- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Interaction of a buoyant plume with a turbulent canopy mixing layer

Hayoon Chung* and Jeffrey R. Koseff

  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA

  • *hayoonch@stanford.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 064501 – Published 23 June, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.8.064501

Abstract

This study aims to understand the impact of instabilities and turbulence arising from canopy mixing layers on wind-driven wildfire spread. Using an experimental flume (water) setup with model vegetation canopy and thermally buoyant plumes, we study the influence of canopy-induced shear and turbulence on the behavior of buoyant plume trajectories. Using the length of the canopy upstream of the plume source to vary the strength of the canopy turbulence, we observed behaviors of the plume trajectory under varying turbulence yet constant cross-flow conditions. Results indicate that increasing canopy turbulence corresponds to increased strength of vertical oscillatory motion and variability in the plume trajectory/position. Furthermore, we find that the canopy coherent structures characterized at the plume source set the intensity and frequency at which the plume oscillates. These perturbations then move longitudinally along the length of the plume at the speed of the free stream velocity. However, the buoyancy developed by the plume can resist this impact of the canopy structures. Due to these competing effects, the oscillatory behavior of plumes in canopy systems is observed more significantly in systems where the canopy turbulence is dominant. These effects also have an influence on the mixing and entrainment of the plumes. We offer scaling analyses to find flow regimes in which canopy induced turbulence would be relevant in plume dynamics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Focus

Wildfire Predictions from a Water Tank

Published 23 June, 2023

According to experiments with a fluid model, turbulent air around the treetops could help a wildfire spread.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (57)

  1. K. Collins, O. F. Price, and T. D. Penman, Spatial patterns of wildfire ignitions in south-eastern Australia, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 24, 1098 (2015).
  2. S. Marques, J. G. Borges, J. Garcia-Gonzalo, F. Moreira, J. M. B. Carreiras, M. M. Oliveira, A. Cantarinha, B. Botequim, and J. M. C. Pereira, Characterization of wildfires in Portugal, Eur. J. Forest Res. 130, 775 (2011).
  3. X. Úbeda and P. Sarricolea, Wildfires in Chile: A review, Glob. Planet. Change 146, 152 (2016).
  4. J. Miller, H. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode, Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, Ecosystems 12, 16 (2009).
  5. A. Westerling, H. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity, Science 313, 940 (2006).
  6. D. E. Calkin, M. P. Thompson, and M. A. Finney, Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management, For. Ecosyst. 2, 9 (2015).
  7. B. E. Potter, Atmospheric interactions with wildland fire behaviour - II. Plume and vortex dynamics, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21, 802 (2012).
  8. R. N. Meroney, Fires in porous media: natural and urban canopies, in Flow and Transport Processes with Complex Obstructions, NATO Science Series, Vol. 236, edited by Y. A. Gayev and J. C. Hunt (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007), pp. 271–310.
  9. M. T. Kiefer, Y.-L. Lin, and J. J. Charney, A study of two-dimensional dry convective plume modes with variable critical level height, J. Atmos. Sci. 65, 448 (2008).
  10. F. A. Albini, Spot fire distance from burning trees: a predictive model, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report INT-GTR-56 (1979).
  11. C. Tarifa, P. Notario, F. Moreno, and A. Villa, Transport and combustion of firebrands, Final Report of Grants FG-SP-114 and FG-SP-146 (Vol. II) (1967).
  12. H. B. Clements, Lift-off of Forest Firebrands (USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, 1977), Vol. SE-159
  13. M. A. Storey, O. F. Price, M. Almeida, C. Ribeiro, R. A. Bradstock, and J. J. Sharples, Experiments on the influence of spot fire and topography interaction on fire rate of spread, PLoS One 16, e0245132 (2021).
  14. G. Byram, Combustion of forest fuels, in Forest Fire: Control and Use, edited by K. Davis (McGraw–Hill, New York, 1959).
  15. R. M. Nelson, Byram derivation of the energy criterion for forest and wildland fires, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 3, 131 (1993).
  16. R. M. Nelson, Power of the fire—A thermodynamic analysis, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 12, 51 (2003).
  17. D. P. Hoult, J. A. Fay, and L. J. Forney, A theory of plume rise compared with field observations, J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 19, 585 (1969).
  18. A. Tohidi and N. B. Kaye, Highly buoyant bent-over plumes in a boundary layer, Atmos. Environ. 131, 97 (2016).
  19. P. R. Slawson and G. T. Csanady, The effect of atmospheric conditions on plume rise, J. Fluid Mech. 47, 33 (1971).
  20. S. J. Wright, The effect of ambient turbulence on jet mixing, in Recent Research Advances in the Fluid Mechanics of Turbulent Jets and Plumes, edited by P. A. Davies and M. J. Valente Neves (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 13–27.
  21. A. Matulka, P. López, J. M. Redondo, and A. Tarquis, On the entrainment coefficient in a forced plume: Quantitative effects of source parameter, Nonlin. Process. Geophys. 21, 269 (2014).
  22. B. R. Morton, Forced plumes, J. Fluid Mech. 5, 151 (1958).
  23. B. R. Morton, G. I. Taylor, and J. S. Turner, Turbulent gravitational convection from maintained and instantaneous sources, Proc. R. Soc. A 234, 1 (1956).
  24. P. R. Slawson and G. T. Csanady, On the mean path of buoyant, bent-over chimney plumes, J. Fluid Mech. 28, 311 (1967).
  25. L.-N. Fan, Turbulent buoyant jets into stratified or flowing ambient fluids, Clin-Alert 5, 45 (1967).
  26. D. P. Hoult and J. C. Weil, Turbulent plume in a laminar cross flow, Atmos. Environ. 6, 513 (1972).
  27. E. J. List, Turbulent jets and plumes., Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 14, 189 (1982).
  28. B. W. Alton, G. A. Davidson, and P. R. Slawson, Comparison of measurements and integral model predictions of hot water plume behaviour in a crossflow, Atmos. Environ. Part A Gen. Top. 27, 589 (1993).
  29. B. J. Devenish, G. G. Rooney, H. N. Webster, and D. J. Thomson, The entrainment rate for buoyant plumes in a crossflow, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 134, 411 (2010).
  30. P. J. Roberts, Line plume and ocean outfall dispersion, ASCE J. Hydraul. Div. 105, 313 (1979).
  31. G. Briggs, Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, TID-25075 (1969), https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/47431.
  32. M. T. Kiefer, M. D. Parker, and J. J. Charney, Regimes of dry convection above wildfires: Idealized numerical simulations and dimensional analysis, J. Atmos. Sci. 66, 806 (2008).
  33. A. L. Sullivan, Convective froude number and byram's energy criterion of Australian experimental grassland fires, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31, 2557 (2007).
  34. G. N. Mercer and R. O. Weber, Plumes above line fires in a cross-wind, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 4, 201 (1994).
  35. R. M. Nelson, B. W. Butler, and D. R. Weise, Entrainment regimes and flame characteristics of wildland fires, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21, 127 (2012).
  36. P. Werth, B. Potter, and C. Clements, Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior: Volume I for fire managers, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR- 854. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 144 p (2011).
  37. J. Finnigan, Turbulence in plant canopies, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 519 (2000).
  38. M. R. Raupach, J. J. Finnigan, and Y. Brunet, Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation canopies: The mixing-layer analogy, in Boundary-Layer Meteorology 25th Anniversary Volume, 1970–1995, edited by J. R. Garratt and P. A. Taylor (Springer, Dordrecht, 1996), pp. 351–382.
  39. M. R. Raupach and A. S. Thom, Turbulence in and above plant canopies, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 13, 97 (2003).
  40. M. Ghisalberti and H. M. Nepf, The limited growth of vegetated shear layers, Water Resour. Res. 40, W07502 (2004).
  41. M. Ghisalberti and H. Nepf, Mass transport in vegetated shear flows, Environ. Fluid Mech. 5, 527 (2005).
  42. H. Nepf and M. Ghisalberti, Flow and transport in channels with submerged vegetation, Acta Geophys. 56, 753 (2008).
  43. M. T. Kiefer, W. E. Heilman, S. Zhong, J. J. Charney, and X. Bian, A study of the influence of forest gaps on fire-atmosphere interactions, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 8499 (2016).
  44. M. T. Kiefer, S. Zhong, W. E. Heilman, J. J. Charney, and X. Bian, A numerical study of atmospheric perturbations induced by heat from a wildland fire: Sensitivity to vertical canopy structure and heat source strength, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 123, 2555 (2018).
  45. D. Morvan, Physical phenomena and length scales governing the behaviour of wildfires: A case for physical modelling, Fire Technol. 47, 437 (2011).
  46. D. Morvan, G. Accary, S. Meradji, N. Frangieh, and O. Bessonov, A 3D physical model to study the behavior of vegetation fires at laboratory scale, Fire Saf. J. 101, 39 (2018).
  47. M. El Houssami, A. Lamorlette, D. Morvan, R. M. Hadden, and A. Simeoni, Framework for submodel improvement in wildfire modeling, Combust. Flame 190, 12 (2018).
  48. F. Pimont, J. L. Dupuy, R. R. Linn, and S. Dupont, Impacts of tree canopy structure on wind flows and fire propagation simulated with FIRETEC, Ann. For. Sci. 68, 523 (2011).
  49. R. C. Rothermel, Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 43 (1991), https://doi.org/10.2737/INT-RP-438.
  50. F. Morandini, X. Silvani, F. Morandini, and X. Silvani, Experimental investigation of the physical mechanisms governing the spread of wildfires, Int. J. Wildl. Fire 19, 570 (2010).
  51. M. Ghisalberti and H. Nepf, The structure of the shear layer in flows over rigid and flexible canopies, Environ. Fluid Mech. 6, 277 (2006).
  52. Z. Chen, C. Jiang, and H. Nepf, Flow adjustment at the leading edge of a submerged aquatic canopy, Water Resour. Res. 49, 5537 (2013).
  53. H. Chung, T. Mandel, F. Zarama, and J. R. Koseff, Local and nonlocal impacts of gaps on submerged canopy flow, Water Resour. Res. 57, e2019WR026915 (2021).
  54. G. S. Settles and M. J. Hargather, A review of recent developments in schlieren and shadowgraph techniques, Meas. Sci. Technol. 28, 042001 (2017).
  55. R. H. Shaw, J. Tavangar, and D. P. Ward, Structure of the Reynolds stress in a canopy layer, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 22, 1922 (1983).
  56. F. A. Albini, A model for the wind-blown flame from a line fire, Combust. Flame 43, 155 (1981).
  57. J. Turner, Buoyant plumes and thermals, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1, 29 (1969).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 064501– Published 23 June, 2023
  • Received 17 October 2022
  • Accepted 4 May 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation