Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:22:45.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Firestorms, Fallout, and Atmospheric Turbulence Induced by a Nuclear Detonation

from Part II - Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

By
Jon Reisner ,
Eunmo Koo ,
Alexander Josephson  and
Alexander L. Brown
Edited by
Fernando F. Grinstein ,
Filipe S. Pereira  and
Massimo Germano
Fernando F. Grinstein
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Filipe S. Pereira
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Massimo Germano
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

A nuclear detonation’s energy release can be approximately broken up into blast (50%), thermal (35%), and radiation (15%). If a detonation occurs significantly above ground (airburst) and various factors are favorable, for example, few clouds and no snow on the ground, then thermal radiation can ignite surface fires. These fires will first commence within fine fuels, such as paper and leaves on vegetation, but given time, these small-scale fires can upscale to larger fires that burn entire houses, trees, and possibly a city. Depending on weather conditions, the fires may continue to spread within a city and impact first responders or civilians sheltering in place to avoid fallout. This chapter highlights the coarse-graining of turbulence, combustion, and cloud physics associated with ignition, spread, and possible interaction of fires with nuclear fallout plumes. In particular, examples are given to illustrate the complex relationship between fallout and fires, an idealized detonation over Dallas (Texas, USA) and Hiroshima (Japan). For both examples, even though the nuclear airburst was at a fallout-free height of burst, the complex and turbulent interaction of the fires with clouds induced significant fallout on the ground.

Type
Chapter
Information
Coarse Graining Turbulence
Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and their Applications
 , pp. 525 - 549
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrejczuk, M., Grabowski, W., Reisner, J., and Gadian, A. 2010. Cloud-aerosol interactions for boundary-layer stratocumulus in the Lagrangian Cloud Model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, doi:10.1029/2007JD009445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., Mendoza, H., Koo, E., and Reisner, J. 2019. A high flux forest fire scenario for assessing relative model accuracy for CFD tools. In WSSCI Fall Technical Meeting October 14–15, Albuquerque, NM. www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1642799.Google Scholar
Cappucci, M. 2018. California’s Carr fire spawned a true fire tornado. www.snexplores.org/article/californias-carr-fire-spawned-true-fire-tornado.Google Scholar
Coen, J. L., Cameron, M., Michalekes, J., Patton, E. G., Riggan, P. J., and Yedinak, K. M. 2013. WRF-fire: Coupled weather–wildland fire modeling with the weather research and forecasting model. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52, 16–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiou, G. K., Christoudia, T., Proestos, Y., Kushta, J., Pikridas, M., Scaire, J., Savvides, C., and Lelieveld, J. 2022. Evaluation of WRF-Chem model (v3.9.1.1) real-time air quality forecasts over the Eastern Mediterranean. Geoscientific Model Development, 15, 4129–4146.Google Scholar
Hammer, J. 2011. The great Japan earthquake of 1923. Smithsonian Magazine,Google Scholar
Jeffery, C. A., and Reisner, J. M. 2006. A study of cloud mixing and evolution using PDF methods. 1. Cloud front propagation and evaporation. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 63, 2848–2864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lareau, N. P., Nauslar, N. J, and Abatzoglou, J. T. 2018. The Carr fire vortex: A case of pyrotornadogenesis? Geophysical Research Letters, 45(23), 13:107–13:115. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, R. R., Reisner, J. M., Colman, J., and Winterkamp, J. L. 2002. Studying wildfire behaviour using FIRETEC. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 11, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, R. R, Goodrock, S. L., Brambilla, S., Brown, M. J., Middleton, R. S., O’Brien, J. J., and Hiers, J. K. 2020. QUIC-fire: A fast running simulation tool for prescribed fire planning. Environmental Modeling and Software, 125, 104616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrattan, K., and Floyd, J. 2021. Current and future parameters used by FDS. In ASTM Symposium on Obtaining Data for Fire Growth Models. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933774.Google Scholar
McIntosh, L. A. 1987. Select Bibliography on Nuclear Winter. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA180834.Google Scholar
Oyama, M., and Oochi, Y. 2011. Latest scientific view on local fallout and black rain. Hiroshima city, Japan. www.hisof.jp/01publication/0102contents.pdf.Google Scholar
Pernin, P. 1971. The great Peshtigo fire: An eyewitness account. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 54(4), 246–272.Google Scholar
Ramani, R., Reisner, J., and Shkoller, S. 2019. A space-time smooth artificial viscosity method with wavelet noise indicator and shock collision scheme, Part 2: The 2-D case. Journal of Computational Physics, 387, 45–80.Google Scholar
Reisner, J. 2016. Cloud modeling: An example of why small scale details matter for accurate prediction. Pages 134–167 of: Coarse Grained Simulation and Turbulent Mixing, Grinstein, F. F. (ed). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisner, J., Bruintjes, R. T., and Rasmussen, R. 1998. An examination on the utility of forecasting supercooled liquid water in a mesoscale model. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 124, 1071–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisner, J., Angelo, G. D., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R., and Cooley, J. 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123, 2752–2772.Google Scholar
Reisner, J., Koo, E., Hunke, E., and Dubey, M. 2019. Reply to comment by Robock et al. on “Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapon exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations”. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, (12), 959–962.Google Scholar
Reisner, J. M., Josephson, A. J., Gorkowski, K. J., Koo, E., Thompson, D. K., Schroeder, D., and Dubey, M. K. 2023. Informed multi-scale approach applied to the British Columbia fires of late summer 2017. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2022JD037238.Google Scholar
Rothermel, R. C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-115, 1–40.Google Scholar
Salmon, F., Lacanette, D., Mindeguia, J.-C., and Sirieix, C. 2018. FIREFOAM simulation of a localized fire in a gallery. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1107, 042017.Google Scholar
Schar, C., and Smolarkiewicz, P. K. 1996. A synchronous and iterative flux-correction formulism for coupled transport equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 128, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutou, S. 2020. Black rain in Hiroshima: a critique to the Life Span Study of A-bomb survivors, basis of the linear no-threshold model. Genes and Environment, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiezen, S. R., O’Hern, T. J., Weckman, E. J., and Schefer, R. W. 2004. Experimental study of the effect of fuel mass flux on a 1-m diameter methane fire and comparison with a hydrogen fire. Combustion and Flame, 139, 126–141.Google Scholar
United States Strategic Bombing Survey. 1946. The United States bombing survey: The effects of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/research-files/united-states-strategic-bombing-survey-effects-atomic-bombs-hiroshima-and?documentid=NA&pagenumber=1.Google Scholar
Vaillant, J. 2023. The world’s first wildfire tornado blazed a path of destruction through Australia. Smithsonian Magazine.Google Scholar
Veregin, H. 1993. The role of uncertainty in nuclear winter modeling. Global Environmental Change, 3, 228–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D. 1998. A History of Aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balachandar, S. 2024. Fundamentals of Dispersed Multiphase Flows. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celik, I., Klein, M., Freitag, M., and Janicka, J. 2006. Assessment Measures for URANS/DES/LES: An Overview with Applications. J. Turbul., 7, N48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, U. 1995. Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C. 2009. LES Modeling of Combustion for Propulsion Applications. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 367, 2957–2969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fureby, C., and Tabor, G. 1997. Mathematical and Physical Constraints On Large–Eddy Simulations. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 9, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, W. K., and Davidson, L. 2004. Role of Initial Conditions in Establishing Asymptotic Flow Behavior. AIAA J., 42, 438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germano, M. 2007. A Direct Relation between the Filtered Subgrid Stress and the Second Order Structure Function. Phys. Fluids, 19, 038102/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinstein, F. F. 2016. Coarse Grained Simulation and Turbulent Mixing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkinakis, I.W., and Drikakis, D. 2015. Implicit Large Eddy Simulation ofWeakly Compressible Turbulent Channel Flow. Comput. Methods. Appl. Mech. Eng., 287, 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, A. 1975. Energy Cascade in Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Fluid Flows. Adv. in Geophysics, 18A, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesieur, M. 2008. Turbulence in Fluids. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W. C., and Balachandar, S. 2019. Lagrangian Investigation of Pseudo-Turbulence in Multiphase Flow Using Superposable Wakes. Phys. Rev. Fluids, 4, 114301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, R. D., Haering, S. W., and Yalla, G. R. 2021. Statistical Properties of Subgrid-Scale Turbulence Models. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 53, 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parish, E. J., and Duraisamy, K. 2017. Non-Markovian Closure Models for Large Eddy Simulations Using the Mori–Zwanzig Formalism. Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2, 014604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., and Eça, L. 2022. Verification and Validation: The Path to Predictive Scale-Resolving Simulations of Turbulence. ASME J. Verification, Validation, andUncertainty Quantification, 7(2), 021003.Google Scholar
Pope, S. B. 1990 (July). Computations of Turbulent Combustion: Progress and Challenges. In: Twenty Third Symposium (International) on Combustion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, S. B. 2000. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisner, J. M., Josephson, A. J., Gorkowski, K. J., Koo, E., Thompson, D. K., Schroeder, D., and Dubey, M. K. 2023. Informed Multi-Scale Approach Applied to the British Columbia Fires of Late Summer 2017. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, 128, e2022JD037238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L. F. 1927. The Deferred Approach to the Limit. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser., A226, 229–361.Google Scholar
Roache, P. J. 1997. Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 29, 123–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagaut, P., Deck, S., and Terracol, M. 2006. Multiscale and Multiresolution Approaches in Turbulence. Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsinober, A. 2014. The Essence of Turbulence as a Physical Phenomenon. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassilicos, J. C. 2015. Dissipation in Turbulent Flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 47, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warming, R. F., and Hyett, B. J. 1974. The Modified Equation Approach and the Stability and Accuracy Analysis of Finite-Difference Methods. J. Comp. Phys., 14, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×