305
Views
63
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

EFFECTS OF MOISTURE ON IGNITION BEHAVIOR OF MOIST CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL AND UTAH LEAVES

, , , , , & show all
Pages 1183-1203 | Received 03 Apr 2006, Accepted 01 Sep 2006, Published online: 14 Oct 2010
 

Abstract

Individual cuttings from eight plant species native to California chaparral or Utah were burned in a well-controlled, well-instrumented facility. Gas temperatures above a flat-flame burner were controlled at 987 ± 12°C and 10 ± 0.5 mol% O2, resulting in a heat flux at the leaf surface varying from 80–140 kW/m2. High moisture leaves were observed to burst due to the rapid escape of vapor from the leaf interior. Bubbles in or on the leaf surface were observed for leaves with moderate moisture contents. A large number of leaf temperature measurements were made, along with measurements of the ignition time and temperature, flame height, and flame duration. Average ignition temperatures were species dependent, ranging from 227°C to 453°C, with a large degree of scatter from leaf to leaf. Correlations of time to ignition and ignition temperature were made, but showed only a weak dependence on leaf thickness and almost no dependence on mass of moisture in the leaf. Leaf samples with similar mass showed that Utah juniper took longer to burn than the other species, and that the Utah broadleaf species burned more rapidly than all the other species.

This research was funded by the USDA/USDI National Fire Plan administered through a Research Joint Venture Agreement (No. 01-CR-11272166-168) with the Forest Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA. Special thanks to Joey Chong from the Forest Fire Laboratory, who helped with the collection of chaparral samples. Part of this manuscript was prepared by a U.S. Government employee on official time and with government funding and is therefore in the public domain and not subject to copyright laws.

Notes

1Note: The use of trade names is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

∗Wt, Dry basis;

†Wt, Dry ash free basis

∗Wt, Dry basis;

†Wt%, Dry ash free basis

∗The ± represents 95% confidence interval for these coefficients.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.