Fire behaviour and smoke modelling: model improvement and measurement needs for next-generation smoke research and forecasting systems
Yongqiang Liu A O , Adam Kochanski B , Kirk R. Baker C , William Mell D , Rodman Linn E , Ronan Paugam D , Jan Mandel F , Aime Fournier F , Mary Ann Jenkins B , Scott Goodrick A , Gary Achtemeier A , Fengjun Zhao A , Roger Ottmar D , Nancy H. F. French
G , Narasimhan Larkin D , Timothy Brown H , Andrew Hudak I , Matthew Dickinson J , Brian Potter D , Craig Clements K , Shawn Urbanski L , Susan Prichard M , Adam Watts H and Derek McNamara N
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A US Forest Service, Center for Forest Disturbance Science, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
B University of Utah, 135 S 1460 East Rm, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
C US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
D US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N 34th Street, Seattle, WA 98103, USA.
E Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA.
F University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA.
G Michigan Technological University, 3520 Green Court, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
H Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA.
I US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1221 South Main Street, Moscow, ID 83843, USA.
J US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015, USA.
K San Jose State University, 620 One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192, USA.
L US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 5775 US West Highway 10, Missoula, MT 59808, USA.
M University of Washington, Anderson Hall, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
N Geospatial Measurement Solutions, 2149 Cascade Avenue, Hood River, OR 97031, USA.
O Corresponding author. Email: yongqiang.liu@usda.gov
International Journal of Wildland Fire 28(8) 570-588 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18204
Submitted: 29 January 2018 Accepted: 18 May 2019 Published: 9 July 2019
Abstract
There is an urgent need for next-generation smoke research and forecasting (SRF) systems to meet the challenges of the growing air quality, health and safety concerns associated with wildland fire emissions. This review paper presents simulations and experiments of hypothetical prescribed burns with a suite of selected fire behaviour and smoke models and identifies major issues for model improvement and the most critical observational needs. The results are used to understand the new and improved capability required for the next-generation SRF systems and to support the design of the Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment (FASMEE) and other field campaigns. The next-generation SRF systems should have more coupling of fire, smoke and atmospheric processes. The development of the coupling capability requires comprehensive and spatially and temporally integrated measurements across the various disciplines to characterise flame and energy structure (e.g. individual cells, vertical heat profile and the height of well-mixing flaming gases), smoke structure (vertical distributions and multiple subplumes), ambient air processes (smoke eddy, entrainment and radiative effects of smoke aerosols) and fire emissions (for different fuel types and combustion conditions from flaming to residual smouldering), as well as night-time processes (smoke drainage and super-fog formation).
Additional keywords: burn plan and measurement design, CMAQ, Daysmoke, FIRETEC, WFDS, WRF-SFIRE-CHEM.
References
Achtemeier GL (2005) Planned Burn – Piedmont. A local operational numerical meteorological model for tracking smoke on the ground at night: model development and sensitivity tests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14, 85–98.| Planned Burn – Piedmont. A local operational numerical meteorological model for tracking smoke on the ground at night: model development and sensitivity tests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Achtemeier GL (2009) On the formation and persistence of superfog in woodland smoke. Meteorological Applications 16, 215–225.
| On the formation and persistence of superfog in woodland smoke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Achtemeier GL, Goodrick SA, Liu Y-Q, Garcia-Menendez F, Hu Y, Odman MT (2011) Modeling smoke plume rise and dispersion from southern United States prescribed burns with Daysmoke. Atmosphere 2, 358–388.
| Modeling smoke plume rise and dispersion from southern United States prescribed burns with Daysmoke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Achtemeier GL, Goodrick SA, Liu Y-Q (2012) Modeling multiple-core updraft plume rise for an aerial ignition prescribed burn by coupling Daysmoke with a cellular automata fire model. Atmosphere 3, 352–376.
| Modeling multiple-core updraft plume rise for an aerial ignition prescribed burn by coupling Daysmoke with a cellular automata fire model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Alexander ME, Cruz MG (2013) Limitations on the accuracy of model predictions of wildland fire behaviour: a state-of-the-knowledge overview. Forestry Chronicle 89, 372–383.
