sustainability
Article
Bridge Fire Vulnerability Hierarchy Assessment Based on the
Weighted Topsis Method
Qingfu Li, Hao Guo *, Jianpeng Zhou
Citation: Li, Q.; Guo, H.; Zhou, J.;
Wang, M. Bridge Fire Vulnerability
Hierarchy Assessment Based on the
Weighted Topsis Method.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142114174
Academic Editor: Kai Wei
Received: 19 September 2022
Accepted: 24 October 2022
Published: 30 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114174
and Mengyuan Wang
School of Water Conservancy Science and Engneering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
* Correspondence: ghfw@gs.zzu.edu.cn
Abstract: With the increasing traffic volume and gradually higher percentage of hazardous goods
transport vehicles, bridge fire accidents are more frequent and the resulting losses are striking.
Therefore, the assessment of fire risk in bridges has important implications. In this paper, we identify
and establish a bridge fire vulnerability indicator system based on vulnerability theory from three
aspects: the susceptibility to fire, its resistance to reversal, and its exposure during a fire. On the basis
of grading fire vulnerability and making a description of the status of each grade, the corresponding
index values of each grade were established by the method of assigning values to the qualitative
indexes, and then the empowering TOPSIS method was applied to calculate the relative closeness of
each indicator to the ideal status, so as to establish a bridge fire vulnerability grade evaluation model.
Finally, using a bridge as an example, it was verified that the assessment method was reasonably
feasible by calculating the relative proximity of the bridge to the ideal condition, resulting in a fire
vulnerability grade of I for the bridge, which corresponded to its fire history.
Keywords: bridge fires; vulnerability theory; entropy weight method; TOPSIS; risk assessment
1. Introduction
With the growth in car ownership and the rapid development of the logistics industry,
the number of vehicles for transporting hazardous chemicals has gradually increased,
and the number of large-scale fires on bridges, tunnels, and underground passages has
increased. Fire will directly affect the mechanical properties and durability of bridges,
greatly increasing the probability of danger. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a risk
level model and an effective response plan to minimize the socio-economic losses caused
by bridge fires.
Scholars at home and abroad have conducted relevant research into the damage status
and safety assessment of bridges after fire. The research found that the degree of fire impact
on bridges is mainly related to the height of the fire source from the bottom of the beam.
Ju Xiaochen [1] used the large eddy simulation method in FDS to establish the numerical
models of three fire scenarios: bridge deck train fire, open bridge fire, and semi-open
bridge fire. The fire heating curve, through the analysis, concluded that the fire safety
height under the bridge, that is, the bridge bottom height, is greater than two times the
flame height, thus the bridge structure is relatively safe. Liu Xuzheng [2] analyzed the
variation law of the temperature at the center measuring point of the beam bottom and
the temperature field radius of the beam bottom with the height (H) of the beam bottom
from the combustion object and the fire source area (S) by establishing the FDS model of
the bridge under fire. The different characteristics of the damage state in the interval divide
the affected temperature interval at the bottom of the beam and a set of safety assessment
procedures for concrete bridges after a fire is established accordingly. Through the analysis
of fire cases, Chang J [3] believes that the most serious cause of fire is the transportation of
dangerous goods and the most unfavorable position is under the bridge. Through the three-
step risk assessment procedure of PRA, SRA, and DRA, the fire risk of bridges is assessed
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 2 of 11

to further identify the locations of high-risk bridges, so as to formulate corresponding

countermeasures. Hojune Ann [4] determined the damage degree of the bridge surface
based on FDS technology, established the risk level, established the risk level model on this
basis, and determined the risk level of the actual bridge through GIS, so as to formulate
the corresponding plan. For cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges, the cables and
beams share the load. When the temperature exceeds 500 ◦ C, the strength of the cables
will drop to less than 50% of the original strength. Therefore, when a bridge fire occurs,
the safety of the cables is more important. Moon Ok Kim [5] proposed a fire risk analysis
method for suspension bridges, including quantitative analysis of the installation of fire
hydrants on suspension bridges and qualitative analysis of standpipe systems, to ensure
that sufficient fire-extinguishing facilities are installed on the bridges.
Most of the existing research is on the assessment of the structural damage status
of bridges after fire. How to assess and predict the fire risk of bridges in service and
classify the risk levels to achieve the purpose of prevention needs further research. Zhang
Xiaodong [6] integrated the probability of vehicle fire and the transcendence probability of
bridges with different damages in the disaster domain and calculated the risk probability
of bridge fire using a numerical method. This method can effectively evaluate the fire
resistance of bridges. The purpose of this paper is to combine the vulnerability theory
and bridge fire risk to analyze the factors that lead to bridge fire and use it as an index to
evaluate the vulnerability level of bridge fire, and then use the improved TOPSIS method to
calculate the relative approximation of different levels compared with the ideal state, so as
to establish a set of methods for evaluating the fire vulnerability of bridges. Liu Muyu [7]
used the multistage fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for bridge fire risk evaluation,
and provided evaluation results to guide the fire prevention design of Wuhan Yangtze river
bridge. Wang Xiaocui [8] showed that, according to the influence factors of bridge fire,
the relative connection between bridge fire toughness and ideal state is calculated by the
TOPSIS method on this basis, and a bridge fire toughness evaluation model is established.

