Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation For Energy Utilization in Fuel Combustion

Advanced Topics in Science
and Technology in China
Shiquan Shan · Zhijun Zhou

Yanwei Zhang
Fundamentals of
Thermal Radiation for
Energy Utilization in
Fuel Combustion
Advanced Topics in Science and Technology
in China
Volume 67
Zhejiang University is one of the leading universities in China. In Advanced Topics
in Science and Technology in China, Zhejiang University Press and Springer jointly
publish monographs by Chinese scholars and professors, as well as invited authors
and editors from abroad who are outstanding experts and scholars in their fields.
This series will be of interest to researchers, lecturers, and graduate students alike.
Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China aims to present the latest
and most cutting-edge theories, techniques, and methodologies in various research
areas in China. It covers all disciplines in the fields of natural science and
technology, including but not limited to, computer science, materials science, the
life sciences, engineering, environmental sciences, mathematics, and physics.
This book series is indexed by both the Scopus and Compendex databases.
If you are interested in publishing your book in the series, please contact Violetta Xu
(Email: [email protected]) and Mengchu Huang (Email: mengchu.huang
@cn.springer.com).
Shiquan Shan · Zhijun Zhou · Yanwei Zhang
Fundamentals of Thermal
Radiation for Energy
Utilization in Fuel
Combustion
Shiquan Shan Zhijun Zhou
College of Energy Engineering College of Energy Engineering
Zhejiang University Zhejiang University
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Yanwei Zhang
College of Energy Engineering
Zhejiang University
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
ISSN 1995-6819 ISSN 1995-6827 (electronic)

Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China
ISBN 978-981-19-8310-8 ISBN 978-981-19-8311-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8311-5
Jointly published with Zhejiang University Press

The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the
print book from: Zhejiang University Press.
© Zhejiang University Press 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
At present, fuel combustion is still the significant way for energy utilization. A large
amount of thermal energy released in combustion is converted to electrical energy
through various thermal power cycles. Electrical energy drives related devices to
obtain work, heat, light, sound, and other human terminal needs. The process is
a mode with direct combustion plus a simple thermal power cycle. However, the
single thermal energy conversion neglects the matching of various energy qualities,
resulting in low-efficiency power generation. The energy conversion process involves
the energy quantity and energy-carrying form conversion. The energy-carrying forms
can be photons, electrons, and phonons. For example, the radiation energy, with
photons as carriers, is ignored in the traditional energy conversion. The combus-
tion process releases photon and thermal energy simultaneously, but the energy
quality differs. In high-temperature combustion, the cascade conversion of photon
and thermal energy aligns with the principle of matching energy quality and poten-
tial in the energy conversion process. This matching of energy quality and potential
can theoretically break through individual thermal energy conversion limitations,
effectively improving energy conversion efficiency.
Based on the academic idea of the photo-thermal energy cascade conversion in
fuel combustion, it is crucial to discuss the release characteristics of photo-thermal
energy in combustion. Among them, photo energy refers to the radiative energy which
transfers in the form of electromagnetic waves during combustion process. In heat
transfer field, there is a relatively complete system on the research of thermal radia-
tion, and many radiative characteristic models and calculation methods for radiation
transfer have been proposed. However, few studies on thermodynamics and thermal
radiation exist from the perspective of direct utilization of thermal radiative energy
in fuel combustion. This involves the theory of energy quality for spectral radiation,
as well as the transfer and prediction theory of radiative energy with different qual-
ities under complex combustion reaction conditions. Therefore, it is an extremely
valuable and interesting topic that studying thermal radiation from the perspective
of energy utilization.
v
vi Preface
When I studied for my doctorate, my supervisors, Prof. Zhijun Zhou and Prof.
Yanwei Zhang, provided vital inspiration on combustion thermal radiation and high-
lighted the significance of radiation energy use in combustion, which helped me start
my scientific research career and form the academic idea of photo-thermal energy
cascade conversion. In recent years, several innovative results obtained in this field
have made me fortunate to receive the Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award of
Zhejiang University and be selected for the National Postdoctoral Innovative Talent
Support Program of China. Therefore, I plan to summarize our scientific research
results and academic thoughts and write a monograph for academic dissemination.
Thus, this book, Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation for Energy Utilization in Fuel
Combustion, was published. This monograph focuses on the thermal radiation in
fuel combustion based on the theoretical ideas of photo-thermal energy cascade
conversion. The monograph introduces thermal radiation theories developed by the
author’s group based on radiative energy use, and a theoretical system is initially
formed, providing a basis for subsequent research and inspiration for scholars in
related fields.
While drafting this book, Prof. Zhang and Prof. Zhou reviewed the full text and
provided valuable suggestions. Moreover, during my Ph.D. study, I was fortunate
to be sponsored by the China Scholarship Council to study at the Georgia Insti-
tute of Technology with Prof. Zhuomin Zhang, an expert in thermal radiation and
heat transfer, and benefited a lot. Moreover, Prof. Kefa Cen, the academician of
Chinese Academy of Engineering, gives key guidance and strongly supports to this
project. I would like to express my gratitude to them. The National Postdoctoral
Innovative Talent Support Program of China (BX2021254) and the China Postdoc-
toral Science Foundation (2021M702793) primarily funded this monograph. Besides,
the Ningxia Provincial Key Research and Development Program (2018BCE01004)
partially funded it. Moreover, three graduate students in our group, Ms. Siqi Jia, Ms.
Qiaoli Li, and Ms. Jialu Tian, translated and proofread some manuscripts. I express
my gratitude to them all.
Hangzhou, China Shiquan Shan

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Photo-Thermal Energy Cascade Conversion for Fuel
Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Key Issues of Combustion Thermal Radiation for Energy
Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Theory of Radiation Energy Quality Theory for Fuel
Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Thermal Radiation Model of Non-gray Gas Medium
in Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Radiative Energy Characteristics of High-Temperature
Oxy-Fuel Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Objective and Organization of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Spectral Radiation Thermodynamic Theory for Combustion . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Exergy of Blackbody Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.1 Several Representative Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Discussion on the Reversibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.3 Differences Among the Three Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.4 Radiation Engine Model for Discussing the Exergy
of Blackbody Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Exergy of Monochromatic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1 Discussion of the Exergy of Monochromatic Photons . . . . . . 21
2.2.2 Discussion About the Formula of Equivalent
Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.3 Discussion About Radiation from the Combustion
Flame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3 Entropy of Spectral Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vii
viii Contents
3 Gas Radiation Model Under Complex Combustion Conditions . . . . . 33

3.1 Non-gray Gas Radiation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1.1 SNB Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1.2 WSGG Model and Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1.3 Solving the Radiation Transfer Equation Coupled Gas
Radiation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Development of WSGG Model Under Complex Combustion
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 New WSGG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2 Fitting Process of WSGG Model Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 WSGG Model Coefficients for Complex Combustion
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3 Model Calculation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.1 Design of Investigated Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.2 Emissivity Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3.3 One-Dimensional Case Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3.4 Effect of Pressure on Radiation Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4 Thermodynamic Calculation of Radiative Energy
in Combustion Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Thermodynamic Theory of Spectral Radiation Transfer
in Combustion Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1.1 Comments on Monochromatic Radiative Exergy
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1.2 Spectral Radiative Exergy Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.3 Spectral Radiative Entropy Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.4 Thermodynamic Relationship Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.1.5 Numerical Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2 Radiation Energy Characteristics in Combustion Medium
of 1-D Furnace Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.1 One-Dimensional Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.2 Comparison of Different Gas Radiation Models’
Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.3 Effect of Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2.4 Effect of Gas Molar Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.5 Effect of Particle Number Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5 Radiative Energy Characteristics of Solid Fuel Combustion . . . . . . . . 79
5.1 Multi-scale experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1.1 Tube Furnace Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1.2 The Small Hencken Flat-Flame Burner Experiment . . . . . . . 83
5.2 Experimental Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Contents ix
5.2.1 Tube Furnace Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.2.2 Small Flat-Flame Burner Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3 Numerical Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3.1 Design of One-Dimensional Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3.2 Numerical Verification Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Chapter 1
Introduction
As energy consumption increases and environmental problems worsen, efficient

and clean power generation will be the critical technical foundation for resolving
energy and environmental issues and achieving carbon neutrality. The theory and
method of efficient energy conversion have captivated the world’s attention. Scien-
tists in thermophysics now understand that the energy conversion process includes
not only the release of energy but also the change of the energy-carrying form. The
energy-carrying forms can be photons, electrons, phonons, and so on. Some of the
energy-carrying forms (e.g., photo/radiative energy with photons as the carrier) are
ignored in the thermal conversion process based on fuel combustion. For the energy
conversion process with multiple energy types, actively designing the corresponding
technical route based on the principle of energy quality matching is necessary to
realize the cascade and orderly utilization of energy with different qualities, and
thus effectively reduce energy quality loss. The critical issue in the energy field is
the scientific theory and method of energy orderly conversion considering different
energy-carrying forms.
1.1 Photo-Thermal Energy Cascade Conversion for Fuel

Combustion
The primary way humans use energy is through the generation of thermal energy
through fuel combustion. Through high-temperature fuel combustion, a large amount
of thermal energy is released, which is then used to generate electric energy
through various thermal power cycles. However, the energy production process based
on the thermal power cycle does not consider energy quality matching, and the
energy released by fuel combustion is only utilized in the form of thermal energy.
However, the highest parameters of the thermal power cycle limit the system’s energy
conversion efficiency.
© Zhejiang University Press 2023 1

S. Shan et al., Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation for Energy Utilization in Fuel
Combustion, Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China 67,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8311-5_1
2 1 Introduction
During the combustion process, the chemical energy in the fuel is converted into
photo energy and thermal energy. The term photo energy refers to both visible and
invisible light (e.g., ultraviolet and infrared) [1], i.e., radiative energy. The heat energy
mentioned here primarily refers to non-radiative heat energy transferred during
the combustion process. From a thermodynamic standpoint, the energy released
by combustion is not limited to having both a quantitative and qualitative char-
acter. Combustion produces both photo and thermal energy, but their qualities differ.
Additionally, photo energy has spectral characteristics, and spectral radiation with
different wavelengths has different energy quality. Short-wavelength radiation has
high energy quality and can directly excite the photovoltaic conversion device. Thus,
carrying out cascade and orderly conversion of photo-thermal energy of various qual-
ities is necessary: the high-grade radiative energy from high-temperature combustion
should be converted step-by-step into electrical energy following the frequency, and
the low-grade thermal energy should be further utilized through thermal power gener-
ation to establish a new photo-thermal energy cascade conversion system (Fig. 1.1),
which will greatly improve energy conversion efficiency compared with traditional
thermal power cycle [2, 3].
Flame radiation results from high-temperature combustion, and high-temperature
energy has higher quality. Thus, the technical route of cascade conversion of photo-
thermal energy conforms to thermodynamic principles and is an innovative idea to
overcome the limitation of the efficiency of single thermal power conversion. Melino
et al. [4, 5] used the radiative energy generated by the high combustion temperature
to power photovoltaic conversion, and the remaining thermal energy in flue gas is
used to power the Organic Rankine Cycle. Filters can also control and shape the
Fig. 1.1 Schematic diagram of photo-thermal cascade conversion of fuel combustion

1.1 Photo-Thermal Energy Cascade Conversion for Fuel Combustion 3
flame radiation spectrum, and the optimized photo-electric conversion efficiency

can reach >50% [6], which is higher than that of the conventional thermal power
cycle. Thus, the performance potential of photo-thermal energy cascade conversion
system outperforms that of the single thermal power conversion system. Further-
more, the author’s group proposed an innovative integrated system concept based on
oxy-fuel combustion between a thermophotovoltaic device and a Brayton-Rankine
combined cycle [2], claiming that the system can improve efficiency by about 20%
compared with the thermal power cycle with similar parameters. Based on this, a
photo-thermal cascade conversion system [3] that directly utilizes the spectral radia-
tive energy of fuel combustion is proposed, and the theoretical superiority of the
system is demonstrated. This system’s schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 1.2.
Pure oxygen is mixed with a certain proportion of recycled flue gas (CO2 -based)
and fed into the furnace chamber as a combustion-supporting atmosphere in oxyfuel
combustion technology. As a CO2 control technology in combustion progress, this
technology is strategically important for achieving the goal of carbon neutrality [7].
It should be noted that oxyfuel combustion can achieve much higher temperatures
Fig. 1.2 The photo-thermal cascade conversion system that directly utilizes the spectral radiative
energy of combustion flame [3]. Reprinted from Shan et al. [3], Copyright (2019), with permission
from John Wiley and Sons
4 1 Introduction
than conventional air combustion under the conditions of increased oxygen concen-
tration or even directly using pure oxygen [8]. If the thermal power cycle will be
continued to be directly used for electricity generation in high-temperature oxy-fuel
combustion, the high energy quality will be wasted due to the thermal power cycle’s
maximum parameters. Furthermore, the high-temperature of oxy-fuel combustion
generates a significant amount of radiative energy. Thus, a photo-thermal energy
cascade conversion system based on oxy-fuel combustion can be built by prioritizing
radiative energy cascade conversion, followed by thermal power cycle conversion.
It not only controls CO2 emissions in fuel combustion, in line with the strategic
goal of carbon neutrality, but it also effectively matches energy quality and potential,
theoretically improving energy conversion efficiency.
Given the preceding concept and the prevalence of energy conversion through
fuel combustion, the development of combustion thermal radiation theory based on
the background of photo-thermal energy cascade utilization is not only important
for guiding the combustion-based photo-thermal energy cascade conversion system
but can also enrich the theoretical system of thermal radiation. These primarily
include the radiative energy quality theory, an efficient radiation calculation model
for complex combustion conditions, and the mechanism of radiative energy release
and distribution in the combustion process. Section 1.2 will go over these in greater
detail.
1.2 Key Issues of Combustion Thermal Radiation

for Energy Utilization
1.2.1 Theory of Radiation Energy Quality Theory for Fuel

Combustion
Radiative energy in fuel combustion has spectral characteristics, and spectral radi-
ation with different wavelengths have different energy qualities. To use radiative
energy more efficiently, analyzing its quality from the standpoint of thermodynamics
is necessary, thus quantitatively evaluating the value of radiative energy and guiding
the cascade conversion of high-temperature radiative energy. Exergy is used in ther-
modynamics to describe the quality of energy, which refers to the usable part, also
known as available energy. When compared with energy analysis, exergy analysis
can describe not only the quantity but also the quality of energy. Consequently, the
analysis of thermal radiation processes using the second law of thermodynamics
is of unique significance. On the one hand, radiation is the primary heat transfer
mode in high-temperature equipment, and second law analysis of radiation aids in
investigating the entropy production and exergy loss of high-temperature combustion
equipment, allowing the high-temperature energy conversion system to be evaluated
and optimized more rationally. The second law, on the other hand, can be used to
accurately analyze exergy in radiation transfer process within different wavebands,
1.2 Key Issues of Combustion Thermal Radiation for Energy Utilization 5
which further guides energy management with different energy grades to achieve
efficient exergy conversion.
Radiation, as an electromagnetic wave, has wavelength and frequency. Moreover,
as a way of heat transfer, it has entropy and exergy properties similar to thermal
energy. Radiative energy has its distinct characteristics, which distinguishes it from
thermal energy. Wright [9] identified the difference between the entropy of radiation
heat transfer and the entropy of heat conduction processes. Liu and Chu [10] inves-
tigated the expression of entropy production of the heat transfer process and discov-
ered that the conventional formula of entropy production rate for heat conduction is
ineffective for radiative heat transfer.
The blackbody radiation exergy theory proposed by Petela at the University of
Silesia in Poland in his early years [11], Spanner’s theory based on solar radiation
research [12], and the Carnot efficiency theory proposed by Jeter of Georgia Institute
of Technology [13] are representative views for the exergy of blackbody radiation.
The theoretical core of the three is the coefficient of radiation exergy-to-exergy ratio,
which is summarized in Table 1.1. Bejan [14] proposed some thought-provoking
discussions on all three, which will be introduced and discussed in depth in Chap. 2
of this book. Currently, scholars generally accept Petela’s blackbody radiation exergy
formula. Candau [15] also proposed a derivation of the intensity of spectral radiation
exergy based on Planck’s formula for entropy intensity of monochromatic radiation
and the concept of radiation temperature for spectral radiation exergy. Based on
the concept of equivalent temperature, Chen et al. [16] proposed a corresponding
calculation formula for monochromatic photon exergy. These studies ignored the
distinction between radiative and thermal energy.
Lior [17] previously reviewed the exergy calculation in the radiation transfer
process, but the radiative exergy problem was rarely considered in early studies.
Caldas and Semiao [18] were the first to consider entropy production in radiative
transfer calculations and they separately analyzed entropy production by emission,
absorption, and scattering processes in the media radiative transfer. Liu and Chu [19]
investigated the radiative exergy transfer in the media on this basis. These studies’
models are compatible with a standard method for solving radiative transfer equa-
tions. Based on these hypotheses, Zhang et al. [20, 21] investigated various entropy
generations, including thermal radiation in conditions (e.g., mixed flue gas and hydro-
carbon fuel combustion) and discovered that soot has a greater effect on radiative
Table 1.1 Comparison of various blackbody radiation exergy theories

Researcher Year Formula of radiation Evaluation
exergy-to-energy ratio
4
Petela [11] 1964 η = 1 − 43 TT0 + 13 TT0 Output useful work with radiative
energy as input
4 T0
Spanner [12] 1964 η =1− 3 T Output absolute work with radiative
energy as input
T0
Jeter [13] 1981 η =1− T Using Carnot heat engine efficiency
6 1 Introduction
entropy generation. These studies used the radiation temperature concept [22] and
expressed the spectral radiative entropy using a formula similar to the Carnot thermal
efficiency, which is intended for calculating the entropy generation of the radiation
heat transfer. In fact, the exergy of thermal energy in the form of Carnot’s law is not
suitable for characterizing radiative entropy and exergy, and the radiation tempera-
ture is a relatively macroscopic concept that is not used to directly characterize the
quality of monochromatic radiation energy. Thus, the monochromatic spectral radi-
ation itself must be considered to better characterize the monochromatic radiation
exergy.
1.2.2 Thermal Radiation Model of Non-gray Gas Medium

in Combustion
Large amounts of high-temperature triatomic gases were noted in the combustion

process, and accurate prediction of their non-gray radiative properties is important
for scientific research. The radiation properties and radiative heat transfer of the
media are critical scientific issues because of the higher proportion of triatomic
gases (e.g., CO2 and H2 O) in an oxy-fuel combustion atmosphere. Experiments
were used to determine radiation parameters (e.g., emissivity and absorptivity of
gas media in the early year) and then the emissivity tables of H2 O and CO2 were
summarized based on the experimental data. The heat transfer field introduced the
theory of atoms and molecules to study gas radiation after the middle of the twentieth
century due to the development of aerospace technology. Simultaneously, the line
by line method (LBL) and the spectral band model method appeared, based on the
atmospheric radiation research methods. Subsequent developments have resulted in
global models as illustrated in Fig. 1.3.
The LBL method uses quantum mechanical principles and formulas to establish
the relationship between gas spectral parameters and gas absorption coefficients,
emissivity, and so on. The LBL method is the most accurate non-gray radiation model
in principle but it requires the use of a gas spectral database. The LBL method has
the disadvantage of being too computationally intensive to be used in actual compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, thus it is frequently used as a benchmark
to verify the accuracy of other models. The HITRAN [23] and HITEMP databases
are the most widely used spectral databases; the most recent HITEMP database
contains millions of hotlines [24]. Its maximum application temperature is up to
3000 K, making it suitable for thermal radiation calculations in high-temperature
engineering.
The waveband model divides the spectrum into a series of wide or narrow band
intervals and uses the average absorption coefficient within each band to calcu-
late the overall spectrum absorption coefficient. Waveband models are classified
as narrowband and wideband models (the wavenumber interval of the narrowband
1.2 Key Issues of Combustion Thermal Radiation for Energy Utilization 7
Fig. 1.3 Classification of gas non-gray radiation models
model is typically 5–50 cm−1 ), with the typical narrow band models being a statis-
tical narrowband model (SNB) [25] and statistical narrowband correlated-k model
(SNBCK) [26]. Although the SNB model is computationally intensive, results from
the SNB model based on the EM2C Lab database are very similar to those of the
accurate LBL model based on the HITEMP2010 database, and thus it can be used
as a benchmark [27]. In general, the wideband model interval is 100–1000 cm−1 .
The most common are the exponential wideband (EWB) model [28], the wideband
k-distribution (WBK) model [29], and so on.
The global model is primarily concerned with radiative heat flux, with less
emphasis placed on spectrum characteristics. The global model can significantly
reduce calculation time while also meeting the accuracy requirements for engineering
calculations, making it suitable for CFD calculations. Typical global models include
the full spectrum k-distribution (FSK) model [30], the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases
(WSGG) model [31], and the spectral line-based WSGG model (SLW) [32]. The
basic idea behind the WSGG model is to substitute several gray gases for the actual
non-gray gas. This method’s principle is simple and its calculation efficiency is very
high; it can be combined with various radiation transfer equation solution methods,
giving it a wide range of adaptability. After considering calculation time and accuracy,
the WSGG model is the best gas radiation model for current combustion calculation
and research [33].
Smith et al. [31] developed a set of WSGG model parameters based on the
SNB model for air–fuel combustion conditions. However, the flue gases in oxy-
fuel combustion contain a high concentration of triatomic gases (e.g., CO2 ) which
have different radiation properties than air–fuel combustion. Thus, the traditional
WSGG model applied to air–fuel combustion is inapplicable to oxy-fuel combus-
tion [34]. In recent years, researchers have developed various WSGG models for
oxy-fuel combustion conditions. Based on the EWB model, Khare [35] established
8 1 Introduction
WSGG model parameters for oxy-fuel conditions and discovered that the gas emis-
sivity in oxy-fuel conditions is underestimated when using the traditional WSGG
model parameters in [31]. Yin [36] developed a new WSGG model using the EWB
model as a benchmark. Additionally, Johansson et al. [37] developed a new WSGG
model using the SNB model of the EM2C database as a benchmark. Later, Kang-
wanpongpan et al. [38], Dorigon et al. [39], and Bordbar et al. [40], presented their
respective models based on the more accurate HITEMP2010 database. The models
presented above were all designed for oxy-fuel combustion at atmospheric pres-
sures. Future studies should focus on developing WSGG models for gas radiation
that covers a wider range of pressures, temperatures, and atmospheres for complex
reaction conditions (e.g., pressurized oxy-fuel combustion and combustion in aero
engines).
1.2.3 Radiative Energy Characteristics of High-Temperature

Oxy-Fuel Combustion
Because of the special temperature and atmospheric conditions in oxy-fuel combus-

tion with high-temperature, the radiation energy contained in the combustion process
is greater than that in the air–fuel combustion, making it suitable for the effec-
tive utilization of the radiation energy in combustion. Consequently, scholars have
conducted extensive studies on the radiation properties of oxy-fuel combustion
flames, which is also significant for the effective utilization of radiation energy in
oxy-fuel combustion.
To consider the radiation heat transfer characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion [41],
a 1.2-MW pilot plant is being built in IHI of Japan to study the oxy-fuel combustion of
pulverized coal. The experiment was conducted in O2 /CO2 and air atmospheres with
high-volatile bituminous coal. Heat exchange tubes were installed in the furnace’s
radiative area to simulate the real heat exchange equipment in the furnace, and the
absorption energy of heat exchange tubes was measured as flame radiation heat
transfer. According to the findings, oxy-fuel combustion with 27%O2 /CO2 atmo-
sphere under wet flue gas recycling has similar radiation heat transfer character-
istics to air–fuel combustion. Thus, they proposed that the oxygen concentration
in the actual oxy-fuel combustion boiler be controlled to ensure similar radiation
heat transfer characteristics as conventional combustion. Furthermore, Andersson
et al. investigated the flame characteristics of propane combustion in an O2 /CO2
atmosphere, building a 100-kW oxy-fuel combustion test rig with flue gas recycling
at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden [42, 43]. The results show that the
combustion temperature is similar to that of air–fuel combustion under 27% O2 /CO2 ,
but the flame radiation intensity is increased. The emissivity of flame at 21% and
27% oxygen concentrations differs from that of air–fuel combustion, and the radia-
tion intensity of flame at 27% oxygen concentration increases by ~30%. Ash radiation
1.3 Objective and Organization of This Book 9
is believed to contribute more to the O2 /CO2 atmosphere than the known contribu-
tion of elevated partial pressure of CO2 . The presence of CO2 not only increases
gas radiation but also has a significant impact on the formation of soot and its flame
radiation. Following that, Andersson et al. [44] continued to investigate the radiation
characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion flame of lignite on this furnace, discovering
that the flame temperature and total radiation intensity will increase as the oxygen
proportion in the atmosphere increases from 25 to 29%. When oxy-fuel combustion
is used instead of air–fuel combustion, the ratio of gas radiation to total radiation
increases slightly. Thus, the authors concluded that the majority of the radiation in
lignite flames is emitted by flame particles. In recent years, researchers have devel-
oped numerical cases to simulate the physical field in a furnace using the radiation
transfer equation. Gronarz et al. [45] investigated the coupling relationship between
gas radiation and particle radiation in an oxy-fuel combustion boiler for pulverized
coal. The findings show that particle emissivity had a significant impact on radiation
intensity. Adams et al. [46] established a two-dimensional furnace case for pulver-
ized coal combustion and calculated the influence of pressure on the radiative heat
flux of oxy-fuel combustion. The findings indicate that increasing pressure within
10 atm can increase radiative heat flux.
The preceding studies contribute to a better understanding of the radiation char-
acteristics of fuel combustion. The results show that oxy-fuel combustion can effec-
tively improve the proportion of radiation energy in combustion, and the radiative
heat flux can be effectively managed by adjusting the combustion parameters, which
is conducive to efficient radiation energy utilization. The majority of current studies
focus on the effects of fuel type and oxygen concentration on the radiative heat
transfer properties of oxy-fuel combustion. The spectral radiation characteristics
in combustion processes and their influence mechanism are important issues to
investigate in the future in terms of radiation energy utilization.
1.3 Objective and Organization of This Book
The goal of this book is to present, for the first time, academic thoughts on photo-
thermal energy cascade conversion of fuel combustion. Based on this, with a focus
on thermal radiation in fuel combustion, this book will primarily introduce a series
of thermal radiation theories for radiative energy utilization on recent studies of the
authors’ group, forming an initial theory system. This serves as the foundation for
future studies while also inspiring scholars in related fields with academic thought
and scientific theory.
The following key scientific problems on combustion thermal radiation must be
solved to achieve the goal of efficient and scientific utilization of high-temperature
combustion energy. (1) No reasonable method exists to evaluate radiation energy
quality, particularly the energy quality theory of monochromatic radiation for fuel
combustion, so expanding the radiation thermodynamics theory is critical. (2) A lack
of an efficient model suitable for a wide parameter range was noted in the calculation
10 1 Introduction
of gas radiation characteristics under complex combustion conditions, particularly

