Models of Wildland Fire and Ember Spread

Bryan Quaife; Jie Sun; Kevin Speer

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Models of Wildland Fire and Ember Spread

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Near-surface embers can switch wildfire growth from linear to quadratic in a coupled model.

desk verdict A review-heavy book chapter whose one genuinely new piece—an idealized simulation linking ember wash to linear, t^1.5, and t^2 fire area growth—is plausible but not established; worth engaging, not yet convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07761 v1 pith:6Q6BBM2A submitted 2026-08-07 physics.ao-ph

Kevin Speer , Bryan Quaife , Jie Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ao-ph

keywords wildlandfireembertransportfirebrandswashspottingrateofspreadareagrowthscalingstatisticalsurvivalmodel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This chapter argues that near-surface ember transport, which it calls ember wash, can be the controlling process behind the observed dichotomy between linear and quadratic wildfire area growth. In the authors' idealized coupled model, a fire that would otherwise burn a linearly growing area switches to $A(t)\sim t^{3/2}$ and then $A(t)\sim t^2$ as the mean ember flight time and the ignition probability increase. The transition is governed by two parameters: the mean time an ember stays aloft and the probability that a landed ember ignites the fuel. This matters because fire-area growth is the metric used to judge operational fire models, and most of those models do not include ember wash. If the claim holds, ember wash is not an occasional side effect of extreme fires but a first-order engine of their growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a coupled two-dimensional cellular automaton, a grid of cells that are unburnt, burning, or burnt. Its near-surface wind is the sum of a constant background flow, a pyrogenic potential (a divergent term representing the buoyant plume's inflow), and a vorticity field, computed by solving a Poisson equation at each step. Ember wash is added through an exponential survival model: each ember travels downwind along a line-drawing ignition path for a flight time drawn from an exponential distribution with mean $\mu$, and on landing it ignites its cell with probability $p_{ig}$. The fire modifies the wind, the wind redirects the embers, and the embers create new fire, and that closed loop is what produces the growth-scaling result.

What would settle it

Run the same ember parameterization inside a full-momentum boundary-layer model on the same domain and compare the burned-area growth exponent over the same nondimensional time; if the exponent no longer moves from 1 through 1.5 to 2 as mean flight time and ignition probability increase, the scaling transition is an artifact of the simplified wind. Field data provide another check: any documented fire with heavy spotting that nevertheless maintains linear area growth over many days would contradict the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, made most directly in Section 5.4, is that the feedback loop formed by ember combustion, flight, landing, ignition, and fire-modified wind is sufficient to reproduce the observed range of wildfire area-growth scalings. In simulations with a line ignition parallel to the wind and no embers, burned area grows linearly in time; as the mean ember flight time increases, growth becomes $A(t)\sim t^{3/2}$ at ignition probability $p_{ig}=0.1$, and at $p_{ig}=0.5$ it reaches $A(t)\sim t^2$. The authors present this as evidence that the linear-to-quadratic growth dichotomy seen in western US fire perimeters can be explained by ember wash rather than by an unexplained geometric or kinematic rate of spread. At higher ember flux the same mechanism produces a mass-ignition regime in which gaps between separate fires are filled and the fire can no longer be described as a single moving front.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scaling result rests on the assumption that the simplified near-surface wind, built from a background flow plus a fire-driven inflow and spin without solving the full momentum equations, carries embers the way the real boundary layer would.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is correct, the absence of ember wash in operational spread models is a structural gap rather than a refinement.
The observed split between linear and quadratic growth in real fires can be read as a difference in mean ember flight time and ignition probability, not only a difference in wind speed or fuel geometry.
Fires with abundant spotting should show accelerating burned-area growth even when the main front moves at a steady rate.
The exponential survival law turns the problem into a measurable parameterization: infer mean ember flight time and ignition probability, and the area-growth exponent follows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If this mechanism transfers to real fires, high-temporal-resolution perimeter data should show the area-growth exponent rising shortly after conditions that generate many embers, and flattening when fuels stop igniting.
A direct laboratory test would release embers with different mean flight times into a fixed wind and measure the burned-area exponent; the model implies a monotone rise from 1 toward 2 as $\mu$ grows at fixed $p_{ig}$.
The same constant-hazard survival logic could be applied to post-landing rolling and trapping in built environments, so ember risk in the wildland-urban interface may depend on how building layouts interrupt the spatial memory of transport.
Because the wind model carries no momentum dynamics, the cleanest check is to run the same ember parameterization in a full three-dimensional boundary-layer model; if the scaling transition disappears, it is an artifact of the reduced wind.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a review-heavy book chapter whose only genuinely new piece is an idealized simulation showing that near-surface ember transport can shift fire area growth from linear to t^1.5 and t^2. The claim is plausible and clearly stated, but it is not established. As a journal submission it would deserve a conditional accept; as a book chapter it lays out a useful research program.

What is good: the chapter compiles a hierarchy of models, from SDE and Fokker-Planck treatments through a 3D LES to a cellular automaton with embers. The derivations in Section 4 are correct and clearly explained. The authors are honest about what is idealized—the 2D wind is kinematic, explicitly not a full momentum set, and they say the real test needs more realistic models. The Section 5.4 sweep is a nice illustration of how mean ember flight time and ignition probability might control growth regime, and it frames ember wash as a plausible missing ingredient in operational models.

Soft spots, in order of weight. First, the central figure has no error bars, no stated number of realizations, and the parameter values are chosen to produce the slopes. The step from scanning parameters until you see slope 2 to explaining observed quadratic growth is qualitative. Second, the positive feedback that powers superlinear growth comes from fire-induced wind altering ember trajectories and creating stagnation zones. That feedback lives entirely inside a kinematic Poisson-based wind field. If the real momentum response of the fire-induced flow differs, the regime transition could be an artifact. A sensitivity run with the pyrogenic term disabled would have been cheap and would help. Third, the exponential landing distribution is an input assumption (constant hazard), not a result recovered from data. That is a legitimate modeling choice, but it means the chapter is not testing the exponential law, only using it.

The observational basis is a small selected set: 15 fires that grow linearly, 7 that grow quadratically, chosen from 500+ GIS records. It is suggestive, not a discriminating test.

Who this is for: someone new to ember transport wanting a readable map of the modeling landscape, or a researcher looking for a testable hypothesis. It is not a definitive answer. I would send it to review if it were a journal submission—the hypothesis deserves referee time—but I would push for ensemble statistics and at least one check with a dynamically consistent wind field.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript, written as a book chapter, reviews the physics and statistics of ember transport in wildland fire and presents a hierarchy of models: a stochastic jump SDE, a Fokker-Planck advection-diffusion-decay model, a survival-function model of ember travel distance, and a coupled idealized 2D cellular-automaton fire model with a kinematic wind field representing background flow, a pyrogenic potential, and vorticity. The central new result is in Section 5.4: in the coupled model, surface ember transport ("ember wash") changes burned-area growth from linear A(t)~t to A(t)~t^1.5 and A(t)~t^2 as the mean ember flight time and ignition probability increase (Fig. 15). The authors connect these regimes to observed linear and quadratic growth in western US fires (Section 2.4) and argue that ember wash is a first-order control on the growth dichotomy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a physically motivated mechanism for the observed linear-to-quadratic growth transition in wildfire area, which would have implications for operational models that currently omit near-surface ember transport. The manuscript has notable strengths: the derivations in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are transparent and correct (the exponential survival law follows exactly from a constant hazard, and the Fokker-Planck steady-state solution is standard); the authors are explicit about the kinematic nature of the wind model in Section 5.1; and the scaling regimes are grounded in a specific observational dataset of 22 fires (Fig. 4). However, the central claim rests on stochastic simulations presented without error bars or a stated number of realizations, and on a kinematic wind field whose feedbacks are not tested against a dynamically consistent model. These gaps currently limit the robustness of the claimed growth-regime transition.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.4, Fig. 15] The central scaling transitions are displayed as single curves without any measure of stochastic variability. The model includes multiple stochastic elements (exponential flight times, Bernoulli ignition, random launch threshold, and turbulent diffusion in Section 5.1), so individual realizations will fluctuate; the paper does not state the number of realizations per parameter setting, nor provide error bars, shaded confidence bands, or a fitted-slope distribution. The claim that the model transitions from A(t)~t to A(t)~t^1.5 and A(t)~t^2 is therefore not yet supported with statistical confidence. Please add ensemble statistics (e.g., 20-50 realizations, median and interquartile range of A(t), and a distribution of fitted exponents) for at least the parameter sets in Fig. 15.
[Section 5.1] The wind field in the coupled model is kinematic: it solves a Poisson equation for a pyrogenic potential plus vorticity and is explicitly described as "not a full set of momentum equations" in Section 5.1. The hypothesized feedback in Sections 5.3-5.4 is that ember-wash-generated fires modify the flow, create stagnation points, and increase local ember residence time, which in turn accelerates area growth. If the fire-induced flow is not dynamically consistent, these stagnation points and flow reversals may be artifacts of the reduced representation. To make the central claim robust, the paper should include a sensitivity test with the fire-induced component disabled (or with its strength varied), and ideally a comparison with a dynamically consistent 2D or 3D simulation (e.g., the CM1 LES of Section 3.2) for the same ember parameters, to show that the growth-regime transition survives in a more physical flow.
[Section 4.3] The exponential survival law S(r)=exp(-kr) is an input assumption, not a derived consequence of the dynamics: the text states that "a constant spatial hazard uniquely leads to the exponential survival law (20)." The model therefore cannot be said to "recover" exponential landing statistics; rather, it prescribes them. While the paper connects the exponential law to observations (e.g., Page et al. [51], Storey et al. [65]), the area-growth scaling results in Section 5.4 inherit this assumption. The paper should clarify, either in Section 4.3 or in the discussion of Section 5.4, that the growth regimes are conditional on the exponential landing distribution, and should state what observable quantity (e.g., the hazard k or the mean flight time mu) would be needed to falsify this input.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (8c)] The vertical drag term in Eq. (8c) is written as (We - Ww)^2, which is always non-negative and would incorrectly oppose settling in both directions; it should use a signed relative velocity, e.g., (We - Ww)|We - Ww|.
[Section 5.2, p. 18] The text states that "the ember trajectories are determined by the background wind" for lofted spotting, but this simplification is introduced without noting that the same plot (Fig. 12) shows streamlines of the total wind; the distinction between the wind used for ember advection and the wind shown in the figures should be clarified.
[Figure 11 caption] The figure caption refers to "first arrival time" maps but does not define the color scale or the units of time; adding a color bar and time units would improve interpretability.
[Section 5.3, p. 19] The ember launch threshold of 0.2 m/s is described as causing either all combusting cells to launch embers or none, but no sensitivity analysis is provided; a brief statement of how the results depend on this threshold would help the reader assess the role of this parameter.
[Footer, p. 26] The chapter title in the footer ("Models of Ember Transport") differs from the title on the first page ("Models of Wildland Fire and Ember Spread"); please reconcile these.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the growth-scaling regimes are emergent model outputs and the observational comparisons use external data.

full rationale

The chapter's central scaling claim is not circular. The survival model in Sec. 4.3 is an explicitly stated assumption: with a constant per-distance hazard κ, the survival equation dS/dr = -κS has the exponential solution S(r)=exp(-κr), and the chapter then imports an exponential flight-time distribution into the CA model in Sec. 5.3 as an input, not as a predicted output. The area-growth exponents in Sec. 5.4 are emergent simulation outputs obtained by varying μ and p_ig; the paper does not fit these parameters to the observed A(t) curves and does not tune the runs to force slopes 1, 1.5, or 2. The observational comparison rests on external GIS fire-perimeter data (Fig. 4) and published spotting-distance studies [51,65]. Self-citations to [55] and [56] supply the baseline model and data processing, but the chapter re-derives the model equations and the data are empirical, so those citations are not load-bearing circular justifications. The kinematic, non-momentum wind model in Sec. 5.1 is an acknowledged modeling limitation and a correctness risk, but it is an assumption about the flow representation, not a circular reduction of the paper's results to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central growth-regime result rests on a chain of modeling choices: an exponential ember flight-time distribution with hand-picked means, a Bernoulli ignition probability, a kinematic 2D wind field, and several arbitrary rates (generation 1/s/cell, threshold 0.2 m/s, burn time 15 s). The mathematical derivations are standard, but the empirical content is carried by these unvalidated parameters.

free parameters (7)

mean ember flight time (ember wash) = 5 to 50 s, with 20 s in examples
Chosen by hand for the simulations in Sections 5.3 and 5.4; the area-growth scaling depends on it, and the paper states it may eventually be estimated from spotting data.
probability of ignition p_ig = 0.1 and 0.5
Varied to produce the observed range of growth scalings; area growth is smooth in p_ig, but the central regime result depends on these chosen values.
burn time = 15 s
Set from observations [22] and used in the baseline cell model; it affects fire persistence and ember generation.
firebrand generation rate = 1 ember per second per cell (1 m by 1 m)
Acknowledged as somewhat arbitrarily chosen, though roughly consistent with Manzello et al. [41].
surface velocity threshold for ember launch = 0.2 m/s
Chosen because smaller thresholds launch embers from all cells and larger thresholds suppress generation entirely.
lofted spot ember lifetime mean and standard deviation = mean 20 s (or 40 s), standard deviation 5 s
Selected to match ember flight excursions to the domain size and to produce visible spotting in the idealized examples.
LES surface heat flux and ember release threshold = 30 kW/m2 and vertical velocity above 2 m/s
Chosen to mimic a typical prescribed fire and to trigger ember release in the cloud-resolving simulation; illustrative only.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Each additional meter of ember travel carries the same probability of termination (constant hazard per unit distance).
Explicit assumption in Section 4.3 leading to the exponential survival function S(r)=exp(-kr); if the hazard varies with distance, the landing distribution changes.
domain assumption Near-surface wind can be represented by a 2D mass-conserving kinematic model (background wind plus pyrogenic potential plus vorticity) without solving momentum equations.
Acknowledged in Section 5.1; the growth-regime results in Section 5.4 depend on this reduced wind representation.
domain assumption Ember flight time in the wash model is exponentially distributed with mean flight time, and ignition follows a Bernoulli law with probability p_ig.
Input assumptions from Sections 5.2 and 5.3; the area-growth scaling is a function of these inputs, so the match to observations is not an independent test.
domain assumption The stochastic ignition term in the cellular automaton model allows cells to ignite neighbors with a uniform distribution of mean 0.4.
Diffusion-based ignition parameter in Section 5.1, chosen to reproduce observed fire behavior in prior work [55].
domain assumption The Fokker-Planck advection-diffusion-decay equation with constant coefficients describes ember concentration.
Used in Section 4.2; it is a standard modeling choice, not derived from detailed ember combustion or turbulence physics.
standard math It and Fokker-Planck calculus apply to the stochastic differential equation models in Section 4.1 and 4.2.
The lognormal solution and exponential steady state rely on standard stochastic calculus, which is uncontroversial.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Models of Wildland Fire and Ember Spread." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Q6BBM2A

@misc{pith2026260807761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Models of Wildland Fire and Ember Spread},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Q6BBM2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07761}
}

read the original abstract

In this Chapter we explore the nature and theory of ember transport using observations from controlled laboratory settings, prescribed fire, and wildland fire. Specific examples and statistics from fires are used to gain insight and motivate a hierarchy of modeling approaches from simple idealized models to full-physics atmospheric boundary layer models. The emphasis is on the fundamental processes involved in moving embers away from their sources in vegetation and structures on and near the ground or in the atmospheric boundary layer winds and turbulent flows. We describe the problem first in terms of basic theory about the rate of spread of wildland fire, examine the physical principles at work in ember transport for two principle modes of transport near the ground and in the atmosphere well above the surface, and connect these to statistical models for transport.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[51]

An analysis of spotting distances during the 2017 fire season in the northern rockies, usa.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(3):317–325, 2019

Wesley G Page, Natalie S Wagenbrenner, Bret W Butler, and David L Blunck. An analysis of spotting distances during the 2017 fire season in the northern rockies, usa.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(3):317–325, 2019

work page 2017
[65]

Analysis of variation in distance, number, and distribution of spotting in southeast australian wildfires.Fire, 3(2):10, 2020

Michael A Storey, Owen F Price, Ross A Bradstock, and Jason J Sharples. Analysis of variation in distance, number, and distribution of spotting in southeast australian wildfires.Fire, 3(2):10, 2020

work page 2020
[1]

Size distribution and species dependence of firebrands produced during tree-scale burns

S Adusumilli and DL Blunck. Size distribution and species dependence of firebrands produced during tree-scale burns. In12th U. S. National Combustion Meeting, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

A mathematical model for predicting the maximum potential spotting distance from a crown fire.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21 (5):609–627, 2012

Frank A Albini, Martin E Alexander, and Miguel G Cruz. A mathematical model for predicting the maximum potential spotting distance from a crown fire.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21 (5):609–627, 2012

work page 2012
[3]

D. H. Anderson, E. A. Catchpole, N. J. De Mestre, and T. Parkes. Modelling the Spread of Grass Fires.Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 23:451–466, 1981

work page 1981
[4]

Mechanisms for log normal concentration distributions in the environment

August Andersson. Mechanisms for log normal concentration distributions in the environment. Scientific Reports, 11:16418, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Andrews.BEHA VE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system: BURN subsystem, Part 1, volume 194

Patricia L. Andrews.BEHA VE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system: BURN subsystem, Part 1, volume 194. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 1986

work page 1986
[6]

Patricia L. Andrews. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 23(1):21–33, 2014

work page 2014

Show all 79 references

[7]

The effect of wind on the propagation of an idealized forest fire.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 70(4):1364–1388, 2009

Petro Babak, Anne Bourlioux, and Thomas Hillen. The effect of wind on the propagation of an idealized forest fire.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 70(4):1364–1388, 2009

2009
[8]

The Role of Canopy Turbulence in Wildland Fire Behavior.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 58:473–502, 2026

Tirtha Banerjee. The Role of Canopy Turbulence in Wildland Fire Behavior.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 58:473–502, 2026

2026
[9]

Heilman, and Kevin Speer

Yana Bebieva, Julia Oliveto, Bryan Quaife, Nick Skowronski, Warren E. Heilman, and Kevin Speer. Role of horizontal eddy diffusivity within the canopy on fire spread.Atmosphere, 11(6):672, 2020

2020
[10]

Comparison of firebrand propagation prediction by a plume model and a coupled–fire/atmosphere large–eddy simulator.Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2(1), 2010

Sangay Bhutia, Mary Ann Jenkins, and Ruiyu Sun. Comparison of firebrand propagation prediction by a plume model and a coupled–fire/atmosphere large–eddy simulator.Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2(1), 2010

2010
[11]

Bryan and J

George H. Bryan and J. Michael Fritsch. A Benchmark Simulation for Moist Nonhydrostatic Numerical Models .Monthly Weather Review, 130:2917–2928, 2002

2002
[12]

Cheney, J.S

N.P. Cheney, J.S. Gould, and W.R. Catchpole. The Influence of Fuel, Weather and Fire Shape Variables on Fire-Spread in Grasslands.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 3(1):31–44, 1993

1993
[13]

Clark, Mary Ann Jenkins, Janice Coen, and David Packham

Terry L. Clark, Mary Ann Jenkins, Janice Coen, and David Packham. A Coupled Atmosphere Fire Model: Convective Feedback on Fire-Line Dynamics.Journal of Applied Meteorology, 35(6): 875–901, 1996. 26

1996
[14]

Clark, Mary Ann Jenkins, Janice L

Terry L. Clark, Mary Ann Jenkins, Janice L. Coen, and David R. Packham. A Coupled Atmosphere- Fire Model: Role of the Convective Froude Number and Dynamic Fingering at the Fireline. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 6(4):177–190, 1996

1996
[15]

Clark, Janice Coen, and Don Latham

Terry L. Clark, Janice Coen, and Don Latham. Description of a coupled atmosphere–fire model. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 13:49–63, 2004

2004
[16]

Coupled Fire–Atmosphere Model Evaluation and Challenges

Janice Coen, Miguel Cruz, Daniel Rosales-Giron, and Kevin Speer. Coupled Fire–Atmosphere Model Evaluation and Challenges. In Kevin Speer and Scott Goodrick, editors,Wildland Fire Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2022

2022
[17]

Coen, Marques Cameron, John Michalakes, Edward G

Janice L. Coen, Marques Cameron, John Michalakes, Edward G. Patton, Philip J. Riggan, and Kara M. Yedinak. WRF-Fire: Coupled Weather–Wildland Fire Modeling with the Weather Research and Forecasting Model.Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52:16–38, 2013

2013
[18]

The generation and forecast of extreme winds during the origin and progression of the 2017 Tubbs Fire.Atmosphere, 9(12):462, 2018

Janice L Coen, Wilfrid Schroeder, and Brad Quayle. The generation and forecast of extreme winds during the origin and progression of the 2017 Tubbs Fire.Atmosphere, 9(12):462, 2018

2017
[19]

A framework for conducting and communicating probabilistic wildland fire forecasts.Fire, 7(7):227, 2024

Janice L Coen, Gary W Johnson, J Shane Romsos, and David Saah. A framework for conducting and communicating probabilistic wildland fire forecasts.Fire, 7(7):227, 2024

2024
[20]

Cruz and Martin E

Miguel G. Cruz and Martin E. Alexander. Uncertainty associated with model predictions of surface and crown fire rates of spread.Environmental Modelling & Software, 47:16–28, 2013

2013
[21]

Cruz and Martin E

Miguel G. Cruz and Martin E. Alexander. The 10% wind speed rule of thumb for estimating a wildfire’s forward rate of spread in forests and shrublands.Annals of Forest Science, 76(2):44, 2019

2019
[22]

Pixel- Level Statistical Analyses of Prescribed Fire Spread.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(1): 18–26, 2018

Miles Currie, Kevin Speer, Kevin Hiers, Joseph O’Brien, Scott Goodrick, and Bryan Quaife. Pixel- Level Statistical Analyses of Prescribed Fire Spread.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(1): 18–26, 2018

2018
[23]

Effects of Urban Boundary Layer Turbulence on Firebrand Transport.Fire Safety Journal, 135:103726, 2023

Iago Dal-Ri dos Santos and Neda Yaghoobian. Effects of Urban Boundary Layer Turbulence on Firebrand Transport.Fire Safety Journal, 135:103726, 2023

2023
[24]

Surface wind-speed statistics mod- elling: Alternatives to the Weibull distribution and performance evaluation.Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 157:97–123, 2015

Philippe Drobinski, Corentin Coulais, and B´ en´ edicte Jourdier. Surface wind-speed statistics mod- elling: Alternatives to the Weibull distribution and performance evaluation.Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 157:97–123, 2015

2015
[25]

Evans, I

K. Evans, I. D. R. dos Santos, and N. Yaghoobian. A Numerical Investigation on the Role of Urban Layouts on Firebrand Spotting Behavior. Presentation at the Fall AGU Meeting, 2025

2025
[26]

Evans, I

K. Evans, I. D. R. dos Santos, and N. Yaghoobian. Urban Geometries and Their Role in Modulating Ember Dispersion and Spotting. Presentation at the Fall APS Meeting, 2025

2025
[27]

Extreme firebrand transport by atmospheric waves in wildfires.arxiv, 2411.13275, 2024

Mohammad Farazmand. Extreme firebrand transport by atmospheric waves in wildfires.arxiv, 2411.13275, 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Finney.F ARSITE, Fire Area Simulator–model development and evaluation, volume 3

Mark A. Finney.F ARSITE, Fire Area Simulator–model development and evaluation, volume 3. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1998

1998
[29]

CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 2021

Mark A Finney, Sara S McAllister, Torben P Grumstrup, and Jason M Forthofer.Wildland Fire Behavior: Dynamics, Principles and Processes. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 2021

2021
[30]

