Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of low porosity and double-layer screens against radiant heat flux from fires. The performance of screens against firebrand attack is also required to be assessed prior to making a decision on their possible application in wildland fire prone areas. The available laboratory-scale devices simulate firebrands at wind speeds less than those of severe firebrand attacks. A relatively low cost, laboratory-scale fire ember shower simulator has been designed and manufactured in-house. The simulator is able to assess the performance of low porosity screens at high wind speeds without any reverse flow and possible consequent safety hazards and offers reasonable control over the size and mass of the generated firebrands.
CruzMGSullivanALGouldJS. Anatomy of a catastrophic wildfire: the Black Saturday Kilmore East fire in Victoria, Australia. Forest Ecol Manag2012; 284: 269–285.
2.
Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). Cost of bushfires (Bushfire arson bulletin no. 60). Canberra, ACT, Australia: AIC, 2009.
3.
HaynesKHandmerJMcAneneyJ. Australian bushfire fatalities 1900–2008: exploring trends in relation to the ‘Prepare, stay and defend or leave early’ policy. Environ Sci Policy2010; 13(3): 185–194.
4.
WangH. Ember attack: its role in the destruction of houses during ACT bushfire in 2003. In: Proceedings of the Australasian bushfire conference 2006, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 6–9 June 2006.
5.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA 1144: standard for protection of life and property from wildfire. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2008.
6.
Standards Australia. Construction of buildings in bush fire prone areas (AS 3959). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Standards Australia, 2009.
7.
California Residential Code. Title 24: California code of regulations (Part 2.5). Sacramento, CA: California Building Standards Commission, 2014.
8.
StephensSLAdamsMHandmerJ. Urban–wildland fires: how California and other regions of the US can learn from Australia. Environ Res Lett2009; 4(1): 014010.
9.
TarifaCSDel NotarioPPMorenoFG. Transport and combustion of firebrands. Final report of Grants FG-SP-114 and FG-SP-146, May1967, vol. II. Madrid: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
10.
MuraszewAFedeleJBKubyWC. Trajectory of firebrands in and out of fire whirls. Combust Flame1977; 30: 321–324.
11.
KnightI. The design and construction of a vertical wind tunnel for the study of untethered firebrands in flight. Fire Technol2001; 37(1): 87–100.
12.
EllisPFM. Firebrand characteristics of the stringy bark of messmate (Eucalyptus obliqua) investigated using non-tethered samples. Int J Wildland Fire2013; 22(5): 642–651.
13.
AlmeidaMViegasDXMirandaAIRevaV (2009) Combustibility of potential embers. In: AnderssenRSBraddockRDNewhamLTH (eds) Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress. Canberra, ACT, Cairns, Australia: Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 13–17 July 2009, pp. 1–7.
14.
ManzelloSLShieldsJRClearyTG. On the development and characterization of a firebrand generator. Fire Safety J2008; 43: 258–268.
15.
ManzelloSLParkS-HShieldsJR. Comparison testing protocol for firebrand penetration through building vents: summary of BRI: NIST full scale and NIST reduced scale results (NIST technical note 1659). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standard and Technology, 2010.
16.
ManzelloSLParkS-HSuzukiS. Experimental investigation of structure vulnerabilities to firebrand showers. Fire Safety J2011; 46(8): 568–578.
17.
ManzelloSLSuzukiS. The new and improved NIST Dragon’s LAIR (Lofting and ignition research) facility. Fire Mater2012; 36(8): 623–635.
18.
ManzelloSLSuzukiS. Experimentally simulating wind driven firebrand showers in wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires: overview of the NIST firebrand generator (NIST Dragon) technology. Proced Eng2013; 62: 91–102.
19.
QuarlesSSindelarM.
Wildfire ignition resistant home design (WIRHD) program: full-scale testing and demonstration final report. Report no. 11-14-R, 13December2011. New Ellenton, SC: USDA Forest Service-Savannah River.
HashempourJSharifianA. Optimizing the coupling of a firebrand generator to a horizontal wind tunnel. Adv Mat Res2013; 726–731: 971–976.
22.
FooteEILiuJManzelloSL. Characterizing firebrand exposure during wildland-urban interface fires. In: Proceedings of fire and materials 2011 conference, 12th international conference and exhibition. London: Interscience Communications, 2011, pp. 479–491.
23.
RisselSRidenourK. Ember production during the Bastrop complex fire. Fire Manag Today2013; 72: 7–13.
24.
El HoussamiMMuellerEFilkovA. Experimental procedures characterising firebrand generation in wildland fires. Fire Technol. Epub ahead of print 12 May 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10694-015-0492-z.
25.
ManzelloSLMaranghidesAMellWE. Firebrand generation from burning vegetation. Int J Wildland Fire2007; 16: 458–462.
26.
ManzelloSLMaranghidesAShieldsJR. Mass and size distribution of firebrands generated from burning Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) trees. Fire Mater2009; 33(1): 21–31.
27.
SharifianAButtsworthD. Direct radiation from wildfires through square woven screens. In: Proceedings of the ASME summer heat transfer 2008, Jacksonville, FL, 10–14 August 2008.
28.
SharifianAButtsworthD. Double-layered metal mesh screens to contain or exclude thermal radiation from bush fires. J Fire Prot Eng2010; 20(4): 291–311.
29.
HashempourJSharifianABillingsleyJ. An experimental approach to measure direct radiation through single-layer square cell plain woven screens. J Heat Transf2016; 138(1): 012701-1–012701-6.
30.
ChenK. Quantifying bushfire penetration into urban areas in Australia. Geophys Res Lett2004; 31(12): L12212.
31.
SharifianSAButtsworthDR. Computational simulation of the wind-force on metal meshes. In: JacobsPPeter McIntyrePButtsworthDMeeDClementsRMorganRLemckertC (eds) Proceedings of the 16th australasian fluid mechanics conference. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland, 2007, pp. 766–770.
32.
CebeciT.
Analysis of turbulent boundary layers. London: Academic Press, 1974.
