4.5 Article

Modeling Low Intensity Fires: Lessons Learned from 2012 RxCADRE

Journal

ATMOSPHERE
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos12020139

Keywords

fire modeling; low intensity fire; prescribed fire; model-observation comparison

Funding

  1. ESTCP
  2. SERDP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coupled fire-atmosphere models are increasingly used to study low-intensity fires, such as prescribed fires. This study highlights the critical need to include variable wind fields as inputs in modeling marginal fire conditions. It also emphasizes the complexities in comparing physics-based model results against observations in marginal burning conditions.
Coupled fire-atmosphere models are increasingly being used to study low-intensity fires, such as those that are used in prescribed fire applications. Thus, the need arises to evaluate these models for their ability to accurately represent fire spread in marginal burning conditions. In this study, wind and fuel data collected during the Prescribed Fire Combustion and Atmospheric Dynamics Research Experiments (RxCADRE) fire campaign were used to generate initial and boundary conditions for coupled fire-atmosphere simulations. We present a novel method to obtain fuels representation at the model grid scale using a combination of imagery, machine learning, and field sampling. Several methods to generate wind input conditions for the model from eight different anemometer measurements are explored. We find a strong sensitivity of fire outcomes to wind inputs. This result highlights the critical need to include variable wind fields as inputs in modeling marginal fire conditions. This work highlights the complexities of comparing physics-based model results against observations, which are more acute in marginal burning conditions, where stronger sensitivities to local variability in wind and fuels drive fire outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available