Webb, Bret W

David Frankman, Brent W. Webb, Bret W. Butler, Daniel Jimenez, Jason M. Forthofer, Paul Sopko, Kyle S. Shannon, J. Kevin Hiers, and Roger D. Ottmar. Measurements of convective and radiative heating in wildland fires.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22(2):157–167, 2013

2013
[31]

A probabilistic derivation of the exponential-like distribution of bed load particle velocities.Water Resources Research, 49(3):1537–1551, 2013

David Jon Furbish and Mark W Schmeeckle. A probabilistic derivation of the exponential-like distribution of bed load particle velocities.Water Resources Research, 49(3):1537–1551, 2013

2013
[32]

Hilton, A.L

J.E. Hilton, A.L. Sullivan, W. Swedosh J. Sharples, and C. Thomas. Incorporating convective feedback in wildfire simulations using pyrogenic potential.Environmental Modelling & Software, 107:12–24, 2018

2018
[33]

Johnston, Melanie J

Joshua M. Johnston, Melanie J. Wheatley, Martin J. Wooster, Ronan Paugam, G. Matt Davies, and Kaitlin A. DeBoer. Flame-Front Rate of Spread Estimates for Moderate Scale Experimental Fires Are Strongly Influenced by Measurement Approach.Fire, 1(16), 2018

2018
[34]

C. S. Juang, A. P. Williams, J. T. Abatzoglou, J.K. Balch, M. D. Hurteau, and M.A. Mortiz. Rapid Growth of Large Forest Fires Drives the Exponential Response of Annual Forest-Fire Area to Aridity in the Western United States.Geophysical Research Letters, 49:e2021GL097131, 2022

2022
[35]

Dynamic Scaling of Growing Interfaces

Mehran Kardar, Giorgio Parisi, and Yi-Cheng Zhang. Dynamic Scaling of Growing Interfaces. Physical Review Letters, 56(9):889–892, 1986

1986
[36]

Woycheese

Eunmo Koo, Patrick Pagni, David Weise, and John P. Woycheese. Firebrands and spotting ignition in large-scale fires.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 19:818–843, 2010. 27

2010
[37]

Wildland fire modeling with an Eulerian level set method and automated calibration.Fire Safety Journal, 62:289–298, 2013

Chris Lautenberger. Wildland fire modeling with an Eulerian level set method and automated calibration.Fire Safety Journal, 62:289–298, 2013

2013
[38]

Linn and Philip Cunningham

Rodman R. Linn and Philip Cunningham. Numerical simulations of grass fires using a coupled atmosphere–fire model: Basic fire behavior and dependence on wind speed.Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110:D13107, 2005

2005
[39]

Fire-spotting modelling in operational wildfire simulators based on Cellular Automata: A comparison study.Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 350:109989, 2024

Marcos L´ opez-De-Castro, Andrea Trucchia, Umberto Morra di Cella, Paolo Fiorucci, Antonio Cardillo, and Gianni Pagnini. Fire-spotting modelling in operational wildfire simulators based on Cellular Automata: A comparison study.Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 350:109989, 2024

2024
[40]

Mandel, J

J. Mandel, J. D. Beezley, and A. K. Kochanski. Coupled atmosphere-wildland fire modeling with WRF 3.3 and SFIRE 2011.Geoscientific Model Development, 4:591–610, 2011

2011
[41]

Manzello, Alexander Maranghides, and William E

Samuel L. Manzello, Alexander Maranghides, and William E. Mell. Firebrand generation from burning vegetation.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16:458–462, 2007

2007
[42]

Role of firebrand combustion in large outdoor fire spread.Progress in energy and combustion science, 76: 100801, 2020

Samuel L Manzello, Sayaka Suzuki, Michael J Gollner, and A Carlos Fernandez-Pello. Role of firebrand combustion in large outdoor fire spread.Progress in energy and combustion science, 76: 100801, 2020

2020
[43]

The spotting distribution of wildfires.Applied Sciences, 6(6): 177, 2016

Jonathan Martin and Thomas Hillen. The spotting distribution of wildfires.Applied Sciences, 6(6): 177, 2016

2016
[44]

Forestry and Timber Bureau, Department of national Development, Commonwealth of Australia, 1966

Alan Grant McArthur.Weather and grassland fire behaviour. Forestry and Timber Bureau, Department of national Development, Commonwealth of Australia, 1966

1966
[45]

A Physics-Based Approach to Modelling Grassland Fires.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(1):1–22, 2007

William Mell, Mary Ann Jenkins, Jim Gould, and Phil Cheney. A Physics-Based Approach to Modelling Grassland Fires.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(1):1–22, 2007

2007
[46]

SPARK–A bushfire spread prediction tool

Clair Miller, James Hilton, Andrew Sullivan, and Mahesh Prakash. SPARK–A bushfire spread prediction tool. InEnvironmental Software Systems. Infrastructures, Services and Applications, pages 262–271, 2015

2015
[47]

The probability distribution of land surface wind speeds.Journal of Climate, 24(15):3892–3909, 2011

