This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Proposed Prize Design Structure
We are interested in focusing a prize specifically on wildfire suppression. In light of the increasing risk to lives and assets, the focus is on suppression of Wildland-Urban Interface fires, before these escalate into large fire events that put communities at risk. Here is an initial description of a proposed prize. In the other topics in the community, you’ll find different categories of feedback we would love to get on this design.
We understand that a prize designed in this way may result in a different approach or paradigm for firefighting, and we invite you to explore—for example, with faster detection and response, can fires be extinguished without traditional containment and control strategies?
The Proposed Prize: We are proposing a prize that works something like the following: Teams are invited to test a fully integrated autonomous system that rapidly detects, responds and suppresses wildfires. There will be a competition testing area of X by X acres (NOTE: we are proposing testing in an outdoor environment). At the beginning of the test, competition officials will ignite a fire somewhere within the testing grid. Once Y threshold of spread, temperature, flame height, or another variable is crossed, the competing team will have Z minutes to detect and completely extinguish the fire. The overall cost of the teams’ system must be no more than C dollars. Solutions must not pose an risk to the environment and/or lives.
We understand that a prize designed in this way may result in a different approach or paradigm for firefighting, and we invite you to explore—for example, with faster detection and response, can fires be extinguished without traditional containment and control strategies?
The Proposed Prize: We are proposing a prize that works something like the following: Teams are invited to test a fully integrated autonomous system that rapidly detects, responds and suppresses wildfires. There will be a competition testing area of X by X acres (NOTE: we are proposing testing in an outdoor environment). At the beginning of the test, competition officials will ignite a fire somewhere within the testing grid. Once Y threshold of spread, temperature, flame height, or another variable is crossed, the competing team will have Z minutes to detect and completely extinguish the fire. The overall cost of the teams’ system must be no more than C dollars. Solutions must not pose an risk to the environment and/or lives.
2
Comments
Please allow us to clarify, when we say ‘suppression’ or ‘completely extinguish the fire,’ our focus is on teams' demonstrating the complete capability to detect and extinguish fires while they are still small. We will ask teams to go through the entire process of detecting the fire, deploying resources and ultimately putting the fire out, before it turns into a large fire event or a ‘Mega Fire.'
It would seem, then, at first read, that a successful solution must have a minimum of 2 to 3 components: 1] rapid AND accurate detection of the small fire, 2] rapid communication (as an integrated component) of this information (i.e., fire presence and location) to a fire fighting team, and, 3] rapid deployment of a fire fighting team (with "all the resources" * required for fire fighting).
So then, some questions follow:
Is this component 'breakdown' fundamentally valid and accurate (i.e., are these components absolute requirements for any wildfire suppression solution)?
If yes, should any Wildfires XPrize delineate these components in its description details -- so as to help/assist the would-be Solver team in clarifying or simplifying its approach to the challenge?
* "all the resources" is a variable capability, and will depend on how integrated the team's capabilities are with local and state agencies (and their resources and capabilities); examples: access to forest fire trucks, aerial resources (drones, helicopters or water or chemical -dumping planes, etc.). This will likely be a crucial aspect of any wildfire suppression solution.
Notes:
Communication (of the fire's presence and location) is an often forgotten component of the fire-fighting process; it is typically a 'presumed' component, but which may turn out to be the key component in the success or failure of a wildfire suppression challenge/test (consider the failure of communication technology among first responders during the 9/11 attacks). This component will therefore need to be developed, tested, and implemented/deployed (for at least within the area in which the wildfire test will occur) ahead of time (troubleshooting during an active challenge/test wold be a recipe for failure).
Lastly, I will note that I use the word 'rapid' in each of the 3 component descriptions; obviously, when dealing with wildfires, rapidity of detection, communication, and response is crucial.
A few quick thoughts:
It seems that I have unintentionally brought up an issue regarding possible inequity in fire-fighting resources among (future) challenge teams. This can be tricky, as integration of these components (to facilitate a potentially successful challenge by one or more teams) would seem to be a (unique and) defining feature of a successful team.
On the other hand, if one team has access to an advanced detection technology, for example, this would give the team a greater advantage in terms of spotting the fire early and triangulating its location (which will determine where the team will enter the 'fire zone'/challenge field, etc.). As another example, if one team has heavy-duty fire trucks (which can knock down certain sized trees) while other teams do not, this would throw advantage ('on the ground') to the former team, etc.
So then, a major question here is WHICH resources do ALL teams share equally (i.e., resources available to each team during each challenge test), and, WHICH resources are a matter of choice and/or individual team innovation/creativity...?
Perhaps we should start with identifying those MINIMUM resources that ALL teams will/would need to establish a minimum fire-fighting capability.
More to come later.
This is a great topic and ripe for community-driven solutions which can really be accelerated with a contest like this. One aspect that is often forgotten is that prevention and planning is key, which others have echoed above. Once a fire is started on the worst hot, dry, windy days, there is often little we can do to stop or put out that fire. If structures were better prepared and fuel management performed in advance, outcomes could dramatically change. Early detection and response is also very important, however it may not be possible on the very worst days, like during the Camp Fire that burned down Paradise, but it still could play a huge role for notification and evacuation.
This, I know complicates how a contest is formed, but something we should keep in mind as a contest is prepared. How do we encourage both technology for rapid response and better preparation so that eventual disasters are small enough so that this response can actually make a difference?
There was a comment above about soil moisture. This will affect the moisture of vegetation and ground litter/duff over time, however it depends on the history and both live and dead fuel moistures are often calculated for wildland fire spread simulations. We often say that fire spread is dominated by fuel, slope and wind. Long term drought can exacerbate fuel conditions but is one side of the "triangle" that drives fire behavior.
In terms of conditions for wildfires, it is usually hot, dry and windy! In California many fires occur during Santa Ana or Diablo Wind conditions, up to 70 mph or greater. Fire spread from wildland to urban areas is generally dominated by small, flying embers which fly far ahead of the fire front and ignite new smaller "spot fires". This is a critical aspect of the problem that needs attention.
This brings me to two discussion points:
1.) For this contest, I would advise testing solutions under some very extreme fire weather conditions, including very low fuel and soil moisture, hot temperatures, and strong winds. If this was too dangerous, testing under more moderate conditions and then modeling extreme fire weather might be an option.
2.) Is there any option to include another catagory, one that is less about putting the fire out and more about how to protect infrastructue without suppression resources? This seems to be the next move, focusing on what to do when the fire comes rather than how to stop fires from happening.
* Availability of resources (e.g. how much water is available (water main / hydrant, pond, river, lake, only what the device can carry) and how far is that water from the fire).
* Access to the land (e.g. what happens if the fire is on private property, and/or access by land is blocked by fences and locked gates)
* Permission to act (e.g. if the fire is on private land, has it been authorised by the owner as a "controlled" burn - how do we quickly confirm this when a fire is detected)
* Permission to destroy/re-purpose (e.g. solutions might use innovative methods that consume resources on the (private) land such as digging up soil, chopping down trees, draining water out of a fish pond, or cover the fire in a material that might have some side-effects - again how can we quickly get permission from the land owner / authorities)
The series of comments following my initial comments go much farther than I was thinking (demonstrating the value of many minds)...each offers relevant facts (about fires) and/or raises important questions (about fire fighting).
First: @mgollner - thank you for pointing the additional key factors in wildfire spread; my rationale for mentioning soil moisture was simply to provide an example of a factor whose role must be considered - especially in terms of fire PREVENTION (@pzazzday). That said, it is good to know that 'fuel, slope, and wind' are identified factors in wildfire (spread)...although they may not be the direct/fundamental causes of said fires (this I do not know for sure; I am not an expert on wildfires).
@ssfred - I'm sorry, but I think conducting a challenge under "extreme fire weather conditions" is a mistake...too many things can go wrong! And,doing so may curtail the continuation of the challenge in a reasonable amount of time so as to fight the fire started by the previous challenge team.
I suggest conducting a wildfire detection-suppression challenge as follows:
1] on a good fire suppression day(s)...meaning days when the wind is significantly LESS than whatever minimum threshold speed is associated with rapid fire spread. Probably not the hottest day, either.
2] in a controlled area (to the maximum extent possible), that is, a designated and designed fire area (DDFA) of a given (TBD) size/area, and whose size can be carefully monitored (by the Challenge directors AND the professional fire fighting agency representatives).
3] surrounding by cleared land (serving as a buffer zone for the DDFA)
4] which is also 'manned' (personed?) by pro-firefighters in stand-by mode for the duration of (each team's test run of) the challenge. This stand-by mode can include tower spotters, helicopters (at the ready for take-off) and tree-breaker trucks (with standard fire fighting equipment and water tanks/water hoses, etc.).
"Fire spread from wildland to urban areas is generally dominated by small, flying embers which fly far ahead of the fire front and ignite new smaller "spot fires". This is a critical aspect of the problem that needs attention. "
I had not considered that, but now, in reflection, I would ask: is there some way to 'quell' or reduced the transport of these 'flying embers' from their origination sites to new areas (which make 'hot spots')?
For example (and this is crazy impractical, I know): what about artificially generating massive volumes of cloud (condensed water vapor) well in front of the fire's path -- not for putting out the fire per se but for damping/dampening the flying embers?
Such a strategy -- or other (for prevention as well as suppression) -- would address the observations/comments by @ssfred and @pzazzday
Also, I would change the acronym (suggested above) to simply DFZ (Designated Fire Zone), or similar (three letters are easier to use/remember than four :-) ) as opposed to 'testing grid' mentioned at the top .
Generally speaking, you are right, many things can go wrong when testing in extreme conditions and outdoors, and we take this very seriously. However, given that the majority (around 97%) of fires are successfully suppressed and the 3% (which evolve into large fire events) are notably affected by extreme conditions, pose the greatest risk and are on the increase - we believe it should be an important consideration for future capabilities, and thus needs to be tested; We are working rigorously with fire behavior and fire testing experts, in addition to this wonderful community, to ensure the safety of such high-risk testing. In addition, indeed, as discussed above, extreme conditions will include more than the Red Flag weather (low humidity, strong wind), but also the type of fuel (we are looking at a mix of grassland, shrubland, and forest) and terrain (valley and ridge can accelerate the spread).
While still looking into the design, I can say that you are right, this testing area must be contained and isolated, if by territory conditions, structures or previously burned area - this is to be determined, in consideration of available areas. Just to add, that there are certain limitations to outdoor testing in certain wind speed, and we are still looking into that. Nonetheless, there's a growing consensus at the added value of testing outdoors and in fire weather.
In your suggestions, it seems like you've taken most of the above into consideration, so I'll just quickly respond.
1) [good fire-weather days] - testing it in winds above 15mph has been pointed out repeatedly as very valuable (due to already existing very good suppression capabilities)
2) [contained area, DFZ] absolutely, and very good point re response. Currently, we've identified by observation (/detection) capabilities, a 20X20miles grid; however, still looking into the grid size as we work on time to response (and distance to travel) - a possible trade-off, given the current ambition to test in fire weather.
3) [cleared land] that is one option but definitely should be an isolated and contained area.
4) [stand by team] yes, you are right - for safety concerns, we must be able to control the fire (just in case), and that's why we are looking at a possible variable to suppression (asking when is it getting 'out of control').
Thank you regarding your point on the need for innovation, we've also spoken to several firefighters who expressed the need for innovation in capabilities.
Regarding your point on embers, absolutely, a huge problem in the WUI and especially in these big fires. We ultimately hope to evade or at least reduce this difficulty in the future of firefighting by encouraging the development of a capability that rapidly detects and suppresses fire (in extreme conditions), before the event escalates. Nonetheless, agreed, embers - and consequently the possibility of more than one fire ignited is important, and maybe we can incorporate that aspect into testing - the giant cloud is a very interesting idea - thank you for that!
