Risk assessment method for building fire risk and secondary disaster accident thereof

Abstract

The invention discloses a building fire risk and secondary disaster accident risk assessment method, and relates to the technical field of fire insurance risk assessment, and the method comprises the steps: building an interdisciplinary assessment team, and dividing the risk levels; linkage between the assessment subject capability and the insurance business is broken through; and carrying out risk monitoring on the building. According to the invention, systematic identification and quantification of building fire and secondary disaster risks thereof are realized; the accurate pricing capacity, the active damage prevention capacity and the dynamic risk control level of the insurance industry in the field of fire risks are improved, meanwhile, an insurance buyer is stimulated to continuously improve the fire safety condition, and formation of a good management ecology with risk sensibility, insurance premium accompanying and prevention and control preposition is promoted.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of fire insurance risk assessment technology, and in particular to a method for assessing the risk of building fires and the risk of secondary disasters. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, with the accelerating pace of urbanization, urban buildings are expanding in size and becoming increasingly complex in function. High-rise buildings, underground spaces, large commercial complexes, and industrial warehousing facilities are densely distributed, significantly increasing the probability of fires and their potential destructive power. Simultaneously, fire accidents are often accompanied by secondary disasters such as explosions, the spread of toxic fumes, structural collapses, and hazardous chemical leaks, resulting in a compounded and amplified effect of casualties, property losses, and social impact. Against this backdrop, the insurance industry, as a crucial force in social risk governance, urgently needs to incorporate fire and its secondary disaster risks into a scientific and refined assessment system.

[0003] However, existing fire risk assessment technologies have significant shortcomings in insurance applications. The assessment system lacks national standards and relies heavily on subjective experience, resulting in fragmented and difficult-to-quantify indicators. It generally focuses only on the fire itself, neglecting the coupling mechanism of secondary disasters and failing to comprehensively reflect the overall risk level of a building. Furthermore, the assessment results are disconnected from insurance pricing, with underwriting decisions still primarily based on static, one-off inspections, lacking dynamic monitoring and premium linkage mechanisms. The varying professional capabilities of assessment entities lead to inaccurate risk identification, large pricing discrepancies, and a lack of disaster prevention services. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In view of the problems existing in the methods for assessing the risk of building fires and secondary disasters, this invention is proposed.

[0005] Therefore, the problem that this invention aims to solve is that existing building fire risk assessment methods lack systematic consideration of secondary disasters, have insufficient professional capabilities of assessment entities, and have fragmented indicator systems that are disconnected from insurance pricing, thus failing to achieve dynamic, quantitative, and standardized risk premium linkage.

[0006] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention provides the following technical solution:

[0007] In a first aspect, embodiments of the present invention provide a method for assessing the risk of building fires and the risk of secondary disasters, which includes: forming an interdisciplinary assessment team to address the problem of uneven capabilities among existing assessment entities; constructing a structured indicator system; introducing secondary disaster coupling factors; and systematically identifying and quantifying the risk of secondary disasters.

[0008] The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to existing assessment indicators to obtain a comprehensive risk score for building fires and their secondary disasters, and the risk levels are then classified.

[0009] The risk level classification results are mapped to the risk premium linkage mechanism to establish a closed-loop process for insurance business and connect the assessment entity's capabilities with insurance business.

[0010] Implement a dynamic and periodic review mechanism to monitor the risks of buildings and adjust the risk level and insurance premium level according to changes in fire safety conditions.

[0011] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in this invention, the structured index system includes a structured index system consisting of four primary dimensions, with several secondary indicators under each primary dimension, and a secondary disaster coupling factor is added as a cross-evaluation sub-module that runs through the four primary dimensions.

[0012] The cross-assessment submodule is used to map and embed the risk characteristics of secondary disasters into the original indicators to form coupling terms;

[0013] The secondary disaster coupling factor is assigned a value using quantifiable technical parameters, calibrated in conjunction with a historical fire secondary disaster database, to form a standardized scoring rule.

[0014] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing the risk of building fire and its secondary disasters as described in this invention, the systematic identification and quantification of secondary disaster risks includes the preliminary identification of the risk characteristics of secondary disasters induced by a building after a fire.

[0015] For each type of secondary disaster initially screened out using quantifiable technical parameters, the corresponding coupling factors in the pre-embedded structured indicator system are called to form a scoring matrix;

[0016] The calibration method, which incorporates a historical fire secondary disaster database, involves incorporating activated secondary disaster coupling factors into the AHP judgment matrix, comparing and scoring each factor, and generating a weight vector after consistency verification. It also involves introducing a fire secondary disaster accident case library to retrospectively calibrate the weight vector. Since the scores of each secondary disaster factor are multiplied and summed with the weight vector, a secondary disaster risk sub-score is obtained and participates in the calculation of the comprehensive risk score as an independent component.

[0017] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in this invention, the method of weighting existing assessment subject indicators using the analytic hierarchy process includes pairwise comparisons of four primary dimensions to construct a primary judgment matrix; and constructing secondary judgment matrices for the subordinate secondary indicators and embedded secondary disaster coupling factors within each primary dimension.

[0018] The risk level classification includes consistency testing of the judgment matrix at each level, obtaining the weight values ​​of each indicator through the eigenvector method, forming a weight system from the first-level dimension to the second-level indicator. The secondary disaster coupling factor, as part of the second-level indicator, is not set in isolation, but participates in the global weight allocation together with its corresponding first-level dimension and related main indicators.

[0019] The measured values ​​of each indicator obtained from on-site investigation and data review are converted into quantitative scores according to pre-set standardized scoring rules; the scores of each indicator are multiplied by their corresponding weights and then summed to obtain the comprehensive risk score of fire and secondary disasters of the building; the comprehensive risk score of secondary disasters is mapped to a five-level risk level.

[0020] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks according to the present invention, the step of mapping the risk level results to the risk premium linkage mechanism includes, after obtaining the comprehensive risk score of building fire and secondary disasters and classifying it into risk levels 1 to 5, automatically pushing the risk level results to the insurance company's core business system through a structured data interface and mapping them to the preset risk premium linkage mechanism.

[0021] The establishment of a closed-loop insurance business process includes an automatic system-initiated process for assessment, pricing, and service based on mapping results. This closed-loop process consists of three closely linked stages: The first stage is risk assessment output, where an interdisciplinary assessment team conducts on-site investigations, quantitative scoring, and risk level determination based on a structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factors, and issues an assessment report; The second stage is insurance pricing execution, where the insurance company's business system receives the risk level field from the assessment report and automatically generates underwriting decisions and premium plans using a built-in rate engine; The third stage is risk control service response, where differentiated service packages are automatically matched according to the risk level. For low-risk buildings (levels 4 and 5), fire emergency response plans are pushed out; for medium-to-high-risk buildings (levels 2 and 3), fire hazard rectification recommendations are generated simultaneously, rectification deadlines are set, and reassessment tasks are associated.

[0022] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in this invention, the implementation of the dynamic periodic review mechanism includes automatically activating the dynamic periodic review mechanism after the assessment is completed and the risk level and corresponding premium plan are generated.

[0023] The dynamic periodic reassessment mechanism is used to set differentiated reassessment cycles based on the initial risk level of buildings. Level 1 and 2 high-risk buildings are reassessed quarterly, Level 3 medium-risk buildings are reassessed semi-annually, and Level 4 and 5 low-risk buildings are reassessed annually.

[0024] As a preferred embodiment of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in this invention, the risk monitoring of the building includes being carried out by the original interdisciplinary assessment team, using the same structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factor module, and comprehensively judging the changes in the current fire status of the building through on-site inspection, data review and IoT fire monitoring data, and comparing the changes in indicators with the previous assessment.

[0025] The adjustment of risk levels and insurance premium levels based on changes in fire conditions includes re-scoring the data obtained from the reassessment according to standardized scoring rules completely consistent with the assessment, recalculating the updated comprehensive risk score of fire and its secondary disasters using the analytic hierarchy process, and reclassifying the risk levels from 1 to 5 based on the same threshold range. After the new risk level results are confirmed by the assessment team, they are pushed to the insurance company's core business system in real time through a structured data interface, triggering a dynamic adjustment of the risk premium linkage mechanism. If the risk level increases, the system automatically generates a premium increase instruction or adds new loss prevention requirements; if the risk level decreases, the premium is reduced simultaneously and the service package content is upgraded.