Adam H Monahan, Yanping He, Norman McFarlane, and Aiguo Dai. The probability distribution of land surface wind speeds.Journal of Climate, 24(15):3892–3909, 2011

2011
[48]

Morandini, A

F. Morandini, A. Simeoni, P. A. Santoni, and J. H. Balbi. A Model for the Spread of Fire Across a Fuel Bed Incorporating the Effects of Wind and Slope.Combustion Science and Technology, 177 (2):1381–1418, 2005

2005
[49]

Morvan, S

D. Morvan, S. M´ eradji, and G. Accary. Physical modelling of fire spread in Grasslands.Fire Safety Journal, 44(1):50–61, 2009

2009
[50]

Physical Phenomena and Length Scales Governing the Behaviour of Wildfires: A Case for Physical Modelling.Fire Technology, 47:437–460, 2011

Dominique Morvan. Physical Phenomena and Length Scales Governing the Behaviour of Wildfires: A Case for Physical Modelling.Fire Technology, 47:437–460, 2011

2011
[52]

Wooster, and Gareth Roberts

Ronan Paugam, Martin J. Wooster, and Gareth Roberts. Use of Handheld Thermal Imager Data for Airborne Mapping of Fire Radiative Power and Energy and Flame Front Rate of Spread.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51(6):3385–3399, 2013

2013
[53]

Pavliotis.Stochastic Processes and Applications: Diffusion Processes, the Fokker– Planck and Langevin Equations, volume 60 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics

Grigorios A. Pavliotis.Stochastic Processes and Applications: Diffusion Processes, the Fokker– Planck and Langevin Equations, volume 60 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York,
[54]

Reconstructing modes of destruction in wildland–urban interface fires using a semi-physical level-set model.Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 40(1-4):105755, 2024

Dwi MJ Purnomo, Yiren Qin, Maria Theodori, Maryam Zamanialaei, Chris Lautenberger, Arnaud Trouv´ e, and Michael Gollner. Reconstructing modes of destruction in wildland–urban interface fires using a semi-physical level-set model.Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 40(1-4)...

2024
[55]

A Simple Model for Wildland Fire Vortex–Sink Interactions

Bryan Quaife and Kevin Speer. A Simple Model for Wildland Fire Vortex–Sink Interactions. Atmosphere, 12:1014, 2021

2021
[56]

Statistical Models of Ember Wash and Their Impact on Wildfire Area Growth.arxiv, 2603.28222, 2026

Bryan Quaife and Kevin Speer. Statistical Models of Ember Wash and Their Impact on Wildfire Area Growth.arxiv, 2603.28222, 2026

2026
[57]

Rothermel

Richard C. Rothermel. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels.USDA Forest Service research paper INT, 115, 1972

1972
[58]

Fine-Scale Fire Spread in Pine Straw.Fire, 4:69, 2021

Daryn Sagel, Kevin Speer, Scott Pokswinski, and Bryan Quaife. Fine-Scale Fire Spread in Pine Straw.Fire, 4:69, 2021

2021
[59]

Sardoy, J.L

N. Sardoy, J.L. Convsalvi, A. Kaiss, A.C. Fernandez-Pello, and B. Porterie. Numerical study of ground-level distribution of firebrands generated by line fires.Combustion and Flame, 154:478–488, 28 2008

2008
[60]

Modeling transport and combustion of firebrands from burning trees.Combustion and Flame, 150(3):151–169, 2007

Nicolas Sardoy, Jean-Louis Consalvi, Bernard Porterie, and A Carlos Fernandez-Pello. Modeling transport and combustion of firebrands from burning trees.Combustion and Flame, 150(3):151–169, 2007

2007
[61]

One-Dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang Equation: An Exact Solution and its Universality.Physical Review Letters, 104:230602, 2010

Tomohiro Sassamoto and Herbert Spohn. One-Dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang Equation: An Exact Solution and its Universality.Physical Review Letters, 104:230602, 2010

2010
[62]

Schroeder

Mark J. Schroeder. Ignition probability, 1969

1969
[63]

Simpson, Jason J

Colin C. Simpson, Jason J. Sharples, and Jason P. Evans. Sensitivity of atypical lateral fire spread to wind and slope.Geophysical Review Letters, 43:1744–1751, 2016

2016
[64]

Large-Eddy Simulations of Radiatively Driven Convection: Sensitivities to the Representation of Small Scales.Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 56(23):3963–3984, 1999

Bjorn Stevens, Chin-Hoh Moeng, and Peter P Sullivan. Large-Eddy Simulations of Radiatively Driven Convection: Sensitivities to the Representation of Small Scales.Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 56(23):3963–3984, 1999

1999
[66]

Storey, Michael Bedward, Owen F

Michael A. Storey, Michael Bedward, Owen F. Price, Ross A. Bradstock, and Jason J. Sharples. Derivation of a Bayesian fire spread model using large-scale wildfire observations.Environmental Modelling and Software, 144:105127, 2021

2021
[67]

