Submitted:
24 April 2026
Posted:
27 April 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Identification of Fire Hazards Based on the WBS/RBS Method
2.3. Mechanism Analysis and Major Fire Hazards Identification Based on CN Method
- Degree. Degree refers to the number of nodes directly connected to a given node. A higher degree indicates greater involvement in the formation and evolution of a fire, as shown in Equation (1).
- Betweenness Centrality. Betweenness centrality refers to the number of shortest paths that pass through a given node among all shortest paths connecting pairs of nodes in the network. Nodes with high betweenness centrality play a more significant mediating role in the formation and evolution of fires, as shown in Equation (2).
- Closeness Centrality. Closeness centrality is mainly used to describe the reachability of nodes within the network, that is, the average distance from a given node to all other nodes in the network. A node with high closeness centrality can interact with other nodes more quickly and directly, as shown in Equation (3).
2.4. General Framework for Identifying and Classifying Fire Hazards Throughout the Full Lifecycle of Low-Temperature Facilities
3. Results
3.1. Typical Causes of Fires in Low-Temperature Facilities
3.1.1. Illegal Hot Work Operations
3.1.2. Electrical Circuit and Equipment Failures
3.1.3. Flammability of Insulation Materials
3.1.4. Lack of Fire Compartments
3.1.5. Failure of Fire Protection Systems
3.1.6. Inadequate Evacuation Conditions
3.2. Fire risk Characteristics Throughout the Full Lifecycle
3.2.1. Fire Risk Characteristics During the New Construction Stage: Illegal Construction and Inherent Deficiencies in Building Fire Safety
3.2.2. Fire Risk Characteristics During the Expansion and Renovation Stage: The Overlapping Effects of Illegal Renovation Construction and Damage to the Existing Fire Safety Design
3.2.3. Fire Risk Characteristics During the Operation Stage: Inherent Deficiencies in Building Fire Safety Coupled with Electrical Faults and High Fire Loads
3.2.4. Fire Risk Characteristics During the Maintenance Stage: Mutual Influence Between Maintenance and Operations Leads to Amplified Risks
3.2.5. Fire Risk Characteristics During the Demolition Stage: High Building Vulnerability Coexists with Illegal Hot Work
3.3. Criteria for Identifying Fire Hazards: A Case Study of the New Construction Stage of Cold Storage Facilities
3.3.1. System Functional Breakdown for the New Construction Stage of Cold Storage Facilities
- Architectural Planning and Design
- 2.
- On-site construction operations
- 3.
- Temporary fire control facility and fire safety management
3.3.2. Identification of Fire Hazards in Cold Storage Facilities Based on the WBS/RBS Matrix
| Dimensions | Risk of Ignition | Risk of Spread | Risk of Expanded Losses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architectural structures design | N1: Illegal change in building use; N2: Illegal basement cold storage construction | N18: Inadequate structural fire compartment; N19: Excessive fire compartment area; N20: Lack of fire separation for evacuation stairwells; N21: Building fire resistance rating deviates from regulations | N40: Complex internal spatial layout; N41: Insufficient number or width of exits; N42: Evacuation travel distances deviates from regulations; N43: Co-location with high-occupancy areas |
| Refrigeration systems design | N3: Overloaded refrigeration system design | N22: Unsealed pipe penetrations through walls; N23: Inadequate separation between equipment rooms and storage areas | — |
| Electrical systems design | N4: Incorrect electrical circuit selection and load calculations | — | N44: Non-compliant power load for fire protection equipment; N45: No dedicated circuits for fire protection power supply |
| Fire protection systems design | — | N24: Automatic fire alarm system improperly installed; N25: Fire hydrant system or automatic fire suppression system improperly installed; N26: Smoke control and exhaust system improperly installed | N46: Deficiencies in evacuation signage and emergency lighting; N47: No fire truck access route |
