1. Ground Sensor and Overhead Data 0.00E+00 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.00E+00 2.50E+00 3.00E+00 3.50E+00 4.00E+00 4.50E+00 0.660.670.680.690.70.710.720.73 Time, fraction of a day, 17 April 2004 Flux, kW/m 2 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Unit 6 Ground Sensor LWIR DN Aerial IR and ground-level observations of a prescribed burn for validating fire spread models and predicting ecological effects Project description & scope o Visual and infrared images from the Rochester Institute of Technology Wildfire Airborne Sensor Project’s (WASP) 6-band visible/ IR cameras were used to create a 3-dimensional animation of a 50-ha prescribed burn in the Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest in SE Ohio. o Surface level weather data were gathered from 12 weather stations, including 3 low-cost Wx/situation monitors developed at RIT, in and around the burn site. Fuel moisture was monitored by sampling and by 10-hr electronic fuel stick sensors. o IR fluxes and on-the-ground monitoring of fire behavior show considerable topographic variation in fire intensity and rate of spread. o Datasets will be combined to validate fire spread models that can be used to predict the ecological effects of wildland fires. A. S. Bova #*, R. L. Kremens ‡, M. B. Dickinson # J.W. Faulring ‡, D. McKeown ‡ # USDA Forest Service; NE Research Station; Delaware, OH 43015. ‡ The Rochester Institute of Technology; Rochester, NY 14623 Acknowledgements Airborne sensor work was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant NAG5-10051 and by the USDA Forest Service under Joint Venture Agreement 03-JV-1222048-049 with the Rocky Mountain Research Station. This financial support has been greatly appreciated. Funding for the National Fire & Fire Surrogate Study (FFS) is provided by the USDI-USDA Joint Fire Science Program. We thank the crew of the Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest (VFEF). The VFEF is jointly managed by MeadWestvaco and the USFS's Northeastern Research Station. We also wish to thank Mike Bowden and the interagency fire crew of the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. Figure 1 – Radiant infrared flux (0.1 – 13  m) measured with a ground based sensor compared with sensor reaching radiance from the airborne infrared camera system. The difference in time of peak emission from the fire may be due to uncertainties in the geographic location of the target pixel in the airborne image or the heat from the expanded plume above the fire. Figure 2 – Total energy delivered to the surface as a function of time, as a result of solar heating and passage of the fire front, as measured by a ground based infrared sensor system. The field of view of the sensor is approximately 3 m 2 at the ground surface. Figure 5 – Image sequence (~5-min intervals) showing fire intensity from the airborne image around ground station 6. The station is located at the center of the image. Fire converges on the location diagonally from both sides on this hilly site. Frame 4 corresponds to the peak emission in Fig 1. The developing line (lower right diagonal in frame 4) moves ~12 m between frames 4 and 5, giving a rate of spread of ~ 4 cm/s. Combining this with an average dry leaf litter load of 1.25 kg/m 2 gives an estimated fire intensity of 570 kW/m. R I T Figure 3 – A long-wave infrared (8-13  m) image of the fire area during the peak fire intensity at the Unit 6 ground station. The ground station is near the center of the image. 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4 – Map of “Arch Rock A” site at VFEF in SE Ohio. The fireline indicated on the map is visible in Fig. 3. ~1 km Figure 6 – Area of “ring” of necrotic stem tissue, resulting from surface fires, versus heat flux, where R is bole diameter (m), r is depth of necrosis (m) and Q” is total heat flux (radiant + convective, kW/m 2 ). Such relations may be combined with airborne heat flux measurements and/or fire spread models to estimate stem mortality resulting from a surface fire.