under pressurized combustion conditions. (3) Currently, few studies were noted on
combustion radiation from the standpoint of energy utilization, particularly for oxy-
fuel combustion conditions. This book presents the study findings of authors’ group
on the aforementioned key problems. Figure 1.4 depicts the relationship of the main
contents of this book. The fundamentals of thermal radiation for energy utilization in
fuel combustion are divided into three sections: Thermodynamic theory of spectral
radiation for combustion (Chap. 2), Gas radiation model under complex combus-
tion conditions (Chap. 3), and Radiative energy characteristics of fuel combustion
(Chaps. 4 and 5).
Chapter 2 introduces the spectral radiation thermodynamic theory for combustion.
Based on summarizing and evaluating existing radiation thermodynamics theories, a
radiation engine model is developed to analyze the blackbody radiative exergy based
on the belief that radiative energy and thermal energy are different. Furthermore,
a novel infinite-staged Carnot heat engine model based on the concept of radiation
equivalent temperature is established, and an integral expression of monochromatic
radiative exergy is proposed. In addition, the integral expression of monochromatic
radiative entropy is provided. It serves as a theoretical foundation for the subsequent
analysis of combustion radiation characteristics in terms of energy utilization.
Chapter 3 introduces the gas radiation model under complex combustion condi-
tions. The method for the development of the WSGG model is summarized in detail
based on the introduction of non-gray gas radiation models (e.g., SNB and WSGG
Fig. 1.4 The relationship diagram of the main chapters of this book
References 11
models), and the WSGG model structure is improved to make it compatible with
parameters in a wider pressure range. Furthermore, based on the benchmark of
the SNB model in the EM2C laboratory, a new WSGG model and coefficients
for complex combustion conditions are developed. The new WSGG model and
coefficients can produce accurate and efficient calculation results.
Chapter 4 discusses the calculation method and characteristics of radiation exergy
in participating medium of fuel combustion. Firstly, the theory of monochromatic
radiation exergy proposed in Chap. 2 is combined with the radiation transfer equa-
tion, establishing the monochromatic radiation entropy and radiation exergy transfer
equations and verifying the calculation method based on the second law of thermody-
namics. Following that, a one-dimensional furnace case is simulated to calculate the
spectral radiation energy characteristics of the participating medium in fuel combus-
tion, providing a foundation for numerical calculation of combustion radiation for
energy utilization.
Chapter 5 is the radiation energy characteristics of solid fuel combustion. Based
on the experimental platforms of the tubular furnace and the small flat-flame burner,
it introduces the radiation energy characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion with various
solid fuels, including pulverized coal and semi-coke. The effect of reaction condi-
tions on the radiation energy and spectral properties is investigated. Furthermore, the
radiation exergy and its spectral properties are investigated using the radiation ther-
modynamics theory proposed in Chap. 2. The findings are useful in understanding
and controlling radiative energy in fuel combustion.
References
1. Modest MF (2013) Radiative heat transfer. Academic Press

2. Shan S, Zhou Z, Cen K (2019) An innovative integrated system concept between oxy-
fuel thermo-photovoltaic device and a Brayton-Rankine combined cycle and its preliminary
thermodynamic analysis. Energy Convers Manage 180:1139–1152
3. Shan S, Zhou Z, Wang Z et al (2020) A novel flame energy grading conversion system: prelim-
inary experiment and thermodynamic parametric analysis. Int J Energy Res 44(3):2084–2099
4. De Pascale A, Ferrari C, Melino F et al (2012) Integration between a thermophotovoltaic
generator and an organic Rankine cycle. Appl Energy 97:695–703
5. Barbieri E, De Pascale A, Ferrari C et al (2012) Performance evaluation of the integration
between a thermo-photo-voltaic generator and an organic Rankine cycle. J Eng Gas Turbines
Power 134(10):102301
6. Burger T, Sempere C, Roy-Layinde B et al (2020) Present efficiencies and future opportunities
in thermophotovoltaics. Joule 4(8):1660–1680
7. Chen L, Yong SZ, Ghoniem AF (2012) Oxy-fuel combustion of pulverized coal: char-
acterization, fundamentals, stabilization and CFD modeling. Prog Energy Combust Sci
38(2):156–214
8. Fu Z, Zhang S, Li X et al (2015) MSW oxy-enriched incineration technology applied in China:
combustion temperature, flue gas loss and economic considerations. Waste Manage 38:149–156
9. Wright S (2007) Comparative analysis of the entropy of radiative heat transfer and heat
conduction. Int J Thermodyn 10(1):27–35
10. Liu LH, Chu SX (2006) On the entropy generation formula of radiation heat transfer processes.
J Heat Transfer 128(5):504–506
12 1 Introduction
11. Petela R (1964) Exergy of heat radiation. J Heat Transfer 86(2):187–192

12. Spanner DC (1964) Introduction to thermodynamics. Academic Press
13. Jeter SM (1981) Maximum conversion efficiency for the utilization of direct solar radiation.
Sol Energy 26(3):231–236
14. Bejan A (1987) Unification of three different theories concerning the ideal conversion of
enclosed radiation. J Sol Energy Eng 109(1):46–51
15. Candau Y (2003) On the exergy of radiation. Sol Energy 75(3):241–247
16. Chen Z, Mo S (2007) Effective temperature and exergy of monochromic blackbody radiation.
Progr Nat Sci-Mater Int 17(10):1250–1254
17. Lior N, Sarmiento-Darkin W, Al-Sharqawi HS (2006) The exergy fields in transport processes:
their calculation and use. Energy 31(5):553–578
18. Caldas M, Semiao V (2005) Entropy generation through radiative transfer in participating
media: analysis and numerical computation. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 96(3–4):423–
437
19. Liu LH, Chu SX (2007) Radiative exergy transfer equation. J Thermophys Heat Transfer
21(4):819–822
20. Zhang Z, Lou C, Li Z et al (2020) Evaluation of radiative entropy generation in a high temper-
ature system including H2 O, CO2 and soot with non-gray wall. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat
Transfer 253:107175
21. Zhang Z, Lou C, Long Y et al (2021) Thermodynamics second-law analysis of hydrocarbon
diffusion flames: effects of soot and temperature. Combust Flame 234:111618
22. Bejan A (2016) Advanced engineering thermodynamics. Wiley, Hoboken
23. Rothman LS, Gordon IE, Babikov Y et al (2013) The HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic
database. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 130:4–50
24. Rothman LS, Gordon IE, Barber RJ et al (2010) HITEMP, the high-temperature molecular
spectroscopic database. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 111(15):2139–2150
25. Malkmus W (1967) Random Lorentz band model with exponential-tailed S−1 line-intensity
distribution function. JOSA 57(3):323–329
26. Liu F, Smallwood G, Gulder O (1999) Radiation heat transfer calculations using the SNBCK
method. In: 33rd Thermophysics Conference, p 3679
27. Chu H, Gu M, Consalvi JL et al (2016) Effects of total pressure on non-gray gas radiation
transfer in oxy-fuel combustion using the LBL, SNB, SNBCK, WSGG, and FSCK methods. J
Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 172:24–35
28. Edwards DK (1976) Molecular gas band radiation. Adv Heat Transfer 12:115–193
29. Marin O, Buckius RO (1997) Wide band correlated-k approach to thermal radiative transport
in nonhomogeneous media. J Heat Transfer 119(4):719–729
30. Modest MF, Zhang H (2002) The full-spectrum correlated-k distribution for thermal radiation
from molecular gas-particulate mixtures. J Heat Transfer 124(1):30–38
31. Smith TF, Shen ZF, Friedman JN (1982) Evaluation of coefficients for the weighted sum of
gray gases model. J Heat Transfer 104(4):602–608
32. Denison MK, Webb BW (1993) A spectral line-based weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for
arbitrary RTE solvers 115(4):1004–1012
33. Becher V, Goanta A, Spliethoff H (2012) Validation of spectral gas radiation models under
oxyfuel conditions–Part C: validation of simplified models. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control
11:34–51
34. Gupta R, Khare S, Wall T et al (2006) Adaptation of gas emissivity models for CFD based radia-
tive transfer in large air-fired and oxy-fired furnaces. In: Proceedings of the 31st International
Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, pp 21–26
35. Khare S (2008) Heat transfer in air-fired pulverized fuel furnaces retrofitted to oxy-fuel coal.
University of Newcastle (Thesis)
36. Yin C, Johansen LCR, Rosendahl LA et al (2010) New weighted sum of gray gases model appli-
cable to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of oxy-fuel combustion: derivation,
validation, and implementation. Energy Fuels 24(12):6275–6282
References 13
37. Johansson R, Leckner B, Andersson K et al (2011) Account for variations in the H2 O to CO2
molar ratio when modeling gaseous radiative heat transfer with the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases
model. Combust Flame 158(5):893–901
38. Kangwanpongpan T, França FHR, da Silva RC et al (2012) New correlations for the weighted
sum of gray-gases model in oxy-fuel conditions based on HITEMP 2010 database. Int J Heat
Mass Transf 55(25–26):7419–7433
39. Dorigon LJ, Duciak G, Brittes R et al (2013) WSGG correlations based on HITEMP2010 for
computation of thermal radiation in non-isothermal, non-homogeneous H2 O/CO2 mixtures.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 64:863–873
40. Bordbar MH, W˛ecel G, Hyppänen T (2014) A line by line based weighted sum of gray
gases model for inhomogeneous CO2 –H2 O mixture in oxy-fired combustion. Combust Flame
161(9):2435–2445
41. Nozaki T, Takano S, Kiga T et al (1997) Analysis of the flame formed during oxidation of
pulverized coal by an O2 -CO2 mixture. Energy 22(2–3):199–205
42. Andersson K, Johnsson F (2007) Flame and radiation characteristics of gas-fired O2 /CO2
combustion. Fuel 86(5–6):656–668
43. Andersson K, Johansson R, Johnsson F et al (2008) Radiation intensity of propane-fired oxy-
fuel flames: implications for soot formation. Energy Fuels 22(3):1535–1541
44. Andersson K, Johansson R, Hjärtstam S et al (2008) Radiation intensity of lignite-fired oxy-fuel
flames. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 33(1):67–76
45. Gronarz T, Schulze J, Laemmerhold M et al (2017) Quantification of the influence of parameters
determining radiative heat transfer in an oxy-fuel operated boiler. Fuel Process Technol 157:76–
89
46. Adams BR, Hosler TR (2019) Pressure and particle property impacts on radiation in oxy-coal
combustion. Fuel 239:667–676
Chapter 2
Spectral Radiation Thermodynamic
Theory for Combustion
Radiative thermodynamic theory is very important in high-temperature engineering.