[0026] Secondly, embodiments of the present invention provide a system for assessing the risk of building fires and their secondary disasters, comprising: a cross-disciplinary assessment and indicator construction module, which establishes a cross-disciplinary assessment team to address the problem of uneven capabilities among existing assessment entities, constructs a structured indicator system, introduces secondary disaster coupling factors, and systematically identifies and quantifies secondary disaster risks; a risk quantification and classification module, which uses the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to weight existing assessment entity indicators, obtains a comprehensive risk score for building fires and their secondary disasters, and classifies risk levels; a risk premium linkage and business closed-loop module, which maps the classified risk level results to a risk premium linkage mechanism, establishes a closed-loop insurance business process, and connects the assessment entity capabilities with insurance business; and a dynamic review and premium optimization module, which implements a dynamic periodic review mechanism, conducts risk monitoring of buildings, and adjusts risk levels and insurance premium levels according to changes in fire safety conditions.

[0027] Thirdly, embodiments of the present invention provide a computer device, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement any step of the above-described method for assessing the risk of building fires and their secondary disasters.

[0028] Fourthly, embodiments of the present invention provide a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein: when the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements any step of the above-described method for assessing the risk of building fires and their secondary disasters.

[0029] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: By assembling an interdisciplinary assessment team composed of registered engineers and firefighters, this invention constructs a structured indicator system based on national standards and introduces secondary disaster coupling factors, achieving systematic identification and quantification of building fire and secondary disaster risks. It employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for scientific weighting, generating a gradeable and comparable comprehensive risk score, which is then precisely mapped to a risk-premium linkage mechanism, creating a closed loop for assessment, pricing, and insurance services. Simultaneously, through a dynamic periodic review mechanism, combined with on-site inspections and IoT monitoring data, it achieves real-time synchronous adjustment of risk status and premium levels. This method effectively solves core problems in existing technologies such as inconsistent assessment capabilities, fragmented indicators, neglect of secondary disasters, and the disconnect between static pricing and risk control. It significantly improves the insurance industry's accurate pricing capabilities, proactive loss prevention capabilities, and dynamic risk control levels in the field of fire risk, while also incentivizing policyholders to continuously improve fire safety conditions, promoting a virtuous cycle of risk perception, premium adjustment, and proactive prevention. Attached Figure Description

[0030] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort. Wherein:

[0031] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks, provided as an embodiment of the present invention.

[0032] Figure 2 This is a system schematic diagram of a method for assessing the risk of building fires and secondary disasters, provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0033] To make the above-mentioned objects, features, and advantages of the present invention more apparent and understandable, specific embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, and not all of them. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort should fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0034] Many specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a full understanding of the invention. However, the invention may also be practiced in other ways different from those described herein, and those skilled in the art can make similar extensions without departing from the spirit of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0035] Secondly, the term "one embodiment" or "embodiment" as used herein refers to a specific feature, structure, or characteristic that may be included in at least one implementation of the present invention. The phrase "in one embodiment" appearing in different places in this specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it a single or selective embodiment that is mutually exclusive with other embodiments.

[0036] This invention is described in detail with reference to the schematic diagrams. When detailing the embodiments of this invention, for ease of explanation, the cross-sectional views illustrating the device structure may be partially enlarged, not adhering to the usual scale. Furthermore, the schematic diagrams are merely examples and should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection of this invention. In actual fabrication, the three-dimensional spatial dimensions of length, width, and depth should be included.

[0037] Furthermore, in the description of this invention, it should be noted that the terms "upper," "lower," "inner," and "outer," etc., indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings. These terms are used solely for the convenience of describing the invention and for simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation. Therefore, they should not be construed as limitations on the invention. In addition, the terms "first," "second," or "third" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0038] Unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "installation," "connection," and "joining" in this invention should be interpreted broadly. For example, they can refer to fixed connections, detachable connections, or integral connections; similarly, they can refer to mechanical connections, electrical connections, or direct connections, or indirect connections through an intermediate medium, or internal connections between two components. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention based on the specific circumstances.

[0039] Example

[0040] Reference Figure 1 and Figure 2 This is the first embodiment of the present invention, which provides a method for assessing the risk of building fires and their secondary disasters, including:

[0041] S1: Establish an interdisciplinary assessment team to address the uneven capabilities of existing assessment entities, construct a structured indicator system, introduce secondary disaster coupling factors, and systematically identify and quantify secondary disaster risks.

[0042] The structured indicator system includes a structured indicator system consisting of four primary dimensions, with several secondary indicators under each primary dimension, and a secondary disaster coupling factor added as a cross-functional assessment sub-module that runs through the four primary dimensions.

[0043] The cross-assessment submodule is used to map and embed the risk characteristics of secondary disasters into the original indicators to form coupled terms;

[0044] The secondary disaster coupling factor is assigned a value using quantifiable technical parameters, calibrated in conjunction with a historical fire secondary disaster database, to form a standardized scoring rule.

[0045] Systematic identification and quantification of secondary disaster risks includes the preliminary identification of the risk characteristics of secondary disasters induced by a building fire;

[0046] For each type of secondary disaster initially screened out using quantifiable technical parameters, the corresponding coupling factors in the pre-embedded structured indicator system are called to form a scoring matrix;

[0047] The calibration method, which incorporates a historical fire secondary disaster database, involves incorporating activated secondary disaster coupling factors into the AHP judgment matrix, comparing and scoring each factor, and generating a weight vector after consistency verification. It also involves introducing a fire secondary disaster accident case library to retrospectively calibrate the weight vector. Since the scores of each secondary disaster factor are multiplied and summed with the weight vector, a secondary disaster risk sub-score is obtained and participates in the calculation of the comprehensive risk score as an independent component.

[0048] Furthermore, in constructing the structured indicator system, four primary dimensions are established based on standards: the fire resistance performance of the building itself, the level of fire protection facilities configuration, fire safety management capabilities, and external rescue support conditions. Each dimension is further refined into several observable and verifiable secondary indicators, forming a clear and comprehensive assessment framework. On this basis, a secondary disaster coupling factor is innovatively added as a cross-functional assessment sub-module that runs through all four primary dimensions. This sub-module does not exist independently but rather decomposes and embeds the risk characteristics of typical secondary disasters such as explosions, toxic smoke diffusion, structural collapse, and hazardous chemical leaks into the original indicators, forming coupled items with physical meaning and engineering logic. For example, when assessing the building itself, not only is the fire resistance rating examined, but also the potential for structural instability under high temperatures during a fire is considered; when assessing fire protection facilities, not only is the completeness of the fire extinguishing system checked, but also its ability to handle hazardous chemical leaks or explosion-proof ventilation is assessed. All secondary disaster coupling factors are assigned values ​​using quantifiable technical parameters from national or industry standards, and the scoring thresholds are calibrated using a historical fire secondary disaster database to ensure that the scoring rules are scientific, consistent, and reproducible. In practice, the types of secondary disasters that may be induced are first preliminarily identified based on information such as building use and the nature of stored items. Then, for each identified secondary disaster, the corresponding coupling factors in the structured indicator system are automatically invoked to form a specific scoring matrix. These activated coupling factors are then incorporated into the judgment matrix of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), where a cross-disciplinary team performs pairwise comparisons and scoring. After consistency checks, their weights are determined, and a database of real fire secondary disaster accident cases is further used to retrospectively calibrate the weights, making the weight allocation closer to the actual disaster-causing patterns. Finally, the scores of each secondary disaster coupling factor are multiplied by their calibrated weights and summed to obtain the secondary disaster risk sub-score. This sub-score, as an independent and indispensable component, together with the main fire risk score, constitutes the comprehensive risk score of building fires and their secondary disasters, thereby achieving a systematic, structured, and quantitative full-process assessment of secondary disaster risks.

[0049] S2: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to the existing assessment indicators to obtain a comprehensive risk score for building fires and their secondary disasters, and the risk levels are then classified.

[0050] The method of weighting existing assessment indicators using the analytic hierarchy process includes pairwise comparisons of the four primary dimensions to construct a primary judgment matrix; and constructing secondary judgment matrices for the subordinate secondary indicators and embedded secondary disaster coupling factors within each primary dimension.

[0051] Dividing the risk levels includes performing consistency tests on the judgment matrices at all levels, obtaining the weight values of each index through the eigenvector method, forming a weight system from the first-level dimension to the second-level indexes. As part of the second-level indexes, the coupling factors of secondary disasters do not have isolated weights but participate in the global weight distribution together with the affiliated first-level dimension and related main indexes;

[0052] Convert the measured values of each index obtained from on-site inspections and data reviews into quantitative scores according to the pre-set standardized scoring rules; sum the scores of each index multiplied by the corresponding weights to obtain the comprehensive risk score of the building's fire and secondary disasters; map the comprehensive risk score of secondary disasters to the five-level risk levels.

[0053] Furthermore, the evaluation results are divided into 5 levels, namely, Level 1 (high fire risk), Level 2 (relatively high fire risk), Level 3 (medium fire risk), Level 4 (relatively low fire risk), Level 5 (low fire risk), and are quantified into 1 - 5 points. Then, use the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the comprehensive score R, which directly corresponds to the 5-level risks, that is, Level 5 (4.5 < R ≤ 5); actively underwrite, and can further reduce the rate by 10 - 20% based on the benchmark rate; Level 4 (3.5 < R ≤ 4.5); benchmark rate; Level 3 (2.5 < R ≤ 3.5); increase by 10%; Level 2 (1.5 < R ≤ 2.5); increase by 20% and include in the key loss prevention list; Level 1 (R ≤ 1.5) has a high fire alarm risk, a high risk of disaster formation or major fire hazards; directly reject the underwriting.

[0054] S3: Map the divided risk level results to the risk-premium linkage mechanism, establish a closed-loop process for insurance business, and打通 the linkage between the evaluation subject's capabilities and insurance business.

[0055] Among them, mapping the divided risk level results to the risk-premium linkage mechanism includes, after obtaining the comprehensive risk score of the building's fire and secondary disasters and dividing it into 1 to 5 risk levels, automatically pushing the risk level results to the core business system of the insurance company through a structured data interface and mapping them to the pre-set risk-premium linkage mechanism;

[0056] Establishing a closed-loop insurance business process involves the system automatically initiating assessment, pricing, and service processes based on mapping results. This closed-loop process comprises three closely linked stages: The first stage is risk assessment output, where an interdisciplinary assessment team conducts on-site investigations, quantitative scoring, and risk level determination based on a structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factors, and issues an assessment report. The second stage is insurance pricing execution, where the insurance company's business system receives the risk level field from the assessment report and automatically generates underwriting decisions and premium plans using its built-in rate engine. The third stage is risk control service response, automatically matching differentiated service packages based on the risk level. For low-risk buildings (levels 4 and 5), fire emergency response plans are generated; for medium-to-high-risk buildings (levels 2 and 3), fire hazard rectification recommendations are generated simultaneously, setting rectification deadlines and linking them to reassessment tasks.

[0057] Furthermore, after calculating the comprehensive risk score of building fire and its secondary disasters and classifying it into risk levels 1 to 5, this invention automatically pushes the risk level results to the insurance company's core business system in a structured data format (such as JSON or XML) through a standardized interface, and accurately matches them with the pre-set risk premium linkage mechanism within the system, configuring corresponding underwriting strategies and rate adjustment schemes for each risk level. Based on this, the system automatically triggers a closed-loop insurance business process consisting of three closely linked and interconnected stages: The first stage is risk assessment output, where a professionally qualified interdisciplinary assessment team conducts on-site inspections, quantitative scoring, and risk assessment based on a unified structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factors, and issues an assessment report with technical authority and legal validity; The second stage is insurance pricing execution, where the insurance company's business system receives the risk level field from the assessment report in real time, and without manual intervention, directly calls the built-in rate engine to automatically generate a complete underwriting decision and premium plan, including whether to underwrite, the base rate, and the upward or downward adjustment ratio; The third stage is risk control service response, where the system intelligently matches differentiated disaster prevention and mitigation service packages based on the final determined risk level; for low-risk buildings of levels 4 and 5, it proactively pushes value-added services such as fire emergency plan creation, fire drill simulation, and maintenance and inspection reminders; while for medium-to-high-risk buildings of levels 2 and 3, it simultaneously generates fire hazard rectification suggestions, clearly defining the rectification content and deadline, and automatically links them to subsequent re-evaluation tasks to ensure that risk control measures are implemented. The entire process starts with the assessment results, uses premium adjustments as a link, and extends to service response, achieving full-chain automation, standardization, and closed-loop management from risk identification to insurance pricing and proactive prevention.

[0058] S4: Implement a dynamic periodic review mechanism to conduct risk monitoring of buildings and adjust risk levels and insurance premium levels according to changes in fire safety conditions.

[0059] The implementation of the dynamic periodic review mechanism includes automatically initiating the dynamic periodic review mechanism after the assessment is completed and the risk level and corresponding premium plan are generated.