2. Bridge Fire Vulnerability Theory

Vulnerability is the probability of adverse changes in the system in the face of disasters.
Unlike resilience, it emphasizes the possibility that the system cannot restore its original
function. The works of [9–11] believe that vulnerability is a collection of exposure, sensitiv-
ity, adaptability, and resilience. In the field of engineering, vulnerability is mostly used in
safety research of buildings and underground engineering. Hou Gongyu [12] calculated
the risk probability under single-factor and multi-factor coupling through the N-K model
and completed the analysis of the vulnerability of the subway construction safety system.
Yang Huiying [13] analyzed the relationship between the vulnerability factors of the pre-
fabricated building construction system through the ISM model and proposed relevant
countermeasures to reduce the vulnerability.
The application of vulnerability theory in bridges mainly focuses on the analysis of
bridge seismic vulnerability. Djemai, M.C. [14] showed that the application of vulner-
ability theory in bridges mainly focuses on the analysis of bridge seismic vulnerability.
Han Xing [15] adopted the method of numerical integration of failure probability and real-
ized the probability assessment of bridge seismic risk through the numerical integration of
the probability density function of seismic acceleration and the probability density function
of bridge structure vulnerability. Vulnerability analysis is like a physical examination of
the system. Only by finding the crux of the problem can we prescribe the right medicine.
Therefore, studying the vulnerability of bridge fires is of great significance to bridge safety
in the context of increasing traffic volume. Giuliani L [16] combined vulnerability theory
with bridge fire for the first time. Li Jie [17] established a bridge fire vulnerability evalua-
tion model using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. According to the study of
relevant literature, this paper defines the bridge fire vulnerability as follows: the probability
of the bridge being exposed to fire, the sensitivity of the bridge to fire, and the ability of the
bridge to resist the damage caused by fire. Exposure refers to the time the bridge is exposed
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11

probability of the bridge being exposed to fire, the sensitivity of the bridge to fire, and the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 ability of the bridge to resist the damage caused by fire. Exposure refers to the time3 of the
11
probability of the bridge being exposed to fire, the sensitivity of the bridge to fire, and the
bridge is exposed to fire and the range affected by the fire; sensitivity refers to the degree
ability of the bridge to resist the damage caused by fire. Exposure refers to the time the
of response of the bridge when it suffers from fire; and art degrees refers to the fire re-
bridge is exposed to fire and the range affected by the fire; sensitivity refers to the degree
sistance of athe
to response
fire and bridge. The mechanism of action of the three to
is shown in Figure 1.
of of range affected
the bridge whenby it
the fire;
suffers sensitivity
from fire;refers
and art the degree
degrees of response
refers of the
to the fire re-
bridge when it suffers from fire; and art degrees refers to the fire resistance
sistance of a bridge. The mechanism of action of the three is shown in Figure 1. of a bridge.
The mechanism of action of the three is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Mechanisms of action of bridge fire vulnerability.

