the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Aug 2024
Variations in Turbulence Characteristics of Head Fires Induced by Background Wind and Fuel Loading Levels
Abstract. Turbulence caused by wildfires can significantly alter the meteorological conditions in the fire area, which is a primary cause of the instability and unpredictability of fire behavior. Observing the differences in turbulence characteristics and propagation patterns caused by variations in fuel and background atmospheric conditions is crucial for the early warning of extreme fire behavior resulting from high-intensity fire-atmosphere interactions based on pre-fire information. This study, based on high-density measurements of fire-induced turbulence, examines how the differences in turbulence characteristics between the pre-burn, burning, and post-burn periods are influenced by variations in background mean wind speed and fuel load. It also investigates the impact on the spatial heterogeneity of turbulence characteristics, particularly their changes with increasing distance from the ignition boundary. Turbulence characteristics are quantified by parameters including instantaneous wind speed fluctuations, turbulent kinetic energy, heat flux, and momentum flux. The analysis indicates that the spatial heterogeneity of turbulence characteristics is weakened with increasing background wind speed; an increase in fuel load will result in a prolonged disturbance of atmospheric conditions by the fire; both increases in background wind speed and fuel load lead to the changes in the dominant components of certain parameters.
- Preprint
(4776 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2252', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Sep 2024
reply
This manuscript presents findings from four surface fire experiments on small plots (10m x 10m), aimed at documenting the effects of background wind speed and fuel loading on turbulence. Although the paper is generally well-written and the figures are clearly presented, there are significant issues that undermine its credibility, as outlined below.
Specific Issues:
- Incorrect Citations: The manuscript inaccurately cites Ottmar et al. (2015) for field experiments that were actually conducted in 2018-2019. This discrepancy in citation undermines the clarity and accuracy of the research. Correct citation is critical to maintain scientific integrity.
- Misuse of Figures: A figure from a previously published paper is reproduced and labelled as "adapted," although there is no indication that the figure has been modified. This could be seen as a direct reproduction without proper attribution, which raises concerns regarding proper credit.
- Misrepresentation of Data: The manuscript presents the data as relating to wildfire behaviour, implying that it contributes to understanding fire-induced weather. In reality, the data comes from low-intensity prescribed fires, which were designed to study specific fire phenomena in controlled environments. The description in the introduction, which frames the research as focusing on “Turbulence from wildfires,” is somewhat misleading given the smaller scale and different context of the prescribed fires.
- Introduction Content: Some of the language and citation patterns in the introduction are very similar to previously published work, which may give the impression that it lacks originality. While this could be unintentional, a more focused and original discussion of the problem would help the manuscript better address the broader scientific issue and include more relevant research.
- Unexplained Data Selection: The manuscript lacks clarity on how the authors selected the subset of data used, which is concerning given that the results are similar to already-published analyses. Providing transparent criteria for data selection would improve the paper’s credibility.
- Methodology Concerns: The authors claim to have rotated the data into the streamwise coordinate, but this is not evident in the results. After reviewing the provided GitHub code, it seems the rotation step was not properly implemented.
- Lack of In-Depth Analysis: The manuscript summarises the figures without offering sufficient interpretation or explanation of the results. Additionally, the paper does not attempt to relate the findings to previous research in the field, limiting its overall scientific contribution.
Conclusion: Given the issues outlined, including citation inaccuracies, figure reproduction concerns, and insufficient analysis, I recommend rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2252-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Chuanying Lin, 26 Sep 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2252/egusphere-2024-2252-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2252', Changqiu Lu, 18 Oct 2024
reply
This article focuses on the impact of fuel and background wind conditions on fire-atmosphere interactions, which is significant for understanding the uncertainties in wildfire spread. The proposed column-wise sampling of sensor data is interesting, reflecting the spatial heterogeneity of thermally induced turbulence. I recommend this work for publication in ACP, provided that the following issues are properly addressed.
- Please clarify the source of the data. As far as I know, the data used in this article is publicly available in the Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive. Including the download URL in the text is necessary.
- The discussion section of the article should further analyze the results, comparing your findings with relevant studies in the literature. Highlight the similarities and differences, and explain the possible reasons for these.
In addition, I believe the code provided by the authors offers a solid foundation for further research using this dataset. The series of steps for processing additional burn results from the SERDP 10m × 10m fuel bed scale burn series is undoubtedly efficient. I recommend that the authors further maintain the code and add necessary comments for better understanding.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2252-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Chuanying Lin, 22 Oct 2024
reply
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions for our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the necessary revisions to improve the quality of our paper. Below, we address each of your comments in detail.
Reviewer Comment 1: Please clarify the source of the data. As far as I know, the data used in this article is publicly available in the Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive. Including the download URL in the text is necessary.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now included the source of the data in the manuscript. The data used in this study is publicly available in the Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive. We have added the following sentence in the Section 2.1 Overview of burn experiments: "The data used in this study can be accessed from the Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive at https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-2022-0076; https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-2022-0076;https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-2022-0076; https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-2022-0076."
Reviewer Comment 2: The discussion section of the article should further analyze the results, comparing your findings with relevant studies in the literature. Highlight the similarities and differences, and explain the possible reasons for these.
Response: We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the discussion section. We have expanded the discussion to include a more thorough comparison of our findings with relevant studies. Specifically, we highlights the similarities and differences between our results and those of previous studies. We also provide possible explanations for these observations.
Reviewer Comment 3: In addition, I believe the code provided by the authors offers a solid foundation for further research using this dataset. The series of steps for processing additional burn results from the SERDP 10m × 10m fuel bed scale burn series is undoubtedly efficient. I recommend that the authors further maintain the code and add necessary comments for better understanding.
Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the provided code. We have taken your recommendation into account and have added comprehensive comments to the code to improve its clarity and usability. Additionally, we have included a brief guide within the supplementary materials to assist other researchers in using the code effectively.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2252-AC2
Data sets
All-data-generated-during-the-conduct-of-the-study Chuanying Lin https://github.com/lcy981009/All-data-generated-during-the-conduct-of-the-study
Model code and software
Code-used-for-caculating-and-ploting Chuanying Lin https://github.com/lcy981009/Code-used-for-caculating-and-ploting
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 156 | 44 | 118 | 318 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 156
- PDF: 44
- XML: 118
- Total: 318
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1