| Limitations on the accuracy of model predictions of wildland fire behaviour: a state-of-the-knowledge overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Anderson GK, Sandberg DV, Norheim RA (2004) Fire Emission Production Simulator (FEPS) user’s guide. Version 1.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 98103, p. 95. (Seattle, WA, USA). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/feps/FEPS_users_guide.pdf [Verified 3 June 2019]
Andrews PL (2014) Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus fire modeling system. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23, 21–33.
| Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus fire modeling system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Appel KW, Napelenok SL, Foley KM, Pye HO, Hogrefe C, Luecken DJ, Bash JO, Roselle SJ, Pleim JE, Foroutan H (2017) Description and evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 5.1. Geoscientific Model Development 10, 1703–1732.
| Description and evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 5.1.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30147852PubMed |
Baker KR, Woody M, Tonnesen G, Hutzell W, Pye H, Beaver M, Pouliot G, Pierce T (2016) Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and PM2.5 air quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches. Atmospheric Environment 140, 539–554.
| Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and PM2.5 air quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baker KR, Woody M, Valin L, Szykman J, Yates E, Iraci L, Choi H, Soja A, Koplitz S, Zhou L (2018) Photochemical model evaluation of 2013 California wildfire air quality impacts using surface, aircraft, and satellite data. The Science of the Total Environment 637–638, 1137–1149.
| Photochemical model evaluation of 2013 California wildfire air quality impacts using surface, aircraft, and satellite data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29801207PubMed |
Bey I, Jacob DJ, Yantosca RM, Logan JA, Field BD, Fiore AM, Li Q, Liu HY, Mickley LJ (2001) Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: model description and evaluation. Journal of Geophysical Research. Atmospheres 106, 23073–23095.
| Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: model description and evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bova AS, Mell W, Hoffman C (2016) A comparison of level set and marker methods for the simulation of wildland fire front propagation. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 229–241.
| A comparison of level set and marker methods for the simulation of wildland fire front propagation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carlton AG, Bhave PV, Napelenok SL, Edney EO, Sarwar G, Pinder RW, Pouliot GA, Houyoux M (2010) Treatment of secondary organic aerosol in CMAQv4.7. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 8553–8560.
| Treatment of secondary organic aerosol in CMAQv4.7.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chen J, Vaughan J, Avise J, O’Neill S, Lamb B (2008) Enhancement and evaluation of the AIRPACT ozone and PM2.5 forecast system for the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, D14305
| Enhancement and evaluation of the AIRPACT ozone and PM2.5 forecast system for the Pacific Northwest.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark TL, Coen J, Latham D (2004) Description of a coupled atmosphere–fire model. International Journal of Wildland Fire 13, 49–64.
| Description of a coupled atmosphere–fire model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coen JL (2013) Modeling wildland fires: a description of the Coupled Atmosphere–Wildland Fire Environment model (CAWFE). NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-500+STR. Boulder, CO. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6K64G2G [Verified 3 June 2019]
Cruz MG, Alexander ME (2013) Uncertainty associated with model predictions of surface and crown fire rates of spread. Environmental Modelling & Software 47, 16–28.
| Uncertainty associated with model predictions of surface and crown fire rates of spread.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cruz MG, Gould JS, Alexander ME, Sullivan AL, McCaw WL, Matthews S (2015) Empirical‐based models for predicting head‐fire rate of spread in Australian fuel types. Australian Forestry 78, 118–158.
| Empirical‐based models for predicting head‐fire rate of spread in Australian fuel types.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dahl N, Xue H, Hu X, Xue M (2015) Coupled fire–atmosphere modeling of wildland fire spread using DEVS-FIRE and ARPS. Natural Hazards 77, 1013–1035.
| Coupled fire–atmosphere modeling of wildland fire spread using DEVS-FIRE and ARPS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Draxler RR, Rolph GD (2003) HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. (Silver Spring, MD, USA). Available at http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html [Verified 3 June 2019]
Faggian N, Bridge C, Fox-Hughes P, Jolly C, Jacobs H, Ebert B, Bally J (2017) An evaluation of fire spread simulators used in Australia, in Bushfire Predictive Services Final report. Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/research/publications/otherreports/FPS_Final_Report_v1.81_Evaluation_Of_Simulators_Release.pd [Verified 3 June 2019]
Fahey KM, Carlton AG, Pye HO, Baek J, Hutzell WT, Stanier CO, Baker KR, Appel KW, Jaoui M, Offenberg JH (2017) A framework for expanding aqueous chemistry in the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.1. Geoscientific Model Development 10, 1587–1605.
| A framework for expanding aqueous chemistry in the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.1.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30147851PubMed |
Fann N, Fulcher CM, Baker K (2013) The recent and future health burden of air pollution apportioned across US sectors. Environmental Science & Technology 47, 3580–3589.
| The recent and future health burden of air pollution apportioned across US sectors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
FCFDG (Forestry Canada Fire Danger Group) (1992) Development and structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction System. Canadian Forestry Service Information Report no. ST-X-3. (Ottawa, ON, Canada).
Filippi JB, Bosseur F, Mari C, Lac C, Moigne PL, Cuenot B, Veynante D, Cariolle D, Balbi JH (2009) Coupled atmosphere–wildland fire modelling. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 1, Art.#11
| Coupled atmosphere–wildland fire modelling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Filippi JB, Bosseur F, Pialat X, Santoni P, Strada S, Mari C (2011) Simulation of coupled fire/atmosphere interaction with the MesoNH–ForeFire models. Journal of Combustion 2011, 540390
| Simulation of coupled fire/atmosphere interaction with the MesoNH–ForeFire models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finney MA (2004) FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator – model development and evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised. (Ogden, UT, USA)
Freitas S, Longo K, Trentmann J, Latham D (2010) Technical note: sensitivity of 1-D smoke plume rise models to the inclusion of environmental wind drag. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10, 585–594.
| Technical note: sensitivity of 1-D smoke plume rise models to the inclusion of environmental wind drag.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gabbert B (2016) Interstate highway closed after accidents caused by prescribed fire smoke. Wildfire Today. Available at https://wildfiretoday.com/2016/10/20/interstate-highway-closed-after-accidents-caused-by-prescribed-fire-smoke/ [Verified 3 June 2019].
Goodrick SA, Achtemeier GL, Larkin NK, Liu Y-Q, Strand TM (2013) Modelling smoke transport from wildland fires: a review. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 83–94.
| Modelling smoke transport from wildland fires: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grell GA, Peckham SE, Schmitz R, McKeen SA, Frost G, Skamarock WC, Eder B (2005) Fully coupled online chemistry within the WRF model. Atmospheric Environment 39, 6957–6975.
| Fully coupled online chemistry within the WRF model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grell G, Freitas SR, Stuefer M, Fast J (2011) Inclusion of biomass burning in WRF-Chem: impact of wildfires on weather forecasts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11, 5289–5303.
| Inclusion of biomass burning in WRF-Chem: impact of wildfires on weather forecasts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harms MF, Lavdas LG (1997) Users Guide to VSMOKE-GIS for workstations. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Paper SRS-6. (Asheville, NC, USA)
Hoffman C, Ziegler J, Canfield J, Linn R, Mell W, Sieg CH, Pimont F (2016) Evaluating crown fire rate of spread from physics-based models. Fire Technology 52, 221–237.
| Evaluating crown fire rate of spread from physics-based models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kochanski AK, Jenkins MA, Mandel J, Beezley JD, Clements CB, Krueger S (2013a) Evaluation of WRF-SFIRE performance with field observations from the FireFlux experiment. Geoscientific Model Development 6, 1109–1126.
| Evaluation of WRF-SFIRE performance with field observations from the FireFlux experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kochanski AK, Jenkins MA, Krueger SK, Mandel J, Beezley JD (2013b) Real time simulation of 2007 Santa Ana fires. Forest Ecology and Management 294, 136–149.