[0060] The dynamic periodic review mechanism is used to set differentiated review cycles based on the initial risk level of a building. Level 1 and 2 high-risk buildings are reviewed quarterly, Level 3 medium-risk buildings are reviewed semi-annually, and Level 4 and 5 low-risk buildings are reviewed annually.

[0061] Risk monitoring of buildings is carried out by the original interdisciplinary assessment team, using the same structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factor module. Through on-site inspection, data review and IoT fire monitoring data, the current fire status of the building is comprehensively judged and compared with the changes in indicators compared with the previous assessment.

[0062] Adjusting risk levels and insurance premium levels based on changes in fire safety conditions involves re-scoring the data obtained from the reassessment according to standardized scoring rules completely consistent with the assessment, recalculating the updated comprehensive risk score of fire and its secondary disasters using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and reclassifying risk levels from 1 to 5 based on the same threshold range. After the new risk level results are confirmed by the assessment team, they are pushed to the insurance company's core business system in real time through a structured data interface, triggering a dynamic adjustment of the risk premium linkage mechanism. If the risk level increases, the system automatically generates a premium increase instruction or adds new loss prevention requirements; if the risk level decreases, the premium is reduced simultaneously and the service package content is upgraded.

[0063] Furthermore, after the initial assessment is completed and the building's risk level and corresponding premium plan are determined, this invention automatically initiates a dynamic periodic reassessment mechanism. This mechanism does not employ a uniform reassessment frequency, but rather implements a differentiated monitoring rhythm based on the initial risk level: Level 1 and 2 high-risk buildings, due to their prominent hidden dangers and high probability of disaster, undergo a comprehensive reassessment quarterly; Level 3 medium-risk buildings are reassessed every six months; and Level 4 and 5 low-risk buildings are reassessed annually, balancing risk control accuracy with implementation costs. Each reassessment is conducted by the original interdisciplinary assessment team to ensure consistency in assessment standards, personnel capabilities, and technical measures, and strictly adheres to the structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factor module used in the initial assessment. During the reassessment process, in addition to on-site inspections and document review, the system integrates and accesses the building's IoT fire monitoring data (such as real-time information on automatic fire alarm status, fire hydrant water pressure, electrical circuit temperature, and smoke concentration) to comprehensively perceive the current fire situation and focus on comparing changes in key indicators compared to the previous assessment to identify new risks or the effectiveness of rectification efforts. Subsequently, all reassessment data were re-scored according to standardized scoring rules identical to the initial assessment, and the updated comprehensive risk score for fire and its secondary disasters was calculated again using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Based on the same threshold range, the risk levels were reclassified into 1 to 5. After the assessment team reviewed and confirmed the new levels, they were pushed to the insurance company's core business system in real time via a structured data interface, immediately triggering a dynamic response from the risk-premium linkage mechanism: if the risk level increases, the system automatically generates a premium increase instruction and may add key loss prevention measures or rectification requirements; if the risk level decreases, the premium is simultaneously reduced, and a higher-level value-added service package, such as customized emergency drills or priority maintenance channels, is pushed to the policyholder. This achieves continuous alignment between insurance coverage levels and the actual fire safety conditions of the building, truly establishing a dynamic risk governance mechanism covering the entire policy lifecycle.

[0064] In a preferred embodiment, a system for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks includes: a cross-disciplinary assessment and indicator construction module, which establishes a cross-disciplinary assessment team to address the uneven capabilities of existing assessment entities, constructs a structured indicator system, introduces secondary disaster coupling factors, and systematically identifies and quantifies secondary disaster risks; a risk quantification and classification module, which uses the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to weight existing assessment entity indicators, obtains a comprehensive risk score for building fire and its secondary disasters, and classifies risk levels; a risk premium linkage and business closed-loop module, which maps the classified risk level results to a risk premium linkage mechanism, establishes a closed-loop insurance business process, and connects the assessment entity capabilities with insurance business; and a dynamic review and premium optimization module, which implements a dynamic periodic review mechanism, conducts risk monitoring of buildings, and adjusts risk levels and insurance premium levels according to changes in fire safety conditions.

[0065] The above-mentioned unit modules can be embedded in the processor of the computer device in hardware form or independent of it, or they can be stored in the memory of the computer device in software form, so that the processor can call and execute the corresponding operations of the above modules.

