Post-Earthquake Fires (PEFs) in the Built Environment: A Systematic and Thematic Review of Structural Risk, Urban Impact, and Resilience Strategies

Abstract

Post-earthquake fires (PEFs) represent a complex, cascading hazard in which seismic damage creates ignition conditions that can overwhelm urban infrastructure and severely compromise structural integrity. Despite growing scholarly attention, the literature on PEFs remains fragmented across disciplines, lacking a consolidated understanding of structural vulnerabilities, urban-scale impacts, and response strategies. This study presents a systematic and thematic synthesis of 54 peer-reviewed articles, identified through a PRISMA-guided screening of 151 publications from the Web of Science Core Collection. By combining bibliometric mapping with thematic clustering, the review categorizes research into key methodological domains, including finite element modeling, experimental testing, probabilistic risk analysis, multi-hazard frameworks, urban simulation, and policy approaches. The findings reveal a dominant focus on structural fire resistance, particularly of seismically damaged concrete and steel systems, while highlighting emerging trends in sensor-based fire detection, AI integration, and urban resilience planning. However, critical research gaps persist in multi-hazard modeling, firefighting under partial collapse, behavioral responses, and the integration of spatial, infrastructural, and institutional factors. This study proposes an interdisciplinary research agenda that connects engineering, urban design, and disaster governance to inform adaptive, smart-city-based strategies for mitigating fire risks in seismic zones. This work contributes a comprehensive roadmap for advancing post-earthquake fire resilience in the built environment.

1. Introduction

Post-earthquake fires (PEFs) are recognized as compound hazard events in which the combined effects of seismic activity and fire lead to more devastating outcomes than either hazard alone. Historical records demonstrate that fires ignited during or immediately after major earthquakes have significantly exacerbated disaster impacts by causing widespread fatalities, structural collapse, infrastructure failure, and delays in emergency response [1,2,3]. In densely populated urban areas, the complex interdependence between buildings and critical lifeline systems further intensifies the cascading effects of such events [4]. Earthquake-induced structural damage can both trigger and impede the containment of fires, with common ignition sources including short-circuited electrical systems, gas leaks, overturned heating appliances, and ruptured pipelines [5,6]. At the same time, compromised transport routes and water supply networks severely hinder firefighting efforts, allowing fires to spread rapidly [7]. The growing density of urban development and rising energy demands highlight the necessity of examining PEFs not only on the scale of individual buildings but also from a broader urban systems perspective. Buildings serve not only as physical assets but also as core components of social and economic resilience. Therefore, effective post-earthquake fire management must integrate considerations of structural integrity, fire safety design, emergency evacuation systems, and the continuity of infrastructure services. While previous research has addressed topics such as performance-based fire engineering and the fire resistance of seismically damaged components, there remains a lack of holistic studies focusing on the systemic urban impacts of PEFs [8,9,10].

Against this backdrop, the present study aims to critically examine the causes, structural consequences, urban risk dynamics, and response strategies associated with PEFs, adopting a multidisciplinary lens [11]. The review identifies current research trends, methodological diversity, and geographical distribution while highlighting key gaps and emerging needs. Rather than focusing on specific building types or high-rise structures alone, this study considers a broad spectrum of built environments and usage patterns to assess the multifaceted risks posed by PEFs. The goal is to underscore the relevance of PEFs as a critical design and policy parameter in both the new construction of and the retrofitting of existing building stock in seismic-prone regions. While several review studies have explored the general aspects of PEFs, including bibliometric trends and publication growth, this study aims to go beyond such mappings by conducting a structured thematic analysis. Specifically, it categorizes research outputs according to their contributions to structural risk identification, urban-scale impacts, and resilience strategies. In this way, this work complements prior bibliometric reviews while addressing the research gap in applied risk and response frameworks. This article is organized into five main sections. Section 1 outlines the scope and significance of the study, followed by a literature review, which evaluates key thematic contributions and methodological approaches. Section 2 details the data collection and systematic review process. Section 3 presents the results of bibliometric and thematic analyses. Finally, Section 4 and Section 5 offer comparative insights, policy implications, and a future research agenda for enhancing resilience to PEFs in urban environments.

Previous Studies

Fires that occur in the aftermath of earthquakes have historically proven to be as devastating as the seismic events themselves [12]. In many major earthquakes, extensive infrastructure damage has been accompanied by large-scale urban fires, which have razed entire districts and resulted in thousands of fatalities [13,14]. This section reviews key historical cases of PEFs, examining their causes, impacts, and the cascading failures they trigger. Drawing upon peer-reviewed sources, the analysis also considers fire prevention and emergency response strategies and highlights how different countries have implemented fire safety regulations in seismically active zones. Particular attention is given to the evolution of academic research on post- earthquake fires, the diversity of methodological approaches, and the identification of persistent knowledge gaps. In this way, the review lays the groundwork for a critical understanding of global practices and emerging needs in post- earthquake fire risk mitigation.

PEFs represent a complex and high-impact secondary hazard that frequently follows major seismic events [15,16]. Historical records provide compelling evidence of their destructive potential, often surpassing the damage caused directly by ground shaking. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, for instance, saw 80–90% of its destruction being attributed to fires rather than the quake itself [14]. Similarly, the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake in Japan resulted in approximately 140,000 fatalities, the majority of which were caused by firestorms ignited in densely built areas following the tremor [17,18]. More recent events such as the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes in the United States further highlighted the vulnerability of modern infrastructure, particularly electrical and gas networks, to fire ignition [13]. The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan triggered over 140 significant fires, while the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake led to major conflagrations in both residential zones and industrial facilities, including oil refineries [19]. These events underscore how PEFs stem from cascading failures involving infrastructure damage, ignition sources, and impaired emergency response [20]. Key ignition mechanisms consistently identified in the literature include ruptured gas pipelines [21], electrical short circuits [22], and domestic ignition sources such as stoves or open flames [23]. Simultaneously, damaged water supply systems and inaccessible roads critically impair firefighting capacity [24,25]. These interrelated failures are particularly pronounced in high-density urban environments, where the proximity of structures and inadequate firebreaks facilitate fire spread [26]. Moreover, compromised structural elements, already weakened by seismic action, are more susceptible to collapse when exposed to fire loading [27].

Table 1. Comparative summary of fire impacts following major historical earthquakes (the fire-related damage percentages in this table represent the estimated share of buildings affected by fire among those already damaged by seismic activity. For historical earthquakes, particularly those prior to the mid-20th century, these figures are based on retrospective records and should be interpreted as indicative estimates due to variability in reporting practices and possible institutional or political bias).