| Real time simulation of 2007 Santa Ana fires.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kochanski AK, Jenkins MA, Yedinak K, Mandel J, Beezley J, Lamb B (2015) Toward an integrated system for fire, smoke, and air quality simulations. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 558–568.
| Toward an integrated system for fire, smoke, and air quality simulations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kochanski AK, Fournier A, Mandel J (2018) Experimental design of a prescribed burn instrumentation. Atmosphere 9,
| Experimental design of a prescribed burn instrumentation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larkin NK, O’Neill SM, Solomon R, Raffuse S, Strand T, Sullivan DC, Ferguson SA (2009) The BlueSky smoke modeling framework. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 906–920.
| The BlueSky smoke modeling framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larkin NK, Strand TM, Drury SA, Raffuse SM, Solomon RC, O’Neill SM, Wheeler N, Huang S, Roring M, Hafner HR (2012) Final Report to the JFSP for Project #08–1-7–10: Phase 1 of the Smoke and Emissions Model Intercomparison Project. Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/jfspresearch/42/ [Verified 3 June 2019.
Linn RR, Reisner J, Colmann JJ, Winterkamp J (2002) Studying wildfire behavior using FIRETEC. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11, 233–246.
| Studying wildfire behavior using FIRETEC.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Linn RR, Winterkamp J, Colman JJ, Edminster C, Bailey JD (2005) Modeling interactions between fire and atmosphere in discrete element fuel beds. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14, 37–48.
| Modeling interactions between fire and atmosphere in discrete element fuel beds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Liu Y-Q (2014) A regression model for smoke plume rise of prescribed fires using meteorological conditions. International Journal of Wildland Fire 53, 1961–1975.
Liu Y-Q, Goodrick S, Achtemeier G, Jackson WA, Qu JJ, Wang W (2009) Smoke incursions into urban areas: simulation of a Georgia prescribed burn. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 336–348.
| Smoke incursions into urban areas: simulation of a Georgia prescribed burn.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Liu Y-Q, Achtemeier G, Goodrick S, Jackson WA (2010) Important parameters for smoke plume rise simulation with Daysmoke. Atmospheric Pollution Research 1, 250–259.
| Important parameters for smoke plume rise simulation with Daysmoke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Liu Y-Q, Goodrick S, Achtemeier G (2018) The weather conditions for desired smoke plume development at a potential FASMEE burn site. Atmosphere 9, 259
| The weather conditions for desired smoke plume development at a potential FASMEE burn site.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mallet V, Keyes DE, Fendell FE (2009) Modeling wildland fire propagation with level set methods. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 57, 1089–1101.
| Modeling wildland fire propagation with level set methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mandel J, Beezley JD, Kochanski AK (2011) Coupled atmosphere–wildland fire modeling with WRF 3.3 and SFIRE 2011. Geoscientific Model Development 4, 591–610.
| Coupled atmosphere–wildland fire modeling with WRF 3.3 and SFIRE 2011.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mandel J, Beezley JD, Kochanski AK, Kondratenko VY, Kim M (2012) Assimilation of perimeter data and coupling with fuel moisture in a wildland fire–atmosphere DDDAS. Procedia Computer Science 9, 1100–1109.
| Assimilation of perimeter data and coupling with fuel moisture in a wildland fire–atmosphere DDDAS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mandel J, Amram S, Beezley JD, Kelman G, Kochanski AK, Kondratenko VY, Lynn BH, Regev B, Vejmelka M (2014) Recent advances and applications of WRF-SFIRE. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 14, 2829–2845.
| Recent advances and applications of WRF-SFIRE.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mell W, Jenkins MA, Gould J, Cheney P (2007) A physics-based approach to modeling grassland fires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16, 1–22.
| A physics-based approach to modeling grassland fires.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mell W, Maranghides A, McDermott R, Manzello SL (2009) Numerical simulation and experiments of burning Douglas-fir trees. Combustion and Flame 156, 2023–2041.
| Numerical simulation and experiments of burning Douglas-fir trees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mell WE, Linn R (2017) FIRETEC and WFDS modeling of fire behavior and smoke in support of FASMEE. JFSP Final Report 16–4-05–1. Available at https://www.firescience.gov/projects/16-4-05-1/project/16-4-05-1_final_report.pdf [Verified 3 June 2019]
Moritz MA, Batllori E, Bradstock RA, Gill AM, Handmer J, Hessburg PF, Leonard J, McCaffrey S, Odion DC, Schoennagel T, Syphard AD (2014) Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515, 58–66.
| Learning to coexist with wildfire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25373675PubMed |
Morvan D (2011) Physical phenomena and length scales governing the behaviour of wildfires: a case for physical modelling. Fire Technology 47, 437–460.
| Physical phenomena and length scales governing the behaviour of wildfires: a case for physical modelling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morvan D, Meradji S, Accary G (2009) Physical modeling of fire spread in grasslands. Fire Safety Journal 44, 50–61.
| Physical modeling of fire spread in grasslands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mueller E, Mell W, Simeoni A (2014) Large eddy simulation of forest canopy flow for wildland fire modeling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44, 1534–1544.
| Large eddy simulation of forest canopy flow for wildland fire modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ottmar RD, Sandberg DV, Riccardi CL, Prichard SJ (2007) An overview of the Fuel Characteristic Classification System – quantifying, classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37, 2383–2393.
| An overview of the Fuel Characteristic Classification System – quantifying, classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ottmar RD, Hiers JK, Butler BW, Clements CB, Dickinson MB, Hudak AT, O’Brien J, Potter BE, Rowell EM, Strand TM, Zajkowski TJ (2016) Measurements, datasets and preliminary results from the RxCADRE project-2008, 2011 and 2012. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 1–9.
| Measurements, datasets and preliminary results from the RxCADRE project-2008, 2011 and 2012.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ottmar R, Brown TJ, French NHF, Larkin NK (2017) Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment (FASMEE) Study Plan, Joint Fire Science Program Project #15-S-01–01. Available at https://www.fasmee.net/study-plan/ [Verified 3 June 2019]
Pearce H, Finney M, Strand T, Katurji M, Clements C (2018) Field-scale experimental testing of the role of fire-induced vorticity and heat-driven buoyancy in wildland fire spread. Abstract, the AFAC/BNHCRC conference, 12–14 September 2018, Perth, WA.
Prichard S, Larkin NS, Ottmar R, French NH, Baker K, Brown T, Clements C, Dickinson M, Hudak A, Kochanski A, Linn R, Liu Y, Potter B, Mell W, Tanzer D, Urbanski S, Watts A (2019) The fire and smoke model evaluation experiment – a plan for integrated, large fire–atmosphere field campaigns. Atmosphere 10, 66
| The fire and smoke model evaluation experiment – a plan for integrated, large fire–atmosphere field campaigns.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Prichard SJ, Ottmar RD, Anderson GK (2009) CONSUME user’s guide and scientific documentation. USDA Forest Service. Available at http://www.fs.fed. us/pnw/fera/research/smoke/consume/consume30_users_guide.pdf. [Verified 15 April 2019]
Raffuse SM, Craig KJ, Larkin NK, Strand TT, Sullivan DC, Wheeler NJM, Solomon R (2012) An evaluation of modeled plume injection height with satellite-derived observed plume height. Atmosphere 3, 103–123.
| An evaluation of modeled plume injection height with satellite-derived observed plume height.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ramboll Environ (2016) User’s guide Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions version 6, ENVIRON International Corporation: Novato, CA, USA. Available at www.camx.com. [Verified 3 June 2019]
Randerson JT, van der Werf GR, Giglio L, Collatz GJ, Kasibhatla PS (2015) Global Fire Emissions Database, version 4 (GFEDv4). Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center. (Oak Ridge, TN, USA)
Rappold AG, Reyes JM, Pouliot G, Cascio WE, Diaz-Sanchez D (2017) Community vulnerability to health impacts of wildland fire smoke exposure. Environmental Science & Technology 51, 6674–6682.
| Community vulnerability to health impacts of wildland fire smoke exposure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rothermel R (1972) A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-RP-115, pp. 1–46. (Ogden, UT, USA)
Scire JS, Robe FR, Fernau ME, Yamartino RJ (2000) ‘A user’s guide for the CALMET meteorological model. (version 5.0).’ (Earth Tech., Inc.: Concord, MA, USA). Available at http://www.src.com [Accessed 3 June 2019]
Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda MG, Huang X-Y, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Technical Note 475. Boulder, CO.
