Live trial performance of the Australian Fire Danger Rating System – Research Prototype†

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS

ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1071/wf23143

S. Grootemaat, S. Matthews, B. J. Kenny, J. W. Runcie, J. J. Hollis, S. Sauvage, P. Fox‐Hughes, A. Holmes

{"title":"Live trial performance of the Australian Fire Danger Rating System – Research Prototype†","authors":"S. Grootemaat, S. Matthews, B. J. Kenny, J. W. Runcie, J. J. Hollis, S. Sauvage, P. Fox‐Hughes, A. Holmes","doi":"10.1071/wf23143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The Australian Fire Danger Rating System program (AFDRS) has built a new fire danger rating system for Australia. A live trial of the system’s Research Prototype (AFDRSRP), based on fire behaviour thresholds, was run and evaluated between October 2017 and March 2018. Aims Live trial results are critically analysed, and knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work discussed. Methods Australian bushfire experts assessed wildfires and prescribed burns across a range of vegetation types and weather conditions. Forecast fire danger ratings calculated using: (1) AFDRSRP; and (2) Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI) were compared against ratings derived by expert opinion for each evaluation fire (n = 336). Key results Overall performance of AFDRSRP was superior to the FFDI/GFDI system (56 vs 43% correct), with a tendency to over-predict rather than under-predict fire potential. AFDRSRP also demonstrated its value to assess fire danger in fuel types not conforming to current grassland or forest models; e.g. for fuels that were grouped to use mallee-heath, spinifex and shrubland fire spread models. Conclusions The AFDRSRP live trial was successful, outperforming the existing operational fire danger system. Implications Identified improvements would further enhance AFDRSRP performance, ensuring readiness for operational implementation.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/wf23143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background The Australian Fire Danger Rating System program (AFDRS) has built a new fire danger rating system for Australia. A live trial of the system’s Research Prototype (AFDRSRP), based on fire behaviour thresholds, was run and evaluated between October 2017 and March 2018. Aims Live trial results are critically analysed, and knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work discussed. Methods Australian bushfire experts assessed wildfires and prescribed burns across a range of vegetation types and weather conditions. Forecast fire danger ratings calculated using: (1) AFDRSRP; and (2) Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI) were compared against ratings derived by expert opinion for each evaluation fire (n = 336). Key results Overall performance of AFDRSRP was superior to the FFDI/GFDI system (56 vs 43% correct), with a tendency to over-predict rather than under-predict fire potential. AFDRSRP also demonstrated its value to assess fire danger in fuel types not conforming to current grassland or forest models; e.g. for fuels that were grouped to use mallee-heath, spinifex and shrubland fire spread models. Conclusions The AFDRSRP live trial was successful, outperforming the existing operational fire danger system. Implications Identified improvements would further enhance AFDRSRP performance, ensuring readiness for operational implementation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

澳大利亚火灾危险分级系统--研究原型†的现场试验性能

背景澳大利亚火灾危险评级系统计划（AFDRS）为澳大利亚建立了一个新的火灾危险评级系统。2017 年 10 月至 2018 年 3 月期间，对基于火灾行为阈值的系统研究原型（AFDRSRP）进行了现场试验和评估。目的对现场试验结果进行批判性分析，讨论知识差距和对未来工作的建议。方法澳大利亚丛林火灾专家对各种植被类型和天气条件下的野火和规定燃烧进行评估。将使用 (1) AFDRSRP、(2) 森林火灾危险指数 (FFDI) 和草原火灾危险指数 (GFDI) 计算出的预测火灾危险等级与专家意见得出的每场评估火灾（n = 336）的等级进行比较。主要结果 AFDRSRP 的总体性能优于 FFDI/GFDI 系统（正确率分别为 56% 和 43%），对火灾可能性的预测倾向于过高而不是过低。AFDRSRP 还证明了其在评估不符合当前草地或森林模型的燃料类型的火灾危险性方面的价值；例如，对于被归类为使用麦杆楠、穗状花序和灌木林火灾蔓延模型的燃料。结论 AFDRSRP 实时试验取得了成功，其性能优于现有的业务火险系统。启示已确定的改进措施将进一步提高 AFDRSRP 的性能，确保为实际应用做好准备。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)

CiteScore

9.40

自引率

2.10%

发文量

464

期刊介绍： ACS Applied Bio Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of biomaterials and biointerfaces including and beyond the traditional biosensing, biomedical and therapeutic applications. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrates knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important bio applications. The journal is specifically interested in work that addresses the relationship between structure and function and assesses the stability and degradation of materials under relevant environmental and biological conditions.