Location	Country	Date	Earthquake-Induced Destruction Rate	Fire-Induced Destruction Rate	Number of Destroyed Buildings Homes	Death Toll	Number of Homeless People	Response Time	Fire Control Challenges
San Francisco	USA	1906	10–20%	80–90%	28,000 buildings	3000	250,000	3 days	No water supply, gas line damage
Great Kantō	Japan	1923	20%	77%	447,000 homes	140,000	1,900,000	2–3 days	Strong winds spread fires, no water supply
Loma Prieta	USA	1989	10%	90%	960 homes	62	12,000	24 h	Water supply interrupted, limited firefighting support
Northridge	USA	1994	15%	60%	3700 homes	57	30,000	48 h	Water supply is down, infrastructure damage
Kobe	Japan	1995	50%	12%	142 major fires	5500	1,000,000	1–2 days	Limited water supply, no electrical infrastructure
Lisbon	Portugal	1755	Unknown	0.8	Unknown	60,000~ 100,000	Unknown	6 days	Fires spread uncontrollably for six days
Messina	Italy	1908	70%	Limited	100,000 homes	100,000	150,000	24 h	Tsunami aftermath triggered fires
Hawke’s Bay	New Zealand	1931	10%	80%	960 homes	256	100,000	48 h	Water supply damaged, fire spread uncontrollably
Tohoku	Japan	2011	20%	50%	Approx. 500 homes	20,000	200,000	3 days	Tsunami aftermath caused fuel fires at Chiba refinery

presents a selection of historically significant earthquakes along with their corresponding fire-related impacts and emergency response challenges.

In recent years, a growing body of research has turned to simulation-based methods to quantify post-earthquake fire risk. Bayesian inference [28], Monte Carlo simulations [29], fragility-based curves [10], and stochastic modeling techniques [19,20,30] have been employed to assess ignition likelihood and fire spread dynamics under post-earthquake conditions. GIS-based models allow for spatial risk mapping, particularly in urban contexts where infrastructure interdependency must be considered [18]. Multi-hazard frameworks have also emerged, integrating seismic and fire risk in a single system, thereby enabling a more holistic assessment of cascading disaster scenarios [31]. Structural engineering research, meanwhile, has focused on assessing the fire resistance of building elements subjected to prior earthquake damage [32,33]. Particular attention has been given to reinforced concrete (RC) frames, steel frames, composite joints, and CFST/CFDST columns [34,35,36]. These studies employ finite element modeling and experimental fire testing to evaluate parameters such as collapse time, critical temperature thresholds, and insulation failure [37,38]. The findings indicate that seismic damage considerably reduces structural fire resistance, especially in connections and joints, which are critical failure points. Although valuable, many of these studies are based on idealized conditions or intact structures. There remains a lack of empirical data on buildings with partial collapse or extensive damage, representing a key research gap in the field [39]. Parallel to building-level studies, urban-scale research has increasingly addressed broader system vulnerabilities. Fire risk is now examined in connection with transportation, water supply, emergency response, and land-use planning [40]. GIS simulations and infrastructure interdependency models allow for dynamic analysis of fire containment challenges. Smart city initiatives and AI-powered early fire detection systems have also begun to shape emergency response planning [41]. Nevertheless, policy coordination across agencies remains inconsistent, and the integration of PEFs into urban resilience planning is still emerging [19].

In summary, while significant progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms, modeling, and engineering implications of PEFs, numerous challenges persist. These include the development of integrated multi-hazard models, improved fire resistance data for damaged buildings, and enhanced real-time detection technologies. Furthermore, future studies must explore community-level preparedness strategies, institutional coordination mechanisms, and context-specific policy frameworks to mitigate the multifaceted risks posed by PEFs.

Table 2. Classification of methodological approaches used in post-earthquake fire studies.

Primary Methodological Approach	Description/Examples	Number of Studies
Thermo-Structural Analysis (FE-Based)	ABAQUS, Open Sees, SAFIR, etc.	26
Numerical Simulation/Finite Element Modeling (FEM)	Full-scale or component-level fire tests, shake table + furnace testing	11
Experimental Studies	Validation and calibration of models using test results	6
Combined Numerical and Experimental Methods	Thematic reviews, comparison of design codes	5
Literature Review/Conceptual Analysis	Monte Carlo, Bayesian inference, fragility curve generation	7
Statistical/Probabilistic Approaches	Fire spread, infrastructure vulnerability, GIS-based urban risk mapping	4
Geospatial/Urban-Scale Modeling	AHP, TOPSIS, Delphi methods	1
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)	YOLOv3, smart sensor-based fire detection systems	1
Artificial Intelligence/Image Processing	Post-earthquake individual fire perception and decision-making	1

provides a comparative overview of major events, detailing fire-related destruction rates, response times, and suppression challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design and Methodological Framework

This study is based on a systematic literature review approach to identify current research trends, methodological orientations, and knowledge gaps regarding PEFs in the built environment. The methodological process follows the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [42], with adaptations suitable for engineering and hazard-focused research. A structured four-phase process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion was applied to ensure transparency and reproducibility [43] (Figure 1). The PRISMA guideline approach focuses on general recommendations for reviews as suggested by previous studies [44].

2.2. Research Strategy and Database Selection

The Web of Science Core Collection was selected as the primary database due to its comprehensive indexing of peer-reviewed literature in the fields of engineering, urban planning, and environmental risk. In addition to its disciplinary breadth and peer-reviewed focus, the Web of Science database offers high-quality indexing standards and structured metadata, which are essential for PRISMA-compliant screening and systematic analysis. Although broader databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar were considered during the preliminary phase, cross-verification revealed that the majority of core and high-impact articles in the domain of PEFs also appeared within the Web of Science Core Collection. This overlap supported the choice of WoS as a reliable and representative database for capturing the multidisciplinary scope of research in this area, while minimizing redundancy and ensuring data quality. The search strategy was designed around six predefined research questions, which served as the foundation for constructing Boolean search strings and keyword combinations:

Q1. How have the research dynamics on PEFs evolved with respect to publication year, type, authorship, country of origin, and publishers?

Q2. What are the primary causes of PEFs, and how do they relate to structural characteristics?

Q3. How are the long-term impacts of PEFs on urban environments, infrastructure, and building structures assessed?

Q4. Which engineering methods and technologies have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing or mitigating PEFs?

Q5. What role can smart building technologies play in reducing the effects of PEFs, and what strategies have been proposed?

Q6. What research gaps remain in the current body of literature?

Based on these questions, the following initial search queries were developed using Boolean operators:

ALL = (post-earthquake fires AND building*);

ALL = (post-earthquake fires AND (urban area* OR urban environment) TS = (causes of post-earthquake fires);

TS = (post-earthquake fires AND affect* AND damage*) TS = (post-earthquake fires AND prevention).

These research questions form the foundation of the review, ensuring that the literature search is not only systematic but also focused on critical engineering aspects such as structural performance, fire resistance, and resilience strategies in the face of post-earthquake fires. Although the search strategy primarily relied on the term “post-earthquake fires”, we also tested alternative expressions such as “fire following earthquake” and “earthquake-induced fire” during the preliminary search phase. However, these alternatives produced inconsistent or overly broad results, including unrelated topics such as fire codes or general disaster recovery. Based on these outcomes, we retained “post-earthquake fire” as the core search term to ensure thematic precision and methodological focus. We acknowledge that this may limit inclusivity across some disciplines and regions, and we reflect on this as a methodological limitation.

2.3. Screening and Selection Process

A total of 151 articles were retrieved from the database. Following PRISMA 2020 protocols, articles were screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria:

• Inclusion: Peer-reviewed journal articles and selected peer-reviewed conference proceedings in English, indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, published between 1999 and 2024, with a primary focus on post-earthquake fire dynamics, structural performance, urban risk, or emergency response.
• Exclusion: Articles not available in full-text, duplicates, or lacking relevance to the defined research questions.

Title and abstract screening was performed manually, and only those with sufficient thematic relevance were selected for full-text review. During the eligibility phase, articles were further assessed based on the presence of empirical or simulation-based analysis, clear methodological reporting, and alignment with post-earthquake fire scenarios. Finally, 54 articles were included in the qualitative and bibliometric synthesis.

2.4. Analytical Tools

Two bibliometric software platforms were used:

• Bibliometrix R Package (2024.12.1-563) for keyword co-occurrence and science mapping [45].
• VOSviewer (1.6.20) for visualizing co-authorship networks and thematic clustering [46].

These tools enabled structured classification of the selected studies into major methodological groups (numerical modeling, experimental validation, probabilistic risk modeling, urban-scale simulation, policy and governance, etc.), which formed the basis for the thematic analysis.

2.5. Methodological Transparency and Reproducibility

The use of PRISMA 2020 guidelines in this study has been carefully adapted to meet the specific needs of engineering and hazard-focused research, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility. The structured four-phase process, combined with the use of advanced bibliometric tools, ensures that the review can be easily replicated and verified by future researchers. Moreover, the integration of both qualitative and quantitative analyses provides a comprehensive perspective on the evolving trends in post-earthquake fire research. In conclusion, this study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on PEFs by providing a systematic and transparent synthesis of the current state of research, with a particular focus on engineering methodologies and urban resilience strategies. By addressing the critical gaps identified in the literature, this review paves the way for future interdisciplinary research and policy development in the area of post-earthquake fire risk management. Figure 1 presents the methodological framework of the systematic review process adopted in this study.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Post-Earthquake Fire Research: Trends in Publications, Authors, Countries, and Journals

In this section, a series of analyses were conducted, and the results were evaluated in order to address the question: “Q1. How have the research dynamics in the literature on PEFs evolved with respect to parameters such as publication year, type, authors, countries, and publishers?”. Figure 2 illustrates the annual distribution of publications concerning the impacts of PEFs on buildings and urban areas. While the number of publications remained relatively low prior to 2015, a noticeable increase has been observed thereafter, with peaks reaching 18 publications in both 2017 and 2021. This trend highlights a growing scholarly interest in the subject, which appears to be linked to the increasing frequency and severity of earthquakes on a global scale. The data suggests that research on PEFs and their implications for fire safety in buildings and urban environments constitutes a relatively recent field. Moreover, the significant rise in publications in recent years, particularly following major seismic events, underscores the heightened emphasis placed on fire safety in the context of post-disaster reconstruction and urban planning, especially in seismically active regions.

Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of the publications according to their type. The majority fall under the article category, with a total of 118 publications, indicating that the bulk of the research comprises original peer-reviewed journal articles. The proceedings paper category ranks second, with 26 publications, reflecting the inclusion of select peer-reviewed conference papers indexed in Web of Science. These were incorporated to capture emerging research directions, particularly in areas with limited journal coverage. However, the thematic synthesis and critical discussion primarily focus on journal articles. In contrast, the number of review articles remains limited, with only five entries, suggesting that literature reviews are considerably less represented compared with original research outputs.

Geographically, the literature is most heavily concentrated in China (35 studies) and the United States (34 studies), followed by Australia (26 studies), Iran (22 studies), and Japan (16 studies). These countries have either experienced major earthquake–fire sequences or host strong research communities in fire engineering and seismic risk. In contrast, countries with high seismic vulnerability, particularly in Latin America, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, are underrepresented, despite their exposure to compounding infrastructure fragility and firefighting challenges. This disparity underscores the need for more globally inclusive research frameworks. The geographical distribution of publications, as illustrated in Figure 4, highlights this concentration of research activities and points to critical regional disparities.

To provide a geotectonic perspective on these findings, we further categorized the reviewed studies based on seismic belts. Approximately 57% of the publications originated from countries within the Circum-Pacific Belt, including the United States, Japan, Chile, and New Zealand. Another 39% were affiliated with the Eurasian Seismic Belt, covering nations such as Turkey, Iran, Italy, and parts of China. The remaining 4% came from outside these two major belts. This classification not only reflects the tectonic risk awareness among researchers but also reinforces the noted geographic imbalances, particularly the underrepresentation of high-risk regions like Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of publication counts across different universities, based on data retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. The University of Queensland ranks highest with 15 publications, followed by Tsinghua University (13 studies) and Kyoto University (8 studies). Several other institutions contribute between 3 and 7 publications. While these figures provide a descriptive overview of institutional involvement in the field, they are not intended for evaluative comparison. Rather, they serve to offer background context regarding the global academic landscape of post-earthquake fire research without implying any direct correlation with research depth or impact.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of journals in which the analyzed articles were published. Fire Safety Journal stands out as the most frequently represented journal, with 10 publications. It is followed by Earthquake Spectra (6 publications) and the Journal of Building Engineering (5 publications). Several other journals published 4 articles, indicating a relatively even spread across a range of outlets. Among the other leading journals are Engineering Structures, Construction and Building Materials, and Fire Technology, each contributing four publications. This diagram highlights that the majority of the articles are concentrated within the domains of fire safety, structural engineering, and earthquake engineering, underlining the significance of these journals in advancing research in these areas.

Figure 7 reveals the multidimensional and interdisciplinary structure of academic research on PEFs. The visualization is based on keyword co-occurrence mapping, where each node represents a keyword, and the node size reflects its frequency in the dataset. Edges (connecting lines) indicate co-occurrence between keywords, and the thickness of these edges corresponds to the strength of that co-occurrence. Different colors represent thematic clusters automatically generated via clustering algorithms in VOSviewer. At the center of the map, the term “post-earthquake fires” emerges as a dominant node, linking to multiple thematic domains. One major cluster centers around “fire resistance”, “reinforced concrete”, and “critical temperature”, pointing to structural performance under combined seismic and fire loads. Another prominent grouping includes “seismic damage”, “finite element”, and “multi-hazard”, reflecting the growing use of numerical simulation and multi-risk modeling.

The red cluster, connecting terms like “cyclic loading”, “performance-based engineering”, and “damage level”, indicates a specialized research stream focusing on sequential hazard effects—how prior seismic damage influences fire behavior. Overall, the network illustrates a notable shift toward integrated frameworks combining fire dynamics, structural analysis, and resilience planning.

