4.5 Article

Live Fuel Moisture Content: The 'Pea Under the Mattress' of Fire Spread Rate Modeling?

期刊

FIRE-SWITZERLAND
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fire1030043

关键词

laboratory and field fires; ignition mechanisms; flammability tests; heat flux

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/84770/2012]
  2. Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) (COMPETE 2020) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016727, PTDC/AAG-MAA/2656/2014, UID/AGR/04033/2013, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006958]
  3. Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) (POCI) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016727, PTDC/AAG-MAA/2656/2014, UID/AGR/04033/2013, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006958]
  4. FCT
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AAG-MAA/2656/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, there is a dispute on whether live fuel moisture content (FMC) should be accounted for when predicting a real-world fire-spread rate (RoS). The laboratory and field data results are conflicting: laboratory trials show a significant effect of live FMC on RoS, which has not been convincingly detected in the field. It has been suggested that the lack of influence of live FMC on RoS might arise from differences in the ignition of dead and live fuels: flammability trials using live leaves subjected to high heat fluxes (80-140 kW m(-2)) show that ignition occurs before all of the moisture is vaporized. We analyze evidence from recent studies, and hypothesize that differences in the ignition mechanisms between dead and live fuels do not preclude the use of overall fine FMC for attaining acceptable RoS predictions. We refer to a simple theory that consists of two connected hypotheses to explain why the effect of live FMC on field fires RoS has remained elusive so far: H1, live tree foliage FMC remains fairly constant over the year; and H2, the seasonal variation of live shrubs' FMC correlates with the average dead FMC. As a result, the effect of live FMC is not easily detected by statistical analysis.

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