| Thermal insulation layers construction | N5: Lack of anti-static measures; N6: No forced ventilation during foaming agent joint filling; N7: No real-time monitoring of combustible gas concentration during joint filling; N8: Simultaneous sheet metal or equipment installation work on site; N9: Presence of open flame sources on site | N27: Use of combustible materials for insulation protection layers; N28: Use of combustible wall and floor materials; N29: Insulation materials deviates from regulations; N30: Joint-filling materials deviates from regulations | — |
| Electrical wiring | N10: Unprotected electrical wiring passing through insulation layers; N11: Illegal temporary electrical wiring | N31: Unsealed electrical distribution lines passing through fire compartments | — |
| Hot work operations | N12: Illegal hot work; N13: No fire separation measures at hot work sites | N32: Lack of on-site supervision; N33: Lack of fire extinguishing equipment at work sites; N34: Storage of combustible materials near work sites | — |
| Refrigeration system installation | N14: No combustible gas concentration alarm devices installed as required | — | — |
| Temporary fire control facility | — | N35: Temporary fire control facilities not provided as required; N36: Fire hydrant pumps not connected to dedicated fire protection power circuits during construction; N37: Temporary fire control facilities configured out of step with construction progress | N48: No reliable firefighting water supply near the construction site;N49: No freeze protection for temporary firefighting water systems in cold regions; N50: No temporary emergency lighting on site |
| Fire safety management | N15: No safety management system for hazardous operations; N16: Neglected to enforce fire safety management responsibilities; N17: Neglected to inspect fire hazards on-site | N38: No effective fire emergency response plan established; N39: No fire safety education and training implemented | N51: Obstructed evacuation routes or blocked exits; N52: Security bars, billboards, or similar obstructions affecting evacuation and rescue |
3.3.3. Classification of Fire Hazards in Cold Storage Facilities Based on Node Importance Measures in Complex Networks
4. Summary and Discussion
4.1. Significant Fire Risks in Low-Temperature Facilities
- Fire risks associated with flammable insulation materials
- 2.
- Fire risks associated with goods storage
- 3.
- Fire risks in ammonia refrigeration systems
- 4.
- Electrical fire risks
- 5.
- Risk of limited performance of fire protection system in low-temperature environments
- 6.
- Safety management risks associated with illegal operations
- 7.
- Complex evacuation process
4.2. Emerging Fire Risks and Challenges
- Risk of insufficient firefighting water supply
- 2.
- Fire risks in cold storage facilities with ultra-high racking and extra-large floor areas
- 3.
- Fire risks associated with ASRS (automated storage and retrieval systems)
5. Conclusions
- An in-depth analysis of 11 major fire incidents involving low-temperature facilities showed that 64% of the cases involved the illegal construction of cold storage facilities within existing buildings. Illegal hot work and electrical faults were identified as the primary causes of fire initiation, while inadequate fire compartment and the use of flammable insulation materials were the main factors contributing to rapid fire spread. Blocked evacuation routes and the ineffective operation of fire protection systems further intensified fire losses.
- Low-temperature facilities exhibit distinct fire risk characteristics at different stages of their lifecycle. During the new construction stage, the primary risk arises from the amplifying effect of inherent fire safety deficiencies caused by illegal construction operations and illegal changes in building use. During the renovation and expansion stage, additional risks result from the disruption of existing fire compartment and protection systems. During the operational stage, fire risks mainly arise from the combined effects of inherent deficiencies in facility fire safety systems, electrical faults, and high fire loads. During the maintenance stage, fire risks further increase due to the interaction between maintenance activities and ongoing operations. During the demolition stage, fire risks are characterized by the high facility vulnerability and illegal hot work operations.