Figure 1. Mechanisms of action of bridge fire vulnerability.
Figure 1. Mechanisms of action of bridge fire vulnerability.
3. Bridge Fire Vulnerability Assessment Model
3. Bridge Fire Vulnerability Assessment Model
3.1.
3. BridgeFire
Bridge Fire Vulnerability Index System Model
3.1. Bridge FireVulnerability
Vulnerability IndexAssessment
System
According
3.1. Bridge Fire to the definitions
Vulnerability Index of sensitivity, exposure, and stress resistance, combined
System
According to the definitions of sensitivity, exposure, and stress resistance, combined
with the bridge itself and the surrounding environment and other factors, the bridge fire
withAccording
the bridge to itself
the and the surrounding
definitions environment
of sensitivity, exposure,and andother
stressfactors, the bridge
resistance, combined fire
vulnerability index system is constructed as shown in Figure 2. According to the relevant
vulnerability
with the bridge index
itselfsystem
and the is surrounding
constructed asenvironment
shown in Figure 2. According
and other to the
factors, the relevant
bridge fire
literature
literature [18], each
[18],index three-level
each system
three-level index
index isis divided
divided into
intoinfour
four levels;
levels; II level
level corresponds
corresponds to
to the
the
vulnerability is constructed as shown Figure 2. According to the relevant
safest bridge
safest bridge and then the vulnerability of each level increases in turn, with a correspond-
literature [18],and
eachthen the vulnerability
three-level index is of each level
divided intoincreases
four levels; in turn,
I level with a corresponding
corresponds to the
ing
fuzzyfuzzy description
description for each
for each level.
level. As shown
As shown in Table
in Table 1, the
1, for for the conveniencecalculation,
convenience of calcula-
safest bridge and then the vulnerability of each level increases in turn, with aofcorrespond-
tion, for quantitative
for quantitative indicators
indicators with
withlevel. specific
specific value intervals, the left endpoint of each in-
ing fuzzy description for each As value
shown intervals,
in Tablethe leftthe
1, for endpoint of eachofinterval
convenience calcula- is
terval
used.foris used. For
Forquantitative the
the qualitative qualitative
indicators, indicators, the method of assignment is adopted and the
tion, indicators withthe method
specific of assignment
value intervals, the is adopted and the
left endpoint valuein-
of each of
value
1~4 is of 1∼4 is assigned
assigned correspondingcorresponding
to the to the
grades grades
I~IV, so asI∼IV, so asthe
to obtain to obtain
values the
of thevalues of the
three-level
terval is used. For the qualitative indicators, the method of assignment is adopted and the
three-level
indicators indicators corresponding
corresponding to each grade, to each grade,inasTable
shown in Table 2.
value of 1∼4 is assigned corresponding toasthe
shown
grades I∼IV, so 2. as to obtain the values of the
three-level indicators corresponding to each grade, as shown in Table 2.

Figure 2.
Figure Bridge fire
2. Bridge fire vulnerability
vulnerability indicator
indicator system.
system.

Figure 2. Bridge fire vulnerability indicator system.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 4 of 11

Table 1. Grading and description of indicators of vulnerability to fire in bridges.

First-Level Indicator Secondary Indicators I II III IV

Bridge structure type I1 arch bridge beam bridge cable-stayed bridge suspension bridge
pre-stressed
reinforced concrete steel/concrete steel/wooden
Bridge material type I2 reinforced concrete
bridge composite bridge bridge
Sensitivity bridge
The length of the bridge in
<15 15~30 30~50 >50
service (years) I3
Bridge fire history and
frequent fires more fires fewer fires No fire history
perception I4
Bridge location I5 mountains rural suburbs urban area
Average number of vehicles
<1000 1000~5000 5000~10,000 >10,000
Exposure per day (vehicle/d) I6
Bridge porous span total
8~30 30~100 100~1000 >1000
length (m) I7
Ease of repair I8 simpler general difficulty difficult extremely difficult
Rescue time (min)I9 <15 min 15~25 25~35 >35
Art degrees
Impact on the surrounding partial loss of severe loss of
basically no impact less affected
environment I10 function function

Table 2. Index level values.

Index Level I1 I2 I3 (year) I4 I5 I6 (Vehicle/d) I7 (m) I8 I9 (min) I10

Level 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8 1 0 1
Level 2 2 2 15 2 2 1000 30 2 15 2
Level 3 3 3 30 3 3 5000 100 3 25 3
Level 4 4 4 50 4 4 10,000 1000 4 35 4
Note: For the convenience of calculation, I1 , I2 , I4 , I5 , I8 , and I10 are assigned values and 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond
to grades I, II, III, and IV, respectively.

3.2. Bridge Fire Vulnerability Rating Assessment

Multi-attribute decision making (MCDM) refers to the use of existing decision infor-
mation to rank or select the best of a limited number of alternatives. MCDM is a commonly
used evaluation method for objects with multiple influencing factors, which can take
into account the exclusivity among alternatives and the uncertainty of indicators. Mehdi
Keshavarz Ghorabaee [19] improved the fuzziness of the SWARA method and CRITIC
method to determine the subjective and objective weights and, combined with the fuzzy
EDAS method, proposed a new comprehensive MCDM method to evaluate the harmful
impact of construction equipment on the environment. Manman Lu [20] combined the
optimal-worst method with IC management, ranked the KPIs by calculating the weight of
IC performance, and established the IC measurement system. Ratapol Wudhikarn [21] uses
the AHP method to rank the knowledge that enterprises need students to master, so as to
efficiently teach relevant knowledge to meet the needs of enterprises.
In the traditional analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the process of constructing the
index relation matrix mostly adopts the method of expert investigation, which leads to
the calculation result being too subjective and greatly reducing the credibility of the result.
The entropy method calculates the weight of each index using objective data and the
calculation result is relatively rational. Therefore, the linear combination of the subjective
weight calculated by AHP and the objective weight obtained by the entropy method can not
only take into account the experience of senior experts, but also avoid excessive influence
of subjective factors.
In this paper, the comprehensive weighted TOPSIS method is proposed to evaluate
the fire vulnerability of bridges. The TOPSIS method is the approximation to the ideal
solution method, which is a method to measure the pros and cons of the evaluated object
by calculating the Euclidean distance between the target and the ideal state. The closer
it is to the ideal state, the better the evaluated object. It can make full use of the original
data information and the results are objective and accurate. The calculation process is
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 5 of 11

relatively simple, does not need to introduce additional functions and variables, and the
programming language is easy to implement. The method is designed as a program for
engineering projects, which can make the evaluation work more conveniently and has the
advantages of economy and efficiency. However, as the influence degree of each index on
the result may not be the same, this paper adopts the weighted TOPSIS method to calculate
the weight of each index through the AHP and entropy weight method, and then calculates
the relative proximity degree. In this way, the importance of each index to bridge fire
vulnerability can be considered and the results are more reliable.

3.2.1. Calculation of Subjective Weights by AHP

(1) To establish the judgment matrix
This article adopts the method of expert scoring, according to the 1–9 scaling method,
inviting industry experts on the fire vulnerability index of the bridge between the relative
important degree scores, forming the judgment matrix.
 
a11 a12 ... a1m
 a21 a22 ··· a2m 
A= . (1)
 
.. .. .. 
 .. . . . 
am1 am2 · · · amm

where aij is the importance of index i relative to index j, which is assigned according to the
1–9 scale.
(2) Normalized judgment matrix
To normalize the elements in the judgment matrix:

ωij0
ωi = ∑m 0 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , m
j=1 ωij (2)
ωij0 = aij/ ∑m aij , j
i =1 = 1, 2, 3, . . . , m

(3) Consistency check

In the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the judgment matrix is obtained according to
the scores of different experts, and it is likely that the relationship between the importance
of the same index is not consistent. Therefore, the consistency test of the judgment matrix
is required and the formula is as follows:

λmax − n
CI = (3)
n−1
CI
CR = (4)
RI
where λmax is the largest characteristic root of the judgment matrix; RI is the consistency
index, which can be obtained by looking up the table according to the order of the judgment
matrix. If CR > 0.1, the judgment matrix is not a consistency matrix and needs to be
reconstructed.

3.2.2. The Entropy Weight Method to Calculate the Index Objective Weights
The entropy weighting method is used to judge the discrete degree of the index by
calculating the entropy value of the index. The larger the entropy value, the greater the
discrete degree of the index and the greater the corresponding weight. It is an objective
weighting method. The calculation steps are as follows:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 6 of 11

(1) There are m evaluation indicators and n objects to be evaluated, thus constructing
an initial judgment matrix X:
 
x11 x12 ... x1m
 x21 x22 ··· x2m 
X = . (5)
 
.. .. .. 
 .. . . . 
xn1 xn2 · · · xnm

where xij represents the value corresponding to the jth index of the ith evaluation object.
(2) Determine positive and negative indicators. A positive index means that, the larger
the index value, the more favorable it is to treat the evaluation object, and vice versa if it is
a negative index. If it is a negative indicator, it will be converted into a positive indicator
through the formula. The conversion formula is as follows:

xˆ = xj,max − xij (i = 1, 2 . . . . . . , n) (6)

where xˆ represents the converted value and xj,max represents the maximum value of the jth
column.
(3) The initial judgment matrix X is normalized to obtain the judgment matrix A:


xij − min x1j , x2j , . . . , x3j
xeij =

(7)
max x1j , x2j , . . . , x3j − min x1j , x2j , . . . , x3j


where xeij is the element value in the normalized judgment matrix A, min x1j , x2j , . . . , xnj
is the minimum value
of the element in the jth column of the initial judgment matrix,
and max x1j , x2j , . . . , xnj is the maximum value of elements in column j.
(4) To calculate the specific gravity, the formula is as follows:

