-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Active crown fire development discussion #573
Comments
@slevisconsulting and I spoke at great length about the implementation of active crown fire, and we have a plan. https://github.com/jkshuman/fates/blob/ae0a5e7196fa9219b37712c140c55fa7a0c2d51b/fire/SFMainMod.F90#L930 2: evaluate EQ 14 from Bessie and Johnson (ratio of Patch%FI/cohort%active_crown_FI) 3: if EQ 14 (Patch%FI/cohort%active_crown_FI )is greater than 1 and (Patch%FI/cohort%passive_crown_FI) greater than 1 4: then active crown fire = true and crown foliage is available as fuel (Bessie and Johnson 1995) 5: loop through all cohorts and update this active crown fire flag 6: prior to exiting crown_damage call subroutine "characteristics of fuel" 7: update Patch%sum_fuel to include leaf organ biomass (convert leaf organ C to kgbiomass/m2)
1-hour fuels = <0.6 cm diameter this gives you updated fuel characteristics that include crown foliage from active crown fire 8: recalculate ROS_front (and ROS_back?) for altered ground fuel consumption, area burnt 9: update crown damage for cohorts where active_crown_fire_flg was false based on these new ROS, FI, SH values 10: end loop This will only loop through and recalculate the fire behavior and effects once after finding an active crown fire. This is a good place to start for our model at a daily time step. We can re-visit with implementation and further testing. @rgknox: @slevisconsulting and I would like your feedback about implementing the recalculation of ROS, FI and SH in terms of where to call the subroutine, we we are in that cohort do loop. I guess we can evaluate the active_crown_fire flag before we do the final mortality probability? tagging @lmkueppers @xuchongang @pollybuotte @ckoven @rosiealice @adrifoster and any other interested parties for comment |
Some more notes for steps (1), (2), (3) mainly for my own benefit:
|
Adding a few more details to the discussion: |
Following @jkshuman's introduction of the Bessie and Johnson (1995) formulation for determining the presence of passive crown fire (NGEET/fates#572), I now add the same paper's formulation for determining the presence of active crown fire. The corresponding issue is NGEET/fates#573
This far I have addressed the first four steps from @jkshuman's list in the Pull Request posted immediately above. |
@adrifoster suggested looking into specific leaf area as a step towards calculating the SAV_crown for the updated fuel moisture characteristics |
Based on a read of Cruz & Alexander 2010 it seems that the Q_c value in Equation 8 in Bessie & Johnson should be tied to canopy moisture as this is an important variable. |
@adrifoster I agree. In the code Q_c = SF_val_crown_ignite_energy. We are currently using the Bessie and Johnson(1995) constant for this value (3060 kJ/kg assuming foliage at 100% moisture (dry mass)). I will update this to be a PFT level value. We can leave it to default to this one value at 3060 kJ/kg, but then the structure is there so that you can have variation at the PFT level prior to FATES-Hydro integration. tagging @xuchongang |
SF_val_crown_ignite_energy updated to be a PFT level variable within the passive crown fire PR in anticipation of integration with FATES-Hydro and to allow for PFT level variation in ignition energy prior to that integration. |
@jkshuman and I were talking and discussed the potential of integrating a stand density factor into the active fire calculation. This would account for the fact that while a single crown ignition may occur, trees may not be close enough to one another to support crown-to-crown fire spread (even if surface fuels are high). Spotting fires could bridge large spaces between tree crowns but this requires very high fire intensities (30,000 - 100,000+ kW/m). We would investigate implementing this stand density factor following initial work with the current version of the active fire spread. We also discussed incorporating wind direction, again for future testing. |
FYI for future use, the default value of SF_val_crown_ignite_energy, 3060 kJ/kg, assuming 100% crown fuel moisture, comes from equation SV_val_crown_ignite_energy = 460 + 26m, where m is the crown fuel moisture (in % of dry weight), from Van Wagner 1977, "Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire", CJFR 7. |
Thanks @adrifoster Also added a note including the source of the 0.01 value in the equation for passive_crown_FI. This EQ 8 (Bessie and Johnson 1995) uses values from Van Wagner (1977) that have a specific clear branch bole height and intensity. Specifically, EQ8 uses a local empirical value from a crown fire within red pine plantations (0.01 = C from Van Wagner 1977 EQ4 for crown of base height 6m, 100% FMC, and FI 2500kW/m). Depending on the behavior of crown fires, this empirical value of 0.01 may need to be updated. @slevisconsulting please fetch these additional comments form my branch so they are in active_fire branch as well. |
@slevisconsulting I updated the equation for leaf bulk density to account for the area of the canopy. @rgknox is this reasonable to find leaf_c_per_unitarea? I pulled it from FatesAllometry. |
@rgknox helped me place the active crown fire PR in the right place by creating a new one #584 and closing the old one jkshuman#5 The new one includes a link to the old one, so that all our conversations and posts remain available. |
Previous commits computed the occurrence of active crown fire and set currentCohort%fraction_crown_burned = 1.0_r8 Here I begin to introduce the effects of active crown fire on the size and intensity of the fire as discussed with @jkshuman in NGEET#573. First step in this is the effect of active crown fire on the Rate of Spread. I have confirmed that, with the code changes this far, history varialbes FIRE_ROS, SUM_FUEL, fire_fuel_bulkd have changed, while fire size and intensity have not changed. This is what I expected.
Updating this issue to note the transition to the method of Scott and Reinhardt 2001 as reflected in PR857 For this transition I created a branch from @slevisconsulting recent updates to main, and modified according to Scott and Reinhardt 2001. This addressed discussion with @lmkueppers and @pollybuotte. This more recent Scott and Reinhardt method addresses inconsistencies in Bessie and Johnson. Those updates are here: (https://github.com/jkshuman/fates/tree/active_crown_Scott_2001) @slevisconsulting modified this further as reflected in PR857 and here: https://github.com/slevisconsulting/fates/tree/active_crown_Scott_2001_contd Tagging @adrifoster and her recent publication in ERL that implements this method in a different model for further discussion. Foster et al 2022 ERL |
This issue follows directly from #567 and #572
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: