Aerosol Science and Technology, accepted, 2007
Transcript of Aerosol Science and Technology, accepted, 2007
1
SECTIONAL MODELING OF AEROSOL DYNAMICS IN MULTI-
DIMENSIONAL FLOWS
Shortened running title: Sectional Modeling in Multi-Dimensional Flows
By
D. MITRAKOS1,2, E. HINIS2, C. HOUSIADAS1
1 “Demokritos” National Centre for Scientific Research, Institute of Nuclear Technology
and Radiation Protection, Athens, 15310, Greece
2 National Technical University of Athens, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Athens, 15780, Greece
Aerosol Science and Technology, accepted, 2007
2
Abstract
The integration of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with computer modeling of
aerosol dynamics is needed in several practical applications. The use of a sectional size
distribution is desirable because it offers generality and flexibility in describing the
evolution of the aerosol. However, in the presence of condensational growth the
sectional method is computationally expensive in multidimensional flows, because a
large number of size sections is required to cope with numerical diffusion and achieve
accuracy in the delicate coupling between the competing processes of nucleation and
condensation. The present work proposes a methodology that enables the implementation
of the sectional method in Eulerian multidimensional CFD calculations. For the solution
of condensational growth a number conservative numerical scheme is proposed. The
scheme is based on a combination of moving and fixed particle size grids and a re-
mapping process for the cumulative size distribution, carried out with cubic spline
interpolation. The coupling of the aerosol dynamics with the multidimensional CFD
calculations is performed with an operator splitting technique, permitting to deal
efficiently with the largely different time scales of the aerosol dynamics and transport
processes. The developed methodology is validated against available analytical solutions
of the general dynamic equation. The appropriateness of the methodology is evaluated by
reproducing the numerically demanding case of nucleation-condensation in an
experimental aerosol reactor. The method is found free of numerical diffusion and
robust. Good accuracy is obtained with a modest number of size sections, whereas the
computational time on a common personal computer remained always reasonable.
3
1. Introduction
Computer modeling of aerosol dynamics is of importance in a wide spectrum of
current applications, ranging form atmospheric chemistry and climate change, to a variety
of technological fields, like nuclear reactor safety or production of nano-sized materials.
In many circumstances the solution of the General Dynamics Equation (GDE) involves
multiple spatial dimensions and complex flows and so Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) need to be combined with aerosol dynamics to accurately predict the behaviour of
the aerosol flow. CFD-based aerosol simulations have gained much attention in
experimental (Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000; Wilck and Stratmann 1997) or industrial
(Mühlenweg et al. 2002; Schild et al. 1999) aerosol reactors, to design and control the
system and improve the quality of the manufactured materials, usually nanoparticles.
However, despite the increase of the computational capabilities, computational fluid-
aerosol dynamics still remains a challenging task, especially when simultaneous
nucleation, condensational growth and coagulation take place within the flow. In such
cases, very dense spatial and/or temporal resolutions are required to describe
appropriately the coupling between processes characterized by largely different time
scales and the strong nonlinearities that are introduced (Pyykönen et al. 2002; Pyykönen
and Jokiniemi 2000). In such calculations the use of an efficient and accurate numerical
representation of the particle size distribution is a key issue.
Methods based on moments are widely used in aerosol dynamic simulations. The
main advantage of these methods is their low computational cost, because a small number
of additional equations, namely for the moments of the size distribution, need to be
solved. The basic problem of the moment methods is that they require some kind of
4
closure. Usually an assumption is made on the functional form of the particle size
distribution in order to achieve the closure of the transport equations (Modal methods,
Whitby and McMurry 1997). Several works exist in the literature where modal methods
are embedded in CFD codes for the simulation of multidimensional aerosol flows (Brown
et al. 2006; Schwade and Roth 2003; Stratmann and Whitby 1989; Wilck and Stratmann
1997). Obviously, modal methods do not allow for arbitrary evolution of the size
distribution because the functional form of the size distribution is specified beforehand
and remains fixed throughout the whole simulation. Moreover, the use of a constant
standard deviation may introduce inaccuracies in the calculation of coagulation and
condensational growth (Zhang et al. 1999). McGraw (1997) overcame the problem of
closure by proposing the quadrature-method of moments (QMOM). Because of its
potential the QMOM has been employed in several works, demonstrating its applicability
to more complex cases (e.g. Alopaeous et al. 2006, McGraw and Wright 2003). Also,
QMOM has been used in combination with CFD (Marchisio et al. 2003, Rosner and
Pyykönen 2002). The main advantage of the method is that no assumptions for the shape
of the distribution, or the form of the growth law, are required to satisfy the closure of the
moment equations. However, QMOM becomes quite challenging numerically in
multivariate cases (Rosner and Pyykönen 2002). A general drawback of the QMOM is
the non-uniqueness problem that arises in the reconstruction of the size distribution from
its moments.
The sectional approach (Gelbard et al. 1980) is conceptually straightforward and
offers more degrees of freedom, ensuring therefore greater generality. On the other hand,
the drawback is that the sectional method may be computationally very demanding
5
because its accuracy is directly related with the number of discretization sections (size
bins) that are used. A large number of sections is needed to reduce the numerical
diffusion inherent in the numerical solution of condensational growth, making the
sectional approach expensive to implement in CFD calculations (Mühlenweg et al. 2002;
Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000). A moving sectional method, where particle size bins are
allowed to move according to the growth law (Kim and Seinfeld 1990) can combat
numerical diffusion, but introduces serious complications in coupling with the other
aerosol processes, especially with transport. This limits the applicability of the moving
sectional approach, which is usually implemented in zero-dimensional aerosol
calculations along Lagrangian trajectories (Spicer et al. 2002; Tsantilis et al. 2002). Fixed
particle size grid is a more suitable approach for multidimensional, elliptic aerosol flows
and has been combined with CFD in multidimensional simulations in a number of works.
However, it has been used either under an approximate Lagrangian transport frame
(Johannessen et al. 2000; Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000) or in situations where growth is
only due to coagulation/agglomeration (Jeong and Choi 2003; Kommu et al. 2004I, II; Lu
et al. 1999; Mühlenweg et al. 2002; Park et al. 1999; Schild et al. 1999). When growth is
also due to vapor condensation then the coupling with nucleation makes the calculation
very demanding in terms of computational cost. Attempts to implement the sectional
method in a fully Eulerian, multidimensional computational framework on the basis of
standard CFD techniques revealed serious deficiencies (Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000;
Pyykönen et al. 2002). A methodology for implementing efficiently the sectional
approach in CFD-based aerosol calculations is therefore exceedingly needed in cases
6
characterized by strong coupling between nucleation and condensational growth. The aim
of our work is to propose such a methodology.
The reduction of the numerical diffusion is the greatest concern when
implementing a sectional method within a multidimensional CFD calculation. Several
methods have been proposed in the literature to combat numerical diffusion, while
keeping reduced the number of the sections needed. “Three point” discretization schemes
(Hounslow et al. 1998; Park and Rogak 2004) reduce numerical diffusion but introduce
oscillations and negative values of the size distribution that can lead to significant errors,
especially in cases where strong nucleation takes place. Lurmann et al. (1997) proposes to
solve the growth equation using a moving grid and then re-map the result on the initial
fixed grid, where all the other processes are treated. Re-mapping is done by using a cubic
spline interpolation scheme, which can introduce oscillations and negative values when
the size distribution is steep. Forcing these negative values to zero can result to
significant errors in the conservation of the particle number and volume. Jacobson (1997)
proposed the so-called moving center method in which the sections remain fixed through
the simulation but the characteristic particle size of each section is allowed to vary. The
particles grow according to the growth law and if the new size is out of the section all
particles are transferred into a next section. The size characterizing each section is
updated by averaging the transferred and preexisting particle volumes. Because particles
are not spitted in adjacent size bins numerical diffusion is combated efficiently. Zhang et
al. (1999) inter-compared several methods and qualified the moving center method as the
most appropriate for calculating the condensational growth of atmospheric aerosol in air
quality models. However, removing all particles from one size bin can result to
7
unrealistic empty bins and extra dents in the size distribution, as observed by Korhonen at
al. (2004) in nucleation simulations. Furthermore, because several particle sizes are
mixed through the transport processes, an averaging procedure must be performed
repeatedly to compute the characteristic particle size in every section, which introduces a
systematic bias in the results (Zhang at al. 1999). Yamamoto (2004) derived the
condensational growth equation in terms of the cumulative size distribution function,
which was solved with the help of semi-Lagrangian schemes. He showed that the use of
the cumulative size distribution function allows the conservation of the number of
particles and prevents overshoots, even in cases with sharp changes in the size
distributions.
The objective of the present work is to develop a methodology permitting to
incorporate efficiently the sectional approach into a multidimensional CFD calculation.
First, an efficient numerical solution of condensational growth is implemented by
combining the advantages of the schemes of Lurmann et al. (1997) and Yamamoto
(2004): a moving particle size grid is used and the results obtained are re-mapped on the
initial fixed grid. The interpolation during the re-mapping step is not performed directly
on the size distribution function, but on the cumulative size distribution, in order to
ensure the conservation of the particle number concentration. The developed aerosol
model includes nucleation, condensational growth, coagulation and all the major external
processes like transport, diffusion and external forces. The aerosol dynamics calculations
are one-way coupled with the CFD calculations, namely the velocity and temperature
fields are taken as input for the aerosol model while the output of the aerosol calculations
do not exert any influence on the flow. To cope with the strong coupling between aerosol
8
processes an operator splitting technique is employed (Oran and Boris 2001). The time
scales of the aerosol dynamics, and especially of nucleation and growth, highly differ
from these of the transport processes like convection and diffusion. Operator splitting is
generally more efficient in coupling multiple time scales than a global-implicit scheme,
which is based on a complete discretization of the equations. While the global implicit
approach is stable and more straightforward, since it treats all the processes together, it
can be very costly in multidimensional cases, when stiff processes are involved (Oran and
Boris 2000), as in the present case of simultaneous nucleation and condensation.
Recently, Mitsakou et al. (2004) and Kommu et al. (2004I, II) also used operator splitting
techniques to solve numerically the GDE with a sectional representation of the size
distribution.
The method we are proposing is validated extensively. Comparisons are made
with existing analytical solutions to assess the numerical solution of the GDE alone. To
assess the appropriateness of the overall method we reproduce numerically an aerosol
reactor case where all three major processes are coupled, i.e. nucleation, growth,
coagulation are present. As such, we selected the homogeneous nucleation experiments
performed by Ngyuen et al. (1987). These experiments are documented in detailed and
have been extensively analyzed in the literature. So, they are an appropriate basis for
benchmarking purposes.
9
2. Model
The temporal and spatial variation of the particulate phase is described by the
general dynamic equation (Friedlander 2000), which can be written as following:
( ) ( )( )ρ ρ ρ ρρ ρ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂+∇ ⋅ + −∇ ⋅ ∇ = + +
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂m m m m
th m p mnucl growth coag
n n n nn D nt t t t
u c (1)
In the above equation mn is the size distribution function, expressed per unit mass of gas,
ρ is the density of the gas and pD the particle diffusion coefficient, given by the Stokes-
Einstein equation. In cases where the particles are small, inertia can be neglected and the
particle velocity u can be taken equal to the gas velocity. The terms on the right-hand
side of Eq. (1) describe the variations due to homogeneous nucleation, condensational
growth and coagulation, respectively. Velocity thc corresponds to the transport velocity
of the particles due to external forces (thermophoresis is the only mechanism considered).
The thermophoretic velocity thc is calculated with the expression of Talbot et al. (1980),
using the local values (position dependent) of temperature and temperature gradient.
Equation (1) is coupled with the condensable vapor equation, which, neglecting
thermal diffusion, is given by:
( ) ( )m m mm v m
nucl growth
C C CC D Ct t t
ρ ρ ρρ ρ∂ ∂ ∂+∇ ⋅ −∇ ⋅ ∇ = − −
∂ ∂ ∂u (2)
where mC is the vapor mass fraction and vD is the vapor binary diffusion coefficient.
The first and second terms on the right-hand side of the equation above represent the
depletion of the condensable vapor due to homogeneous nucleation and condensational
growth, respectively.
10
In the present analysis two theories have been adopted for the prediction of
particle formation by homogeneous nucleation: the classical nucleation theory (Frenkel
1955) and the modified nucleation theory derived by Girshick at al. (1990). According to
the classical nucleation theory the nucleation rate is:
2 2 22 exp
3m crit
classicalp m m B
C dJm m k Tρ πσσ
ρ π
= −
(3)
4ln
mcrit
B
vdk T Sσ
= (4)
where critd is the embryos critical diameter,σ the surface tension, mv the molecular
volume, mm the molecular mass, pρ the density of the particles and Bk the Boltzman
constant. The symbols S and T denote the saturation ratio and the temperature,
respectively. According to the modified nucleation theory of Girshick et al. (1990) the
nucleation rate classicalJ is multiplied by a correction factor derived from a self-consistency
equilibrium cluster distribution, as following:
23 361 exp m
Girshick classicalB
vJ J
S k Tπ σ
=
(5)
Particles that are formed by homogeneous nucleation grow by condensational deposition
of the existing vapor on their surface. The rate of change of the particle diameter due to
condensational growth is given by a modified Mason equation (Mason 1971), which
accounts for both mass and heat transfer (see, for example, in Jokiniemi et al. 1994):
4/ /
p amass heat
p p mass FS heat FS
dd S Sdt d f F f Fρ
−= +
(6)
where
11
, 1( ) κ
= = −
v
mass heatv sat v g
R T L Lf fD p T R T T
(7)
In Eq. (6) massFSF and heat
FSF are the Fuchs-Sutugin correction factors for mass and heat
transfer, respectively:
2 2
11 , 1 1.71 1.333 1 1.71 1.333
gmass heatvFS FS
v v g g
KnKnF FKn Kn Kn Kn
++= =
+ + + + (8)
where the Knudsen number vKn ( gKn ) is defined as the ratio of the mean free path of the
vapor (gas) to the droplet radius. The term ( )exp 4 /σ ρ=a p v pS d R T in Eq. (6) accounts
for the Kelvin effect. In Eqs. (7), L is the latent heat of condensation of the vapor
species, vR is the gas constant, κ g is the thermal conductivity of the carrier gas, and
( )satp T is the equilibrium vapor pressure over a flat surface.
Calculation of coagulation is done on the basis of a modified Smoluchowski
equation, appropriate for a sectional representation of the particle size distribution, as
proposed by Jacobson et al. (1994). According to this formulation the variation of the
number concentration of thi − section can be approximated as following:
( ) ( ) ( )1
, , , ,1 1 1
, 1 ,BNi i
i ki j k j k j k i i i j i i j j
j k ji
dN vf K d d N N v N f K d d Ndt v
−
= = =
= − −∑∑ ∑ (9)
The first term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (9) accounts for appearance of particles in the
thi − size section due to collisions of smaller particles and the second term accounts for
depletion of particles in the thi − size section due to collisions with all other particles.
The coefficients , ,i j kf arise from the sectional representation of the size distribution, and
represent the fraction of the new particles formed from collisions of diameters jd and kd
that is partitioned into size section i. These coefficients are (Jacobson et al. 1994):
12
11
1
, , , , 1 1
;
1 ; 1 1 ; 0
k i j kk i j k B
k k i j
i j k i j k k i j k
i j k B
v v v v v v v v k Nv v v v
f f v v v v kv v v k N
++
+
− −
− − ≤ + < < − +
= − < + < >+ ≥ =
all other cases
, (10)
where v is the particle volume. The coagulation kernel K is calculated as:
B LSK K K= + (11)
considering the kernels associated with Brownian coagulation ( BK ) and laminar shear
coagulation ( LSK ). The Brownian kernel is determined from the standard Fuchs
interpolation formula (Fuchs 1964), which is valid from the continuum to the free
molecular regime:
( )( )
( ) ( )( )
, ,
1
, ,1/ 2 1/ 22 2 2 2
( , ) 2
8( )
2
B j k j k p j p k
j k p j p k
j k j k j k j k
K d d d d D D
d d D D
d d g g d d c c
π−
= + +
+ + + + + + + +
(12)
The laminar shear kernel is related with the velocity gradient in the direction normal to
the flow as following (see, for example, in Drossinos and Housiadas 2006):
31( , ) ( )6LS j k j k
uK d d d dy∂
= +∂
(13)
In Eq. (12) 1/ 2(8 / )i B ic k T mπ= is the mean particle velocity and ig the so-called Fuch's
length
( ) ( )3/ 23 2 213i i i i i i
i i
g d l d l dd l
= + − + − , (14)
where ,8 /( )i p i il D cπ= the mean free path of the aerosol particle.
13
3. Numerics
3.1. Internal aerosol processes
To combat numerical diffusion, while using a computationally economical particle
size grid resolution, we implemented a simple, hybrid method for solving condensational
growth. The method is based on a combination of a moving particle size grid and a fixed
particle size grid.
More specifically, the condensational growth equation is integrated, in each time
step, allowing the particles to grow to their actual sizes using the moving grid approach
(Gelbard 1990; Kim and Seinfeld 1990). The integration is performed using a fourth-
order Rosenbrock method with monitoring of the local truncation error to adjust the time
step (Press et al. 1994). Then the cumulative distribution function is calculated on the
moving grid using the following simple form, valid for a sectional formulation:
,1 1
i i
i i m i iC N n dρ= = ∆∑ ∑ (15)
where id∆ is the width of the thi − size section of the moving grid. The cumulative
distribution is then reallocated to the fixed size grid using a cubic spline interpolation. Let
*iC be the cumulative size distribution as inferred from the interpolation step. Then, the
new number concentration *iN can be simply calculated as:
* * *1i i iN C C −= − (16)
The use of a third order polynomial for the interpolation leads to significant reduction of
numerical diffusion. Number conservation and enhanced stability are achieved by taking
advantages of the mathematical properties of the cumulative size distribution. By
14
definition, the cumulative size distribution must be monotonic and no negative.
Therefore, the following corrections are made:
* *1
* * * *max 1 1
* * * *max 1 1
0, ,
for = 1, 2, = , if and
for 2, 1, = , if
K total
i i i i
i i i i
C C N
i n C C C C
i n C C C C+ +
− −
= =
− ≥
= − ≤
(17)
where totalN is the total number concentration of the particles and maxn the number of the
used particle size sections. The above procedure ensures conservation of the total particle
number in the condensational growth calculations, conferring to the fixed grid approach
the appealing characteristics of the moving grid approach. Subsequently, we use the
abbreviation CICR (Cubic Interpolation Cumulative Re-mapping) to refer to the method
described above for the solution of growth.
The implementation of the two other internal processes, i.e. nucleation and
coagulation, is straightforward. Nucleation is resolved simply by adding particles in the
size section that contains the critical diameter. Coagulation is directly calculated on the
basis of Eqs. (9) and (10), using the semi-implicit scheme of Jacobson et al. (1994),
which does not require iterations and is unconditionally stable.
3.2. Coupling with CFD
The computation of fluid and aerosol dynamics is carried out in two stages. First,
CFD calculations are made to determine the gas velocity and temperature fields in the
reactor. These fields are used as input to the aerosol dynamics code. The CFD step is
performed using a general-purpose commercial CFD package (code ANSWER; ACRi
2001). The Nodal Point Integration (NPI) technique is used for the integration of the
equations (Runchal 1987a). The continuity, momentum and energy equations are solved
15
in a two-dimensional cylindrical uniform grid. Since the effect of heat release from
condensation on the gas temperature is neglected (one-way coupled system), only the
convective, diffusive terms are taken into account in the energy equation. The flow is
laminar. Standard numerical methods were selected in our CFD calculations. More
specifically, the hybrid scheme (Runchal 1972) was used for the discretization of the
convective terms, while the ADI method (Fletcher 1991) was used for the solution of the
algebraic system of equations. The sensitivity of the results to the scheme used in the
solution of the convection term is examined by using also the QUICK scheme (Leonard
1979). Practically, no difference was found in the overall calculations. The problem of
fluid flow and heat transfer in laminar flow aerosol reactors has been addressed
extensively in the literature. Parameters, concerning the fluid flow and heat transfer in the
reactor, that could affect the overall aerosol dynamics calculations have been examined
by employing both CFD-based and analytical methods (Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000;
Wilck and Stratmann 1997; Housiadas et al. 2002; Housiadas et al. 2000). Therefore, no
particular focus was given to the fluid flow and heat transfer problem in the reactor.
The aerosol dynamic calculations are then performed according to the following
methodology. The fully Eulerian, multidimensional problem described by Eqs. (1) and
(2) is numerically advanced in time using an operator splitting technique. The source
terms for each of the aerosol dynamics processes are explicitly calculated in each time
step by using the methods described previously and then combined (added) to give the
right-hand sides (overall source terms) for Eqs. (1) and (2). These source terms consist
input for the integration of Eqs. (1) and (2), which is performed by using an implicit finite
volume scheme (Patankar 1980). The convection terms are treated using the hybrid or the
16
power law scheme (Patankar 1980), while the ADI method is adopted for the solution of
the algebraic equations.
To accelerate the calculation an adaptive time step process is implemented as
following. At every computational grid point j the local relative change of the vapor
mass fraction, due to condensational growth, is forecasted using the time step of the
previous iteration 0∆t . If this change is higher than a pre-specified value (usually, a
relative change of 0.5% was specified in the runs of the present work) a local time step
1∆ jt is calculated on the basis of a pre-specified relative change for the number
concentration due to nucleation (usually 30%). Otherwise, the local time step is taken as
1 02∆ = ∆jt t . The global time step 1∆t with which the integration with the finite volume
method is performed is selected as the minimum of the local time steps 1∆ jt . The
doubling of the local time step in the locations where vapor depletion is small, and
consequently there is no important effect on the calculation of the saturation ratio, was
found to accelerate significantly the convergence of the solution. Steady state problems
are solved using a pseudotransient approach. Starting from arbitrary initial conditions, the
solution procedure marches along the time, exactly like in unsteady problems, until the
converged, steady-state solution is reached.
The spatial CFD and aerosol dynamics grids are independent. A spatially non-
uniform grid, finer at the nucleation zone is usually needed in aerosol dynamics
calculations. The temperature and the gas flow field at the aerosol dynamics grid nodes
are calculated by multidimensional linear interpolation (Press et al. 1994) on the output
data provided by the CFD calculations.
17
4. Validation tests
The algorithm and methods employed to calculate aerosol dynamics are assessed
by comparing with available analytical solutions of the general dynamic equation for a
number of idealised cases. The first comparison with theory is based on the analysis of
combined condensation and coagulation of Ramabhadran et al. (1976). In this analysis
the coagulation kernel K is assumed constant, while the growth rate is taken as a linear
function of the particle volume:
dv vdt
σ= (18)
The initial aerosol distribution function has the form of a first order gamma function:
00 2
0 0
( ) expN v vn vv v
= −
(19)
where 0N is the initial number concentration and 0v the mean volume of the initial
distribution.
Fig. 1 shows the evolution of the normalized number and volume concentrations
of the aerosol as a function of the dimensionless time. As can be seen, the particle
number decreases as the particles coagulate, whereas the aerosol volume increases due to
condensational growth. The change in the aerosol properties was numerically reproduced
using a size grid of 6 particle size sections/decade and a dimensional time step equal to
0.1. The numerical results are in excellent agreement with the analytical solution both in
terms of volume and number. Although the CICR method does not take into account the
conservation of volume, the results in fig. 1 indicate that, in practice, the errors
introduced in the calculation of the particle volume during the re-mapping step are very
small. Fig. 2 shows the calculated dimensionless size distribution function of the
18
particles. From the comparison with the analytical solution it is concluded that numerical
diffusion is satisfactorily combated even using a low resolution of 6 particle size
sections/decade.
Figure 1. Comparison between calculated and analytical normalized number and volume
concentrations, as a function of the dimensionless time tτ σ= , for a system with
0.3Λ = . (characteristic dimensionless quantity 0/ KNσΛ = ).
19
Figure 2. Calculated size distribution in comparison with the analytical solution at 5τ =
for the first analytical test. The initial size distribution of the aerosol is also shown
( 0τ = ).
The second validation test is concerned with the analytical solution of an evolving
size distribution under the influence of pure condensational growth (Seinfeld and Pandis
1998):
p
p
dd Adt d
= (20)
The aerosol has initially a lognormal size distribution:
2
00 2
ln ( / ) 1exp2ln2 ln
p pI
I pI
d dNndσπ σ
= −
(21)
20
where A is a constant and 0N is the initial total number concentration. A case with initial
median diameter 0.1 mpID µ= , initial geometric standard deviation 1.15Iσ = ,
10 2 11.0 10 cmA s− −= × and total simulation time 1 sfT = was chosen because it involves
steep evolution of the size distribution. Note that the same test conditions have been also
employed in previous assessment exercises (Test III in Yamamoto 2004). In the
calculations a particle diameter range from 0.06 mµ to 0.3 mµ was used to cover all the
sizes encountered during the simulation. Fig. 3 shows the volume distribution of particles,
as calculated using the CICR method (fig. 3a) and the moving center method (fig. 3b), as
a function of the number of size sections in which the size range is divided. As the
number of size sections increases the accuracy of the CICR method improves steadily,
converging to the analytical solution. Due to the spline interpolation used in the re-
mapping step and the imposed corrections (Eq. (17)) some oscillations can be artificially
introduced in the distribution. The results in Fig. 3a indicate that, in practice, such effects
are insignificant. In all investigated cases artificial peaks and deeps have been obtained
only at points where the distribution is vanishing (for example in the horizontal tail of the
distribution of fig. 3a). On the contrary, the moving center method predicts an oscillating,
unrealistic distribution. Moreover, it does not converge uniformly to the analytical
solution, but instead overshoots. This behavior is due to the frequent occurrence of empty
sections in the course of the calculation.
21
a). b).
Figure 3. Volume distribution at 1fT = s for various particle size grid resolutions, as
calculated using a) the CICR method, b) the moving center method, and comparison with
the analytical solution.
5. Results
To illustrate our model we reproduce a real nucleation-condensation case in an
aerosol reactor. We used the data reported (meticulously) by Ngyuen et al. (1987), as
obtained from homogeneous nucleation experiments. In these experiments dry air
saturated with DBP is conducted through a hot tube, whose temperature is kept equal to
that of the saturator, into a cooler tube, the “condenser”. A transition zone of 10 cm exists
between the hot tube and the condenser. The condenser (length of 52 cm, inner diameter
of 1 cm) is rapidly cooled, causing the gas to become highly supersaturated. Particles are
formed by homogeneous nucleation and grow mainly by condensation. Nguyen et al.
(1987) reported extensive measurements of both the number concentration and size
distribution of the formed particles at the outlet of the condenser, for different conditions
with respect to the flow rate and saturator temperature.
22
The model was applied to reproduce the fluid and particle dynamics in the
condenser. The analysis is made on a two-dimensional grid in cylindrical coordinates,
assuming symmetry with respect to the condenser axis. The flow is laminar and becomes
fully developed before the entrance of the transition zone. Therefore, at the tube inlet the
gas velocity is taken parabolic, and the temperature is taken uniform and equal to that of
the saturator. Previous works have showed the importance of choosing correctly the
boundary conditions in the analysis of nucleation experiments in laminar flow aerosol
reactors (Housiadas et al. 2000; Wilck and Stratmann 1997). The temperature values on
the wall nodes are set on the basis of a linear interpolation on the measured wall
temperature data, as provided by Nguyen et al. (1987). The wall boundary values for the
vapor mass fraction are those corresponding to equilibrium at the wall temperature. Also,
a zero particle number concentration is imposed at the wall (for all sizes), assuming the
tube wall to be a totally absorbing boundary. The physical properties of DBP are those
given by Nguyen et al. (1987) and the properties of the carrier gas (air) are taken all as
temperature dependent.
One-dimensional (1-D) calculations were also performed, based on a previously
developed one-dimensional, semi-Lagrangian model (Mitrakos et al. 2004). This model
was further elaborated by implementing the operator splitting technique and the
previously described CICR method for the solution of growth. This model is used to
further test the capabilities of the 1-D description of aerosol flow reactors and also to
intercompare easily the CICR method and the moving center method in a real nucleation-
condensation case.
23
Fig. 4 shows the bulk average number concentration of the particles at the exit of
the reactor, as calculated with our model. For comparison, the experimental data are also
shown, as well as simulation results obtained with other models. Our CFD calculations
were done with an equally spaced spatial grid consisted of 700 axial and 40 radial nodes.
In the two-dimensional (2-D) calculations aerosol dynamics are solved over a grid of 600
axial and 20 radial nodes, non-uniform in the axial direction (grid sizes ranging from
about 0.3 mm to 3 mm). As discussed before an adaptive time step was used, which,
typically, ranged between ~2 ms and 20 ms. In the 1-D calculations an adaptive axial grid
was used, similar to that used by Im et al. (1985) and Jokiniemi et al. (1994). The axial
step is derived from the maximum allowable relative changes for the particle number
concentration and the vapor mass fraction. The modified nucleation theory of Girshick et
al. (1990) was used in the present calculations for the estimation of the nucleation rate.
As commonly made in homogeneous nucleation analyses, the calculated nucleation rate
needs to be multiplied by a correction factor to get agreement with the experimental data.
In the present calculations the nucleation rate was multiplied by a factor C=5 ×10-4 for the
2-D runs and C=1.2×10-3 for the 1-D runs, which are both consistent with the factors
used by Pyykönen and Jokiniemi (2000) (C=3.2×10-4) and Wilck and Stratmann (1997)
(C=1×10-3). As the competition of nucleation and growth becomes stronger, or
equivalently as the number concentration and the subsequent vapor depletion become
more important the time step needs to decrease in order to accurately calculate the
nucleation rate. Hence, the running time of a simulation depends on the intensity of
coupling between these two processes. The running time is roughly proportional to the
resolution used in the discretization of the particle size grid. For a resolution of 10 size
24
sections/decade the CPU time using a personal computer (Pentium IV 3 GHz, 1 GB)
ranges from 25 minutes for the lower saturator temperature (left part of fig. 4) to 1 h and
40 minutes for the most demanding case, namely for the higher saturator temperature
(right part of fig. 4). Coagulation has an effect less than 0.5% in the final number
concentration of particles, but increases computational time roughly by a factor of three.
Therefore, in the runs coagulation was usually turned-off. The CPU time for the 1-D
calculation was trivial (less than a minute in all the cases).
Figure 4. Bulk average number concentration at the outlet of the reactor as a function of
the saturator temperature, as predicted from our models, in comparison with the measured
data and previous modeling results (System B of Nguyen et al. (1987) with gas flow rate
0.5 lt/min and condenser temperature 21.4 oC).
25
As the results of fig. 4 indicate, our model predicts with very good accuracy most
of the measured points and agrees closely with previous models. The previous numerical
results have been obtained with different computational approaches. The calculations of
Wilck and Stratmann (1997) are done with a fully 2-D Eulerian model, based on the
modal method. The calculations of Pyykönen and Jokiniemi (2000) are made with a
sectional, quasi-2-D model, based on a Lagrangian approach (called the “stream-tube”
approach). Instead, previous attempts to reproduce these data with a sectional, 2-D
Eulerian approach based on the full discretization of the governing equations failed (took
CPU days to converge, and gave unacceptably overestimated predictions; see, discussions
in Pyykönen et al. 2002; Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000; Stratmann and Witby 1989). Our
model reproduced successfully these experimental data, demonstrating the
appropriateness of the proposed methodology as to the way of using the sectional method
in a multi-dimensional, Eulerian computational framework.
As the results of Fig. 4 indicate, there are discrepancies between calculated and
experimental data for saturator temperatures higher than about 100˚C, for all the models.
Seemingly, all models underestimate the nucleation rate and overestimate the growth rate
over this range of saturator temperatures. The reason of this behavior is not yet clear.
Wilck and Stratmann (1997) tried to explain these discrepancies by artificially
suppressing the growth rate, but they did not reach to a definite conclusion. Finally, it is
interesting to notice that in this case the 1-D model gave satisfactory results for the
number concentration, in comparison with the 2-D approach, using practically the same
correction factor. This interesting behavior was reported in a previous communication
26
(Mitrakos et al. 2004). Similar trends in 1-D aerosol reactor simulations have been also
observed by other investigators (Jeong and Choi 2003; Park et al. 1999). The validity
limits of an 1-D approximation cannot be easily established. Moreover, as it will become
apparent below, the 1-D solution fails in predicting the size distribution, and, hence, the
use of the 1-D approximation is not generally recommended.
Figure 5. Bulk average number concentration at the outlet of the reactor as a function of
the saturator temperature, as calculated with various particle size grid resolutions (same
experimental case as in figure 4).
The characteristics of our model in terms of stability and accuracy are assessed by
examining the sensitivity of the results to the number of sections that are used to divide
27
the particle size spectrum. The influence of the particle size grid resolution on the
calculated particle number is illustrated in fig. 5, which shows the exit number
concentration of particles as calculated for various numbers of size sections. As can be
observed, the impact of the particle size grid resolution on the calculated number
concentration increases towards the right (higher particle number), i.e. as the competition
between nucleation and growth becomes stronger. The bias introduced by the CICR
method in the calculation of the particle total volume during the re-mapping step and the
unavoidable errors arising from the discretization of the particle size on the fixed grid are
the reasons for this trend. By construction, the CICR method is number conservative, but
not volume conservative. The small numerical errors on particle volume reflect on the
vapor depletion calculations, and have therefore a positive feedback on the error in the
nucleation rate calculation because of the extreme sensitivity of the nucleation rate on the
saturation ratio. The moving center method is less sensitive to this feedback effect
because is volume conservative. However, the moving center method was found to
predict unrealistic particle size distributions, as previously discussed in the validation
tests and as it will also become apparent latter. In fact, this was the motivating reason to
seek for a new numerical method (CICR). The remedy to the previously described error
propagation loop is the increase of the number of size sections. In this respect, the
proposed method performed satisfactorily. As the results of Fig. 5 indicate, the accuracy
of our calculations using 10 size sections/decade can be considered as adequate. Note that
this particle size grid resolution is similar to that used in previous analogous analyses
(Pyykönen and Jokiniemi 2000). Very good accuracy is achieved using 20
sections/decade. With this resolution, the computational time for the most demanding
28
run, namely, for the higher saturator temperature, reached 3h and 50 min on our
computer, therefore remaining tolerable in all cases.
Figure 6 shows the calculated size distribution at the exit of the reactor, for a test
for which Nguyen et al. (1987) reported detailed size distribution measurement data. The
calculations results of Nguyen et al. (1987) are also shown, which were obtained with a
particular semi-analytical model, tailored to this application, on the basis of the theory of
Green functions (Pesthy et al. 1983). Results for the calculated size distribution are not
provided by Pyykönen and Jokiniemi (2000) and Wilck and Stratmann (1997), and so it is
not possible to perform a direct comparison with other CFD-based computational
schemes. Following Nguyen et al. (1987) in this case we use the classical nucleation
theory. A nucleation rate correction factor C=2.1×104 was used in our calculations, which
is very close to that used by Nguyen et al. (1987) (C=4×104). The calculated size
distribution presents a similar dependence on the particle size grid resolution with that
previously discussed. Adequate accuracy is achieved and numerical diffusion is
efficiently combated even with 10 size sections/decade. The shape of the size distribution
remains smooth and a fast convergence is achieved as the number of size sections
increases. 20 sections/decade are adequate for an accurate representation of the size
distribution. The agreement with the experimental data is satisfactory. Our CFD-based
predictions are close to the theoretical, semi-analytical results of Nguyen et al. (1987).
Note, however, that the numerical model performs better than the semi-analytical over
the small size range (<0.8 µm).
29
Figure 6. Bulk average particle size distribution at the exit of the reactor, as calculated
with our models for various particle size grid resolutions and comparison with the
measured and calculated results of Nguyen et al. (1987) (System B with gas flowrate 1
lt/min, saturator temperature 80.5 oC and condenser temperature 8.7 oC). The comparison
between the CICR method and the moving center method is also shown.
In figure 6 the performance of the moving center method is also examined and
compared with the CICR method, using the 1-D model. A particle size grid of 20
sections/decade was used for the 1-D analysis, for both the CICR and the moving center
method. The reason we used the 1-D model to perform the comparison between the two
methods is that the implementation of the moving center method in a multidimensional
calculations is cumbersome (the characteristic size in each section differs among adjacent
computational cells, making the Eulerian calculation difficult to perform). The moving
center method also minimizes numerical diffusion, but in contrast with the CICR method,
introduces empty sections with a simultaneous overestimation of the peak. The net result
30
is that an unrealistic size distribution is inferred. This finding is in line what was
previously found in the analysis of idealized size distribution evolution cases (validation
tests).
Note that contrary to what was observed before, the correction factor required in
the 1-D run to match the measured number concentration (C=5.2×102) differs by two
orders of magnitude with that used in the 2-D calculations (C=2.1×104). In comparison
with the experimental data and the 2-D predictions the 1-D model overestimates severely
the particle sizes at the reactor outlet (the 1-D size distribution is displaced to the right).
So, in the 1-D analysis, even when the calculated number concentration is fitted to the
experimental one, using a correction factor, the size distributions is predicted incorrectly.
Therefore, the 1-D approximation should be used with caution in aerosol reactor
analyses. The proper choice is the use of a realistic multidimensional flow description.
6. Summary and conclusions
In this work we presented a methodology for the numerical simulation of aerosol
dynamics in a CFD-based multidimensional framework, using a sectional representation
of the size distribution. The emphasis was on computationally demanding cases,
characterized by strong coupling between homogeneous nucleation and condensational
growth. The model is fully Eulerian. The aerosol dynamics calculations are one-way
coupled with the CFD calculations, namely the output of the CFD analysis consists input
for the aerosol dynamics calculations. In order to deal with the multiple time scales that
are involved, due to the presence of simultaneous aerosol dynamics processes and
transport processes, an operator splitting technique is employed along with an adaptive
31
time step procedure that accelerates significantly convergence. For the solution of
condensational growth a novel method was developed, named CICR (cubic interpolation
cumulative re-mapping). The CICR scheme is based on a combination of moving and
fixed particle size grids and a re-mapping process for the cumulative size distribution,
carried out with cubic spline interpolation. The use of moving size grid in association
with high order interpolation minimizes the numerical diffusion inherent in the solution
of condensational growth. Moreover, the use of the cumulative particle size distribution
enables the scheme to be number conservative.
Validation tests are performed using available analytical solutions of the general
dynamic equation for idealized cases, characterized, however, by sharp changes in the
size distribution. The comparisons showed that numerical diffusion is efficiently
combated even with a relatively coarse particle size grid resolution (less than 10 size
sections/decade), while sustaining stability.
The appropriateness of the CFD-based methodology is evaluated by reproducing
the numerically stringent case of nucleation-condensation in an experimental aerosol
reactor. Previous works, which dealt with the same problem by using standard CFD
techniques, failed to incorporate a sectional size distribution in a fully Eulerian,
multidimensional CFD calculation. The proposed methodology enabled this association.
Satisfactory results are obtained in terms of both number concentration and size
distribution at the outlet of the reactor. The method was found to be relatively fast and
robust, and provided more realistic results than other sectional-based methods, in
particular the moving center method. In the current application, the use of 10 size
sections/decade removed practically numerical diffusion. Good accuracy in the delicate
32
coupling between the competing processes of nucleation and condensation and vapor
depletion is achieved with 20 size sections/decade. The computational time was
reasonable in all cases considered. On a common personal computer (3 GHz Pentium IV,
1 GB) the running times were of the order of CPU-hour (typically, 0.7 ms per node per
time step). We conclude that the sectional method can be efficiently used in
multidimensional CFD-based aerosol simulations, by employing the proposed
methodology.
33
References
Alopaeus, V., Laakkonen, M., Aittamaa, J. (2006). Numerical solution of moment-
transformed population balance equation with fixed quadrature points. Chem. Eng. Sci.
61:4919-4929.
Analytic & Computational Research Inc. (ACRi) (2001). ANSWER User’s Manual.
Analytic & Computational Research Inc., Bel Air, California, (www.acricfd.com).
Brown, D.P., Kauppinen, E. I., Jokiniemi, J. K., Rubin, S. G., Biswas, P. (2006). A
method of moments based CFD model for polydisperse aerosol flows with strong
interphase mass and heat transfer. Comput. Fluids. 35: 762-780.
Drossinos, Y. and Housiadas, C. (2006). Aerosol Flows, in Multiphase Flow Handbook,
C. T. Crowe, ed, CRC press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fletcher, C. A. J. (1991). Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Friedlander (2000). Smoke, dust and haze. John Wiley & Sons.
Fuchs, N. A. (1964). The mechanics of aerosols. New York: Dover Publication Inc.
34
Gelbard, F. (1990). Modeling multicomponent aerosol particle growth by vapor
condensation. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 12:399-412.
Gelbard, F., Tambour, Y., & Seinfeld, J. H. (1980). Sectional representation for
simulating aerosol dynamics. J. Colloid Int. Sci. 76: 541-536.
Girshick, E. R., & Chiu, C.-P. (1990). Kinetic nucleation theory: A new expression for
the rate of homogeneous nucleation from ideal supersaturated vapor. J. Chem. Phys.
93:1273-1277.
Frenkel, J. (1955). Kinetic Theory of Liquids. New York: Dover.
Hounslow, M. J., Ryall, R. L., Mrashall, V. R. (1988). A discretised population balance
for nucleation, growth and aggregation. A. I. Ch. E. Journal. 34:1821-1832.
Housiadas, C., Larrodé, F. E and Drossinos, Y. (2000). Convective diffusion in a tube
with non-uniform inlet conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 31:959-968.
Housiadas, C., Papanicolaou, E., Drossinos, Y. (2002). Combined heat and mass transfer
in laminar-flow diffusion nucleation chambers”, J. Aerosol Sci., 33: 797-816
35
Im, K. H., Ahluwalia, R. K. and Chuang, C.F. (1985). RAFT: A computer model for
formation and transport of fission product aerosols in LWR primary systems. Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 4: 125-140.
Jacobson, M. Z. (1997). Development and application of a new air pollution modeling
system.-II. Aerosol module structure and design. Atmos. Environ. 31:131-144.
Jacobson, M. Z., Turco, R. P., Jensen, E. J., Toon, O. B. (1994). Modeling coagulation
among particles of different composition and size. Atmos. Environ. 28:1327-1338.
Jeong, J. I. and Choi, M. (2003). Analysis of non-spherical polydisperse particle growth
in a two-dimensional tubular reactor. J. Aerosol Sci. 34:713-732.
Johannessen, T., Pratsinis, S.E., Livbjerg, H. (2000). Computational fluid particle
dynamics for the flame synthesis of alumina particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 55:177-191.
Jokiniemi, J., Lazaridis, M., Lehtinen, K. and Kauppinen, E. (1994). Numerical
simulation of vapour-aerosol dynamics in combustion processes. J. Aerosol Sci. 25:429-
446.
Kim, Y. P. and Seinfeld, J. H. (1990). Simulation of multicomponent aerosol
condensation by the moving sectional method. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 135: 185-199.
36
Kommu, S., Khonami, B., Biswas, P. (2004). Simulation of aerosol dynamics and
transport in chemically reacting particulate matter laden flows. Part I: Algorithm
development and validation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:345-358
Kommu, S., Khonami, B., Biswas, P. (2004). Simulation of aerosol dynamics and
transport in chemically reacting particulate matter laden flows. Part II: Application to
CVD reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:359-371
Korhonen, H, Lehtinen, K. E. J., Kulmala, M. (2004). Multicomponent aerosol dynamics
model UHMA: model development and validation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 4: 757-771.
Leonard, B. P. (1979). A stable and accurate convective modeling procedure based on
quadratic upstream interpolation. Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 19:59-98.
Lu, S.-Y., Lin, H.-C., Lin, C.-H. (1999). Modeling particle growth and deposition in a
tubular CVD reactor. J. Cryst. Growth. 200:527-542.
Lurmann, F. W., Wexler, A. S., Pandis, S. N., Musarra, S., Kumar, N., Seinfeld, J. H.
(1997). Modelling urban and regional aerosols- II. Application to California’s south coast
air basin. Atmos. Environ. 31:2695-2715.
37
Marchisio, D. L., Vigil, R. D., Fox, R. O. (2003). Implementation of the quadrature
method of moments in CFD codes for aggregation-breakage problems. Chem. Eng. Sci.
58:3337-3351.
Mason, B. J. (1971). The physics of clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McGraw, R. (1997). Description of Aerosol Dynamics by the Quadrature Method of
Moments. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 27: 255-265.
McGraw, R., Wright, D. L. (2003). Chemically resolved aerosol dynamics for internal
mixtures by the quadrature method of moments. J. Aerosol Sci. 34: 189-209.
Mitrakos, D., Mitsakou, C. & Housiadas, C. (2004). Simulation of laminar flow aerosol
reactor with a 1-D sectional aerosol model, J. Aerosol Sci. 35: S895-S896
Mitsakou, C., Helmis, C. and Housiadas, C. (2004). Extrathoracic and thoracic deposition
of inhaled hygroscopic particles. J. Aerosol. Sci. 35:S1127-S1128.
Mühlenweg, H., Gutsch, A., Schild, A., & Pratsinis, S. E. (2002). Process simulation of
gas-to-particle-synthesis via population balances: Investigation of three models. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 57: 2305-2322.
38
Nguyen, H. V., Okuyama, K., Mimura, T., Kousaka, Y., Flagan, R. C., and Seinfeld, J. H.
(1987). Homogeneous and heterogeneous nucleation in a laminar flow reactor. J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 119:491-504.
Oran, E. S. and Boris, J. P. (2001). Numerical simulation of reactive flow (2nd ed.),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, K. S., Lee, B. W., and Choi, M. (1999). An analysis of aerosol dynamics in the
modified chemical vapor deposition. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 31:258-274.
Park, S. H. and Rogak, S. N. (2004). A novel fixed-sectional model for the formation and
growth of aerosol agglomerates. J. Aerosol Sci. 35:1385-1404.
Patankar, S. V. (1980). Numerical Heat Tranfer and Fluid Flow. Taylor & Fransis.
Pesthy, A. J., Flagan, R. C. & Seinfeld, J. H. (1983). Theory of Aerosol Formation
and Growth in Laminar Flow. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 91:525-545.
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1994). Numerical
recipes in fortran: the art of scientific computing (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
39
Pyykönen, J. and Jokiniemi, J. (2000). Computational fluid based sectional aerosol
modelling schemes. J. Aerosol Sci, 31: 531-550.
Pyykönen, J., Enriquez, J., Brown, D. and Jokiniemi, J. K. (2002). Exploring the limits of
the sectional approach in the CFD based simulation of aerosol dynamics. 6th
International Aerosol Conference, Abstracts. Taipei, 9-13 Sept. 2002. International
Aerosol Research Assembly (2002), p. 569-570.
Ramabhadran, T. E., Peterson, T. W., & Seinfeld, J. H. (1976). Dynamics of aerosols
coagulation and condensation. A. I. Ch. E. Journal, 22: 840-851.
Rosner, D. E. and Pyykönen, J. J. (2002). Bivariate moment simulation of coagulating
and sintering nanoparticles in flames. A. I. Ch. E. Journal, 48: 476-491.
Runchal, A. K. (1972). Convergence and Accuracy of Three Finite Difference Schemes
for a Two-Dimensional Conduction and Convection Problem. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng.,
4:541-550.
Runchal, A. K. (1987a). Theory and Application of the PORFLOW Model for Analysis
of Coupled Fluid Flow, Heat and Radionuclide Transport in Porous Media, in Coupled
Processes Associated with Nuclear Waste Repositories. Tsang, C.F., Ed., Academic
Press.
40
Schild, A., Cutsch, A., Mühlenweg, H., and Pratsinis, S. E. (1999). Simulation of
nanoparticle production in premixed aerosol flow reactors by interfacing fluid mechanics
and particle dynamics. J. Nanopart. Res. 1: 305-315.
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N. (1998). Atmospheric chemistry and Physics, John Wiley
& Sons. New York.
Schwade, B., Roth, P. (2003). Simulation of nano-particle formation in a wall-heated
aerosol reactor including coalescence. J. Aerosol Sci. 34:339-357 .
Spicer, P. T., Chaoul, O., Tsantilis, S., Pratsinis, S. E. (2002). Titania formation by TiCl4
gas oxidation, surface growth and coagulation. J. Aerosol Sci. 33:17-34.
Stratmann, F., & Whitby, E. (1989). Heterogeneous condensation in cooled laminar tube
flow: a comparison of two aerosol modeling techniques. J. Aerosol Sci. 20: 999-1002.
Talbot, L. Cheng, R, Schefer, R., Willis, D. (1980). Thermophoresis of particles in a
heated boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech., 101:737-758.
Tsantilis, S., Kammler, H. K., Pratsinis, S. E. (2002). Population balance modeling of
flame synthesis of titania nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57:2139-2156.
41
Whitby, E. and McMurry, P. (1997). Modal aerosol dynamics modelling. Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 27: 673-688
Wilck, M. and Stratmann, F. (1997). A 2-D multicomponent modal aerosol model and
its application to laminar flow reactors. J. Aerosol. Sci. 28: 959-972.
Yamamoto, M. (2004). A solver for aerosol condensation equation semi-Lagrangian
scheme with correction exactly conserving total particle number. Aerosol Sci. Technol.
38:1033-1043.
Zhang, Y. Seigneur, C., Seinfeld, J. H., Jacobson, M, Z. and Binkowski, F. S. (1999).
Simulation of aerosol dynamics: A comparative review of algorithms used in air quality
models. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 31:487-514.