Your suggestion should be discussed/vetted here, even as it may likely complicate the challenge design (by adding another aspect/dimension to the challenge, etc.). How should this aspect ('fire control' versus 'suppression') be integrated? Is fire 'control' in this context simply an aspect of fire suppression?
QUESTION:
Should this capability (i.e., to control the direction, spread and area of a wildfire for ecological-environmental purposes) be one of those 'nice to have' (secondary) features of this challenge, or, is it a 'front-line' component/aspect of the challenge?
"...given that the majority (around 97%) of fires are successfully suppressed and the 3% (which evolve into large fire events) are notably affected by extreme conditions, pose the greatest risk and are on the increase - we believe it should be an important consideration for future capabilities, and thus needs to be tested."
It is good to get actual data on wildfire suppression (source of these stats?). At first glance, this '97%' seems remarkable and impressive (and it makes the 3% seem like 'no big deal' or a 'manageable' problem)...until one realizes that:
a] 'suppression' here does not indicate the total TIME* it takes/took to suppress those 97% of wildfires,
b] NOR how much damage (to forest, private property, human and animal life, etc.) was caused BEFORE the 'successful' suppression was achieved.
Thus also: these two aspects of wildfire fighting/suppression ('hidden' if you will' in your fire suppression stats) would seem to be crucial (judging) 'metrics' (akin to the 'deliverables' of a creative project contract) or criteria for successfully 'solving' this challenge.
Specifically:
1] How much TIME does the integrated (detection-suppression) solution take?
and,
2] how much DAMAGE (total forested area burned -- possibly as a proxy for total damage noted in item b], above) occurs before satisfactory fire suppression occurs?
Thoughts?
I'm assuming that the "control" should be rather frontline of the challenge. The first reason is that sometimes "control" requires an advanced OODA process rather than just completing extinguishing. In a challenge, a team that is certainly found very early stage of artificial wildfire will be advantageous and of course, that is the technology we are looking for. However, I think that the natural forest may have more complexity compared to the forest considered in this challenge. Therefore, I thought I could add a little more complexity to this challenge by adding control aspect. Second is also the technology perspective. As you mentioned, all fires shouldn't be extinguished. and sometimes there is a purposeful fire like slash-and-burn agriculture. In this case, in particular, as an initial stage, instead of extinguishing before the artificial fire reaches a predetermined threshold, it is necessary to identify the characteristics (geographic features, wind direction, trees habitation, and so on) and control it against natural conditions. This technology will surely provide useful solution options in the future. So I thought this element could be on the front line of the challenge. Thank you,
We've added a couple of new discussion threads - a discussion on time limits and the length of time teams should have to respond to a fire; and also a discussion on the thresholds a fire should reach before being responded to by teams.
We'd love to see any input on you might have on those! Again, thank you for all the excellent feedback so far. Looking forward to seeing more of these great discussions that have developed!
1. Early detection - implementing SWIR (Short Wave IR) cameras to detect the fire even through dense smoke.
2. Containing high energy of fire front AND/OR knocking down multiple unexpected small hot spots, day and NIGHT - delivering a massive blitz attack of kamikaze-like, highly accurate, low-cost disposable and engineless gliders. Each glider disperses couple of hundreds litres of water that is sprayed in rain-like fashion for efficient heat absorption, while safely disintegrating into small, easily decomposable parts. Fleet of Multi-rotor drones or Gyrocopters operate as vertical elevators to dispatch the gliders from a single operational site, guided by the highly intelligent Command & Control Application. The system could deliver more than 100 tone of water per hour day and NIGHT. (thorough desk research shows that 500 litre per hour are needed to contain 1 meter of high energy of fire front and 500 litre are needed to knock down a sing small hot spot of 20X20 m^2 in area). The concept is illustrated in a short video.
3. Command and control application - operated by firefighter officer. That's to say that absolutely no knowledge of flying is required.
There're much more critical questions to talk about:
1. How to get on with early detection requirement in vast area?
2. What is the viable economical model?
3. What is the process to gain regulation approval?
4. How to reaching out wide area for deploying the system in a short period of time?
5. And probably more...
I leave all that for now.
Excitedly waiting for your (hard) comments.