In this chapter, several expressions of blackbody radiation exergy are first discussed
before developing a radiation engine model based on the idea that radiative energy
and thermal energy are different. This model is also used to validate Petela’s formula.
Second, a novel infinite-staged Carnot heat engine model has been developed based
on the concept of radiation equivalent temperature as well as a monochromatic
photon exergy expression suitable for engineering applications. Finally, monochro-
matic photon entropy is discussed using the infinite-staged Carnot heat engine model
and provides an integral photon entropy expression. The monochromatic radiative
entropy and exergy proposed satisfy the thermodynamic relation and can reflect the
differences between radiative energy and thermal energy. The thermodynamic theory
of monochromatic radiation introduced in this chapter serves as a theoretical founda-
tion for the analysis of the radiative characteristics of fuel combustion in subsequent
chapters.
2.1 Exergy of Blackbody Radiation
2.1.1 Several Representative Views
Most researchers concentrate on blackbody radiation because it is the foundation

of thermal radiation. However, differing viewpoints were noted on the exergy of
blackbody radiation. Thus, some representative viewpoints are presented.
Revised from Zhou et al. Exergy of Blackbody Radiation and Monochromatic Photon, International
Journal of Thermophysics, Copyright (2017), with permission from Springer Nature.

16 2 Spectral Radiation Thermodynamic Theory for Combustion
Petela [1] proposed the following formula for blackbody radiation exergy at
temperature T in 1964
( )[ ]
4 1 W
bBR = σ T − T0 T 3 + T04
4
(2.1)
3 3 m2
where T 0 is the ambient temperature. Moreover, radiative exergy can be calculated via
multiplying energy by the radiative exergy coefficient, which is defined as the ratio of
exergy to energy. The blackbody radiation intensity of is σ T 4 and the corresponding
radiative exergy coefficient can be expressed as
( )
4 T0 1 T0 4
ηP = 1 − + (2.2)
3T 3 T
This is called Petela’s formula. According to Jeter [2], the radiative exergy coef-
ficient is equal to the Carnot efficiency as shown in Eq. (2.3). Some researchers have
also recognized this [3, 4].
T0
ηJ = 1 − (2.3)
T
Spanner proposes a radiation exergy coefficient based on the study of solar
radiation [5]
4 T0
ηS = 1 − (2.4)
3T
Petela’s study on radiation exergy is earlier and more persistent. Although each
formula is supported by some scholars, Eq. (2.1) is the most widely used formula,
and many researchers have amended or expanded on it [6–11].
2.1.2 Discussion on the Reversibility
In this section, the differences and relationships among the three radiation exergy
formulas are analyzed. At the same radiation temperature T and ambient temperature
T 0 (T > T 0 ), ηS < ηP < ηJ can be observed. The Carnot efficiency is the highest
reversible conversion efficiency for thermal energy. Thus, Jeter’s formula appears to
be reasonable if radiation is regarded as thermal energy. Furthermore, some scholars
believe that the reason why ηP < ηJ is because Petela’s model for calculating ηP is
irreversible. Bejan [12], for example, proposed a special model in 1987 that includes
three reversible processes: first, photon gas at temperature T 1 fulfills the space volume
V 1 ; second, it is connected with a reversible Carnot engine and outputs work to the
outside at temperature T 2 ; and third, the photon gas is exhausted and the volume
2.1 Exergy of Blackbody Radiation 17
of space becomes 0. The radiation exergy coefficient is ηS if the first process is

irreversible, ηP if both the first and third processes are irreversible, and ηJ if all three
processes are reversible. Bejan’s point of view demonstrates that these three formulas
are valid under different conditions and do not contradict one another. This is a very
clever discussion. However, it is believed that radiative energy is not, in fact, thermal
energy, and Petela’s research also shows that the radiation process is irreversible in
and of itself. Thus, different perspectives exist on the reversibility of the radiation
exergy model.
It is also investigated the reversibility in the deducing of Petela’s theory; this
problem can be illustrated using Wright’s work [13]. A delicate radiation model
combined with Carnot engine is constructed to demonstrate that the reversible conver-
sion can be achieved for blackbody radiation (Fig. 2.1). At temperature T, the black-
body cavity maintains thermal equilibrium. Besides, there is an ideal section for heat
conduction absorbing blackbody radiation, which is then converted into thermal
energy dQ for work production through Carnot engine (ambient temperature is T 0 ).
Consequently, the blackbody temperature decreases to T 0 at last. It is believed that
the entropy generation is negligible in the derivation and the thermal equilibrium is
kept for the black cavity if dQ is regarded to be infinitesimal. Consequently, it can
be regarded as a quasistatic process, and its physical meaning is the maximum work
which can be harvested from thermal radiation. The quasi-equilibrium process is
regarded as reversible because no entropy growth was noted throughout the process.
The maximum useful work that radiation can convert is
T0 ( )
T0
W = 1− dQ (2.5)
T
T
Through substituting the blackbody radiation energy formula: U = aT 4 V [14]

into Eq. (2.5), Eq. (2.2) can be deduced. This shows that the derivation process of
Petela’s formula is theoretically reversible.
Fig. 2.1 Model to discuss

the reversibility of the
radiation conversion process
2.1.3 Differences Among the Three Formulas
The differences between the formulas of Petela and Spanner are investigated in [15],
pointing out that Spanner the absolute work, instead of useful work, is regarded as
exergy in Spanner’s formula. According to energy conservation law, after absorbing
the energy Q from the outside, the initial internal energy of the medium increases
from U 1 to U 2 and performs the absolute work W 1–2 . Furthermore, the absolute work
W 1–2 includes two parts, which are useful work W u , as well as the work W e spent
for the compression of the environment, where W e = p0 (V 1 − V 0 ). Exergy means
the useful energy, thus, it makes sense that and using useful work as radiative exergy.
Thus, when the exergy is represented by useful work W u , Petela’s theory is deduced.
In solar energy engineering, since the radiation temperature is as high as 5800 K, the
calculation results from Spanner’s theory and Petela’s theory are very similar.
Figure 2.2 is plotted to discuss Jeter’s formula, which is expressed as Carnot effi-
ciency. Moreover, Fig. 2.2a showed that the radiation from a blackbody at a high
temperature of T is directly absorbed by an ideal Carnot engine. This radiation could
do the most work with Carnot efficiency. Nevertheless, thermal energy should be
the input of Carnot engine rather than radiative energy. Otherwise, the process of
radiation will be overlooked and will not be able to obtain the exact radiative exergy.
Thus, it is necessary to set a receiver to convert radiative energy into thermal energy,
and then, the Carnot engine could convert thermal energy into work as shown in
Fig. 2.2b. Here the temperature of thermal energy T ' is always less that the tempera-
ture of blackbody T; otherwise, there is no radiation heat transfer. The Carnot engine
absorbs thermal energy to output work, and its efficiency ηb is 1 − T 0 /T ' , with 1 −
T 0 /T ' < 1 − T 0 /T. This implies that the Carnot efficiency should be greater than the
radiative exergy coefficient. Furthermore, the radiative exergy should be calculated
based on the quasi-equilibrium process as shown in Fig. 2.1, and the result conforms
to Petela’s theory, which is less than the efficiency deduced by Carnot engine. Conse-
quently, Jeter’s theory implies that radiation enters the Carnot engine directly, this is
the difference between Petela’s theory and Jeter’s theory. Thus, it’s more rational to
represent the exergy of blackbody radiation through Petela’s formula.
2.1.4 Radiation Engine Model for Discussing the Exergy

of Blackbody Radiation
In this section, a radiation engine model, similar to the Carnot heat engine model,
is presented to discuss the exergy formula of blackbody radiation. The nature of the
radiation could thus be better explained. The radiation engine, as shown in Fig. 2.3,
is an ideal black box converter; the input energy is the blackbody radiative energy
flow Rin , with temperature T and entropy S in . The output energy is the blackbody
radiative energy flow Rout , with temperature T 0 and entropy S out ; it is balanced with
the ambient conditions. The radiation engine’s entire process produces work W,
2.1 Exergy of Blackbody Radiation 19
Fig. 2.2 The schematic

diagram of radiation
producing work by the
Carnot heat engine. a
Radiation directly comes
into the heat engine; b
radiation converts into heat
energy and then comes into
the heat engine
which is the maximum amount of work. The heat conduction with the environment
is Q, and its entropy is S.
Fig. 2.3 The radiation

engine model
The entropy of blackbody radiation is 4/3σ T 3 following the thermodynamics [16].

Furthermore, Wright [17] discussed radiation entropy in detail, stating that radiation
entropy should be expressed as nQ/T; for blackbody radiation, n = 4/3. Thus, the
entropy of blackbody radiation flow can be expressed as 4/3σ T 3 .
The energy balance equation can be expressed using the first law of thermody-
namics as follows
Rin = Rout + Q + W (2.6)
The entropy balance equation can be expressed using the second law of
thermodynamics as follows
Sin = Sout + S + ΔS. (2.7)
where ΔS is the entropy production; for a reversible process with the highest conver-
sion efficiency, ΔS = 0. The input energy flow is expressed as Rin = σ T 4 , the
/ flow3is expressed as Rout = σ T0 , the inlet entropy flow
4
outlet energy / is expressed
as Sin = 4 3σ T , the outlet entropy is expressed as Sout = 4 3σ T03 , and/ the
entropy flow of heat conduction with the environment is expressed as S = Q T0 .
The formula below is obtained when the expression for entropy is substituted into
Eq. (2.7)
4 ( 3 )
Q = (Sin − Sout )T0 = σ T − T03 T0 (2.8)
3
The formula below is obtained by substituting Eq. (2.8) and the expressions for
energy flow into Eq. (2.6)
W = Rin − Rout − (Sin − Sout )T0

( ) 4 ( )
= σ T 4 − T04 − σ T 3 − T03 T0
3
4 1
= σ T − σ T T0 + σ T04
4 3
(2.9)
3 3
Thus, the exergy coefficient is:
/ ( )
W 4 1 4 T0 1 T0 4
η= = σ T 4 − σ T 3 T0 + σ T04 σT = 1 −
4
+ (2.10)
Rin 3 3 3T 3 T
This is the coefficient from Petela’s exergy formula. When compared to thermal
energy, the entropy of radiation can be expressed as Q/T. Furthermore, the inlet and
outlet entropy flow is Sin = σ T 3 and Sout = σ T03 , respectively. Then, it is substituted
into (2.9) and obtain
W = Rin − Rout − (Sin − Sout )T0

2.2 Exergy of Monochromatic Radiation 21
( ) ( )
= σ T 4 − T04 − σ T 3 − T03 T0
= σ T 4 − σ T 3 T0 (2.11)
Thus, the coefficient of exergy is
W σ T 4 − σ T 3 T0 T0
η= = =1− (2.12)
Rin σT 4 T
Equation (2.12) represents exactly the Carnot efficiency proposed by Jeter; thus,
the reason why the coefficient of Petela’s exergy formula is less than the Carnot
efficiency is not the irreversibility of the radiation system but the difference between
radiation and heat. The distinction implies that the entropy-to-energy ratios of radia-
tion and heat conduction differ. In the case of reversible conversion of radiation energy
conversion, the radiation engine should be left in the form of blackbody radiation at
the ambient temperature. This is consistent with Wright’s [17] viewpoint.
In addition to using classical thermodynamic theory to analyze the radiation
exergy, Badescu [18] demonstrated Petela’s formula using the quantum method of
statistical thermodynamic theory. Additionally, Markvart and Bauer [19] discussed
the exergy of photovoltaics and obtained Petela’s formula when they calculated the
exergy over the entire wavelength range. All of the preceding discussions and anal-
yses indicate that Petela’s formula essentially clarifies the differences between radia-
tive energy and thermal energy. Moreover, it can accurately represent radiative exergy
and is widely accepted by scholars.
2.2 Exergy of Monochromatic Radiation
2.2.1 Discussion of the Exergy of Monochromatic Photons
Blackbody radiation is the typical radiation model; therefore, it is very meaningful

to study blackbody radiation. However, non-blackbody radiation is more preva-
lent in the engineering fields of fuel combustion and solar energy, which is still
under investigation. Monochromatic radiation must be first investigated to study
non-blackbody radiation. Studying the properties of monochromatic photons is the
premise of studying non-blackbody radiation because monochromatic radiation is
essentially the integration of monochromatic photons.
Much more attention paid to photosynthesis has fueled studies into the exergy of
monochromatic photons. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the exergy
of organics produced during photosynthesis must come from the exergy of photons
absorbed by chlorophyll. Thus, researchers have proposed formulas for calculating
the exergy of monochromatic photons [20, 21]
( )
T0
u = hv 1 − (2.13)
Tr
The corresponding coefficient of exergy to energy is
T0
ηu = 1 − (2.14)
Tr
This formula is analogous to the Carnot efficiency. Scholars generally believe

that T 0 is the ambient temperature. However, statements about T r differ, with some
believing that it is the surface temperature of radiation, i.e., the surface temperature
of the sun for a photosynthesis system [22, 23] and others believing that T r should
be in a specific temperature range [24]. Furthermore, Meszena [25], Chen [26], and
other scholars believe that T r should be an equivalent temperature T (ν) , which has
the dimension of temperature and can be used to express energy quality. The authors
of the current book agree more with this view.
However, as this book emphasizes, radiative energy differs from thermal energy
and the Carnot efficiency is not suitable for the exergy calculation of radiation in the
macroscopic field. Thus, an exergy-to-energy ratio similar to the Carnot efficiency
may not be reasonable for the exergy calculation of monochromatic photons. Scholars
studying photon radiation exergy for many years have largely ignored this issue.
Furthermore, we propose an infinite-staged Carnot engine model based on the concept
of equivalent temperature to investigate the exergy of monochromatic photons in
greater depth.
For a bundle of monochromatic light with fixed frequency v, the energy of each
photon is hν and its equivalent temperature is T (ν) . An absorption model is estab-
lished as shown in Fig. 2.4; it can absorb the energy hν of radiation photons and the
absorption model then emits a radiation photon with frequency ν ' and energy hν ' ;
simultaneously, thermal energy hdν is generated. Furthermore, thermal energy hdν
performs work via the Carnot heat engine at equivalent temperature T (ν) . Moreover,
dν is assumed to be infinitely small, and this model will not output work after infi-
nite procedures until the frequency reaches a certain value ν 0 and has an equivalent
temperature T (ν0) corresponding to the ambient temperature T 0 . The output work
can represent the exergy of monochromatic radiation photons because the entire
infinite-staged Carnot engine model is a non-dissipative reversible process.
The exergy of a photon can be expressed through all of the infinite-staged Carnot
engine model processes as
v ( )
T0
Wu = h 1 − dv (2.15)
T(v)
v0
Because photons are essentially electromagnetic radiation rather than ordinary

thermal energy, the maximum useful work of a photon should be expressed in integral
form rather than simply as hν multiplied by the Carnot efficiency after the equivalent
Fig. 2.4 The infinite-staged Carnot engine model
temperature is introduced. Thus, only the quasi-equilibrium process, as discussed

above, can reflect changes in energy quality during the energy conversion process.
Concerning the specific expression on Eq. (2.15), the relationship between the
equivalent temperature T (ν ) and the frequency v or wavelength λ must be considered.
Because wavelength λ is mostly used as a variable in the spectral study, wavelength λ
was chosen to represent their relationship. As is known, only a portion of visible light
and ultraviolet radiation with shorter wavelengths can be converted into electrical
energy during photoelectric conversion, whereas the majority of infrared radiation
cannot. Additionally, frequency attenuation is noted in the radiation transfer process.
Clearly, high frequency radiation with a short wavelength has higher energy quality
and higher equivalent temperature T (λ) . Petela [27] investigated the exergy spectrum
of blackbody and gray-body surface radiation and discovered that, at similar radiation
temperature, the exergy-to-energy coefficient ηu will be greater and the equivalent
temperature T (λ) will also be higher if the wavelength λ of monochromatic radiation
is shorter or the frequency ν is higher. Furthermore, Meszena et al. [25] believe that
a photon’s state is related to radiation temperature; thus, the equivalent temperature
is also correlated with radiation temperature. In addition, Petela’s study [27] also
demonstrated that different exergy-to-energy coefficients of monochromatic radia-
tion exist at different radiation temperatures; the higher the radiation temperature
is, the higher the exergy-to-energy coefficient of monochromatic radiation will be.
This implies that the equivalent temperature T (λ) of monochromatic radiation will be
higher as the radiation temperature T increases.
Therefore, we can conclude that the equivalent temperature T (λ) of a monochro-
matic radiation photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength λ and proportional
to the radiation temperature T. An approximation is provided for the equivalent
temperature T (λ)
f Tm
k
T(λ) = (2.16a)
λn
If the equivalent temperature is expressed in terms of frequency v, then T (v) can

be written as
f Tm n
k
T(v) = v (2.16b)
cn
where, f is a constant.
2.2.2 Discussion About the Formula of Equivalent

Temperature
In this section, the accuracy of the equivalent temperature formula Eq. (2.16) is
observed and the values of constants m, n, k, and f are discussed. It can be deduced
from Eq. (2.16) that
f 1/ k T m / k n / k
T(v) = v (2.17)
cn / k
T0 T(v0 ) ( v ) nk
0
= = (2.18)
T(v) T(v) v
Substituting Eq. (2.18) into (2.15) obtains
k k−n n n
Wu = hv − hv k v0k + hv0 . (2.19)
k−n k−n
The corresponding coefficient of exergy-to-energy ηu is W u /hv:

( )n / k
k ( v0 )n / k n v0 k λ n λ
ηu = 1 − + =1− +
k−n v k−n v k − n λ0 k − n λ0
( ) (2.20)
k T0 n T0 k
=1− +
k − n T(λ) k − n T(λ)
Petela’s formula, as mentioned in Sect. 2.1, accurately represents the exergy of

the blackbody radiation. Considering the link between the macroscopic and micro-
scopic fields, if the blackbody monochromatic emission intensity is multiplied by the
coefficient of exergy-to-energy ηu as in Eq. (2.20) and then integrated over the entire
wavelength, it should equal to the exergy of blackbody radiation, as represented by
Petela’s formula.
This is Planck’s [28] proposed monochromatic emission intensity of blackbody
radiation:
c1 λ−5
i b,λ = (2.21)
e(c2 / λT ) − 1
/
where c1 = 2π hc02 = 3.74 × 10−16 W m2 , c2 = hc0 k = 1.4388 × 10−2 m K, c1
denotes the first Planck constant, and c2 denotes the second Planck constant. Thus,
the following relationship exists
∞ [ ( ) ] [ ( )4 ]
k T0 n T0 k 4 T0 1 T0
i b,λ 1− + dλ = σ T 4 1 − +
k − n T(λ) k − n T(λ) 3T 3 T
0
(2.22)
Equation (2.22) can be used to calculate equivalent temperature, and the left side
of Eq. (2.22) can be written as
∞ [ ( ) ]
k T0 n T0 k
i b,λ 1− + dλ
k − n T(λ) k − n T(λ)
0
∞ [ ( ) ]
c1 λ−5 k T0 n T0 k
= 1− + dλ
ec2 / λT − 1 k − n T(λ) k − n T(λ)
0
∞ ∞
k c1 T0 λ−5+n / k n c1 T0k λ−5+n
= σT − 4
dλ + dλ
k − n f n/ k T m / k ec2 / λT − 1 k − n f Tm ec2 / λT − 1
0 0
(2.23)
/
Set x = c2 λT ; then, d x = − λc22T dλ. Thus,
∞
k c1 T0 λ−5+n / k
dλ
k − n f n/ k T m / k ec2 / λT −1
0
0 ∞
k c1 T0 T 4−n / k−m / k x 3−n / k k c1 T0 T 4−n / k−m / k x 3−n / k
=− d x = dx
k−n f n/ k c /
4−n k ex − 1 k−n f n/ k c /
4−n k ex − 1
2 ∞ 2 0
(2.24)
and
∞
n c1 T0k λ−5+n
dλ
k − n f Tm ec2 / λT − 1
0
0 ∞
n c1 T0k T 4−n−m x 3−n n c1 T0k T 4−n−m x 3−n
=− d x = d x (2.25)
k−n f c24−n ex − 1 k−n f c24−n ex − 1
∞ 0
∞ 3−n/ k ∞ 3−n
Make a = 0 xex −1 d x; b = 0 exx −1 d x.
Thus, Eq. (2.22) can be expressed as
k c1 a n c1 b k 4−n−m
σT4 − T0 T 4−n / k−m / k + T T
k − n f n/ k c 4−n / k k − n f c24−n 0
2
4 1
= σ T 4 − σ T0 T 3 + σ T04 (2.26)
3 3
[ ] [ ]
[ 4According to the]theory of dimensional analysis, T0 T 3 = T0 T 4−n / k−m / k and
] [ k 4−n−m
T0 = T0 T exist. Thus, k = 4, m = 3, and n = 1 can be deduced; Eq. (2.16)
can be written as:
f T3
4
T(λ) = (2.27)
λ
From Eq. (2.20), the corresponding coefficient of exergy to energy ηu can be
obtained
( )
4 T0 1 T0 4
ηu = 1 − + (2.28)
3 T(λ) 3 T(λ)
Using the relationship in Eq. (2.16), an exergy-to-energy coefficient ηu of

monochromatic photons that is similar to Petela’s coefficient ηp can be obtained.
Furthermore, Eq. (2.26) can be written as
4 c1 a 1 c1 b 4 4 1
σT4 − T0 T 3 + T0 = σ T 4 − σ T0 T 3 + σ T04 (2.29)
3 f 1/ 4 c /
15 4 3
3 f c2 3 3
2
∞ 11/ 4 ∞ 2
where σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and a = 0 exx −1 d x; b = 0 exx−1 d x.
Using MATLAB software to calculate the integral, a = 4.8732 and b = 2.4041 can
be obtained.
Then, Eq. (2.29) is discussed under various conditions. When T > T 0 , the third
term in Eq. (2.29) accounts for a small proportion, and thus the value of exergy is
determined by the second term, i.e., the second term is primarily considered and
c1 a = f 1/ 4 c2 / σ ; the calculated result is f = 4.5638 × 10−3 m K.
15 4
When T > T 0, the formula can be expressed as 4.5638 × 10−3 T 3 = λT(λ) 4

, and an
error ε1 will be noted after the introduction of Eq. (2.16) for the exergy calculation
of blackbody radiation.
( / 3 )
1
c1 b f c2 − σ T0 0.16
ε1 = 34 = ( / )4 ( / )3 (2.30)
σT − 4
3
σ T0 T 3 + 1
3
σ T04 3 T T0 − 4 T T0 + 1
When T < T 0 , the second term accounts for a small proportion of the total, and thus,
the value of exergy is determined by the third term, i.e., the third term is primarily
considered and c1 b = f c23 σ ; and the calculated result is f = 5.33 × 10−3 m K.
In this case, when T < T 0 , the formula can be expressed as 5.33×10−3 T 3 = λT(λ) 4
,
and an error ε2 will be noted after the introduction of Eq. (2.16) for the exergy
calculation of blackbody radiation.
( )
4 c1 a
− σ T0 T 3 0.24
f 1/ 4 c2 /
3 15 4
ε2 = = ( / ) ( / )3 (2.31)
σ T 4 − 43 σ T0 T 3 + 13 σ T04 3 T T0 + T0 T − 4
The ambient temperature T 0 is set at 300 K. The errors ε1 and ε2 are calculated
at various temperatures. The results show that the error introduced by the formula
is very small in the case of high or low temperatures. Furthermore, under common
industrial radiation conditions, with a temperature of ~1000 K, the error is <0.1%;
for a solar radiation temperature of ~5800 K, the error is <10−8 and thus negligible.
The equivalent temperature formula applies to both industrial and solar radiation.
The expression form of the equivalent temperature in Eq. (2.16) in this book is
approximate. However, the integral form of Eq. (2.15) for radiation photon exergy
is still accurate. Furthermore, the preceding analysis shows that the monochromatic
photon exergy of blackbody radiation calculated using the equivalent temperature
expression is applicable in most situations, particularly in high-temperature engi-
neering. Furthermore, the exergy-to-energy coefficient of monochromatic photons
calculated using the equivalent temperature expression is similar to Petela’s coef-
ficient. Thus, it is simple, easy to remember, and can be used to calculate
non-blackbody radiation in most engineering fields.
Equivalent temperature T (λ) can represent the energy quality of monochromatic
radiation photons. Additionally, the higher the value of T (λ) , the better the energy
quality. Thus, the exergy of monochromatic photons can be calculated using equiva-
lent temperature. The exergy produced by converting monochromatic radiation into
electricity, mechanical energy, or other forms of energy is no greater than the exergy
of monochromatic radiation.
2.2.3 Discussion About Radiation from the Combustion

Flame
Fuel combustion can generate a high temperature of about 2000 K, and for oxy-fuel
combustion conditions, it can generate a high temperature of more than 2500 K.
Based on the formula of equivalent temperature Eq. (2.27), Fig. 2.5 shows the
4500 0.95
(a) Equivalent temperature (b) Exergy-to-energy coefficient
4000
0.90
3500
2000 K 2000 K
2500 K 0.85 2500 K
3000 K 3000 K
3000
0.80
2500
0.75
2000
1500 0.70
1000 0.65
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Fig. 2.5 The monochromatic radiation equivalent temperature T (λ) and exergy-to-energy coeffi-
cient ηu versus the wavelength λ at combustion radiation temperatures
monochromatic radiation equivalent temperature T (λ) and exergy-to-energy coef-

ficient ηu versus the wavelength λ at combustion radiation temperatures of 2000 K,
2500 K, and 3000 K respectively. It can be seen that as the wavelength decreases or
the frequency increases, there is a significant increase in monochromatic radiation
equivalent temperature. The equivalent temperature at 3000 K radiation temperature
is significantly higher, indicating that the oxy-fuel combustion conditions can effec-
tively improve the equivalent temperature. The visible light band, which consumes a
large proportion of the energy in fuel combustion, not only has a high monochromatic
radiation equivalent temperature T (λ) but also a high exergy-to-energy coefficient
ηu of >85%. Thus, the use of visible light and near-infrared radiation has signifi-
cant value. Frequency division should be the most logical way to use combustion
radiation.
2.3 Entropy of Spectral Radiation
The study of photon entropy in monochromatic radiation has been going on for
a long time. Planck [29] gave statistical average photon entropy in an equilibrium
state with fixed frequency ν and specific blackbody radiation temperature T. Further-
more, Ito [30] believed that the entropy of a monochromatic photon is hν/T for the
photon emitted from a radiation source with temperature T and frequency ν. All
of this indicates that the entropy of monochromatic radiation is related to radia-
tion temperature T and the frequency of the photon ν. On the other hand, Kirwan
[31] investigated the inherent entropy of a single photon using the second law of
thermodynamics, Planck’s equation, and the Gibbs–Duhem equation and discovered
that photon entropy is constant regardless of wavelength. Furthermore, Chen [26]
believed that the entropy of a monochromatic photon is hν/T (ν ) based on the concept
of equivalent temperature T (v) . Additionally, a conclusion that photon entropy is a
2.3 Entropy of Spectral Radiation 29
Fig. 2.6 The infinite-staged