- Using the construction stage of a new cold storage facility as an example, this study establishes criteria for identifying serious and major fire hazards related to architectural structure and functional design, hot work operations, insulation installation, emergency evacuation, fire safety management, and temporary fire control facilities. The most critical hazards include illegal changes in building use, illegal hot work operations, and temporary fire control facilities not provided as required.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jin, H.; Zhang, X.; Ji, G. Research and Application Advances in Novel Cold Storage Refrigerated Warehouses. J. Energy Storage 2026, 141, 119061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wu, H. Research Progress on Cold Store Technology in the Context of Dual Carbon. J. Energy Storage 2024, 86, 111291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Xing, N. Transforming Ice-Snow Ecological Resources into Economic Benefits: Three-Dimensional Analysis of China’s Ice-Snow Economic Policy Texts. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2025, 40, 104467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, B.; Ooi, K.T.; Su, M. Wind Turbine Blade Damage: A Systematic Review of Detection, Diagnosis, Performance Impact, and Lifecycle Health Management. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2026, 230, 116668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxena, V. Enhancing EV Battery Lifecycle Management: Robotic Disassembly, Design for Disassembly, and Sustainable Solutions. J. Energy Storage 2025, 119, 116368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riascos Castaneda, R.A.; Ostrosi, E.; Stjepandic, J. Dynamic Product Risk Management in Product Lifecycle Management of Medical Products. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2025, 48, 100977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Lu, Z.; Huang, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zio, E.; Zhou, Y. A New Preventive Maintenance Strategy Optimization Model Considering Lifecycle Safety. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2022, 221, 108325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Yu, W.; Yang, M.; Liu, F. Generative AI for Transportation Safety and Resilience: A Comprehensive Review from a Lifecycle Perspective. Saf. Sci. 2026, 196, 107090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Bai, K.; Chen, S. Dynamic Intelligent Risk Assessment of Hazardous Chemical Warehouse Fire Based on Electrostatic Discharge Method and Improved Support Vector Machine. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 145, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.-S.; Hwang, C.-H. Categorization of Fire Load Density Based on the Fire Hazard Classification of Warehouse Commodities. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2026, 78, 107666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Jiang, J.; Shu, C.-M. Fire Risk Assessment in Lithium-Ion Battery Warehouse Based on the Bayesian Network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 176, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.-D.; Chen, Y.-C.; Yu, K.-M.; Lee, C.-L.; Wu, M.-L.; Feng, M.-Z.; Chiu, W.-F.; Lei, M.-Y.; Wang, S.-C. Intelligent Early-Stage Fire Detection System for Enhanced Safety in Large Warehouse Environments. Fire Saf. J. 2026, 160, 104618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, A.; Salvatori, L.; Orlando, M. Robustness of Automated Rack-Supported Warehouses in Case of Localized Fires. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2026, 236, 110004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, B.; Guo, T. Adaptive Dynamic Fire Danger Evaluation of Logistics Warehouses with Fusion of Evidential Reasoning and Smart Optimization. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 93, 109897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moradi Hanifi, S.; Laal, F.; Ghashghaei, M.; Ahmadi, O.; Mandali, H. Providing a Model to Evaluate the Spread of Fire in a Chemical Warehouse Using Numerical Simulation and Bayesian Network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2024, 183, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, X.; Wu, W.; Shen, L.; Liao, W.; Zhao, Z.; Xia, J. Industrial Internet of Things and Unsupervised Deep Learning Enabled Real-Time Occupational Safety Monitoring in Cold Storage Warehouse. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W. Study on Fire Safety Risk and Countermeasures of Cold Storage in Shanghai. Fire Sci. Technol. 2021, 40, 1829–1831. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, P.; Luo, H.; Yang, J.; Jiang, M.; Cheng, Y.; Chen, A. Investigation of Fire Risks and Safety Strategies in Large Indoor Snow Parks. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2025, 73, 106707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J. Evacuation of Indoor Ski Hall under Fire Situation Based on Pathfinder. Fire Sci. Technol. 2016, 35, 775–777. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, J.; Jeong, J. Novel Approach of the Integrated Work & Risk Breakdown Structure for Identifying the Hierarchy of Fatal Incident in Construction Industry. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 41, 102406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Huang, W. Risk-Accident Emergence and Prevention Method of High-Speed Railway System: Based on an Improved Functional Resonance Analysis Method. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2025, 264, 111438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Xiong, Q.; Shi, W.; Shi, X.; Wang, K. Evaluating the Importance of Nodes in Complex Networks. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2016, 452, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Zhang, L.; Ran, L. Vulnerability Modeling and Assessment in Urban Transit Systems Considering Disaster Chains: A Weighted Complex Network Approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 54, 102033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Dimensions | Data Information Types | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Basic information | Background information | General information of the building and the condition of the building when the fire occurred |
| Building type | Conventional construction, prefabricated construction, mixed-use residential and commercial buildings, etc. | |
| Full lifecycle stage | New construction, expansion and renovation, operation, maintenance, demolition | |
| Losses | Casualties and direct economic losses | |
| Ignition situation | Ignition Source | Initial ignition source of the fire |
| Combustible material | Type of combustible material ignited | |
| Spread situation | Fire spread conditions | Fire spread after the initial outbreak |
| Fire detection and alarm conditions | Automatic detection, manual discovery, etc. | |
| Performance of fire protection systems | Automatic fire suppression systems, smoke control and exhaust systems, etc. | |
| Fire compartment conditions | Fire compartment conditions within the affected building | |
| Expansion of losses | Emergency response conditions | Initial firefighting and emergency rescue organization after the initial fire |
| Emergency evacuation conditions | Emergency evacuation process, evacuation routes, and emergency exits | |
| Accident causes | Direct cause | Officially reported direct cause of the fire based on investigation |
| Indirect cause | Officially reported indirect cause of the fire based on investigation |
| Node | Importance | Node | Importance | Node | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | 3.98% | N19 | 2.40% | N37 | 0.84% |
| N2 | 1.66% | N20 | 2.40% | N38 | 1.03% |
| N3 | 2.42% | N21 | 1.28% | N39 | 1.03% |
| N4 | 2.42% | N22 | 0.84% | N40 | 1.26% |
| N5 | 2.60% | N23 | 0.84% | N41 | 2.38% |
| N6 | 2.60% | N24 | 1.70% | N42 | 2.38% |
| N7 | 2.60% | N25 | 1.70% | N43 | 1.70% |
| N8 | 2.60% | N26 | 1.70% | N44 | 1.70% |
| N9 | 2.60% | N27 | 1.03% | N45 | 1.03% |
| N10 | 0.84% | N28 | 1.70% | N46 | 0.84% |
| N11 | 0.84% | N29 | 1.03% | N47 | 1.70% |
| N12 | 2.60% | N30 | 1.03% | N48 | 1.03% |
| N13 | 2.60% | N31 | 0.84% | N49 | 1.26% |
| N14 | 0.84% | N32 | 3.91% | N50 | 0.84% |
| N15 | 1.90% | N33 | 3.91% | N51 | 2.33% |
| N16 | 2.81% | N34 | 3.91% | N52 | 2.38% |
| N17 | 2.81% | N35 | 3.91% | ||
| N18 | 2.40% | N36 | 1.03% |
| Classification | Dimensions | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| Level I: Major | Architectural structures and functional design | N1, N3, N4, N18, N19 |
| Hot work operations | N12, N13, N32, N33,N34 | |
| Thermal insulation layers construction | N5, N6, N7, N8, N9 | |
| Personnel evacuation | N20, N41, N42, N51, N52 | |
| Fire safety management and temporary fire control facility | N16, N17, N35 | |
| Level II: Serious | Architectural structures and functional design | N2, N21, N27, N28,N29, N30 |
| Fire protection systems design | N24, N25, N26, N44, N45, N47, N49 | |
| Fire safety management and temporary fire control facility | N15, N48, N36, N38, N39 | |
| Personnel evacuation | N40, N43 | |
| Level III: Significant | Other construction defects | N10, N11, N22, N31, N50 |
| Other design defects | N14, N23, N46 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 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.