xeij
Pij = n (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (8)
∑i=1 xeij

(5) Calculate the entropy value and information entropy redundancy:

n
ej = −k ∑i=1 Pij ln Pij (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (9)

d j = 1 − ej (10)

where ej is the entropy value of the jth index, k = ln(1n) , and if Pij is 0, then let Pij ln Pij be 0;
dj is the information entropy redundancy of jth indicator.
(6) Calculate the indicator weights:

dj
ωj = n (11)
∑ j=1 d j

3.2.3. Comprehensive Weight Calculation

It can be reduced by linear combination of subjective weight calculated by analytic
hierarchy process and objective weight calculated by entropy method. The formula for the
influence of subjective factors on the results is as follows:

W = βW1 + (1 − β)W2 (12)

where β is the subjective influence coefficient, which is taken as 0.5 in this paper.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 7 of 11

3.2.4. TOPSIS Method Calculation Steps

(1) Standardize the initial judgment matrix to get the judgment matrix Z. The normal-
ization formula is as follows:
xij
Zij = q (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (13)
∑in=1 xij2

(2) Determine the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution; the positive
ideal solution refers to the most ideal state of the evaluation object and the negative ideal
solution refers to the most unfavorable state of the evaluation object.

Z + = Z1+ , Z2+ , . . . , Zm
+
  
= max Zij ( j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (14)

Z − = Z1− , Z2− , . . . , Zm
−
  
= min Zij (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (15)

 max Zij is the maximum value of the jth column in the judgment
In the formula,
matrix Z and min Zij is the minimum value of the jth column.
(3) Calculate the distance to the positive and negative ideal solutions.
v
un  2 
Di+ = t ∑ ωj Zj+ − Zij
u
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) (16)
j=1

v
un  2 
Di− = t ∑ ωj Zj− − Zij
u
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) (17)
j=1

(2) Calculate the relative proximity; the greater the relative proximity, the closer to the
positive ideal solution.
D−
Si = − i + (18)
Di + Di

3.2.5. Build a Rating Model

Establish an initial judgment matrix X according to the index level values in Table 2.
 
1 1 1 1 0 0 8 1 0 1
2 2 15
2 2 1000 30 2 15 2
X=
3

3 30
3 3 5000 100 3 25 3
4 4 50
4 4 10000 1000 4 35 4
 
  1 1/2 3 2
1 1/2 2  2 1 4 2
A1 =  2 1 2 A2 = 1/3 1/4

1 2
1/2 1/2 1
1/2 1/2 1/2 1
   
1 1/3 1/2 1 1/2 2
A3 = 3 1 2  A4 =  2 1 3
2 1/2 1 1/2 1/3 1

The weight of the indicator I1 ∼ I10 is calculated by Formulas (2)~(7) and the results
are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Weight of each indicator.

Index I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10
ω 0.0953 0.1256 0.0705 0.0719 0.0915 0.1777 0.1126 0.0802 0.1077 0.0672
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 8 of 11

After the weight of each indicator is obtained, the relative proximity of the four levels
can be calculated by Formulas (8)~(13). The closer the relative proximity is to 1, the better
the result. Si results are shown in Table 4. According to the calculated relative proximity of
each grade, the bridge vulnerability grade standard can be established; it can be seen in
Table 5.

Table 4. Relative proximity of bridge fire vulnerability ratings.

Bridge Vulnerability Rating Di+ Di− Si

I 0 0.7666 1
II 0.2382 0.5535 0.6991
III 0.4777 0.3255 0.4053
IV 0.7666 0 0

Table 5. Bridge frailty rating criteria.

Bridge Fire Vulnerability Rating Si

I Si = 1
II 0.6991 ≤ Si < 1
III 0.4053 ≤ Si < 0.6991
IV 0 ≤ Si < 0.4053

4. Case Analysis
A bridge with a total length of 1293 m adopts a two-way, six-lane design with a design
speed of 100 km/h. It was completed and opened to traffic in 1998. The bridge structure is
a prestressed reinforced concrete box-type continuous beam. With an average daily traffic
flow of more than 10,000 vehicles, there is a high possibility of collisions. There was a
bridge fire accident caused by the explosion of an oil tanker, so the bridge has little fire
history, the database for fire risks is not perfect, and the perception of fire is low. It can be
seen from Table 1 that the fire sensitivity and exposure of the bridge are relatively high.
Therefore, taking this bridge as an example, the fire vulnerability assessment of the bridge
is carried out.

