Predicting the ignition of crown fuels above a spreading surface fire. Part I: model idealization
Miguel G. Cruz A E , Bret W. Butler B , Martin E. Alexander C , Jason M. Forthofer B and Ronald H. Wakimoto DA Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinâmica Industrial, Apartado 10131, 3031-601 Coimbra, Portugal. Present address: Ensis – Forest Biosecurity and Protection, CSIRO, PO Box E4008, Kingston, ACT 2604, Australia.
B USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT 59834, USA.
C Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Wildland Fire Operations Research Group, 1176 Switzer Drive, Hinton, AB T7V 1V3, Canada. Present address: Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 122nd Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada.
D College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: miguel.cruz@ensisjv.com
International Journal of Wildland Fire 15(1) 47-60 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF04061
Submitted: 26 October 2004 Accepted: 25 August 2005 Published: 6 March 2006
Abstract
A model was developed to predict the ignition of forest crown fuels above a surface fire based on heat transfer theory. The crown fuel ignition model (hereafter referred to as CFIM) is based on first principles, integrating: (i) the characteristics of the energy source as defined by surface fire flame front properties; (ii) buoyant plume dynamics; (iii) heat sink as described by the crown fuel particle characteristics; and (iv) energy transfer (gain and losses) to the crown fuels. Fuel particle temperature increase is determined through an energy balance relating heat absorption to fuel particle temperature. The final model output is the temperature of the crown fuel particles, which upon reaching ignition temperature are assumed to ignite. CFIM predicts the ignition of crown fuels but does not determine the onset of crown fire spread per se. The coupling of the CFIM with models determining the rate of propagation of crown fires allows for the prediction of the potential for sustained crowning. CFIM has the potential to be implemented in fire management decision support systems.
Additional keywords: crown fire initiation; fire behavior; heat transfer; modeling.
Albini FA (1981) A model for wind-blown flame from a line fire. Combustion and Flame 43, 155–174.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Albini FA (1984) Wildland fires. American Scientist 72, 590–597.
Alexander ME , Thomas DA (2004) Forecasting wildland fire behavior: aids, guides, and knowledge-based protocols. Fire Management Notes 64, 4–11.
Amiro BD (1990) Comparison of turbulence statistics within three boreal forest canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 51, 99–121.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Butler BW, Finney MA, Andrews PL , Albini FA (2004) A radiation-driven model for crown fire spread. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34, 1588–1599.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Catchpole EA , de Mestre N (1986) Physical models for a spreading line fire. Australian Forestry 49, 102–111.
Cheney NP, Gould JS , Catchpole WR (1998) Prediction of fire spread in grasslands. International Journal of Wildland Fire 8, 1–13.
| Crossref |
Cox G , Chitty R (1980) A study of the deterministic properties of unbounded fire plumes. Combustion and Flame 39, 191–209.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cruz MG, Alexander ME , Wakimoto RH (2003) Assessing canopy fuel stratum characteristics in crown fire-prone fuel types of western North America. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 39–50.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dupuy JL , Larini M (1999) Fire spread through a porous forest fuel bed: A radiative and convective model including fire-induced flow effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 9, 155–172.
| Crossref |
Fernandes PM, Catchpole WR , Rego FC (2000) Shrubland fire behavior modelling with microplot data. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30, 889–899.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fulé PZM, Covington WW, Smith HB, Springer JD, Heinlein TA, Huisinga KD , Moore MM (2002) Comparing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 170, 19–41.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Keyes CR , O’Hara KL (2002) Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of crown fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17, 101–109.
Lopes AMG, Sousa ACM , Viegas DX (1995) Numerical simulation of turbulent flow and fire propagation in complex topography. Numerical Heat Transfer Part A 27, 229–253.
Mendes-Lopes JMC, Ventura JMP , Amaral JMP (2003) Flame characteristics, temperature–time curves, and rate of spread in fires propagating in a bed of Pinus pinaster needles. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 67–84.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morton BR, Taylor GI , Turner JS (1956) Turbulent gravitational convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. Proceedings of the Royal Society London 234A, 1–23.
Sanz C (2003) A note on κ-ϵ modeling of vegetation canopy air-flows. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 108, 191–197.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scott JH , Reinhardt ED (2002) Estimating canopy fuels in conifer forests. Fire Management Notes 62((4)), 45–50.
Sullivan AL, Ellis PF , Knight IK (2003) A review of radiant heat flux models used in bushfire applications. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 101–110.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomas PH , Scott R (1963) Research on forest fires. Report on Forest Research 1962, 116–119.
Van Wagner CE (1977) Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 7, 23–34.
Weber RO, Gill AM, Lyons PRA , Mercer GN (1995) Time dependence of temperature above wildland fires. CALMScience 4(Suppl.), 17–22.
1 In the present study, the term ‘crown’ is applied to describe aerial fuels at the tree level and ‘canopy’ at the stand level.
2 The red pine plantation had a height of 13 m and a CBH between 6.1 and 9.2 m. Basal area for the experimental area varied between 40 and 58 m2 ha−1. The prevailing environmental conditions were as follows: U10 = 3.6 m s−1; US = 1.7 m s−1; Ta = 10°C; RH = 25–35%; MC = 0.09; FMC = 0.92. Surface fuel consumption was 1.3 kg m−2. No information existed as to which fraction of the total surface fuel consumed in the surface phase was consumed within flaming combustion. Based on the information of the surface fuelbed structure, wa was estimated as 0.9 kg m−2.