Skip to content
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

Passive Crown Fire development #572

Closed
wants to merge 74 commits into from

Conversation

jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor

@jkshuman jkshuman commented Sep 4, 2019

Add equation to evaluate potential for crown fire at level of cohort and PFT
Add equation for passive crown fire ignition
Set fraction of crown burnt based on this conditional
Add crown fire threshold, cohort crown fire flag, and crown fire PFT param

Description:

This PR addresses passive crown fire development as a function of the stand. Within SPITFIRE crown fire ignition potential is evaluated against fire intensity using equations and logic from Bessie and Johnson (1995) that are drawn from Van Wagner (1977) at the stand level per Scott and Reinhardt (2001). Here the heat of crown foliage ignition is set to a constant value of 3060 kJ/kg based on 100% moisture (dry mass), but can be calculated via FATES-Hydro with additional development. (Comments indicate where this calculation would occur and be used this.) With successful passive crown fire ignition, active crown fire initiation is evaluated with PR #584

Crown damage is evaluated via scorch height per usual.

Collaborators:

main author: @jkshuman
@slevisconsulting @lmkueppers @ckoven @pollybuotte @rgknox @rosiealice @xuchongang

Expectation of Answer Changes:

yes. this will change answers in fire runs that use crown fire PFTs. crown damage fraction has higher potential of being 100%.

Checklist:

  • [x ] My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the in-code documentation .AND. (the technical note .OR. the wiki) accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
  • If answers were expected to change, evaluation was performed and provided

Test Results:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:

FATES baseline hash-tag:

Test Output:

Add EQ to evaluate potential for crown fire
Add EQ for passive crown fire igntion
Set fraction of crown burnt based on this conditional
Add crown fire threshold, crown fire flag, and crown fire PFT param
@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkshuman commented Sep 4, 2019

I am still testing these changes, but welcome comments on the logic and flow of the changes.
@lmkueppers I had a call with @rgknox and @slevisconsulting and told them I would add this piece of code.

@rgknox rgknox self-requested a review September 4, 2019 23:03
Copy link

@pollybuotte pollybuotte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Initial questions about variables names and initial settings.

parameter_files/fates_params_default.cdl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rgknox rgknox requested a review from pollybuotte September 5, 2019 17:38
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

@jkshuman your changes seem good to me.

@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkshuman commented Sep 6, 2019

This implementation addresses issue #567 and replaces the branch that @slevisconsulting started on that issue. The active development branch for this is https://github.com/jkshuman/fates/tree/passive_crown_fire

fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
slevis-lmwg added a commit to slevis-lmwg/slevis_fates_work that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2019
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
fire/SFMainMod.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -49,8 +49,7 @@ module EDPftvarcon
! that is occupied by crown. For fire model.
real(r8), allocatable :: bark_scaler(:) ! scaler from dbh to bark thickness. For fire model.
real(r8), allocatable :: crown_kill(:) ! crown resistance to fire. (1 = none) For fire model.
real(r8), allocatable :: active_crown_fire(:) ! Is plant susceptible to active crown fire?(1=yes,0=no)
real(r8), allocatable :: foliar_moisture(:) ! foliar moisture content from dry fuel [%]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Strange, it wants to remove foliar_moisture, but foliar_moisture is not in master.. I wonder if git is confused...?

@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkshuman commented Dec 5, 2019

Implementation EQ 14 of Bessie and Johnson has been updated per Scott and Reinhardt 2001 to consider stand level canopy fuel density versus tree level fuels for crown fire initiation on a patch #572 and integrated into #584 . edited in PR above. Canopy base height for the stand is the height at which a minimum fuel bulk density of (0.011 kg/m3) is found. This accounts for variation in fuels within multi-story stands.

@ckoven
Copy link
Contributor

ckoven commented Jan 21, 2020

@jkshuman can we close this PR, since all the developments are in either #584 (not ready) or #594 (about to be merged)?

@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor Author

closing this per @ckoven. All crown fire development has been merged into PR #584 and will continue development on that PR. Other pieces will be merged per #594.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants