Bruce Schubert
|
Posted: December 01, 2009 16:14 by Bruce Schubert
|
|
Note: the current CPS-Suite codebase is in the branches repository. This project requires the NetBeans OpenGL-Pack plugins to provide the JOGL and GlueGen runtime libraries. The required nbms are in the netbeans-opengl-pack_0.5.5.zip file located in the "other" folder. To install the OpenGL-Pack:
All other required libraries are included as Library Wrapper Modules. See the CPS Developer FAQ For more information about building and running this RCP application: http://kenai.com/projects/cps/pages/DeveloperFAQ -- Bruce |
CPS-Suite Readme
Replies: 2 - Last Post: January 07, 2010 19:15
by: doug
by: doug
showing 1 - 3 of 3
doug
|
Posted: January 07, 2010 18:52 by doug
|
|
Bruce It was a thought provoking discussion this morning. I was able to download Rothermel's video using Fire Fox, thanks for that. I am thinking how to explain the design of BEHAVE and CPS so that folks looking at both systems understand the differences in use and design. The design of BEHAVE is to enable the user to calculate the fire behavior from the input list provided. It is general thinking that observing the actual fire behavior one should calibrate the model so that it agrees with the observation. I question the value of the thinking. Why chase the fire with a model? CPS is designed to calibrate the fire. Using the alignment of forces concept and the fire signature results to enable one to explain the potential variation of fire behavior on the fire-ground, in the short term. CPS is designed for firefighters use on the fire-line to enable them to predict the potential fire behavior from observations of past fire behavior. In this manner CPS calibrates the existing fire. Doug Campbell p.s. I did not find any login button on this page. |
doug
|
Posted: January 07, 2010 19:15 by doug
|
|
Bruce This is an example of a situation that needed a fire behavior calibration that BEHAVE is not designed to do. Orange County Fire Authority document excerpt. AFTER ACTION REVIEW ST-1400C personnel gathered on Sept. 3 in a staging area and conducted an after-action review of the Big Tujunga structure protection assignment and extreme fire behavior event on August 29. The following lessons were learned: Fire Behavior a. The fire exhibited “plume dominated” fire behavior which included multiple episodes of extreme fire behavior. This behavior was fed by a heavy accumulation of chaparral, drought, and steep terrain. This kind of extreme fire behavior is rare in Southern California. b. Convection columns built by the fire would reach altitudes of 20-40,000 feet. The columns would then collapse and push high winds to the surface much like a thunderstorm. Extreme fire behavior including long flame lengths, heavy spotting, firewhirls, rapid rates of spread, and long fire runs would develop, often with unexpected trajectories. c. The collapse of the convection column above Vogel Flats caused a reversal of fire trajectory and drove the fire down-canyon into the community. d. As the fire front approached it’s sound was described as the “roar of a freight train”. e. The width, speed, and intensity of the fire front posed life threatening conditions to firefighters and civilians in Vogel Flats. 6Escape Routes and Safety Zones a. The designation of a safety zone was critical to ST-1400C’s survival when they were threatened by a rapidly approaching fire front. Most other positions in the canyon were untenable during the fire’s passage. b. The call to enter the safety zone could not have been delayed. The fire front approached the safety zone shortly after all units were assembled. c. Movement to the safety zone was nearly compromised at one time by panicked and fleeing civilians. d. A plan was made to place civilians who might arrive in the safety zone inside a masonry restroom. None arrived and this was not used. e. Another previously identified safety zone was abandoned for insufficient size to provide protection. Regards Doug Campbell |
Replies: 2 - Last Post: January 07, 2010 19:15
by: doug
by: doug