The findings presented in this section indicate a growing research interest in PEFs, particularly accelerating in the aftermath of major seismic events. The field is still emerging, with original research articles clearly dominating, while systematic reviews remain relatively limited. The observed geographical and publication diversity suggests the development of a global academic engagement. Furthermore, the increasing emphasis on fire safety in post-disaster reconstruction processes highlights its growing relevance in urban resilience and planning. These findings point to the formation of a research momentum with the potential to foster future interdisciplinary collaborations and inform policy-making in disaster risk management.

3.2. Distribution of Methodologies Employed in the Reviewed Studies

The review of 54 studies on PEFs reveals considerable methodological diversity and highlights dominant research trends within the field. A substantial portion of the literature (26 studies) employs numerical modeling and finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the thermal and structural response of buildings under PEFs conditions. These methods are favored due to their ability to simulate various fire scenarios with high precision and to assess damage effects in a quantifiable manner. Experimental studies (11 studies) provide valuable insight into the real-world behavior of structural components subjected to fire, particularly in capturing failure modes that numerical models aim to replicate. Additionally, six studies integrate both numerical and experimental approaches, contributing to model calibration and validation processes.

Another key thematic group comprises statistical and probabilistic methods, employed in seven studies to model ignition likelihood, fire spread, and structural fragility in post-earthquake fire scenarios. These works apply techniques such as Bayesian inference, Monte Carlo simulation, and fragility-based analysis to account for the inherent uncertainties in multi-hazard environments [19,28,29]. Himoto [28] proposes a hierarchical Bayesian model that captures inter-earthquake heterogeneity in ignition probabilities. Nishino [19] expands on this by incorporating multi-hazard uncertainty into urban fire loss estimation using stochastic approaches. Meanwhile, Gulum et al. [29] develop a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework combining AHP and TOPSIS to prioritize fire risk across different urban districts in Istanbul. Further studies by Mascheri et al. [31] and Farshadmanesh & Mohammadi [47] offer risk assessment methodologies tailored to urban fire propagation and lifeline infrastructure vulnerability, while Zhao et al. [30] presents a spatial–temporal simulation using Poisson and Weibull distributions to predict post-earthquake fire outbreaks. Collectively, these studies underscore the importance of quantifying uncertainty in ignition, spread, and structural response, which is essential for effective fire safety planning and urban resilience in post-earthquake fire-prone regions (see Table 2).

This methodological distribution has been structured around the focus of three key research questions: Q2 (What are the primary causes of post-earthquake fires, and how are they related to structural characteristics?), Q3 (How can the long-term impacts of post-earthquake fires on urban environments, infrastructure, and buildings be assessed?), and Q4 (Which engineering methods and technologies have proven effective in preventing or mitigating the effects of PEFs?).

The current body of research largely centers on technical and structural performance, yet it also reveals a growing emphasis on socio-technical dimensions. This diversity highlights the need to promote interdisciplinary approaches and to develop risk assessment frameworks that extend beyond a purely engineering-based perspective.

3.3. Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis of the reviewed studies primarily addresses Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5 by exploring the causes of post- earthquake fires, their impacts on urban environments and infrastructure, and the engineering methods used to mitigate them. The studies emphasize structural performance under fire, the role of urban infrastructure in fire resilience, and the importance of multi-hazard risk assessments for effective fire risk management.

3.3.1. Structural Systems and Materials

A substantial portion of the reviewed literature investigates the structural performance of reinforced concrete (RC), steel, and composite structural systems under PEFs conditions [10,23,35,48]. These studies explore how pre-existing seismic damage such as cracking, spalling, residual drift, or local yielding affects structural response during subsequent fire exposure. For instance, Moradi et al. [10] and Ye et al. [35] assess the thermal and mechanical degradation of RC and steel frames, while Xu et al. [23] and Kaffash and Karamodin [49] focus on K-joints and CCBCC joints, evaluating performance under gradient heating and non-uniform temperature distribution. Studies on concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST, CFDST) columns such as Imani et al. [5], Vitorino et al. [50], Wen et al. [51,52], and Mohammadbagheri and Shekastehband [53] provide insights into sequential load performance, supported by numerical and experimental data. Zhang et al. [54] and Tao et al. [15] also examine partially encased or masonry-infilled columns under dual seismic–fire loading. In addition, works by Shah et al. [39], Song et al. [22], and Chinthapalli and Agarwal [16] include experimental investigations on welded beam–column connections and fire-damaged RC columns. Wang et al. [48] studies sequential hazard effects on shield tunnel structures, which, while slightly more infrastructure-related, directly addresses structural deformation under combined loading. Lazarov et al. [38] provides foundational insights into the fire resistance of RC frames in post-earthquake contexts. These studies widely employ finite element modeling (FEM), especially with platforms like ABAQUS and OpenSees, to simulate thermal-structural behaviour and validate against test results. Their collective contribution advances the development of performance-based fire design methodologies for structures exposed to seismic and thermal hazards. In addition to RC and steel systems, the fire behavior of traditional timber structures is briefly noted in Nishino [20], who assessed fire propagation risk in closely spaced wooden buildings in Kyoto. The study highlighted the elevated cascading hazard posed by combustible and densely arranged timber dwellings in historical districts. While most of the literature focuses on engineered materials, these findings underline the relevance of including non-conventional materials in dual-hazard assessments, particularly in older urban contexts.

Despite the strong emphasis on conventional RC and steel systems, only a limited number of studies have examined the performance degradation mechanisms of advanced materials such as fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC), ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC), or composite steel–concrete systems under PEF conditions. For instance, fire-induced fiber pull-out, delamination, or microcrack propagation in FRCs have not been sufficiently explored under sequential thermal and seismic loading. Similarly, while UHPC offers superior strength and durability, its brittle behavior at elevated temperatures poses a concern when combined with seismic pre-damage [10,36,38]. Moreover, hybrid structures such as steel–concrete composite frames, which are increasingly used in high-rise and infrastructure projects, lack detailed fire-resilience modeling under dual hazard scenarios [13,23,34]. Addressing these gaps would improve the understanding of degradation pathways and inform performance-based design strategies for emerging material systems.

3.3.2. Urban-Scale Infrastructure and Planning

Urban-focused studies investigate how post-earthquake fire risk evolves within the built environment and how the functionality of critical infrastructure systems, such as transportation, water supply, and emergency services, influences fire outcomes [35,54]. These studies apply GIS-based mapping, urban-scale simulations, and infrastructure interdependency modeling to assess fire vulnerability across cities and megaregions [17,18,21,24,40,41]. For example, Ren and Xie [18] develop a GIS-based methodology to delineate fire-prone zones within post-earthquake scenarios, providing an early example of spatial risk mapping. Davis et al. [24] examine the seismic vulnerability of the Los Angeles water distribution system, illustrating how damage to pipelines can reduce firefighting capacity and prolong fire durations. Similarly, Sarreshtehdari et al. [40] evaluate how transportation and water networks operate following seismic events, emphasizing the delays and inefficiencies in emergency response caused by infrastructural disruption. Farahani et al. [21] focus on urban gas pipelines, conducting a risk assessment of fire ignition potential and proposing mitigation strategies for lifeline systems. Kustu et al. [41] adopt an innovative approach by integrating AI-powered stereo vision and smart city technologies to geolocate fires in real time and feed this data into disaster management platforms for quicker decision-making. Nishino et al. [17] further contribute to evacuation modeling by developing a potential-based simulation that captures crowd dynamics during urban-scale fire scenarios. Collectively, these studies underscore the critical role of interconnected urban systems, infrastructure resilience, and evacuation planning in managing fire risk at the metropolitan scale. They also highlight the need for integrated urban disaster management approaches that span multiple domains, from physical infrastructure to real-time detection and population movement.

3.3.3. Fire Behavior and Resistance

A significant theme in post-earthquake fire literature examines the thermal and mechanical performance of structural components under elevated temperatures following seismic events. These studies explore failure modes, collapse mechanisms, and material degradation, such as thermal spalling, insulation damage, and fireproofing loss [4,34,37]. Xu et al. [34] investigate the effect of joint geometry on fire resistance in stainless steel K-joints under gradient heating conditions. Behnam [37] analyzes spalling’s impact on fire resistance in earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete components, while Xu et al. [55] examine the role of internal ring stiffeners in stabilizing stiffened tubular T-joints during ISO 834 fire loading. Baser and Behnam [25] develop an emergency response framework for fuel storage facilities, addressing domino effects in cascading post-earthquake fire scenarios. Shah et al. [39] conduct full-scale fire tests on damaged RC frames, providing empirical data on structural degradation under combined seismic and thermal loading. Mousavi et al. [4] offer a review of structural vulnerability to post-earthquake fire, integrating experimental and analytical findings from the literature. This research advances the understanding of thermal-mechanical coupling at the component level, aiding the development of design provisions and engineering models for structures exposed to fire after seismic damage.

While both experimental testing and finite element modeling (FEM) are well represented in post-earthquake fire research, their comparative strengths and limitations deserve explicit discussion. Experimental methods provide empirical validation and reveal complex failure modes such as thermal spalling and progressive collapse [39], yet they are costly and often constrained in scale. Conversely, FEM offers scalable, parametric analyses [34] but relies heavily on accurate thermal–mechanical modeling and boundary conditions. Hybrid approaches that calibrate FEM simulations with experimental data, such as those proposed by Mousavi [4], are increasingly favored for capturing structural fire behavior in seismic contexts.

Beyond structural design and thermal–mechanical interaction, environmental conditions, especially those shaped by climate change, also influence fire behavior in post-earthquake scenarios. Prolonged droughts and rising temperatures can lower ignition thresholds and increase the combustibility of building materials and surrounding vegetation [16,24,42]. Wind pattern shifts associated with climate variability further accelerate flame propagation in damaged urban settings. These combined effects are increasingly evident in earthquake-prone regions like Southern Europe, the Middle East, and California [29,44]. Therefore, climate-sensitive hazard models are needed to capture the compound risks faced by structures exposed to both seismic and climatic extremes.

3.3.4. Multi-Hazard and Cascading Effects

Some studies extend beyond fire-specific analysis and adopt a multi-hazard perspective, exploring the interplay between earthquakes, fire, and other cascading effects. These works address NaTech events, domino scenarios, and multi-phase damage mechanisms [20,25,31,56]. Nishino [20] proposes a probabilistic framework incorporating epistemic uncertainty in ignition modeling and cascading fire impacts. Mascheri et al. [31] highlight the urban-scale consequences of such cascading hazards, including damage to multiple lifelines and buildings. Baser and Behnam [25] simulate fire propagation in fuel storage facilities, introducing domino modeling under NaTech conditions. Similarly, Chicchi and Varma [56] review post-earthquake fire in the context of broader performance-based frameworks that consider multi-hazard loads. These studies suggest that future research and emergency planning must account for compound disaster scenarios, particularly in urban environments with high infrastructure interdependencies.

3.3.5. Heritage Structures

Within the scope of PEFs research, studies focusing on historic buildings remain limited but offer highly specific and valuable insights. The work by Himoto et al. [28] investigates the vulnerability of cultural heritage structures in Kyoto to fire spread under PEFs scenarios. By analysing how fire behaviour interacts with architectural configurations and preservation levels, the study enables risk prioritization within heritage zones. The protection of cultural assets is shown to be not only a structural concern but also essential for preserving social identity and historical continuity. Accordingly, it is suggested that heritage buildings should be addressed through dedicated risk management policies tailored to their unique value and fragility.

3.3.6. AI and Sensor Technology

Kustu et al. [41] present a novel approach to post-earthquake fire detection and emergency coordination using AI-driven sensor technologies integrated into smart city systems. The study develops a fire detection method based on deep learning (YOLOv3 convolutional neural networks), which processes stereo vision imagery to detect and triangulate the geolocation of fires in 3D space. This real-time detection system is designed to interface with disaster management platforms, enabling earlier intervention and more precise response planning. The integration of such technology into urban resilience frameworks demonstrates significant potential for minimizing fire spread and response delays in the aftermath of earthquakes, particularly in dense or infrastructure-heavy city environments [57]. While AI-driven sensor systems such as YOLOv3 and stereo vision modules offer promising capabilities for rapid post-earthquake fire detection, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, these systems are heavily reliant on stable energy sources and communication infrastructure, both of which may be compromised during seismic events [41]. In cases of power outages, sensor blindness, or damaged transmission lines, the detection accuracy may significantly decline. Additionally, high levels of smoke, debris, or obstruction can interfere with the camera-based vision algorithms, causing false positives or delayed recognition. System latency, hardware malfunction, and real-time data overload are other risks associated with urban-scale deployment. These vulnerabilities highlight the need for robust fallback mechanisms, redundancy in sensor networks, and integration with non-visual fire detection techniques such as gas sensing or thermal imaging.

3.3.7. Behavioral, Social, and Economic Impacts

The psychosocial dimensions of post-earthquake fire scenarios are increasingly recognized as critical to long-term recovery and resilience [53]. In their study, Games and Sari [58] explored how earthquake experience, fear of fire, and fear of failure influence individual well-being and economic decision-making in affected communities. Their findings indicate that such fear-based responses can hinder entrepreneurship and delay reinvestment, underlining the importance of integrating behavioral economics into disaster recovery strategies [58]. Complementary to this, Nishino [19] conducted simulation-based analyses in Kyoto to model pedestrian evacuation behavior during earthquake–fire cascades. His findings reveal that panic levels, visual obstruction, and unfamiliarity with evacuation routes significantly impair escape efficiency, especially in dense, combustible urban areas [19]. These insights align with core principles of the sociology of disasters, suggesting that resilience planning must account for behavioral and community-level variables, not just engineering or policy parameters.

Accordingly, both studies demonstrate the need to complement technical and structural mitigation efforts with sociologically and economically informed approaches. Integrating psychological support programs, risk communication strategies, and incentive-aligned economic interventions (e.g., targeted insurance schemes, post-disaster entrepreneurship incentives) could significantly enhance PEF resilience in vulnerable urban populations.

Figure 8 provides a thematic mapping that summarizes the relationships between key research themes, keywords, and associated publications in the field of post-earthquake fire research.

The diagram is constructed as a Sankey flow map, where the leftmost column represents high-level thematic domains (e.g., structural systems, fire resistance), the center column lists associated keywords, and the rightmost column lists the corresponding publications. The thickness of each connecting line indicates the strength or frequency of the association between nodes. This visual structure allows the reader to trace how specific concepts are linked to both broader themes and published studies.

3.4. Multi-Causal Origins of PEFs and Their Relationship with Structural Vulnerabilities

In this section, the term “causes of fires” is used in a broad sense to include ignition sources (e.g., gas leaks, electrical faults), propagation-enhancing conditions (e.g., flammable materials, compromised infrastructure), and structural vulnerabilities that exacerbate fire damage. This inclusive definition is visually reflected in Figure 9, which maps these diverse causal factors across technical, infrastructural, and behavioral domains.

3.4.1. Building Materials and Fire Resistance

A dominant cause across the reviewed works relates to combustible building materials, insufficient fire compartmentalization, and degraded structural fire resistance following seismic events [63,64]. Studies by Xu et al. [23,34], Wen et al. [51,52], Behnam [37], Farshadmanesh & Mohammadi [47], and Moradi et al. [36] highlight how inadequate fireproofing, thermal spalling, and material failure increase the vulnerability of concrete and steel structures [65]. Imani et al. [5] and Wang et al. [27] further support these findings by demonstrating that column and joint-level weaknesses (e.g., welded or filled sections) reduce fire endurance. This theme is especially significant for high-rise buildings, as noted by Khorasani et al. [11]. Similar concerns also apply to combustible timber materials, particularly in older wooden buildings, where inadequate fire separation and dense urban configurations can exacerbate flame spread and structural collapse, as highlighted by Nishino [20].

3.4.2. Electrical Systems and Sparking

Electrical faults are one of the most frequently cited ignition sources of PEFs. Short circuits, overloaded systems, and damaged transformers or wiring often trigger initial ignitions when infrastructure is already compromised. This is well documented in Himoto [28], Nishino [20], Chicchi & Varma [56], Kaffash and Karamodin [49], and Alisawi et al. [59]. Dianat et al. [66] note how poor lighting and electrical safety also affect staff efficiency and safety in hospital settings. Similarly, Jelinek et al. [32] stress that structural vulnerability increases when combined with damaged electrical infrastructure.

3.4.3. Infrastructure Damage and Gas Leaks

Almost every study recognizes gas pipeline ruptures, broken valves, and damaged distribution systems as critical ignition pathways [3,18,21,29,40]. These failures often occur alongside lifeline breakdowns, which further impair emergency response. In critical urban infrastructures such as tunnels, hospitals, and fuel depots, Wang et al. [48] and Baser and Behnam [25] reveal that compounded infrastructure damage can trigger secondary fires and domino ignition effects.

3.4.4. Open Flame Sources and Household Accidents

Common causes such as cooking with open flames, fallen candles, and use of gas or oil heaters are particularly relevant in residential contexts, especially informal or high-density housing [33,60,67]. Mousavi et al. [4] stress the role of unattended heat sources during power outages. The interplay between power disruption and household fire sources appears frequently in post- earthquake case reviews.

3.4.5. Water Supply Cutoff and Firefighting Difficulties

Fire suppression limitations following earthquakes are often linked to power loss to pumps, blocked hydrants, and damaged water infrastructure. Davis et al. [24] and Farahani et al. [21] demonstrate that such factors delay firefighting response in cities like Los Angeles and Tehran. Studies such as Mascheri et al. [31] and Baser & Behnam [25] highlight how unavailability of firefighting water and damaged emergency routes significantly exacerbate fire propagation and casualty rates in urban centers.

3.4.6. Other Causes and Secondary Events

Less frequent but critical causes include chemical spills, human panic, and secondary hazards such as aftershocks. Tao et al. [15] and Games and Sari [58] identify behavioral and cognitive responses, like confusion or evacuation errors, as indirect fire risk factors. Kustu et al. [41] and Nishino [20] discuss the role of smart sensors and real-time fire detection in overcoming delays caused by human and systemic errors, thereby enhancing risk mitigation in high-density, smart city contexts. The reviewed literature demonstrates that PEFs are rarely caused by a single factor. Instead, they are the outcome of multi-causal chains, where damaged infrastructure, building materials, electrical failures, open flames, and emergency limitations interact, often with compounding effects. This underscores the need for integrated fire risk assessments and resilient urban systems that can respond to simultaneous hazards in seismic-prone regions. Figure 9 presents a thematic classification of the major factors contributing to fire outbreaks after earthquakes, highlighting both technical and environmental triggers.

The figure is designed as a hierarchical concept map, where the central node “Causes of Fires” branches into six major causal categories, each further subdivided into specific contributing factors. The tree structure shows how high-level drivers such as electrical systems, building materials, and infrastructure damage cascade into more granular failure mechanisms. This visual mapping allows readers to understand both the systemic complexity and the interconnected nature of ignition sources under post-earthquake conditions.

3.5. Fire Control Approaches

Here, “fire control” encompasses a comprehensive range of strategies beyond suppression, including pre-disaster planning, risk modeling, infrastructure adaptation, early detection systems, and institutional coordination. This reflects a systems-based view of post-earthquake fire resilience.

3.5.1. Technological Approaches

Post-earthquake fire control increasingly leverages emerging technologies, particularly those based on automation, artificial intelligence, and remote sensing. Systems such as AI-powered fire detection, UAVs for early intervention, robotic fire suppression, and simulation platforms for training have shown great promise in reducing response times and enhancing accuracy in fire location and management. For example, Kustu et al. [41] introduced a deep learning and stereo vision-based system capable of localizing fire outbreaks in urban environments, while Nishino [20] discussed fire ignition uncertainty through AI-integrated risk models. These innovations, particularly when embedded into smart city frameworks, support rapid, targeted intervention where conventional access routes may be compromised by earthquake damage.

3.5.2. Structural- and Material-Based Approaches

Improving the fire performance of buildings through material selection, fire-resistance coatings, and seismic fire retrofitting represents a core strategy in mitigating post-earthquake fire risks. Numerous studies have shown that reinforced concrete and steel structures suffer significant performance degradation under combined seismic and thermal loading [39,50,52,61,62,68]. Researchers such as Behnam [37] and Xu et al. [55] have analyzed failure modes such as thermal spalling and component instability, proposing design modifications to improve performance [37,55]. This line of research underscores the necessity of performance-based fire design, particularly for critical infrastructure and high-occupancy buildings [37,55].

3.5.3. Monitoring and Early Warning Systems

Early detection of fire ignition points following earthquakes is vital for effective mitigation. This has driven the development of sensor-based monitoring, weather-driven prediction systems, and real-time imaging technologies. For instance, Kustu et al. [41] developed a stereo vision camera system that can triangulate fire positions and feed this information into disaster response platforms. By synthesizing environmental and visual data, these systems facilitate proactive interventions, particularly in urban environments where post-earthquake visibility or access is constrained.

3.5.4. Community Awareness and Education

Human behavior plays a central role in both the ignition and suppression phases of PEFs. Strategies in this category include public fire safety education, evacuation training, and post-disaster awareness programs [69]. For example, Gulum et al. [29] advocated community-based risk prioritization through participatory decision-making models in Istanbul, while Games and Sari [58] explored how earthquake-related psychological responses (e.g., fear of fire or failure) influence readiness and evacuation behavior. These findings highlight the need for integrating community engagement into technical mitigation plans.

3.5.5. Infrastructure Enhancements and Networks

Strengthening infrastructure systems, particularly water, gas, and electrical networks, is paramount in mitigating ignition risks and fire propagation. Research by Davis et al. [24] and Farahani et al. [21] has illustrated the exacerbation of fire severity due to compromised water systems or gas pipelines. Additionally, Sarreshtehdari et al. [40] explored the significance of transportation and utility networks in enhancing emergency response capabilities. Consequently, upgrades to fire hydrants, electrical circuit breakers, and gas shut-off systems are frequently advocated to bolster infrastructure resilience against dual hazards.

3.5.6. Firefighting and Emergency Response Approaches

The capacity of emergency response teams to act swiftly and effectively is often constrained by post-earthquake conditions. Strategies in this theme involve crew training, equipment upgrades, firefighting access planning, and water spray optimization. For example, Mascheri et al. [31] and Zhao et al. [30] modeled urban firefighting access delays, while Baser and Behnam [25] provided a contingency framework for cascading fires in industrial settings. These studies demonstrate the need for scenario-based planning to ensure operational continuity despite infrastructural collapse.

3.5.7. Simulation and Risk Assessment Models

Advanced modeling tools have become essential for evaluating the potential spread and impact of PEFs. This includes Monte Carlo simulations, physics-based models, and GIS-based mapping. Himoto [28] and Nishino [19,20] applied Bayesian hierarchical models to quantify fire ignition probability and loss uncertainty, while Zhao et al. [30] introduced a stochastic fire spread model incorporating Poisson and Weibull distributions. These approaches enable stakeholders to anticipate high-risk zones and allocate resources more effectively [70].

3.5.8. Urban Design and Planning

Fire control must also be addressed through urban morphology and land-use planning. Key principles include adequate spacing between buildings, designated fire lanes, accessible evacuation routes, and buffer zones for suppression efforts. Lou et al. [62] proposed integrating fire resilience into performance-based design codes, and Sarreshtehdari et al. [40] examined how spatial design can support or hinder response operations. Urban planning, when aligned with fire control objectives, can significantly reduce fire intensity and spread in densely built environments.

3.5.9. Policy and Collaborative Approaches

A growing body of literature recognizes the need for institutional coordination and multi-stakeholder collaboration in post-earthquake fire risk governance. This includes inter-agency emergency planning, international cooperation, and shared knowledge platforms. Gökşen et al. [67] addressed national risk policies, while Chicchi and Varma [56] reviewed fire safety regulatory evolution in the US context. Policies that unify earthquake and fire management protocols are essential for ensuring consistency in post-disaster responses.

3.5.10. Structural Damage and Fire Control

This final theme addresses the challenges of controlling fires in buildings that are partially or fully structurally compromised. Strategies include damage-tolerant suppression techniques, component-specific reinforcement, and the re-evaluation of collapse-prone structures. Studies by Tao et al. [15], Wen et al. [52], Song et al. [22] highlight how fire suppression must adapt to residual drifts, broken connections, and partial collapses following an earthquake. These works stress the importance of post-damage-specific response frameworks, particularly in high-risk or critical infrastructure buildings [22]. These ten categories show that post-earthquake fire control is not a single-discipline effort; it spans engineering, emergency management, behavioral science, urban planning, and policy-making. Figure 10 is structured as a hierarchical concept map representing the ten principal approaches to post-earthquake fire control. The leftmost node, “Fire Control Approaches”, branches into ten major categories, such as Technological Approaches, Urban Design and Planning, or Structural Damage and Fire Control. Each category then extends to multiple implementation strategies or sub-concepts, which are shown as child nodes. The tree structure visually communicates the diversity and interconnection of fire control strategies across engineering, infrastructure, policy, and behavioral domains.

4. Discussions

4.1. Gaps in Knowledge and Areas for Future Research

Although previous reviews have outlined the general scope of post-earthquake fire research, they have largely remained at the level of bibliometric mapping or descriptive trend analysis. In contrast, the present study contributes to the field by thematically unpacking structural risk, urban system fragilities, and response strategies in a way that directly informs the identification of current research gaps. This analytical depth provides the foundation upon which the following subsections elaborate future directions across technical, infrastructural, and policy domains.

The identification of knowledge gaps and the formulation of future research priorities have been conducted in accordance with Q6 (What are the current research gaps in existing literature?). Despite the steady increase in research on PEFs, significant gaps persist, necessitating the development of interdisciplinary and multi-layered research approaches. While general fire safety literature provides valuable insights—particularly regarding thermal behavior of materials, suppression system performance, and evacuation planning, its direct applicability to post-earthquake fire scenarios is often limited. PEFs present a unique convergence of hazards, including damaged infrastructure, disrupted lifelines, delayed response, and structural pre-damage. These factors are rarely addressed in conventional fire studies. Therefore, while foundational knowledge from the broader fire literature is acknowledged, the full complexity of post-earthquake fire risk and resilience requires specialized investigation. This distinction further justifies the thematic focus and categorization strategy adopted in this review. One such gap relates to the limited treatment of timber structures in post-earthquake fire studies. Although engineered timber systems like CLT are increasingly adopted in sustainable construction, their behavior under sequential seismic fire loading remains underexplored. The existing literature is predominantly centered on concrete and steel frames, with very few empirical or simulation-based assessments of combustible wood systems. Future research should address this gap by developing performance models and mitigation strategies tailored for timber structures, especially in regions with significant wooden building stock.

