0
Technical Briefs

Assessment of the Single-Mixture Gas Assumption for the Correlated K-Distribution Fictitious Gas Method in H2OCO2CO Mixture at High Temperature

[+] Author and Article Information
C. Caliot

 Processes, Materials and Solar Energy, PROMES CNRS, 66120 Odeillo-Font-Romeu, Francecyril.caliot@promes.cnrs.fr

G. Flamant

 Processes, Materials and Solar Energy, PROMES CNRS, 66120 Odeillo-Font-Romeu, France

M. El Hafi

 Centre de Recherche d’Albi en génie des Procédés des Solides Divisés, De l’Energie et de l’Environnement, Ecole des Mines d’Albi Carmaux, 81000 Albi, France

Y. Le Maoult

 Centre de Recherche Outillages, Matériaux et Procédés, Ecole des Mines d’Albi Carmaux, 81000 Albi, France

J. Heat Transfer 130(10), 104501 (Aug 06, 2008) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2946475 History: Received March 24, 2007; Revised February 22, 2008; Published August 06, 2008

This paper deals with the comparison of spectral narrow band models based on the correlated-K (CK) approach in the specific area of remote sensing of plume signatures. The CK models chosen may or may not include the fictitious gas (FG) idea and the single-mixture-gas assumption (SMG). The accuracy of the CK and the CK-SMG as well as the CKFG and CKFG-SMG models are compared, and the influence of the SMG assumption is inferred. The errors induced by each model are compared in a sensitivity study involving the plume thickness and the atmospheric path length as parameters. This study is conducted in two remote-sensing situations with different absolute pressures at sea level (105Pa) and at high altitude (16.6km, 104Pa). The comparisons are done on the basis of the error obtained for the integrated intensity while leaving a line of sight that is computed in three common spectral bands: 20002500cm1, 34503850cm1, and 38504150cm1. In most situations, the SMG assumption induces negligible differences. Furthermore, compared to the CKFG model, the CKFG-SMG model results in a reduction of the computational time by a factor of 2.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Mappings of the R ratio in the spectral interval 2000–2500cm−1 versus the atmospheric path-length and the plume thickness (a) CKFG-SMG and CKFG in Case 1, (b) CKFG-SMG and CKFG in Case 2, (c) CK-SMG and CK in Case 1, and (d) CK-SMG and CK in Case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Mappings of the R ratio in the spectral interval 3450–3850cm−1 versus the atmospheric path-length and the plume thickness for (a) CKFG-SMG and CKFG in Case 1, (b) CKFG in Case 2, and (c) CKFG-SMG in Case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Mappings of the R ratio in the spectral interval 3850–4150cm−1 versus the atmospheric path-length and the plume thickness for (a) CKFG-SMG and CKFG in Case 1, (b) CKFG-SMG and CKFG in Case 2, (c) CK-SMG and CK in Case 1, and (d) CK-SMG and CK in Case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic description of the intensity leaving a line of sight, which goes through two layers, the high temperature plume and the atmosphere, both constituted of H2O–CO2–CO mixture at the same pressure but with different temperatures and layer thicknesses

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In