Stohl A, Thomson DJ (1999) A density correction for Lagrangian particle dispersion models. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 90, 155–167.
| A density correction for Lagrangian particle dispersion models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Strand TM, Larkin N, Craig KJ, Raffuse S, Sullivan D, Solomon R, Rorig M, Wheeler N, Pryden D (2012) Analyses of BlueSky Gateway PM2.5 predictions during the 2007 southern and 2008 northern California fires. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, D17301
| Analyses of BlueSky Gateway PM2.5 predictions during the 2007 southern and 2008 northern California fires.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sullivan AL (2009a) Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 1. Physical and quasi-physical models. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 349–368.
| Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 1. Physical and quasi-physical models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sullivan AL (2009b) Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 3. Simulation and mathematical analogue models. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 387–403.
| Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 3. Simulation and mathematical analogue models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Surawski NC, Sullivan AL, Meyer CP, Roxburgh SH, Polglase PJ (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions from laboratory-scale fires in wildland fuels depend on fire spread mode and phase of combustion. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 15, 5259–5273.
| Greenhouse gas emissions from laboratory-scale fires in wildland fuels depend on fire spread mode and phase of combustion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tachajapong W, Lozano J, Mahalingham S, Zhou X, Weise D (2008) An investigation of crown fuel bulk density effects on the dynamics of crown fire initiation. Combustion Science and Technology 180, 593–615.
| An investigation of crown fuel bulk density effects on the dynamics of crown fire initiation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tolhurst K, Shields B, Chong D (2008) Development and application of a bushfire risk management tool. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 23, 47–54.
Tymstra C, Bryce RW, Wotton BM, Taylor SW, Armitage OB (2010) Development and structure of Prometheus: the Canadian Wildland Fire Growth Simulation Model. Natural Resources Canada, Canada Forest Service, North. Forest Center, Information Report. NOR-X-417. (Edmonton, AB, Canada).
UCAR/NCAR EOL (2018) Western wildfire experiment for cloud chemistry, aerosol absorption and nitrogen (WE-CAN). Available at https://www.eol.ucar.edu/field_projects/we-can [Verified 3 June 2019]
Vejmelka M, Kochanski AK, Mandel J (2016) Data assimilation of dead fuel moisture observations from Remote Automated Weather Stations. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 558–568.
| Data assimilation of dead fuel moisture observations from Remote Automated Weather Stations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wade D, Mobley H (2007) Managing smoke at the wildland–urban interface. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report. SRS-103. (Asheville, NC, USA)
Warneke C, Roberts JM, Schwarz JP, Yokelson RJ, Pierce B (2014) Fire influence on regional to global environments experiment (FIREX). White paper. NOAA. Available at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/firex/whitepaper.pdf [Verified 3 June 2019]
Wedi NP, Bauer P, Denoninck W, Diamantakis M, Hamrud M, Kuhnlein C, Malardel S, Mogensen K, Mozdzynski G, Smolarkiewicz PK (2015) The modelling infrastructure of the Integrated Forecasting System: Recent advances and future challenges. ECMWF Technical Memorandum 760. Reading, England
Yarwood G, Heo G, Carter WPL, Whitten GZ (2012) Environmental chamber experiments to evaluate NOx sinks and recycling in atmospheric chemical mechanisms. ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. Available at http://aqrp.ceer.utexas.edu/projectinfo/10-042/10-042%20Final%20Report.pdf [Verified 3 June 2019]
Zhou L, Baker KR, Napelenok SL, Pouliot G, Elleman R, O’Neill SM, Urbanski SP, Wong DC (2018) Modeling crop residue burning experiments to evaluate smoke emissions and plume transport. The Science of the Total Environment 627, 523–533.
| Modeling crop residue burning experiments to evaluate smoke emissions and plume transport.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29426175PubMed |
