2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.02.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fire behavior in chaparral–Evaluating flame models with laboratory data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Agreement between the observed and predicted values of flame height and flame tilt was quantified using the measures identified in Cruz and Alexander (2013) and Weise et al (2018b). These error analysis schemes have been previously used in analyzing results from wildland fire behavior studies (Cruz and Alexander, 2013).…”
Section: Error Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Agreement between the observed and predicted values of flame height and flame tilt was quantified using the measures identified in Cruz and Alexander (2013) and Weise et al (2018b). These error analysis schemes have been previously used in analyzing results from wildland fire behavior studies (Cruz and Alexander, 2013).…”
Section: Error Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, a numerical analysis of flame tilt angle and height, in a spreading shrub fire was presented by Morvan (2007). Recent work by Weise et al (2018b) compared predictions from flame models to results from experimental circular and line fire configurations of chaparral fire. Model predictions of flame height and flame tilt angle, were compared against experimental values in work by Nelson et al (2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The direction of the thermal plume was in the same direction as of the wind but as the flame approached the field of view, the thermal plume was more aligned with the direction of the flame due to the strong buoyancy force. Even though the Byram's convective number (Nelson 1993;Weise et al 2018a) for this case was calculated to be 67, which indicates the presence of high radiation power, BOS visualized a strong convective flow ahead of the flame. After 141 seconds from ignition, as the flame passed the field of view, the wind was visualized.…”
Section: Visualization Of the Thermal Plume Of Propagating Flamementioning
confidence: 74%
“…In fact, fireline intensity is a function of rate of spread, which in turn is a function of a different I R , resulting in two different reaction intensities for the same fuel bed. Studies have shown that the fireline intensityflame length relationship produces better approximations for low-intensity fires, such as observed in prescribed burns in light grass and pine needle fuel beds (Byram 1959;Alexander and Cruz 2012;Weise et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%