARL J. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference [M]. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1988.
[11] KOLLER D, FRIEDMAN N. Probabilistic graphical models: Principles and techniques [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2009.
[12] MURPHY K P. Dynamic Bayesian networks: Representation, inference and learning [D]. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2002.
[13] COZZANI V, GUBINELLI G, ANTONIONI G, et al. The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis [J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, 127(1-3): 14-30.
[14] NAZEMI M, DEHGHANIAN P, DARESTANI Y, et al. Parameterized wildfire fragility functions for overhead power line conductors [J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2024, 39(2): 2517-2527.
[15] 苑静, 卢丹丹, 阮德振, 等. 石化企业承灾体脆弱性评估研究[J]. 南开大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 49(4): 89-96. YUAN J, LU D D, RUAN D Z, et al. Study on vulnerability aassessment of hazard-affected body in petrochemical enterprises [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Nankaiensis, 2016, 49(4): 89-96. (in Chinese)
[16] 王博, 常宁, 吕则恺, 等. 防范森林火灾威胁核安全的思考[J]. 森林防火, 2024, 42(2): 9-13. WANG B, CHANG N, LÜ Z K, et al. Thought on preventing forest fire from threatening nuclear safe [J]. Journal of Wildland Fire Science, 2024, 42(2): 9-13. (in Chinese)
[17] RAUSAND M, BARROS A, HØYLAND A. System reliability theory: Models, statistical methods, and applications [M]. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[18] FONSECA J R, TAN A L, SILVA R P, et al. Effects of agricultural fires on the performance of overhead transmission lines [J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1990, 5(2): 687-694.
[19] 张景忠, 肖非, 廉明起. 林火行为相关参数综合测报仪的研究[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2000, 28(6): 112-115. ZHANG J Z, XIAO F, LIAN M Q. The Comprehensive Measuring Instrument of Parameters Relating to Foreast Fire Behavior [J].Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2000, 28(6): 112-115. (in Chinese)
[20] RIZK F A M. Switching impulse strength of air insulation: Leader inception criterion [J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1989, 4(4): 2187-2195.
[21] RIZK F A M. A model for switching impulse leader inception and breakdown of long air-gaps [J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1989, 4(1): 596-606.
[22] LI X, ZHANG X, WU L, et al. Transmission line overload risk assessment for power systems with wind and load-power generation correlation [J]. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2015, 6(3): 1233-1242.
[23] LIU Y, LI B, WU C P, et al. Risk warning technology for the whole process of overhead transmission line trip caused by wildfire [J]. Natural Hazards, 2021, 107(1): 195-212.
[24] IQBAL N, SALLEY M H. Fire dynamics tools (FDTs): Quantitative fire hazard analysis methods for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission fire protection inspection program [R]. Washington: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2004.
[25] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Section III, rules for construction of nuclear facility components, subsection NCA, general requirements for division 1 and division 2: BPVC-III NCA-2023[S]. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2023.
[26] International Atomic Energy Agency. Design of the reactor containment and associated systems for nuclear power plants: IAEA-SSG-53[S]. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2019.
PDF(6841 KB)
