Laboratory experiments were conducted on fresh Leylandii cypress leaves and small branches to evaluate fire behavior sensitivity to fuel moisture content and incident heat flux. Cone calorimetry combined with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy provided novel insights into ignition dynamics, heat release, and emissions of water vapor, CO, and CO2. Fire behavior exhibited either a single ignition (leading directly to flaming), typical of higher fuel moisture content and incident heat flux, or an initial global ignition followed by localized ignitions, typical of lower fuel moisture content and incident heat flux. Peak heat release rate per unit mass and effective heat of combustion decreased on average with increasing fuel moisture content. At high fuel moisture content, CO, and water vapor concentrations were elevated before the first ignition and remained high afterward. Water vapor showed small peaks during flaming phases.
PickettBMIsacksonCWunderR, et al. Experimental measurements during combustion of moist individual foliage samples. Int J Wildland Fire2010; 19(2): 153–162.
2.
El HoussamiM. Development of a numerical and experimental framework to understand and predict the burning dynamics of porous fuel beds. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2016.
3.
RothermelRC. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains [INT-438]. USDA Forest Service, 1991.
4.
PrinceDRFletcherTH. A combined experimental and theoretical study of the combustion of live vs. dead leaves. In: 8th US national combustion meeting of the combustion institute, Park City, UT, 19–22 May 2013.
5.
LamorletteAEl HoussamiMMorvanD. An improved non-equilibrium model for the ignition of living fuel. Int J Wildland Fire2018; 27(1): 29–41. https//doi.org/10.1071/WF17020
6.
LykovAV. Theory of drying. Energiya, 1968, p. 470.
7.
RomanovskiySG. Processes of heat treatment of moist materials. Energiya, 1976, p. 328.
8.
GrishinAM. Mathematical modeling of forest fires and new methods of fighting them. Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1996.
9.
GanteaumeAJappiotMLampinC, et al. Flammability of some ornamental species in wildland–urban interfaces in Southeastern France: laboratory assessment at particle level. Environ Manag2013; 52: 467–480.
10.
AndersonSAJAndersonWR. Ignition and fire spread thresholds in gorse (Ulex europaeus). Int J Wildland Fire2010; 19: 589–598.
11.
MasindaMMSunLWangG, et al. Moisture content thresholds for ignition and rate of fire spread for various dead fuels in Northeast forest ecosystems of China. J For Res2021; 32: 1147–1155.
12.
ChastagnerG. Flammability of cut Christmas trees. In: IAAI annual general meeting, Atlantic City, NJ, 9–11 August 2001, pp. 1–29. IAAI.
13.
LucianiCTihay-FelicelliVMartinentB, et al. Influence of fuel moisture content on the burning of cistus shrubs exposed to a low-intensity fire. Fire Saf J2024; 146: 104168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2024.104168
14.
BabrauskasV. Effective heat of combustion for flaming combustion of conifers. Can J For Res2006; 36: 659–663.
15.
LiJMahalingamSWeiseDR. Experimental investigation of fire propagation in single live shrubs. Int J Wildland Fire2017; 26: 58–70.
16.
FletcherTHPickettBMSmithSG, et al. Effects of moisture on ignition behavior of moist California chaparral and Utah leaves. Combust Sci Technol2007; 179(6): 1183–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102200601015574
17.
FazeliHFJollyWMBlunckDL. Stages and time-scales of ignition and burning of live fuels for different convective heat fluxes. Fuel2022; 324: 124490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124490
18.
FazeliH. Identification of physical and chemical processes on ignition and burning of live fuels. PhD Thesis, Oregon State University, 2022.
19.
DimitrakopoulosAPapaioannouKK. Flammability assessment of Mediterranean forest fuels. Fire Technol2001; 37: 143–152.
20.
WeiseDRWhiteRHBeallFC, et al. Use of the cone calorimeter to detect seasonal differences in selected combustion characteristics of ornamental vegetation. Int J Wildland Fire2005; 14: 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF04035
21.
DietenbergerMABoardmanCAShotorbanB, et al. Thermal degradation modeling of live vegetation for fire dynamic simulator. In: Proceedings, 2020 spring technical meeting, Central States section of the combustion institute, Huntsville, AL, 17–19 May 2020, pp. 1–20, CSSCI.
22.
ASTM E2058-01. Standard test methods for measurement of synthetic polymer material flammability using a Fire Propagation Apparatus (FPA).
23.
ThomasJC. Improving the understanding of fundamental mechanisms that influence ignition and burning behavior of porous Wildland fuel beds. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2017.
24.
ASTM E2067-03. Standard practice for full-scale oxygen consumption calorimetry fire tests.
25.
RothermelRC. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in Wildlands fuels. USDA Forest Service, 1972.
26.
McAllisterSGrenfellIHadlowA, et al. Piloted ignition of live forest fuels. Fire Saf J2012; 51: 133–142.
27.
GargPRocheTEdenM, et al. Effect of moisture content and fuel type on emissions from vegetation using a steady state combustion apparatus. Int J Wildland Fire2021; 30: 10.1071/WF20118.https://doi.org/10.1071/WF20118
28.
MoghtaderiBFletcherDF. Flaming combustion characteristics of wood-based materials. Fire Saf Sci1988; 3: 209–220.
29.
DietenbergerMABoardmanCRWeiseDR. New methods for pyrolysis and combustion properties of forest litter: enhanced cone calorimetry with longleaf pine needles. In: Proceedings 2020, the fire continuum-preparing for the future of Wildland fire, Missoula, MT, 21–24 May 2020, pp. 72–83. RMRS.
30.
WangEWanHSimeoniA, et al. Experimental study on effects of moisture content and tree height on crown fire behaviors of live cypress trees. Combust Sci Technol2024; 197: 2727–2742. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2024.2323576
31.
GuillaumeBGanteaumeAMajeriM, et al. New laboratory results on ignition and propagation in live vegetation paving the road to a semi-empirical model. Fire Mater2025; 0: 1–12.
32.
GanteaumeA. Personal communication. INRAE, 2025.
33.
BartoliPSimeoniABiteauH, et al. Determination of the main parameters influencing forest fuel combustion dynamics. Fire Saf J2011; 46(1–2): 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.05.002
34.
FilkovAITihay-FelicelliVMasoudvaziriN, et al. A review of thermal exposure and fire spread mechanisms in large outdoor fires and the built environment. Fire Saf J2023; 140: 103871.
35.
HuYChristensenEGAminHMF, et al. Experimental study of moisture content effects on the transient gas and particle emissions from peat fires. Combust Flame2019; 209: 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2019.07.046
36.
ISO 5660-1. Reaction-to-fire tests — Heat release, smoke production and mass loss rate Part 1: heat release rate (cone calorimeter method) and smoke production rate (dynamic measurement).
37.
ISO 19702:2024. Sampling and analysis of toxic gases and vapors in fire effluents using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy.
38.
ISO 21397. FTIR analysis of fire effluents in cone calorimeter tests.
39.
AS 1530.8.2:2018. Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structures, Part 8.2: tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack–Large flaming sources.
40.
BabrauskasV. Ignition handbook. Fire Science Publishers, 2003.
41.
LamorletteACandelierF. Thermal behavior of solid particles at ignition: theoretical limit between thermally thick and thin solids. Int J Heat Mass Transf2015; 82: 117–122.
