Abstract
This work reviews the state of the art of the main soot modeling approaches used in turbulent diffusion flames. Accordingly, after a short introduction about the subject addressed here, the main soot formation mechanisms are described next. This description provides the basis for the discussions about the different soot modeling techniques employed nowadays for soot predictions. Since combustion and radiation models have a significant impact on soot predictions, as a consequence of the strong coupling between chemistry, turbulence and soot formation, a general overview about these models is also provided. For the sake of clarity, the main soot formation models reviewed in this work are classified as semiempirical soot precursor models and detailed ones. Both advantages and disadvantages of the referred soot modeling approaches are properly discussed. In the last part of this review, comparative results obtained using some of the main soot models currently available are presented along with a discussion about the prospects for soot modeling in turbulent flames. Finally, some conclusions and references are provided. Overall, based on the literature reviewed, it is concluded that there is yet a long path to be followed before understanding first and having then a soot model able to properly describe the formation of this critical pollutant for a variety of situations of industrial interest.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- \({\dot{Q}}_{{{{\rm s}},i}}\) :
-
Production rate of soot mass fraction
- \({\dot{q}}_{{{{\rm s}},i}}\) :
-
Soot volume fraction density
- \(f_{{{\rm v}}}\) :
-
Soot volume fraction
- \(C_{{{\rm a}}}\) :
-
Van der Waals enhancement factor
- \(C_{i}\) :
-
Cunningham slip correction factor
- \(C_{{{{\rm oxid}}}}\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for oxidation
- \(C_{\rm w,1}\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for oxidation by OH
- \(C_{\rm w,2}\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for oxidation by O2
- \(C_{\alpha }\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for nucleation
- \(C_{\beta }\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for coagulation
- \(C_{\gamma}\) :
-
Empirical rate scaling factor for surface growth
- \(D_{{{\rm f}}}\) :
-
Fractal characteristic dimension
- \(L_{k}\) :
-
Lagrange logarithmic interpolation function
- \(M_{{{\rm C}}}\) :
-
Molar mass of carbon
- \(M_{{{\rm p}}}\) :
-
Molar mass of an incipient soot particle
- \(N_{{{\rm A}}}\) :
-
Avogadro number
- \(N_{{{\rm p}}}\) :
-
Number of primary particles per aggregate
- \(b_{{{{\rm nuc}}}}\) :
-
Normalized soot radical concentration
- \(d_{{{\rm c}}}\) :
-
Diameter of the fractal aggregates
- \(d_{{{\rm p}}}\) :
-
Particle diameter
- \(d_{{{\rm prim}}}\) :
-
Primary particles diameter
- \(k_{{{\rm B}}}\) :
-
Boltzmann constant
- \(\bar{v}\) :
-
Gas velocity
- \(v_{{{{\rm C}}2}}\) :
-
Carbon-equivalent volume of the carbon atoms number of two soot precursors and two acetylene molecules
- \(v_{{{{\rm MAX}}}}\) :
-
Volume of the largest particle
- \(v_{{{{\rm MIN}}}}\) :
-
Volume of the smallest particle
- \(v_{{{\rm T}}}\) :
-
Thermophoretic velocity
- \(w_{i}\) :
-
Weights
- \(x_{i}\) :
-
Abscissas
- \(\eta _{{{{\rm coll}}}}\) :
-
Collision efficiency
- T w,1 :
-
Activation temperature for soot oxidation by OH
- T w,2 :
-
Activation temperature for soot oxidation by O2
- T α :
-
Activation temperature for soot nucleation
- T β :
-
Activation temperature for soot coagulation
- \(X\) :
-
Mole fraction
- λ :
-
Gas mean free path
- σ :
-
Prandtl number
- \(B\) :
-
Nucleation rate
- \(D\) :
-
Turbulent diffusion coefficient
- \(G\) :
-
Rate of change of particle volume due to surface processes
- \(Kn\) :
-
Knudsen number
- \(M\) :
-
Soot mass concentration
- \(N\) :
-
Soot number density
- \(Nx\) :
-
Number of weights or abscissas
- \(P\) :
-
Pressure
- \(R\) :
-
Universal gas constant
- \(T\) :
-
Temperature
- \(Y\) :
-
Mass fraction
- \(d\) :
-
Particle diameter
- \(k\) :
-
Order of the moment
- \(n\) :
-
Particle number density per unit of particle volume
- \(t\) :
-
Time
- \(v\) :
-
Particle volume
- \(\beta\) :
-
Collision frequency factor
- \(\mu\) :
-
Viscosity
- \(\rho\) :
-
Gas phase density
- coag:
-
Coagulation
- cond:
-
Condensation
- i :
-
Particles of size classes i
- j :
-
Particles of size classes j
- nuc:
-
Nucleation
- ox:
-
Oxidation
- s:
-
Soot
- sg:
-
Surface growth
- c:
-
Continuum regime
- f:
-
Free molecular regime
- t:
-
Transition regime
- CQMOM:
-
Conditional quadrature method of moments
- DOM:
-
Discrete ordinates method
- DQMOM:
-
Direct quadrature method of moments
- EQMOM:
-
Extended quadrature method of moments
- FDF:
-
Filtered density function
- FPVA:
-
Flamelet/progress variable approach
- HACA:
-
Hydrogen-abstraction acetylene addition
- HMOM:
-
Hybrid method of moments
- LES:
-
Large eddy simulation
- LHS:
-
Left-hand-side
- MOM:
-
Method of moments
- MOMIC:
-
Method of moments with interpolative closure
- NDF:
-
Number density function
- OAC:
-
Oligomers of aromatic compounds
- OFR:
-
Ordinary flame radicals
- OTA:
-
Optically thin approximation
- PAH:
-
