4.5 Article

A framework to characterize WUI firebrand shower exposure using an integrated approach combining 3D particle tracking and machine learning

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2023.104651

关键词

Firebrands; Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fire; 3D diagnostics; Exposure characterization; Machine learning; Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a framework to characterize firebrand flows and compare exposure through the use of a measurement device and data processing methods. The ability to perform exposure comparisons and recognize combustion states is demonstrated.
Firebrand showers are known for their devastating effects throughout Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) communities threatened by wildfires. In this work, we propose a framework to better characterize firebrand flows and facilitate exposure comparisons across experimental cases. This framework leverages the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Emberometer, a measurement device that allows time-resolved motion tracking of burning particles in full 3D space. An improved version of the Emberometer, geared towards field use with enhanced firebrand detection capability and data processing pipelines, is presented. The device was used to investigate, in outdoor settings, a firebrand shower artificially generated to produce mixed amounts of smoldering and flaming particles. The ability to perform meaningful quantitative exposure comparisons, via metrics such as Cumulative Particle Count (CPC) and Particle Number Flux (PNF), is demonstrated. A sub-set of 3Dtracked firebrand images was used to train several Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to recognize firebrand combustion state. The best performing model was selected to process the entire tracking dataset (over 70,000 firebrand images), and time-resolved volumetric number densities of both smoldering and flaming particles were derived, a first for complex airborne firebrand flows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据