Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): Patricia L. Andrews; Stuart A.J. Anderson; Wendy R. Anderson
    Date: 2006
    Source: In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 381-394
    Publication Series: Proceedings (P)
    Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
    PDF: View PDF  (580 B)

    Description

    Understanding and calculating fire behaviour in various fuel types is essential for effective fire management, including wildfire suppression and fuels management. Fire spread in grassland fuel is affected by the curing level, the amount of dead fuel expressed as a percentage of the total (live and dead fuel combined). The influence of live fuel is included in various fire models in different ways. U.S. fire behavior prediction systems are based on Rothermel’s fire spread model, which uses the load of live and dead fuel and the moisture content of each. Dynamic fuel models include a transfer of fuel load from the live to dead class as a function of live fuel moisture. Australian and New Zealand grassland fire behavior models rely heavily on the curing level as a major determinant of the ability for a fire to develop and spread, and place greater direct emphasis on both the proportion and moisture content of the dead fine fuels. A joint Australian and New Zealand study under the Australian Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) is addressing various methods of assessing curing levels in grasslands. Data from that study are used to evaluate the dynamic fuel load transfer function used in fuel models developed for the Rothermel spread model. Results showed that live fuel moisture is not an indicator of level of curing. A significant difference is demonstrated in calculated rate of spread using the load transfer model versus direct entry of live fuel moisture and level of curing.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.

    Citation

    Andrews, Patricia L.; Anderson, Stuart A.J.; Anderson, Wendy R. 2006. Evaluation of a Dynamic Load Transfer Function Using Grassland Curing Data. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 381-394

    Keywords

    fire, fire ecology, fuels management, dynamic fuel load transfer function, grassland curing data, wildfire suppression, fire spread, grassland fuel, fire models, Australian Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), Rothermel’s fire spread model

    Related Search


    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page