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
- PBE:
-
Population balance equation
- PCAB:
-
PAH with aliphatic branches
- PCAH:
-
Peri-condensed aromatic hydrocarbons
- PDF:
-
Probability density function
- PGDE:
-
Particle general dynamic equation
- PSDF:
-
Particle size distribution function
- QMOM:
-
Quadrature method of moments
- RANS:
-
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
- RFPV:
-
Radiation flamelet progress variable
- RHS:
-
Right-hand-side
- RSR:
-
Resonantly stabilized radicals
- RTE:
-
Radiative transfer equation
- SHM:
-
Spherical harmonics method
- SLFM:
-
Steady laminar flamelet model
- TCI:
-
Turbulence-chemistry interactions
- TRI:
-
Turbulence-radiation interactions
- WSGG:
-
Weighted-sum-of-gray-gases
References
Kennedy IM (1997) Models of soot formation and oxidation. Prog Energy Combust Sci 23(2):95–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1285(97)00007-5
Rigopoulos S (2019) ‘Modelling of soot aerosol dynamics in turbulent flow. Flow Turbul Combust 103(3):565–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-019-00054-8
Bourdrel T, Bind MA, Béjot Y, Morel O, Argacha JF (2017) Effets cardiovasculaires de la pollution de l’air. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 110(11):634–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2017.05.003
Baird WM, Hooven LA, Mahadevan B (2005) Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and mechanism of action. Environ Mol Mutagen 45(2–3):106–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.20095
Wang H (2011) Formation of nascent soot and other condensed-phase materials in flames. Proc Combust Inst 33(1):41–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.09.009
Glassman I, Yetter RA (2008) Combustion, 4th edn. Academic Press, Cambridge
Mercier X, Carrivain O, Irimiea C, Faccinetto A, Therssen E (2019) Dimers of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: the missing pieces in the soot formation process. Phys Chem Chem Phys 21(16):8285–8294. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9cp00394k
D’Anna A, Sirignano M (2019) Detailed kinetic mechanisms of PAH and soot formation. Comput Aided Chem Eng 45:647–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64087-1.00012-7
Appel J, Bockhorn H, Frenklach M (2000) Kinetic modeling of soot formation with detailed chemistry and physics: laminar premixed flames of C2 hydrocarbons. Combust Flame 121(1–2):122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00135-2
Yang S, Mueller ME (2019) A multi-moment sectional method (MMSM) for tracking the soot number density function. Proc Combust Inst 37(1):1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.107
Gallen L, Felden A, Riber E, Cuenot B (2019) Lagrangian tracking of soot particles in les of gas turbines. Proc Combust Inst 37(4):5429–5436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.013
Frenklach M (2002) Method of moments with interpolative closure. Chem Eng Sci 57(12):2229–2239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00113-6
Kazakov A, Frenklach M (1998) Dynamic modeling of soot particle coagulation and aggregation: implementation with the method of moments and application to high-pressure laminar premixed flames. Combust Flame 114(3–4):484–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(97)00322-2
Mueller ME, Blanquart G, Pitsch H (2009) Hybrid method of moments for modeling soot formation and growth. Combust Flame 156(6):1143–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.01.025
Gelbard F, Tambour Y, Seinfeld JH (1980) Sectional representations for simulating aerosol dynamics. J Colloid Interface Sci 76(2):541–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(80)90394-X
Netzell K, Lehtiniemi H, Mauss F (2007) Calculating the soot particle size distribution function in turbulent diffusion flames using a sectional method. Proc. Combust. Inst. 31 I(1):667–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2006.08.081
Zhao H, Zheng C, Xu M (2005) Multi-Monte Carlo method for coagulation and condensation/evaporation in dispersed systems. J Colloid Interface Sci 286(1):195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.12.037
Balthasar M, Kraft M (2003) A stochastic approach to calculate the particle size distribution function of soot particles in laminar premixed flames. Combust Flame 133(3):289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00003-8
Salenbauch S, Sirignano M, Pollack M, D’Anna A, Hasse C (2018) Detailed modeling of soot particle formation and comparison to optical diagnostics and size distribution measurements in premixed flames using a method of moments. Fuel 222(February):287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.148
Raman V, Fox RO (2016) Modeling of fine-particle formation in turbulent flames. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48(1):159–190. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034306
Wang Y, Chung SH (2019) Soot formation in laminar counterflow flames. Prog Energy Combust Sci 74:152–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2019.05.003
Frenklach M (May 2002) Reaction mechanism of soot formation in flames. Phys Chem Chem Phys 4(11):2028–2037. https://doi.org/10.1039/b110045a
Richter H, Howard JB (2000) Formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their growth to soot-a review of chemical reaction pathways. Prog Energy Combust Sci 26(4–6):565–608
D’Anna A (2015) Kinetics of soot formation. Elsevier Inc., New York
Sinha S, Rahman RK, Raj A (2017) On the role of resonantly stabilized radicals in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) formation: pyrene and fluoranthene formation from benzyl–indenyl addition. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19(29):19262–19278. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cp02539d
Marinov NM, Castaldi MJ, Melius SM, Tsang W (1997) Aromatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon formation in a premixed propane flame. Combust Sci Technol 128(1–6):295–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209708935714
Frenklach M, Wang H (1991) Detailed modeling of soot particle nucleation and growth. Symp Combust 23(1):1559–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(06)80426-1
Frenklach M, Wang H (1994) Detailed mechanism and modeling of soot particle formation, no. 59. 1994
Johansson KO et al (2015) Soot precursor formation and limitations of the stabilomer grid. Proc Combust Inst 35(2):1819–1826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.05.033
Commodo M et al (2019) On the early stages of soot formation: Molecular structure elucidation by high-resolution atomic force microscopy. Combust Flame 205:154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.03.042
Johansson KO, Head-Gordon MP, Schrader PE, Wilson KR, Michelsen HA (2018) Resonance-stabilized hydrocarbon-radical chain reactions may explain soot inception and growth. Science (80-) 361(6406):997–1000. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat3417
Chung SH, Violi A (2011) Peri-condensed aromatics with aliphatic chains as key intermediates for the nucleation of aromatic hydrocarbons. Proc Combust Inst 33(1):693–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.06.038
Elvati P, Violi A (2013) Thermodynamics of poly-aromatic hydrocarbon clustering and the effects of substituted aliphatic chains. Proc Combust Inst 34(1):1837–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2012.07.030
Mansurov ZA (2005) Soot formation in combustion processes. Combust Explos Shock Waves 41(6):727–744
Mueller ME, Blanquart G, Pitsch H (2011) Modeling the oxidation-induced fragmentation of soot aggregates in laminar flames. Proc Combust Inst 33(1):667–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.06.036
Battin-Leclerc F, Simmie JM, Blurock E (eds) (2013) Cleaner combustion, developing detailed chemical kinetic models. Springer-Verlag, London UK
Slavinskaya NA, Frank P (2009) A modelling study of aromatic soot precursors formation in laminar methane and ethene flames. Combust Flame 156(9):1705–1722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.04.013
Slavinskaya N et al (2019) A modelling study of acetylene oxidation and pyrolysis. Combust Flame 210:25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.08.024
Pejpichestakul W et al (2019) Examination of a soot model in premixed laminar flames at fuel-rich conditions. Proc Combust Inst 37(1):1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.104
Kéromnès A et al (2013) An experimental and detailed chemical kinetic modeling study of hydrogen and syngas mixture oxidation at elevated pressures. Combust Flame 160(6):995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.01.001
Wang Y, Raj A, Chung SH (2013) A PAH growth mechanism and synergistic effect on PAH formation in counterflow diffusion flames. Combust Flame 160(9):1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.03.013
Blanquart G, Pitsch H (2009) Analyzing the effects of temperature on soot formation with a joint volume-surface-hydrogen model. Combust Flame 156(8):1614–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.04.010
Narayanaswamy K, Blanquart G, Pitsch H (2010) A consistent chemical mechanism for oxidation of substituted aromatic species. Combust Flame 157(10):1879–1898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.07.009
D’Anna A (2008) Detailed kinetic modeling of particulate formation in rich premixed flames of ethylene. Energy Fuels 22(3):1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef700641u
D’Anna A, Kent JH (2006) Modeling of particulate carbon and species formation in coflowing diffusion flames of ethylene. Combust Flame 144(1–2):249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.07.011
Wang H, You X, Joshi AV, Davis SG, Laskin A, Egolfopoulos F, Law CK (2007) USC mech version II. High-temperature combustion reaction model of H2/CO/C1-C4 compounds. http://ignis.usc.edu/Mechanisms/USC-Mech%20II/USC_Mech%20II.htm
Richter H, Granata S, Green WH, Howard JB (2005) Detailed modeling of PAH and soot formation in a laminar premixed benzene/oxygen/argon low-pressure flame. Proc Combust Inst 30(1):1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2004.08.088
Ergut A et al (2006) PAH formation in one-dimensional premixed fuel-rich atmospheric pressure ethylbenzene and ethyl alcohol flames. Combust Flame 144(4):757–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.07.019
Konnov AA, Mohammad A, Kishore VR, Il Kim N, Prathap C, Kumar S (2018) A comprehensive review of measurements and data analysis of laminar burning velocities for various fuel + air mixtures. Prog Energy Combust Sci 68:197–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2018.05.003
Aspden AJ, Day MS, Bell JB (2015) Turbulence-chemistry interaction in lean premixed hydrogen combustion. Proc Combust Inst 35(2):1321–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.08.012
Carlsson H, Yu R, Bai XS (2014) Direct numerical simulation of lean premixed CH4/air and H2/air flames at high Karlovitz numbers. Int J Hydrog Energy 39(35):20216–20232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.173
Day MS, Gao X, Bell JB (2011) Properties of lean turbulent methane-air flames with significant hydrogen addition. Proc Combust Inst 33(1):1601–1608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.05.099
Lapointe S, Savard B, Blanquart G (2015) Differential diffusion effects, distributed burning, and local extinctions in high Karlovitz premixed flames. Combust Flame 162(9):3341–3355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.06.001
Dasgupta D, Sun W, Day M, Lieuwen T (2017) Effect of turbulence–chemistry interactions on chemical pathways for turbulent hydrogen–air premixed flames. Combust Flame 176:191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.09.029
Dasgupta D, Sun W, Day M, Aspden AJ, Lieuwen T (2019) Analysis of chemical pathways and flame structure for n-dodecane/air turbulent premixed flames. Combust Flame 207:36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.05.026
Han W, Raman V, Mueller ME, Chen Z (2019) Effects of combustion models on soot formation and evolution in turbulent nonpremixed flames. Proc Combust Inst 37(1):985–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.096
Mueller ME, Raman V (2014) Effects of turbulent combustion modeling errors on soot evolution in a turbulent nonpremixed jet flame. Combust Flame 161(7):1842–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.12.020
Yang S, Lew JK, Mueller ME (2019) Large Eddy Simulation of soot evolution in turbulent reacting flows: presumed subfilter PDF model for soot–turbulence–chemistry interactions. Combust Flame 209:200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.07.040
Rodrigues P, Franzelli B, Vicquelin R, Gicquel O, Darabiha N (2018) Coupling an LES approach and a soot sectional model for the study of sooting turbulent non-premixed flames. Combust Flame 190:477–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.12.009
Pitsch H (2006) Large-eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 38(1):453–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092133
Peters N (1984) Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 10(3):319–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(84)90114-X
Jain A, Xuan Y (2019) Effects of large aromatic precursors on soot formation in turbulent non-premixed sooting jet flames. Combust Theory Model 23(3):439–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2018.1549751
Pitsch H, Chen M, Peters N (1998) Unsteady flamelet modeling of turbulent hydrogen-air diffusion flames. Symp Combust 27:1057–1064
Pierce CD, Moin P (2004) Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of non-premixed turbulent combustion. J Fluid Mech 504(504):73–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112004008213
Ihme M, Cha CM, Pitsch H (2005) Prediction of local extinction and re-ignition effects in non-premixed turbulent combustion using a flamelet/progress variable approach. Proc Combust Inst 30(1):793–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2004.08.260
Ihme M, See YC (2010) Prediction of autoignition in a lifted methane/air flame using an unsteady flamelet/progress variable model. Combust Flame 157(10):1850–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.07.015
Mueller ME, Pitsch H (2012) LES model for sooting turbulent nonpremixed flames. Combust Flame 159(6):2166–2180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.02.001
Haworth DC (2010) Progress in probability density function methods for turbulent reacting flows. Prog Energy Combust Sci 36(2):168–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.09.003
Pope SB (1985) PDF methods for turbulent reactive flows. Prog Energy Combust Sci 11(2):119–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(85)90002-4
Celis C, Figueira Da Silva LF (2015) Lagrangian mixing models for turbulent combustion: review and prospects. Flow Turbul Combust 94(3):643–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-015-9597-1
Yilmaz SL, Ansari N, Pisciuneri PH, Nik MB, Otis CC, Givi P (2013) Applied filtered density function. J Appl Fluid Mech 6(3):311–320. https://doi.org/10.36884/jafm.6.03.19578
Chishty MA, Bolla M, Hawkes ER, Pei Y, Kook S (2018) Soot formation modelling for n-dodecane sprays using the transported PDF model. Combust Flame 192:101–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.01.028
Schiener MA, Lindstedt RP (2018) Joint-scalar transported PDF modelling of soot in a turbulent non-premixed natural gas flame. Combust Theory Model 22(6):1134–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2018.1472391
Schiener MA, Lindstedt RP (2019) Transported probability density function based modelling of soot particle size distributions in non-premixed turbulent jet flames. Proc Combust Inst 37(1):1049–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.088
Modest MF, Haworth DC (2016) Radiative heat transfer in turbulent combustion systems: theory and applications. Springer, New York
Modest MF (2013) Radiative Heat Transfer, no. January 2010, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge
Wang P, Fan F, Li Q (2014) Accuracy evaluation of the gray gas radiation model in CFD simulation. Case Stud Therm Eng 3:51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2014.03.003
Hottel HC, Sarofim AF (1967) Radiative transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 795–797
Donde P, Raman V, Mueller ME, Pitsch H (2013) LES/PDF based modeling of soot-turbulence interactions in turbulent flames. Proc Combust Inst 34(1):1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2012.07.055
Mueller ME et al (2013) Experimental and computational study of soot evolution in a turbulent nonpremixed bluff body ethylene flame. Combust Flame 160(7):1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.02.010
Nunno AC, Mueller ME (2019) Manifold assumptions in modeling radiation heat losses in turbulent nonpremixed combustion. Proc Combust Inst 37(2):2223–2230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.232
Centeno FR, Cassol F, Vielmo HA, França FHR, Da Silva CV (2013) Comparison of different WSGG correlations in the computation of thermal radiation in a 2D axisymmetric turbulent non-premixed methane-air flame. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 35(4):419–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-013-0040-z
Clements AG et al (2015) LES and RANS of air and oxy-coal combustion in a pilot-scale facility: Predictions of radiative heat transfer. Fuel 151:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.089
Centeno FR, Brittes R, França FHR, Da Silva CV (2016) Application of the WSGG model for the calculation of gas-soot radiation in a turbulent non-premixed methane-air flame inside a cylindrical combustion chamber. Int J Heat Mass Transf 93:742–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.09.054
da Silva CV, Deon DL, Centeno FR, França FHR, Pereira FM (2018) Assessment of combustion models for numerical simulations of a turbulent non-premixed natural gas flame inside a cylindrical chamber. Combust Sci Technol 190(9):1528–1556. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2018.1456430
Agarwal AK, Pandey A, Chaudhuri S, Sen S (2018) Modeling and simulation of turbulent combustion. Springer, Singapore
Wang L, Modest MF, Haworth DC, Turns SR (2005) Modelling nongrey gas-phase and soot radiation in luminous turbulent nonpremixed jet flames. Combust Theory Model 9(3):479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830500194834
Lysenko DA, Ertesvåg IS, Rian KE (2014) Numerical simulation of non-premixed turbulent combustion using the eddy dissipation concept and comparing with the steady laminar flamelet model. Flow Turbul Combust 93(4):577–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-014-9551-7
Chishty MA, Bolla M, Hawkes ER, Pei Y, Kook S (2015) The effect of radiation heat transfer under ECN spray a conditions. In: Proceedings of the Australian combustion symposium, pp 1–4
Paul MC (2008) Performance of the various Sn approximations of DOM in a 3D combustion chamber. J Heat Transf 130(7):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2897924
Poitou D, Amaya J, El Hafi M, Cuénot B (2012) Analysis of the interaction between turbulent combustion and thermal radiation using unsteady coupled LES/DOM simulations. Combust Flame 159(4):1605–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.12.016
Salenbauch S, Cuoci A, Frassoldati A, Saggese C, Faravelli T, Hasse C (2015) Modeling soot formation in premixed flames using an extended conditional quadrature method of moments. Combust Flame 162(6):2529–2543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.03.002
Aubagnac-Karkar D, Michel JB, Colin O, Vervisch-Kljakic PE, Darabiha N (2015) Sectional soot model coupled to tabulated chemistry for Diesel RANS simulations. Combust Flame 162(8):3081–3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.03.005
Attili A, Bisetti F, Mueller ME, Pitsch H (2016) Effects of non-unity Lewis number of gas-phase species in turbulent nonpremixed sooting flames. Combust Flame 166:192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.01.018
Lucchesi M, Abdelgadir A, Attili A, Bisetti F (2017) Simulation and analysis of the soot particle size distribution in a turbulent nonpremixed flame. Combust Flame 178:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.01.002
Orbegoso EM, Figueira Da Silva LF, Serfaty R (2016) Comparative study of thermal radiation properties models in turbulent non-premixed sooting combustion. Numer Heat Transf Part A Appl 69(2):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2015.1052318
Jerez A, Cruz Villanueva JJ, Figueira da Silva LF, Demarco R, Fuentes A (2019) Measurements and modeling of PAH soot precursors in coflow ethylene/air laminar diffusion flames. Fuel 236:452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.047
Sheikhani H, Ajam H, Ghazikhani M (2020) A review of flame radiation research from the perspective of factors affecting the flame radiation, measurement and modeling. Eur Phys J Plus. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00350-7
Reddy BM, De A, Yadav R (2016) Numerical investigation of soot formation in turbulent diffusion flame with strong turbulence-chemistry interaction. J Therm Sci Eng Appl 8(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030694
Brookes SJ, Moss JB (1999) Measurements of soot production and thermal radiation from confined turbulent jet diffusion flames of methane. Combust Flame 116(1–2):49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(98)00027-3
Aksit IM, Moss JB (2006) A hybrid scalar model for sooting turbulent flames. Combust Flame 145(1–2):231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.10.010
Smooke MD, McEnally CS, Pfefferle LD, Hall RJ, Colket MB (1999) Computational and experimental study of soot formation in a coflow, laminar diffusion flame. Combust Flame 117(1–2):117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(98)00096-0
Oubal M et al (2011) A new semi-empirical model for the oxidation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) molecules physisorbed on soot. II. Application to the reaction PAH + OH for a series of large PAH molecules. Comput Theor Chem 965(2–3):259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comptc.2010.10.048
Leung KM, Lindstedt RP, Jones WP (1991) A simplified reaction mechanism for soot formation in nonpremixed flames. Combust Flame 87(3–4):289–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(91)90114-Q
Bhatt JS, Lindstedt RP (2009) Analysis of the impact of agglomeration and surface chemistry models on soot formation and oxidation. Proc Combust Inst 32 I(1):713–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2008.06.201
Pang KM, Ng HK, Gan S (2012) Simulation of temporal and spatial soot evolution in an automotive diesel engine using the Moss-Brookes soot model. Energy Convers Manag 58(10):171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.01.015
Reddy M, De A, Yadav R (2015) Effect of precursors and radiation on soot formation in turbulent diffusion flame. Fuel 148:58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.080
Busupally MR, De A (2016) Numerical modeling of Soot formation in a turbulent C2H4/air diffusion flame. Int J Spray Combust Dyn 8(2):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756827716638814
Snegirev A, Markus E, Kuznetsov E, Harris J, Wu T (2018) On soot and radiation modeling in buoyant turbulent diffusion flames. Heat Mass Transf Stoffuebertrag 54(8):2275–2293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-017-2198-x
Friedlander SK (2000) Smoke, dust, and haze: fundamentals of aerosol dynamics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Smoluchowski M (1917) Mathematical theory of the kinetics of coagulation of colloidal systems. Z Phys Chem 92:129–168
Müller H (1928) Zur allgemeinen Theorie ser raschen Koagulation. Kolloidchem Beihefte 27(6–12):223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02558510
Pratsinis SE (1988) Simultaneous nucleation, condensation, and coagulation in aerosol reactors. J Colloid Interface Sci 124(2):416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(88)90180-4
Vemury S, Pratsinis SE (1995) Self-preserving size distributions of agglomerates. J Aerosol Sci 26(2):175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(94)00103-6
Marchisio DL, Fox RO (2005) Solution of population balance equations using the direct quadrature method of moments. J Aerosol Sci 36(1):43–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.07.009
Park SH, Rogak SN, Bushe WK, Wen JZ, Thomson MJ (2005) An aerosol model to predict size and structure of soot particles. Combust Theory Model 9(3):499–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830500195005
Yu M, Lin J (2017) Hybrid method of moments with interpolation closure–Taylor-series expansion method of moments scheme for solving the Smoluchowski coagulation equation. Appl Math Model 52:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2017.07.052
Hulburt HM, Katz S (1964) Some problems in particle technology. Chem Eng Sci 19(8):555–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(64)85047-8
Frenklach M, Harris SJ (1987) Aerosol dynamics modeling using the method of moments. J Colloid Interface Sci 118(1):252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(87)90454-1
McGraw R (1997) Description of aerosol dynamics by the quadrature method of moments. Aerosol Sci Technol 27(2):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829708965471
Wick A, Frenklach M, Pitsch H (2020) Systematic assessment of the Method of Moments with Interpolative Closure and guidelines for its application to soot particle dynamics in laminar and turbulent flames. Combust Flame. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.01.007
Mueller ME, Blanquart G, Pitsch H (2009) A joint volume-surface model of soot aggregation with the method of moments. Proc Combust Inst 32(1):785–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2008.06.207
Lindstedt RP, Louloudi SA (2005) Joint-scalar transported PDF modeling of soot formation and oxidation. Proc Combust Inst 30(1):775–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2004.08.080
El-Asrag H, Menon S (2009) Large eddy simulation of soot formation in a turbulent non-premixed jet flame. Combust Flame 156(2):385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2008.09.003
Li D, Li Z, Gao Z (2019) Quadrature-based moment methods for the population balance equation: an algorithm review. Chin J Chem Eng 27(3):483–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2018.11.028
Barrett JC, Webb NA (1998) A comparison of some approximate methods for solving the aerosol general dynamic equation. J Aerosol Sci 29(1–2):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(97)00455-2
Marchisio DL, Pikturna JT, Fox RO, Vigil RD, Barresi AA (2003) Quadrature method of moments for population-balance equations. AIChE J 49(5):1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490517
Yuan C, Fox RO (2011) Conditional quadrature method of moments for kinetic equations. J Comput Phys 230(22):8216–8246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.07.020
Yuan W, Li Y, Dagaut P, Yang J, Qi F (2015) Experimental and kinetic modeling study of styrene combustion. Combust Flame 162(5):1868–1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.12.008
Wick A, Nguyen T, Laurent F, Fox RO, Pitsch H (2017) Modeling soot oxidation with the extended quadrature method of moments. Proc Combust Inst 36(1):789–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.08.004
Rigopoulos S (2010) Population balance modelling of polydispersed particles in reactive flows. Prog Energy Combust Sci 36(4):412–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.001
Bleck R (1970) A fast approximative method for integrating the stochastic coalescence equation. J Geophys Res 75(27):5165–5171
Hounslow MJ, Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1988) A discretized population balance for nucleation, growth, and aggregation. AIChE J 34(11):1821–1832. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690341108
Kumar S, Ramkrishna D (1996) On the solution of population balance equations by discretization—I. A fixed pivot technique. Chem Eng Sci 51(8):1311–1322. https://doi.org/10.1515/zna-1951-0407
Kumar S, Ramkrishna D (1996) On the solution of population balance equations by discretization—II. A moving pivot technique. Chem Eng Sci 51(8):1333–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(95)00355-X
Park SH, Rogak SN (2004) A novel fixed-sectional model for the formation and growth of aerosol agglomerates. J Aerosol Sci 35(11):1385–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.05.010
Gelbard F, Seinfeld JH (1978) Numerical solution of the dynamic equation for particulate systems. J Comput Phys 28(3):357–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(78)90058-X
Nicmanis M, Hounslow MJ (1996) A finite element analysis of the steady state population balance equation for particulate systems: aggregation and growth. Comput Chem Eng 20(SUPPL):1. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(96)00054-3
Rigopoulos S, Jones AG (2003) Finite-element scheme for solution of the dynamic population balance equation. AIChE J 49(5):1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490507
Aubagnac-Karkar D, El Bakali A, Desgroux P (2018) Soot particles inception and PAH condensation modelling applied in a soot model utilizing a sectional method. Combust Flame 189:190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.10.027
Rodrigues P, Franzelli B, Vicquelin R, Gicquel O, Darabiha N (2017) Unsteady dynamics of PAH and soot particles in laminar counterflow diffusion flames. Proc Combust Inst 36(1):927–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.047
Qamar S, Warnecke G (2007) Solving population balance equations for two-component aggregation by a finite volume scheme. Chem Eng Sci 62(3):679–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2006.10.001
Liu A, Rigopoulos S (2019) A conservative method for numerical solution of the population balance equation, and application to soot formation. Combust Flame 205:506–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.04.019
Kumar S, Ramkrishna D (1997) On the solution of population balance equations by discretization—III. Nucleation, growth and aggregation of particles. Chem Eng Sci 52(24):4659–4679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)00307-2
Sewerin F, Rigopoulos S (2017) An explicit adaptive grid approach for the numerical solution of the population balance equation. Chem Eng Sci 168:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2017.01.054
