Large eddy simulation of forest canopy flow for wildland fire modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large eddy simulation (LES) based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulators have obtained increasing attention in the wildland fire research community, as these tools allow the inclusion of important driving physics. However, due to the complexity of the models, individual aspects must be isolated and tested rigorously to ensure meaningful results. As wind is a driving force that can significantly dictate the behavior of a wildfire, the simulation of wind is studied in the context of a particular LES CFD model, the Wildland–urban interface Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS). As WFDS has yet to be tested extensively with regard to wind flow within and above forest canopies, a study of its ability to do so is carried out. First, three simulations are conducted using periodic boundary conditions. Two of these assume a spatially heterogeneous forest and one models wind downstream of a canopy edge. Second, two simulations are conducted with specified “inflow” conditions using two inflow profiles: one static and one dynamic (driven by a precursor simulation). Using periodic boundary conditions, the model is found to generate profiles of mean velocity and turbulent statistics that are representative of experimental measurements. The dynamic inflow scenario is found to perform better than the static case.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".