Experiments on the influence of spot fire and topography interaction on fire rate of spread.Plos one, 16(1):e0245132, 2021

Michael Anthony Storey, Owen F Price, Miguel Almeida, Carlos Ribeiro, Ross A Bradstock, and Jason J Sharples. Experiments on the influence of spot fire and topography interaction on fire rate of spread.Plos one, 16(1):e0245132, 2021

2021
[68]

Sullivan

A. Sullivan. Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990-2007. 2: Empirical and quasi-empirical models.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(4):369–386, 2009

1990
[69]

Sullivan

A. Sullivan. Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990-2007. 3: Simulation and mathematical analogue models.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18:387–403, 2009

1990
[70]

Sullivan

Andrew L. Sullivan. Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 1: Physical and quasi- physical models.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18:349–368, 2009

1990
[71]

Kepert, Kevin J

William Thurston, Jeffrey D. Kepert, Kevin J. Tory, and Robert J. B. Fawcett. The contribution of turbulent plume dynamics to long-range spotting.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 26: 317–330, 2017

2017
[72]

Firebrands

Ali Tohidi and Nigel Kaye. Firebrands. In Kevin Speer and Scott Goodrick, editors,Wildland Fire Dynamics, pages 129–155. Cambridge University Press, 2022

2022
[73]

Stochastic modeling of firebrand shower scenarios.Fire Safety Journal, 91:91–102, 2017

Ali Tohidi and Nigel B Kaye. Stochastic modeling of firebrand shower scenarios.Fire Safety Journal, 91:91–102, 2017

2017
[74]

Phoenix: development and application of a bushfire risk management tool.The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 23(4):47–54, 2008

Kevin Tolhurst, Brett Shields, and Derek Chong. Phoenix: development and application of a bushfire risk management tool.The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 23(4):47–54, 2008

2008
[75]

Data-driven fire modeling: Learning first arrival times and model parameters with neural networks.Environmental Modelling and Software, 183:106253, 2025

Xin Tong and Bryan Quaife. Data-driven fire modeling: Learning first arrival times and model parameters with neural networks.Environmental Modelling and Software, 183:106253, 2025

2025
[76]

A review of firebrand studies on generation and transport.Fire Safety Journal, 134:103674, 2022

Rahul Wadhwani, Catherine Sullivan, Amila Wickramasinghe, Matthew Kyng, Nazmul Khan, and Khalid Moinuddin. A review of firebrand studies on generation and transport.Fire Safety Journal, 134:103674, 2022

2022
[77]

A Simulation of the Development of Successive Cells Along a Cold Outflow Boundary.Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 39(7):1466–1483, 1982

Robert B Wilhelmson and Ching-Sen Chen. A Simulation of the Development of Successive Cells Along a Cold Outflow Boundary.Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 39(7):1466–1483, 1982

1982
[78]

Zhang, P

Jun Zhang, Y.-C. Zhang, P. Alstrøm, and M.T. Levinsen. Modeling forest fire by a paper-burning experiment, a realization of the interface growth mechanism.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 189(3-4):383–389, 1992. 29

1992
[2014]

doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1323-7

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [51]

An analysis of spotting distances during the 2017 fire season in the northern rockies, usa.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(3):317–325, 2019

Wesley G Page, Natalie S Wagenbrenner, Bret W Butler, and David L Blunck. An analysis of spotting distances during the 2017 fire season in the northern rockies, usa.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(3):317–325, 2019

work page 2017

[2] [65]

Analysis of variation in distance, number, and distribution of spotting in southeast australian wildfires.Fire, 3(2):10, 2020

Michael A Storey, Owen F Price, Ross A Bradstock, and Jason J Sharples. Analysis of variation in distance, number, and distribution of spotting in southeast australian wildfires.Fire, 3(2):10, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [1]

Size distribution and species dependence of firebrands produced during tree-scale burns

S Adusumilli and DL Blunck. Size distribution and species dependence of firebrands produced during tree-scale burns. In12th U. S. National Combustion Meeting, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [2]

A mathematical model for predicting the maximum potential spotting distance from a crown fire.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21 (5):609–627, 2012

Frank A Albini, Martin E Alexander, and Miguel G Cruz. A mathematical model for predicting the maximum potential spotting distance from a crown fire.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21 (5):609–627, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [3]

D. H. Anderson, E. A. Catchpole, N. J. De Mestre, and T. Parkes. Modelling the Spread of Grass Fires.Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 23:451–466, 1981

work page 1981

[6] [4]

Mechanisms for log normal concentration distributions in the environment

August Andersson. Mechanisms for log normal concentration distributions in the environment. Scientific Reports, 11:16418, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [5]

Andrews.BEHA VE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system: BURN subsystem, Part 1, volume 194

Patricia L. Andrews.BEHA VE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system: BURN subsystem, Part 1, volume 194. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 1986

work page 1986

[8] [6]

Patricia L. Andrews. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 23(1):21–33, 2014

work page 2014