Lin Y, Lee K, Matsoukas T (2002) Solution of the population balance equation using constant-number Monte Carlo. Chem Eng Sci 57(12):2241–2252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00114-8
Kruis FE, Maisels A, Fissan H (2000) Direct simulation Monte Carlo method for particle coagulation and aggregation. AIChE J 46(9):1735–1742. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690460905
Zhao H, Kruis FE, Zheng C (2009) Reducing statistical noise and extending the size spectrum by applying weighted simulation particles in Monte Carlo simulation of coagulation. Aerosol Sci Technol 43(8):781–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820902939708
Goodson M, Kraft M (2002) An efficienct stochastic algorithm for simulating nano-particle dynamics. J Comput Phys 183(1):210–232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2002.7192
Patterson RIA, Singh J, Balthasar M, Kraft M, Wagner W (2006) Extending stochastic soot simulation to higher pressures. Combust Flame 145(3):638–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2006.02.005
Patterson RIA, Wagner W, Kraft M (2011) Stochastic weighted particle methods for population balance equations. J Comput Phys 230(19):7456–7472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.06.011
Balthasar M, Frenklach M (2005) Detailed kinetic modeling of soot aggregate formation in laminar premixed flames. Combust Flame 140(1–2):130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.11.004
Bouaniche A, Vervisch L, Domingo P (2019) A hybrid stochastic/fixed-sectional method for solving the population balance equation. Chem Eng Sci 209:115198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2019.115198
Pels Leusden C, Peters N (2000) Experimental and numerical analysis of the influence of oxygen on soot formation in laminar counterflow flames of acetylene. Proc Combust Inst 28(2):2619–2625. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0082-0784(00)80680-3
Pitsch H (1998) FlameMaster, a C++ computer program for 0D combustion and 1D laminar flame calculations. Tech. rep. University of Technology (RWTH) Aachen. https://www.itv.rwth-aachen.de/downloads/flamemaster/
Blanquart G, Pepiot-Desjardins P, Pitsch H (2009) Chemical mechanism for high temperature combustion of engine relevant fuels with emphasis on soot precursors. Combust Flame 156(3):588–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2008.12.007
Chong ST, Raman V, Mueller ME, Selvaraj P, Im HG (2019) Effect of soot model, moment method, and chemical kinetics on soot formation in a model aircraft combustor. Proc Combust Inst 37(1):1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.06.093
Geigle KP, Köhler M, O’Loughlin W, Meier W (2015) Investigation of soot formation in pressurized swirl flames by laser measurements of temperature, flame structures and soot concentrations. Proc Combust Inst 35(3):3373–3380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.05.135
Metcalfe WK, Burke SM, Ahmed SS, Curran HJ (2013) A hierarchical and comparative kinetic modeling study of C1–C2 hydrocarbon and oxygenated fuels. Int J Chem Kinet 45(10):638–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/kin.20802
Zhang J, Shaddix CR, Schefer RW (2011) Design of model-friendly turbulent non-premixed jet burners for C2+ hydrocarbon fuels. Rev Sci Instrum 10(1063/1):3605491
International Sooting Flame (ISF) Workshop. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/cet/isfworkshop/
Ihme M, Pitsch H (2008) Modeling of radiation and nitric oxide formation in turbulent nonpremixed flames using a flamelet/progress variable formulation. Phys Fluids 20(5):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2911047
Xuan Y, Blanquart G (2015) Effects of aromatic chemistry-turbulence interactions on soot formation in a turbulent non-premixed flame. Proc Combust Inst 35(2):1911–1919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.06.138
Abid AD, Heinz N, Tolmachoff ED, Phares DJ, Campbell CS, Wang H (2008) On evolution of particle size distribution functions of incipient soot in premixed ethylene-oxygen-argon flames. Combust Flame 154(4):775–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2008.06.009
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by CONCYTEC-FONDECYT (Peru), Contract No. 415‐2019‐2019-FONDECYT, “Identification of soot precursors in turbulent combustion processes through numerical modeling to reduce the impact of soot on both health and environment.” During this work Luís Fernando Figueira da Silva was on leave from the Institut Pprime (CNRS—Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France). The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Brazil's Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, CNPq, under the Research Grants No. 306069/2015-6 and 403904/2016-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Technical Editor: Mario Eduardo Santos Martins.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valencia, S., Ruiz, S., Manrique, J. et al. Soot modeling in turbulent diffusion flames: review and prospects. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 43, 219 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02876-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02876-y