Citation

Hoffman CM, Linn RR, Mell WE, Sieg CH, Canfield J, Ziegler J, Pimont F. Fire Technol. 2019; 55(6): 1927-1929.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10694-019-00857-1

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

We have read Cruz and Alexander's comments regarding our manuscript titled "Evaluating Crown Fire Rate of Spread Predictions from Physics-Based Models" [1] and appreciate the opportunity to respond to their comments. In our original manuscript [1], we presented an evaluation of crown fire rate of spread predictions from two physics-based wildland fire behavior models: FIRETEC and the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS). Our approach, as outlined in our original paper, relied upon using a previously published dataset of real-world crown fires, hereafter referred to as AC06 [2], and previously published fire rate of spread predictions. Following recommendations for model performance assessment proposed in Rykiel [3], we examined the proportion of simulated crown fire rates of spread that fell within a 95th percentile prediction interval we developed using the data in AC06. We also provided several discussion points about the challenges associated with evaluating physics-based model performance, potential sources of error/disagreement, and future research needs. Our manuscript built upon an existing body of work and offered insights based on one of many potential approaches that can be used to assess physics-based model performance.

In their comment on our manuscript, Cruz and Alexander suggest that: (1) our lack of understanding regarding the development of and uncertainties associated with the data reported in AC06 led us to misconstrue the usefulness of the dataset, and (2) that our approach is flawed and of limited utility, leading us to make a number of unfounded conclusions. Regarding [1], they supply several clarifying statements concerning the methods used in the development of the AC06 dataset and reiterate that these assumptions were both necessary and critical for their original purpose of independently evaluating an operationally-used crown fire rate of spread model. We agree with Cruz and Alexander that these assumptions were necessary and critical for them to evaluate an empirically derived crown fire model and that the dataset is indeed of value. We did not in any way intend to devalue the AC06 dataset. In fact, we believe that AC06 is one of the best available datasets at this time, which is why we chose to use it in our manuscript.

Cruz and Alexander suggest that if we had a better understanding of the assumptions used in the development of the AC06 data set, we would or could have chosen to perform an analysis based on direct model comparisons and that this approach would have yielded greater insight. We agree with Cruz and Alexander that direct point-to-point comparisons are an ideal approach to assess model performance. However, we disagree with them on the ability for the AC06 dataset to support such comparisons for physics-based models, given the number of required model input parameters and boundary conditions that are either unknown or unreported in the dataset...

Language: en