4.1. The Value of the Bridge Fire Vulnerability Index

The bridge to be assessed is recorded as Y1 and the values of each fire vulnerability
index can be obtained according to Table 1 and the relevant data of the bridge, as shown
in Table 6. In this evaluation model, vulnerability level I is regarded as the most ideal
solution and level IV is the worst solution. Therefore, the evaluation model is used to
analyze engineering cases; that is, after determining the values of each index of a specific
project, the relationship between the index value sequence of the project and the most ideal
solution and the worst solution is calculated by Formulas (11) and (12). The Euclidean
distance is shown in Figure 3 and the relative proximity is further calculated by formula (13),
as shown in Table 7, and then compared with the grade standard in Table 5 to determine
the vulnerability grade of the project.

Table 6. Vulnerability indicator values of Y1 .

Object I1 I2 I3 (year) I4 I5 I6 (vehicle/d) I7 (m) I8 I9 (min) I10

Y1 2 2 24 3 4 10,000 1000 3 30 3

Table 7. Results of relative proximity calculations of Y1 .

Evaluation Object D+i Di− Si

Y1 0.6492 0.4251 0.3957
Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 14,14,
2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW
14174 9 of9 11
of 11

Figure
Figure 3. Euclidean
3. Euclidean distance
distance of1,YI,1 ,and
of Y I, and
IV.IV.

Table 7.Comparing the calculated

Results of relative relative proximity
proximity calculations of Y1. results of Y1 with the rating criteria
in Table 5, the bridge has a vulnerability rating of IV. Because the overall length of the
Evaluation Objectthe traffic flow
bridge is longer, 𝑫𝐢 is larger, the rescue 𝑫𝐢 response time is longer, 𝑺𝐢 and the
Y 0.6492 0.4251
service time is long, thus it is more at risk to fire. From the fire history of the bridge,
1 0.3957
it can be seen that the bridge has experienced fires, so the assessment results are more
Comparing
credible. the calculated
Therefore, the bridgerelative proximitygrade
fire vulnerability results of Y1 with
assessment the rating
based on the criteria
empowered in
Table 5, themethod
TOPSIS bridge has is a amore
vulnerability
convenient rating
and of IV. Because
feasible the overall
assessment methodlength of the bridge
for bridge fire risk.
is longer, the traffic flow
The comparisons is larger,
in [4,5] using thethe fuzzy
rescuecomprehensive
response time is longer, and
evaluation the service
method do not time
need
to find
is long, theitright
thus transferred
is more at risk tomembership
fire. From the function, as well
fire history as to
of the prevent
bridge, human
it can subjective
be seen that
thejudgment
bridge has in experienced
the process of looking
fires, so thefor membership
assessment function,
results are more making the results
credible. Therefore,more
theobjective
bridge fire andvulnerability
reliable. In addition, we do notbased
grade assessment need on to calculate the multistage
the empowered TOPSISevaluation
method
is aresult, making theand
more convenient evaluation process more
feasible assessment simple
method forand
bridgemore
firesuitable
risk. Thefor engineering
comparisons
in application
[4,5] using the programming.
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method do not need to find the right
transferred membership function, as well as to prevent human subjective judgment in the
4.2. Measures
process of looking to Improve Bridge Firefunction,
for membership Vulnerability
making the results more objective and relia-
(1) In terms
ble. In addition, weofdosensitivity: Minimizethe
not need to calculate
1 themultistage
use of flammable
evaluation andresult,
explosive
makingmaterials
the
in bridgeprocess
evaluation structures moreandsimple
pay attention
and more to the research
suitable for and development
engineering and popularization
application program-
of new materials such as refractory materials. 2 With the increase in bridge service
ming.
time, vigilance against bridge fires should also be improved. Commissioners should be
4.2.regularly
Measuresarranged
to Improve to Bridge
investigate the hidden dangers of bridge fires and timely formulate
Fire Vulnerability
adjustment measures. 3 For bridges that have experienced fires, a special database should
(1) In terms of sensitivity: ① Minimize the use of flammable and explosive materials
be established to record in detail the time of each fire, the cause of the fire, the loss caused
in bridge structures and pay attention to the research and development and populariza-
by the fire, and its recovery. It is convenient to carry out bridge fire risk assessment and
tion of new materials such as refractory materials. ② With the increase in bridge service
provide a basis for maintenance work.
time, vigilance against bridge fires should also be improved. Commissioners should be
(2) In terms of exposure: 1 For areas with high traffic flow, a policy of vehicle
regularly arranged to investigate the hidden dangers of bridge fires and timely formulate
restriction can be adopted to reduce the average number of vehicles per day. At the same
adjustment measures. ③ For bridges that have experienced fires, a special database
time, the time when hazardous chemicals transport vehicles can drive on the bridge should
should be established to record in detail the time of each fire, the cause of the fire, the loss
be staggered from the peak hours of traffic flow on the bridge, and strict screening of
caused by the fire, and its recovery. It is convenient to carry out bridge fire risk assessment
hazardous chemicals transport vehicles on the bridge should be carried out to exclude
and provide a basis for maintenance work.
potential explosion risks. 2 On the premise of meeting the safety requirements and
(2) In terms
practical of exposure:
requirements, ① Forspan
the bridge areas with high
should traffic flow,
be shortened a policy
as much of vehicle
as possible re-
through
striction can be adopted
route selection to reduce to the
reduce the average
exposure scope ofnumber
the bridgeof vehicles per day. At the same
in the fire.
time, the (3) In terms of art degrees: 1 A fire-resistant coating should bedrive
time when hazardous chemicals transport vehicles can on on
installed thethebridge
bridge
should be staggered from the peak hours of traffic flow on the bridge,
to reduce the impact of fire on the structure. 2 Real-time fire monitoring and alarm devices and strict screening
of should
hazardous chemicals
be installed andtransport
adequate vehicles on thefacilities
firefighting bridge should
should be be carried
installed,outsotoasexclude
to detect
potential explosion risks. ② On the premise of meeting the
and control the further spread of the fire in time and minimize the loss of land caused safety requirements andby
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 10 of 11

