Advanced

Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: a summary and comparison of LII models

Michelsen, H. A.; Liu, F.; Kock, B. F.; Bladh, Henrik LU ; Boiarciuc, A.; Charwath, M.; Dreier, T.; Hadef, R.; Hofmann, M. and Reimann, J., et al. (2007) In Applied Physics B 87(3). p.503-521
Abstract
We have performed a comparison of ten models that predict the temporal behavior of laser-induced incandescence (LII) of soot. In this paper we present a summary of the models and comparisons of calculated temperatures, diameters, signals, and energy-balance terms. The models were run assuming laser heating at 532 nm at fluences of 0.05 and 0.70 J/cm(2) with a laser temporal profile provided. Calculations were performed for a single primary particle with a diameter of 30 nm at an ambient temperature of 1800 K and a pressure of 1 bar. Preliminary calculations were performed with a fully constrained model. The comparison of unconstrained models demonstrates a wide spread in calculated LII signals. Many of the differences can be attributed to... (More)
We have performed a comparison of ten models that predict the temporal behavior of laser-induced incandescence (LII) of soot. In this paper we present a summary of the models and comparisons of calculated temperatures, diameters, signals, and energy-balance terms. The models were run assuming laser heating at 532 nm at fluences of 0.05 and 0.70 J/cm(2) with a laser temporal profile provided. Calculations were performed for a single primary particle with a diameter of 30 nm at an ambient temperature of 1800 K and a pressure of 1 bar. Preliminary calculations were performed with a fully constrained model. The comparison of unconstrained models demonstrates a wide spread in calculated LII signals. Many of the differences can be attributed to the values of a few important parameters, such as the refractive-index function E(m) and thermal and mass accommodation coefficients. Constraining these parameters brings most of the models into much better agreement with each other, particularly for the low-fluence case. Agreement among models is not as good for the high-fluence case, even when selected parameters are constrained. 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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Applied Physics B
volume
87
issue
3
pages
503 - 521
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • wos:000246383800019
  • scopus:34248380937
ISSN
0946-2171
DOI
10.1007/s00340-007-2619-5
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ed6769d4-4140-4ee3-a9d0-32d18c3bb4a8 (old id 660613)
date added to LUP
2007-12-13 14:36:18
date last changed
2017-11-05 03:35:11
@article{ed6769d4-4140-4ee3-a9d0-32d18c3bb4a8,
  abstract     = {We have performed a comparison of ten models that predict the temporal behavior of laser-induced incandescence (LII) of soot. In this paper we present a summary of the models and comparisons of calculated temperatures, diameters, signals, and energy-balance terms. The models were run assuming laser heating at 532 nm at fluences of 0.05 and 0.70 J/cm(2) with a laser temporal profile provided. Calculations were performed for a single primary particle with a diameter of 30 nm at an ambient temperature of 1800 K and a pressure of 1 bar. Preliminary calculations were performed with a fully constrained model. The comparison of unconstrained models demonstrates a wide spread in calculated LII signals. Many of the differences can be attributed to the values of a few important parameters, such as the refractive-index function E(m) and thermal and mass accommodation coefficients. Constraining these parameters brings most of the models into much better agreement with each other, particularly for the low-fluence case. Agreement among models is not as good for the high-fluence case, even when selected parameters are constrained. 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.},
  author       = {Michelsen, H. A. and Liu, F. and Kock, B. F. and Bladh, Henrik and Boiarciuc, A. and Charwath, M. and Dreier, T. and Hadef, R. and Hofmann, M. and Reimann, J. and Will, S. and Bengtsson, Per-Erik and Bockhorn, H. and Foucher, F. and Geigle, K.-P. and Mounaim-Rousselle, C. and Schulz, C. and Stirn, R. and Tribalet, B. and Suntz, R.},
  issn         = {0946-2171},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {503--521},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {Applied Physics B},
  title        = {Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: a summary and comparison of LII models},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00340-007-2619-5},
  volume       = {87},
  year         = {2007},
}