There are three types of fire spread: heading fire, flanking fire, and backing fire. A heading fire spreads with the wind; flames are tilted toward the direction of fire spread. A heading fire will spread upslope if there is no wind. From a mathematical perspective, a heading fire represents the direction of maximum fire spread during flaming combustion. On flat ground, a heading fire is straightforward as the direction of maximum fire spread will be in the same direction as the wind. On a slope, fire will spread upslope with an upslope wind since the slope and wind are aligned (Fig.
1). As a rule of thumb, if the wind direction is within 30° of upslope, the direction of maximum spread is considered to be upslope. If the wind direction is not within 30° of upslope, the direction of maximum spread must be calculated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
References
Albini FA (1976) Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. General Technical Report INT-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, 92pGoogle Scholar
Alexander, ME, Lawson, BD, Stocks, BJ, Van Wagner, CE (1984) User guide to the Canadian forest fire prediction system: rate of spread relationships. Interim edition. Edmonton: Environment Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre, 73pGoogle Scholar
Andrews PL (1996) Fire environment. In: Pyne SJ, Andrews PL, Laven RD (eds) Introduction to wildland fire, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 3–168Google Scholar
Andrews PL, Rothermel RC (1982) Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior characteristics. General Technical Report INT-131. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, 21pGoogle Scholar
Byram GM (1959) Combustion of forest fuels. In: Davis K (ed) Forest fire control and use. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 61–89Google Scholar
Cheney NP, Gould JS, Catchpole WR (1993) The influence of fuel, weather and fire shape variables on fire-spread in grasslands. Int J Wildland Fire 3(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forestry Canada Fire Danger Group (1992) Development and structure of the Canadian forest fire behavior prediction system. Information Report ST-X-3. Forestry Canada, Science and Sustainable Development Directorate, Ottawa, 64pGoogle Scholar
Johansen RW (1987) Ignition patterns and prescribed fire behavior in Southern pine stands. Georgia Forest Research Paper 72. Georgia Forestry Commission, Research Division, Macon, 6pGoogle Scholar
McArthur AG, Luke RH (1963) Fire behavior studies in Australia. Fire Control Notes 24(4):87–92Google Scholar
Rothermel RC (1972) A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Research Paper INT-115. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, 40pGoogle Scholar
Rothermel RC (1985) Fire behavior consideration of aerial ignition. In: Proceedings, prescribed fire by aerial ignition workshop, 30 Oct–1 Nov 1984. Intermountain Fire Council, Missoula, pp 143–158Google Scholar
Rothermel RC, Rinehart GC (1983) Field procedures for verification and adjustment of fire behavior predictions. General Technical Report INT-142. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, 25pGoogle Scholar
Sackett SS (1968) A field trial for regulating prescribed fire intensities. Fire Control Notes 29(3):5–6Google Scholar