4.2. Integrated Multi-Hazard Models

While substantial progress has been made in the domains of fire behavior and structural performance, comprehensive multi-hazard models that holistically address factors such as seismic acceleration, structural damage, fire ignition probability, and fire spread are still lacking. A core deficiency in this area is the absence of standardized simulation tools that integrate real-time seismic data, building stock vulnerabilities, and urban fuel loads. Consequently, the development of multi-scale and real-time fire risk models is emerging as a critical area of research, both for emergency response planning and for informing disaster risk governance. Despite these advances, existing simulation tools also exhibit important limitations. For example, Monte Carlo-based fire spread models often rely on idealized assumptions regarding ignition points, fuel load, and suppression conditions, which may deviate significantly from real-world post-earthquake scenarios. Similarly, many models do not incorporate uncertainties stemming from structural pre-damage or cascading infrastructure failures. Without addressing these constraints, model outputs may misrepresent actual risk levels or overestimate system reliability. Therefore, a critical evaluation of current modeling approaches is essential to guide tool selection and improve their applicability to real-time disaster scenarios.

4.3. Behavioral and Psychosocial Dimensions

Although the physical and structural impacts of PEFs have been extensively studied, human behavior, risk perception, and decision-making processes in the face of cascading disasters remain underexplored. The influence of stress, fear, and misinformation on evacuation behavior and fire responses warrants deeper investigation. Cross-cultural and longitudinal studies may contribute to the development of more effective, community-based preparedness strategies that enhance social resilience in high-risk environments.

4.4. Firefighting in Structurally Damaged Buildings

The existing literature predominantly focuses on fire resistance in intact or idealized structural conditions. However, empirical data on firefighting strategies within damaged or partially collapsed buildings remain extremely limited. There is a particular need to develop damage-adaptive fire response strategies for critical structures such as high-rise buildings, hospitals, and tunnels. Future research should explore the use of robotic systems and remote firefighting technologies in these contexts while also revisiting training protocols for emergency personnel operating under such hazardous conditions.

4.5. Smart Infrastructures and Sensor-Based Detection Systems

While several studies have made significant contributions to AI-supported fire detection, sensor fusion, combining thermal, visual, and environmental data remain at an early stage of development. Future research should prioritize the creation of low-latency, communication-resilient sensor networks capable of real-time risk mapping and fire spread forecasting. In addition, ethical considerations and data security issues surrounding the deployment of such technologies should be incorporated into research agendas to ensure responsible and sustainable implementation.

4.6. Policy Integration and Multi-Agency Governance

Although some theoretical contributions exist regarding multi-stakeholder fire management, there is a lack of empirical evidence on how post-earthquake fire governance is coordinated across institutions at different administrative scales. Comparative studies are needed to examine how policy models in different countries influence fire outcomes. Moreover, detailed investigation is required into issues such as inter-agency data sharing, bureaucratic barriers, and the harmonization of fire–earthquake safety regulations.

4.7. Community Engagement in High-Risk Areas

While some studies have emphasized community-based fire risk assessment models, there is a scarcity of field research evaluating the effectiveness of public education and drills under post-earthquake fire scenarios. Participatory planning approaches should be developed to include vulnerable groups such as the elderly, people with disabilities, and residents of informal settlements. Moreover, communication strategies must consider factors such as psychological preparedness, cultural beliefs, and digital literacy in order to enhance community resilience and risk awareness. A notable example is Japan’s nationwide disaster drills, which involve citizens of all ages and are conducted in coordination with schools, municipalities, and emergency services. These drills simulate compound hazards including earthquakes and urban fires, providing not only evacuation practice but also improving public awareness and coordination capacity. Studies have shown that such regular and inclusive preparedness activities significantly increase household-level readiness and reduce panic in real events. Incorporating similar structured community-based exercises in high-risk regions could serve as a model for improving social resilience to post-earthquake fire scenarios.

4.8. Urban Fabric and Spatial Fire Dynamics

Although some progress has been made through GIS-based fire simulation models, the causal relationships between urban morphology, such as building density, road width, open spaces, and fire propagation remain underexplored. Future studies should model how physical design elements like building spacing, firebreaks, and green buffer zones influence fire control following earthquakes. In particular, design guidelines tailored for rapidly urbanizing areas should be developed to enhance resilience and mitigate fire risks in the post-earthquake context. These identified knowledge gaps and future research directions are summarized in Figure 11, providing a consolidated overview of the key thematic areas requiring further investigation.

5. Conclusions and Research Implications

This study systematically examines the evolving literature on PEFs, focusing on research trends, thematic directions, methodological diversity, and existing knowledge gaps. A comprehensive bibliometric and content-based analysis of 151 academic documents, of which 54 were selected for in-depth review, reveals a marked increase in scholarly attention to the post-earthquake fire phenomenon, particularly following major seismic events post-2015. The reviewed studies primarily originate from countries with high seismic risk, such as China, the United States, Australia, and Iran, and are concentrated in prominent journals focusing on fire safety, structural engineering, and urban resilience.

5.1. Methodological Landscape

The methodological landscape of post-earthquake fire research is notably shaped by numerical simulation techniques and finite element modeling (FEM), extensively employed to assess the thermal and structural response of buildings under combined seismic and fire loading. Experimental approaches, though less dominant, provide critical empirical validation, particularly for understanding failure modes in damaged components. Recent contributions have begun to integrate probabilistic modeling, urban-scale simulations, and artificial intelligence-based detection systems, indicating a gradual shift towards more interdisciplinary and multi-scalar approaches to risk analysis.

5.2. Existing Knowledge Gaps

Despite these advancements, the literature reflects critical gaps requiring focused scholarly attention. These include the absence of real-time, multi-hazard modeling tools that integrate seismic activity, structural vulnerability, ignition probability, and fire spread. Furthermore, the socio-behavioral dimension of PEFs, encompassing public preparedness, stress response, and evacuation decision-making, remains underrepresented. Empirical insights into firefighting under structural compromise, particularly in high-risk environments such as hospitals and tunnels, are also limited. Additionally, while smart sensor systems and AI-powered fire detection technologies are emerging, their operational reliability and ethical considerations in real post-disaster contexts demand further exploration.

5.3. Governance and Urban Planning

In terms of governance and urban planning, the integration of fire risk into broader disaster management frameworks is inconsistent across the literature. Inter-agency collaboration mechanisms, spatial fire dynamics influenced by urban morphology, and policy harmonization across jurisdictions represent areas where further empirical work is needed. These gaps collectively point to the necessity of moving beyond siloed engineering perspectives towards holistic, interdisciplinary risk mitigation strategies.

5.4. Contributions and Limitations

This article contributes to the field by offering a comprehensive and structured overview of global research efforts on PEFs, providing a thematic synthesis that bridges engineering, planning, behavioral science, and governance. It highlights not only the technical challenges involved in post-earthquake fire scenarios but also the social and institutional complexities that must be addressed for effective mitigation. Nonetheless, this study is limited by its reliance on the Web of Science Core Collection as the primary data source, which may exclude relevant works from other databases or grey literature. In addition, while the review covers a wide array of studies, the analysis remains qualitative in several dimensions and could be expanded through meta-analytic or quantitative techniques in future work.