the fire. 3 The time required for fire rescue should be considered when selecting the bridge
site and the detour distance of the bridge should be shortened. At the same time, the fire
rescue emergency response mechanism should be improved. 4 Irreversible components in
the ecological environment around the bridge should be reduced and the impact of fire on
the entire bridge system should be minimized.

5. Conclusions
In the first quarter of 2022, a total of 219,000 fires were reported across the coun-
try, a total of 625 people died due to fires, and the direct property loss was as high as
1.52 billion yuan. Countless shocking facts have made people realize how vulnerable hu-
man society is in the face of fire. Fire can have a devastating effect on structural works such
as bridges. If the fire risk can be assessed scientifically and accurately, countermeasures
and aftermath plans can be prepared in advance to minimize the losses caused by the fire.
Through this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The combination of vulnerability theory and bridge fire enriches the bridge fire risk
theory and brings new ideas for risk identification. This paper analyzes the mechanism
of bridge fire vulnerability from three aspects of bridge sensitivity, exposure, and stress
resistance, and constructs bridges with 10 bridge fire disaster factors including bridge
structure type and repair difficulty. This is called a fire vulnerability indicator system.
(2) By consulting the relevant literature, the bridge fire vulnerability is divided into
four grades, the TOPSIS method is used to calculate the relative proximity of the four grades
to the ideal state, and the bridge fire vulnerability grade evaluation standard is established
according to the calculation results. Considering that the TOPSIS method ignores the
different degrees of influence of each index on the evaluation object, the entropy weight
method is combined with the TOPSIS method and the weight of each index is first calculated
by the entropy weight method, which makes the calculation result of the TOPSIS method
more reasonable.
(3) Taking a bridge as an example, according to the actual data of the bridge, the relative
proximity to the ideal state is calculated and compared with the grade evaluation standard
obtained above; it is concluded that the bridge fire vulnerability grade of the bridge is
grade IV. Combined with the fire history of the bridge, it shows that the method in this
paper is more feasible.
(4) In this paper, the bridge fire vulnerability is divided into four grades. However,
with the analysis of bridge fire accidents and further research into the disaster-causing
factors, the index system needs to be better and the grade standards need to be further
refined to reflect the actual situation, with complexity and comprehensiveness. The index
system of bridge fire vulnerability is established using the Delphi method. Based on
the advice of many senior experts in the industry, the index system was established.
Accordingly, an unavoidable artificial subjective factor of ground interference appeared.
In the process of calculating the relative proximity by the TOPSIS method, the assignment
of qualitative indexes still cannot completely avoid the influence of subjective factors,
so the objectivity of this method is not ideal. In addition, this method can only provide
the vulnerability level of bridge fire of specific engineering projects at present and cannot
identify the direct causes of bridge fire. Therefore, the fire treatment module can also be
added and the disaster-causing factors can be identified and predicted by grey prediction,
least square method, and BP neural network, and the corresponding specific prevention
measures can be provided to guide the bridge fire prevention work.

Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, H.G.; Writing—review & editing, Q.L., J.Z. and M.W.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14174 11 of 11

References
1. Ju, X.; Liu, X.; Zhao, X. Research on Fire Scene of Railway Bridge Based on Large Eddy Simulation Method. Bridge Constr. 2019,
49, 78–83.
2. Liu, X.; Li, R.; Yu, C.; Guo, H. Preliminary Assessment Method for Structural Safety of Concrete Bridges after Fire. J. Guangxi
Univ. 2022, 47, 62–73.
3. Jeoung, C.; Kim, W.S.; Gil, H.B.; Lee, I.K.; Yun, S.H. Bridge Fire Risk Assessment on the Highway in South Korea. Adv. Mater. Res.
2014, 1025, 854–857. [CrossRef]
4. Ann, H.; Choi, Y.; Lee, J.H.; Jang, Y.I.; Kong, J.S. Semiquantitative Fire Risk Grade Model and Response Plans on a National
Highway Bridge. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5154309. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, M.O.; Kim, K.; Yun, J.H.; Kim, M.K. Fire risk assessment of cable bridges for installation of firefighting facilities. Fire Saf. J.
2020, 115, 103146. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, X.; Ma, R.; Chen, A. Probabilistic Assessment Method of Bridge Risk under Vehicle Fire. J. South China Univ. Technol. 2019,
47, 108–118.
7. Liu, M.; Huang, G.; Lu, Z. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for bridge fire risk. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 35, 8–14.
8. Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Tao, G.; Wang, X. Bridge fire toughness Assessment Model based on TOPSIS method. China Saf. Sci. J. 2018,
28, 59–64.
9. Zhang, L.; Duan, X.; Niu, T.; Liu, Y. Research on Safety Management of Tunnel Construction Based on Vulnerability Analysis. J.
Saf. Environ. 2017, 17, 1863–1868.
10. Zhang, X.; Li, T.; Fang, C.; Wang, Z. Comprehensive Measurement of Urban Vulnerability. Geogr. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2016, 32, 89–93.
11. Lukai, C. Research on The Evaluation of Urban Spatial Vulnerability under Typhoon Disasters; Harbin Institute of Technology: Harbin,
China, 2021.
12. Hou, G.; Liu, W.; Li, L.; Ma, X.; Mu, X.; Liu, Y. Vulnerability Analysis of Subway Construction Safety System Coupled with
Multiple Risk Factors. China Civ. Eng. J. 2022, 55, 111–119.
13. Yang, H.; Chen, W.; Gao, Z. Research on the Vulnerability Factors of Prefabricated Building Construction System. J. Qingdao Univ.
Technol. 2021, 42, 35–43.
14. Djemai, M.C.; Bensaibi, M.; Zellat, K. Seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges using analytical hierarchy process. IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 615, 012106. [CrossRef]
15. Han, X.; Cui, S.; Cui, E.; Su, J.; Zhu, B. Bridge Seismic Risk Assessment Based on Failure Probability Method. J. Southwest Jiaotong
Univ. 2018, 53, 696–703.
16. Giuliani, L.; Crosti, C.; Gentili, F. Vulnerability of bridges to fire. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Bridge
Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS), Lake Como, Italy, 8–12 July 2012; pp. 1565–1572.
17. Li, J.; Xu, F. Bridge Fire Vulnerability Evaluation Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method; WTC2021; China Communications
Press Co., Ltd.: Beijing, China, 2021; pp. 1036–1042.
18. Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, X.; Fang, H.; Wang, C. Research on Bridge Fire Risk Assessment System Based on Vulnerability Theory;
China Public Security(Academy Edition): Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 25–30.
19. Ghorabaee, M.K.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of
construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2018, 18, 32–49. [CrossRef]
20. Manman, L.; Wudhikarn, R. Using the Best-Worst Method to Develop Intellectual Capital Indicators in Financial Service Company.
In Proceedings of the 2022 Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section
Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering (ECTI DAMT & NCON), Chiang Rai,
Thailand, 26–28 January 2022; pp. 81–86.
21. Ratapol, W. An approach to enhancing the human capital of enterprises associated with cooperative education. Int. J. Learn.
Intellect. Cap. 2015, 12, 61.