[0066] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a terminal. The computer device includes a processor, memory, a communication interface, a display screen, and an input device connected via a system bus. The processor of the computer device provides computing and control capabilities. The memory of the computer device includes a non-volatile storage medium and internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system and computer programs. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs stored in the non-volatile storage medium. The communication interface of the computer device is used for wired or wireless communication with external terminals. Wireless communication can be achieved through Wi-Fi, carrier networks, NFC (Near Field Communication), or other technologies. The display screen of the computer device may be an LCD screen or an e-ink display screen. The input device of the computer device may be a touch layer covering the display screen, or buttons, a trackball, or a touchpad located on the casing of the computer device, or an external keyboard, touchpad, or mouse, etc.

[0067] In summary, this invention, by assembling an interdisciplinary assessment team composed of highly qualified personnel, registered engineers, and firefighters, constructs a structured indicator system based on national standards and introduces secondary disaster coupling factors, achieving systematic identification and quantification of building fire and secondary disaster risks. It employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for scientific weighting, generating a gradeable and comparable comprehensive risk score, which is then precisely mapped to a risk-premium linkage mechanism, creating a closed loop for assessment, pricing, and insurance services. Simultaneously, through a dynamic periodic review mechanism, combined with on-site inspections and IoT monitoring data, it achieves real-time synchronous adjustment of risk status and premium levels. This method effectively solves core problems in existing technologies, such as inconsistent assessment capabilities, fragmented indicators, neglect of secondary disasters, and the disconnect between static pricing and risk control. It significantly improves the insurance industry's accurate pricing capabilities, proactive loss prevention capabilities, and dynamic risk control levels in the field of fire risk, while incentivizing policyholders to continuously improve fire safety conditions, promoting a virtuous cycle of risk perception, premium adjustment, and proactive prevention.

[0068] It should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications or equivalent substitutions can be made to the technical solutions of the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the present invention, and all such modifications or substitutions should be covered within the scope of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the risk of building fires and its secondary disasters, characterized in that: include, Establish an interdisciplinary assessment team to address the uneven capabilities of existing assessment bodies, construct a structured indicator system, introduce secondary disaster coupling factors, and systematically identify and quantify secondary disaster risks; The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to existing assessment indicators to obtain a comprehensive risk score for building fires and their secondary disasters, and the risk levels are then classified. The risk level classification results are mapped to the risk premium linkage mechanism to establish a closed-loop process for insurance business and connect the assessment entity's capabilities with insurance business. Implement a dynamic and periodic review mechanism to monitor the risks of buildings and adjust the risk level and insurance premium level according to changes in fire safety conditions.

2. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The constructed structured indicator system includes a structured indicator system consisting of four primary dimensions, with several secondary indicators under each primary dimension, and a secondary disaster coupling factor added as a cross-evaluation sub-module that runs through the four primary dimensions; The cross-assessment submodule is used to map and embed the risk characteristics of secondary disasters into the original indicators to form coupling terms; The secondary disaster coupling factor is assigned a value using quantifiable technical parameters, calibrated in conjunction with a historical fire secondary disaster database, to form a standardized scoring rule.

3. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 2, characterized in that: The systematic identification and quantification of secondary disaster risks includes the preliminary identification of the risk characteristics of secondary disasters induced by a building after a fire. For each type of secondary disaster initially screened out using quantifiable technical parameters, the corresponding coupling factors in the pre-embedded structured indicator system are called to form a scoring matrix; The calibration method, which incorporates a historical fire secondary disaster database, involves incorporating activated secondary disaster coupling factors into the AHP judgment matrix, comparing and scoring each factor, and generating a weight vector after consistency verification. It also involves introducing a fire secondary disaster accident case library to retrospectively calibrate the weight vector. Since the scores of each secondary disaster factor are multiplied and summed with the weight vector, a secondary disaster risk sub-score is obtained and participates in the calculation of the comprehensive risk score as an independent component.

4. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 3, characterized in that: The method of weighting existing assessment indicators using the analytic hierarchy process includes pairwise comparisons of the four primary dimensions to construct a primary judgment matrix; and constructing secondary judgment matrices for the subordinate secondary indicators and embedded secondary disaster coupling factors within each primary dimension. The risk level classification includes consistency testing of the judgment matrix at each level, obtaining the weight values ​​of each indicator through the eigenvector method, forming a weight system from the first-level dimension to the second-level indicator. The secondary disaster coupling factor, as part of the second-level indicator, is not set in isolation, but participates in the global weight allocation together with its corresponding first-level dimension and related main indicators. The measured values ​​of each indicator obtained from on-site investigation and data review are converted into quantitative scores according to pre-set standardized scoring rules; the scores of each indicator are multiplied by their corresponding weights and then summed to obtain the comprehensive risk score of fire and secondary disasters of the building. The comprehensive risk score of secondary disasters is mapped to a five-level risk level.

5. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 4, characterized in that: The process of mapping the risk level results to the risk premium linkage mechanism includes obtaining the comprehensive risk score of building fire and secondary disasters and classifying them into risk levels 1 to 5, then automatically pushing the risk level results to the insurance company's core business system through a structured data interface and mapping them to the preset risk premium linkage mechanism. The establishment of a closed-loop insurance business process includes an automatic system-initiated process for assessment, pricing, and service based on mapping results. This closed-loop process consists of three closely linked stages: The first stage is risk assessment output, where an interdisciplinary assessment team conducts on-site investigations, quantitative scoring, and risk level determination based on a structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factors, and issues an assessment report. The second stage is insurance pricing execution, where the insurance company's business system receives the risk level field from the assessment report and automatically generates underwriting decisions and premium plans using its built-in rate engine. The third stage is risk control service response, where differentiated service packages are automatically matched based on the risk level. For low-risk buildings (levels 4 and 5), fire emergency response plans are generated; for medium-to-high-risk buildings (levels 2 and 3), fire hazard rectification recommendations are generated simultaneously, setting rectification deadlines and linking them to reassessment tasks.

6. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 5, characterized in that: The implementation of the dynamic periodic review mechanism includes automatically initiating the dynamic periodic review mechanism after the assessment is completed and the risk level and corresponding premium plan are generated; The dynamic periodic reassessment mechanism is used to set differentiated reassessment cycles based on the initial risk level of buildings. Level 1 and 2 high-risk buildings are reassessed quarterly, Level 3 medium-risk buildings are reassessed semi-annually, and Level 4 and 5 low-risk buildings are reassessed annually.

7. The method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risks as described in claim 6, characterized in that: The risk monitoring of the building is carried out by the original interdisciplinary assessment team, using the same structured indicator system and secondary disaster coupling factor module. Through on-site inspection, data review and IoT fire monitoring data, the current fire status of the building is comprehensively judged and compared with the changes in indicators compared with the previous assessment. The adjustment of risk level and insurance premium level based on changes in fire conditions includes re-scoring the data obtained from the reassessment according to standardized scoring rules that are completely consistent with the assessment, recalculating the updated comprehensive risk score of fire and its secondary disasters using the analytic hierarchy process, reclassifying risk levels from 1 to 5 based on the same threshold range, and pushing the new risk level results to the insurance company's core business system in real time through a structured data interface after the assessment team confirms them, triggering the dynamic adjustment of the risk premium linkage mechanism. If the risk level increases, the system will automatically generate a premium increase instruction or add new loss prevention requirements; if the risk level decreases, the premium will be reduced and the service package content will be upgraded accordingly.

8. A system for assessing the risk of building fires and secondary disasters, based on the method for assessing the risk of building fires and secondary disasters as described in any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that: include, The interdisciplinary assessment and indicator construction module establishes an interdisciplinary assessment team to address the issue of uneven capabilities among existing assessment entities, constructs a structured indicator system, introduces secondary disaster coupling factors, and systematically identifies and quantifies secondary disaster risks. The risk quantification and classification module uses the analytic hierarchy process to assign weights to existing assessment indicators, obtains a comprehensive risk score for building fires and their secondary disasters, and classifies the risk levels. The risk premium linkage and business closed-loop module maps the risk level results to the risk premium linkage mechanism, establishes a closed-loop process for insurance business, and connects the assessment entity's capabilities with the insurance business. The dynamic review and premium adjustment module implements a dynamic periodic review mechanism to monitor the risk of buildings and adjust the risk level and insurance premium level according to changes in fire protection conditions.

9. A computer device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, characterized in that: When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the steps of the method for assessing building fire risk and secondary disaster risk as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of the method for assessing building fire risk and its secondary disaster risk as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images