Fuel bulk density and fuel moisture content effects on fire rate of spread: a comparison between FIRETEC model predictions and experimental results in shrub fuels
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2012
Fuel bulk density and fuel moisture content effects on fire rate of spread: a comparison between FIRETEC model predictions and experimental results in shrub fuels
Fuel bulk density and fuel moisture content effects on fire rate of spread were assessed in shrub fuels, comparing experimental data observed in outdoor wind tunnel burns and predictions from the physically-based model FIRETEC. Statistical models for the combined effects of bulk density and fuel moisture content were fitted to both the experimental and the simulated rate of spread values using non-linear regression techniques. Results confirmed a significant decreasing effect of bulk density on rate of spread in a power law in both laboratory burns and simulations. However, experimental data showed a lesser effect than simulations, suggesting a difference in the effective drag. Fuel moisture content effect was highly consistent, showing a similar exponential relationship with rate of spread in laboratory and in simulations. FIRETEC simulations showed similar orders of magnitude with predictions of two field-based empirical models, finding a significant correlation between rate of spread values. The study confirms the efficacy of the combined approach through experimental data and simulations to study fire behaviour.
MarinoEGuijarroMMadrigalJ. Assessing fire propagation empirical models in shrub fuel complexes using wind tunnel data. In: De Las HerasJBrebbiaCAViegasDLeoneV (eds) Modelling, monitoring and management of forest fires, WIT transactions on ecology and the environment. Southampton: WIT Press, 2008, Vol. 119, pp.121–130.
2.
CheneyNPGouldJFCatchpoleWR. The influence of fuel, weather and fire shape variables on fire-spread in grasslands. Int J Wildland Fire1993; 3(1): 31–44.
3.
LinnRRCunninghamP. Numerical simulations of grass fires using a coupled atmosphere-fire model: basic fire behavior and dependence on wind speed. J Geophys Res2005; 110: D13107.
4.
WolffMFCarrierGFFendellFE. Wind-aided fire-spread across arrays of discrete fuel elements. II experiment. Combust Sci Technol1991; 77: 261–289.
5.
CatchpoleWRCatchpoleEAButlerBW. Rate of spread of free-burning fires in woody fuels in a wind tunnel. Combust Sci Technol1998; 131: 1–37.
6.
TachajapongWLozanoJMahalingamS. An investigation of crown fuel bulk density effects on the dynamics of crown fire initiation in shrublands. Combust Sci Technol2008; 180: 593–615.
7.
WilsonRA. Reexamination of Rothermel’s fire spread equations in no-wind and no-slope conditions. Research Paper No. INT-434, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 1990.
8.
BurrowsND. Fire behaviour in jarrah forest fuels: 1. Laboratory experiments. CALM Sci1999; 3(1): 31–56.
9.
SullivanAL. Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990-2007. 2: empirical and quasi-empirical models. Int J Wildland Fire2009; 18: 369–386.
10.
VegaJACuiñasPFonturbelT. Predicting fire behaviour in Galician (NW Spain) shrubland fuel complexes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on forest fire research & 14th fire and forest meteorology (ed ViegasDX), Coimbra, November 1998, pp.713–728. Coimbra: ADAI, University of Coimbra.
11.
FernandesP. Fire spread prediction in shrub fuels in Portugal. Forest Eco Manag2001; 144: 67–74.
12.
LinnRR. A transport model for prediction of wildfire behavior. PhD Dissertation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, Science Report LA–13334-T, 1997.
13.
PimontFDupuyJLLinnRR. Validation of FIRETEC wind-flows over a canopy and a fuel-break. Int J Wildland Fire2009; 18: 775–790.
14.
DupuyJLLinnRRKonovalovV. Exploring three-dimensional coupled fire/atmosphere interactions downwind of wind-driven surface fires and their influence on backfiring using the HIGRAD-FIRETEC model. Int J Wildland Fire2011; 20: 734–750.
15.
RaupachMR. Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length and zero-plane displacement as function of canopy height and area index. Bound-Lay Meteorol1994; 71: 1–2.
16.
SuHBShawRHPawUKT. Turbulent statistics of neutrally stratified flow within and above a sparse forest from large-eddy simulation and field observations. Bound-Lay Meteorol1998; 88: 363–397.
17.
PlateEJ. Aerodynamic characteristics of atmospheric boundary layers. Oak Ridge, TN: US Atomic Energy Commission, Critical Reviews Series, Division of Technical Information Extension, 1971.
18.
RothermelRC. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Research Paper No. INT-115, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1972.
19.
CarrierGFFendellFEWolffMF. Wind-aided fire-spread across arrays of discrete fuel elements. I theory. Combust Sci Technol1991; 75: 31–51.
20.
AndersonHE. Heat transfer and fire spread. Research Paper No. INT-69, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1969.
21.
ThomasPH. Rates of spread of some wind-driven fires. Forestry1971; 44: 155–175.
22.
DaviesGMLeggCJSmithA. Developing shrub fire behaviour models in an oceanic climate: burning in the British Uplands. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on forest fire research (ed ViegasDX), Figueira da Foz, 27-30 November 2006. CD-ROM, Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
23.
FinniganJ. Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu Rev Fluid Mech2000; 32: 519–571.
24.
FernandesPBotelhoHSLoureiroC. Models for the sustained ignition and behaviour of low-to-moderately intense fires in maritime pine stands. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on forest fire research & wildland fire safety (ed ViegasDX), Luso-Coimbra, 16–20 November 2002. Rotterdam: Millpress, CD-ROM.
25.
FernandesPBotelhoHSRegoF. Empirical modelling of surface fire behaviour in maritime pine stands. Int J Wildland Fire2009; 18: 698–710.
26.
Marsden-SmedleyJBCatchpoleWR. Fire behaviour modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass moorlands. II: fire behaviour. Int J Wildland Fire1995; 5: 215–228.
27.
DennisonPEMoritzMA. Critical live fuel moisture in chaparral ecosystems: a threshold for fire activity and its relationship to antecedent precipitation. Int J Wildland Fire2009; 18(8): 1021–1027.
28.
MarinoEGuijarroMHernandoC. Fire hazard after prescribed burning in a gorse shrubland: implications for fuel management. J Environ Manage2011; 92(3): 1003–1011.
29.
WeiseDRZhouXSunL. Fire spread in chaparral- ‘go or no go?’. Int J Wildland Fire2005; 14: 99–106.
30.
ZhouXMahalingamSWeiseD. Modelling of marginal burning state of fire spread in live chaparral live fuels. Combust Flame2005; 143: 183–198.
31.
DaviesGMLeggCJ. Developing a live fuel moisture model for moorland fire danger rating. In: De Las HerasJBrebbiaCAViegasD. (eds) Modelling, monitoring and management of forest fires, WIT transactions on ecology and the environment. Southampton: WIT Press, 2008, Vol. 119, pp.225–236.
32.
CatchpoleEACatchpoleWR. Modelling moisture damping for fire spread in a mixture of live and dead fuels. Int J Wildland Fire1991; 1(2): 101–106.
33.
Van WilgenBWLe MaitreDCKrugerFJ. Fire behaviour in South African fynbos (macchia) vegetation and predictions from Rothermel’s fire model. J Appl Ecol1985; 22: 207–216.
