Home / Publications / Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: A summary and comparison of LII models
Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: A summary and comparison of LII models
| Title | Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: A summary and comparison of LII models |
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Year of Publication | 2007 |
| Authors | Michelsen, HA, Liu, F, Kock, BF, Bladh, H, Boiarciuc, A, Charwath, M, Dreier, T, Hadef, R, Hofmann, M, Reimann, J, Will, S, Bengtsson, P-E, Bockhorn, H, Foucher, F, Geigle, KP, Mounaïm-Rousselle, C, Schulz, C, Stirn, R, Tribalet, B, Suntz, R |
| Journal Title | Applied Physics B |
| Volume | 87 |
| Pages | 503-521 |
| Start Page | 503 |
| Abstract | <p> </p><!--StartFragment--><p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We have performed a comparison of ten models that predict the temporal behavior of laser-induced incandescence (LII) of soot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In this paper we present a summary of the models and comparisons of calculated temperatures, diameters, signals, and energy-balance terms.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>The models were run assuming laser heating at 532 nm at fluences of 0.05 and 0.70 J/cm<sup>2</sup> with a laser temporal profile provided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Calculations were performed for a single primary particle with a diameter of 30 nm at an ambient temperature of 1800 K and pressure of 1 bar.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>Preliminary calculations were performed with a fully constrained model.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The comparison of unconstrained models demonstrates a wide spread in calculated LII signals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Many of the differences can be attributed to the values of a few important parameters, such as the refractive index function <i>E</i></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(<i>m</i></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US">) and thermal and mass accommodation coefficients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Constraining these parameters brings most of the models into much better agreement with each other, particularly for the low-fluence case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Agreement among models is not as good for the high-fluence case, even when selected parameters are constrained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The reason for greater variability in model results at high fluence appears to be related to solution approaches to mass and heat loss by sublimation.</span></p><!--EndFragment-->
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00340-007-2619-5 |
| Full Text | |