Carnot heat engine used to
analyze the entropy of a
photon
constant was obtained based on the relationship between equivalent temperature and
photon frequency in this book. Most scholars, however, find it difficult to accept the
notion that photon entropy is a constant. It is perhaps doubtful that an independent
photon is directly given the macroscopic parameter temperature T, as Kirwan’s paper
suggests. Due to the difference between radiative energy and thermal energy, it is also
questionable whether the entropy expression analogous to the Q/T (ν ) form is given
directly using equivalent temperature T (ν ) . Thus, the infinite-staged Carnot engine
model proposed in this chapter is used to analyze the entropy of a photon.
The infinite-staged Carnot heat engine is used to analyze the entropy of a photon
as shown in Fig. 2.6. A monochromatic photon has the energy hν and the equivalent
temperature T (ν ) . The absorbing model absorbs a photon, converting a small portion
of the energy converted into thermal energy dq and emitting the remainder as radiation
with a slightly lower frequency ν ' ; thus, its energy is hν ' . The entropy of the thermal
energy transformed from radiation can be expressed in the form Q/T (v) ; thus, dq/T (v)
= hdv/T (v) . All of the photon’s radiation energy is converted into thermal energy
through infinite processes like this until the frequency reaches zero. Because each
step of the process is reversible and generates no entropy, the entropy of a photon
with frequency ν should be expressed as the sum of thermal energy entropy in each
process.
The expression of monochromatic photon entropy should be
v
h
sv = dv (2.32)
T(v)
0
After the introduction of equivalent temperature T (v) , the expression of monochro-

matic photon entropy should be an integral form rather than the simple form hv/T (v) . In
essence, this photon entropy with integral form denotes differences between radiative
energy and thermal energy.
If the relationship proposed in the current paper between the equivalent tempera-
ture T (v) and radiation frequency v, i.e., Eq. (2.27), is substituted into Eq. (2.32), the
following relation can be obtained
hc1/ 4 3
sv = v4 (2.33)
f 1/ 4 T 3/ 4
where c is the speed of light and f is the coefficient in the equivalent temperature equa-
tion. Equation (2.33) should also be approximated because the relationship between
radiation equivalent temperature and frequency in Eq. (2.27) is approximated in this
chapter. However, nothing is wrong with qualitative analysis. As a result of this anal-
ysis, the entropy of a monochromatic photon can be concluded to be proportional to
its frequency ν and radiation temperature T.
Moreover, after substituting the Eq. (2.32) into the formula for the relationship
between exergy and entropy, the expression for monochromatic photon exergy can
be obtained
( )
Wu = H − H0 − T0 (S − S0 ) = hv − hv0 − T0 sv − sv0
⎛ v ⎞
v v0
h h
= h dv − T0 ⎝ dv − dv ⎠
T(v) T(v)
v0 0 0
v v v ( )
h T0
=h dv − T0 dv = h 1 − dv (2.34)
T(v) T(v)
v0 v0 v0
This is just the exergy expression in Eq. (2.15), and it also indicates that the
exergy and entropy of monochromatic radiation photons proposed in this chapter are
intrinsically harmonious.
2.4 Summary
Distinctions exist between radiative energy and thermal energy, and the mechanism
of radiation heat transfer differs from that of heat conduction or convection. Thus,
radiative energy cannot be considered synonymous with thermal energy. In several
views of blackbody radiation exergy, Petela’s formula is reversible in derivation
and distinguishes the differences between radiative energy and thermal energy when
compared to the Carnot efficiency formula proposed by Jeter. Therefore, Petela’s
formula accurately represents radiation exergy.
Based on the concept of monochromatic photon equivalent
v ( temperature
/ ) T (v) , it
is believed that the formula with integral form Wu = v0 h 1 − T0 T(v) dv should
be used to represent the exergy of monochromatic photons, which can reflect the
difference between radiative energy and thermal energy.
The equivalent temperature of monochromatic photon T (λ) is proportional to radi-
ation temperature T and inversely proportional to wavelength λ. The higher the
equivalent temperature T (λ) , the greater the exergy of monochromatic photons.
An approximate formula exists to calculate monochromatic photon equivalent
temperature T (λ) from the radiation temperature T and wavelength λ is given. When T
> T 0 and T < T 0 , 4.5638×10−3 T 3 = λT(λ) 4
and 5.33×10−3 T 3 = λT(λ)
4
, respectively.
Based on this equivalent temperature expression, the formula of exergy-to-energy
References 31
( )4
ratio ηu for a monochromatic photon can be obtained as ηu = 1 − 43 TT(λ)0 + 13 TT(λ)0 ,
which is similar to Petela’s coefficient formula and is simple and easy to apply. The
calculation of the exergy of blackbody radiation shows that the error of this formula
is negligible at high temperatures, being no more than 10−8 . The exergy-to-energy
ratio of monochromatic radiation in blackbody surface radiation agrees with previous
studies. Using the emission spectrum of engineering radiation, this formula can be
used to conveniently calculate radiative exergy in most engineering fields.
The entropy
v expression
/ of monochromatic radiation photons should be the integral
form sv = 0 h T(λ) dv based on the concept of monochromatic photon equivalent
temperature. It can reflect the distinctions between radiative energy and thermal
energy. The entropy and exergy of monochromatic photons presented in this book
satisfy the thermodynamic relation, indicating that they are essentially harmonious.
References

2. Jeter SM (1981) Maximum conversion efficiency for the utilization of direct solar radiation.
Sol Energy 26(3):231–236
3. Lewins JD (2003) Thermodynamics of radiation. Int J Mech Eng Educ 31(4):283–309
4. De Vos A, Pauwels H (1983) Comment on a thermodynamical paradox presented by P. Wurfel.
J Phys C: Solid State Phys 16(36):6897
5. Spanner DC (1964) Introduction to thermodynamics. Academic Press, London
6. Landsberg PT, Tonge G (1979) Thermodynamics of the conversion of diluted radiation. J Phys
A: Math Gen 12(4):551–562
7. Landsberg PT, Baruch P (1989) The thermodynamics of the conversion of radiation energy for
photovoltaics. J Phys A: Math Gen 22:1911–1926
8. Badescu V (1990) On the thermodynamics of the conversion of diluted radiation. J Phys D
Appl Phys 23:289–292
9. Sieniutycz S, Kuran P (2006) Modeling thermal behavior and work flux in finite-rate systems
with radiation. Int J Heat Mass Transf 49:3264–3283
10. Laptev VI (2005) Conversion of solar heat into work: a supplement to the actual thermodynamic
description. J Appl Phys 98(12):124905
11. Wright SE, Rosen MA (2004) Exergetic efficiencies and the exergy content of terrestrial solar
radiation. J SolEnergy Eng 126:673–676
12. Bejan A (1987) Unification of three different theories concerning the ideal conversion of
enclosed radiation. J SolEnergy Eng 109(1):46–51
13. Wright SE, Rosen MA, Scott DS et al (2002) The exergy flux of radiative heat transfer for the
special case of blackbody radiation. Exergy Int J 2(1):24–33
14. Carter AH (2001) Classical and statistical thermodynamics. Pearson Education India
15. Petela R (2003) Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 74(6):469–488
16. Petela R (2010) Engineering thermodynamics of thermal radiation for solar power utilization.
McGraw Hill, NewYork
17. Wright S (2007) Comparative analysis of the entropy of radiative heat transfer and heat
conduction. Int J Thermodyn 10(1):27–35
18. Badescu V (2008) Exact and approximate statistical approaches for the exergy of blackbody
radiation. Cent Eur J Phys 6(2):344–350
19. Markvart T, Bauer GH (2012) What is the useful energy of a photon? Appl Phys Lett
101(19):193901
20. Duysens LNM (1958) The path of light in photosynthesis. Brookhaven Symp Biol 11:18–25
21. Knox RS (1977) Photosynthetic efficiency and exciton transfer and trapping. Primary Process
Photosynthesis 2:55–97
22. Lems S, Van Der Kooi HJ, De Swaan AJ (2010) Exergy analyses of the biochemical processes
of photosynthesis. Int J Exergy 7(3):333–351
23. Juretić D, Županović P (2003) Photosynthetic models with maximum entropy production in
irreversible charge transfer steps. Comput Biol Chem 27(6):541–553
24. Lavergne J, Joliot P (2000) Thermodynamics of the excited states of photosynthesis. Energy
transduction in membranes. WA Cramer, Rockville Biophysical Society
25. Meszéna G, Westerhoff HV, Somsen O (2000) Reply to comment on non-equilibrium
thermodynamics of light absorption. J Phys A: Math Gen 33(6):1301
26. Chen Z, Mo S (2007) Effective temperature and exergy of monochromic blackbody radiation.
Prog Nat Sci 17(10):1250–1254
27. Petela R (2009) Radiation spectra of surface. Int J Exergy 7(1):89–109
28. Modest MF (2003) Radiative heat transfer. Academic Press
29. Planck M (1914) The theory of heat radiation. Philadelphia Blakistons
30. Ito E, Komatsu T, Suzuki H (1998) The entropy generation in visual-pigment system by the
absorption of light. Biophys Chem 74(1):59–70
31. Kirwan AD (2004) Intrinsic photon entropy? The darkside of light. Int J Eng Sci 42(7):725–734
Chapter 3
Gas Radiation Model Under Complex
Combustion Conditions
The actual combustion chambers (e.g., pressurized boilers, gas turbines, internal
combustion engines, and aircraft engines) are all pressurized. Additionally, many
triatomic gases exist in the flue gas during oxy-fuel combustion (CO2 ). Thus, inves-
tigating gas radiation models under complex combustion conditions (e.g., high-
pressure environments and oxy-fuel atmospheres) is critical. The first section of this
chapter summarizes the steps and methods for developing a new efficient and accurate
WSGG model based on the benchmark model. Second, the EM2C laboratory’s SNB
model is used as a benchmark to improve the WSGG model and establish a new set
of correlations for a broader range of parameters for H2 O/CO2 mixtures, adapting
to radiation heat transfer calculations under complex combustion conditions. The
new WSGG model and its parameters are suitable for pressure, temperature, path-
length, and molar ratio ranges of 1–30 bar, 500–2500 K, 0.001–60 m, and 0.125–4
for H2 O/CO2 , respectively. Thus, the new WSGG model is suitable for a wide range
of fuels under pressurized conditions. When compared to the benchmark model, the
one-dimensional case results show that the new WSGG model can accurately predict
the radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture under pressurized conditions. Further-
more, the new model is used to investigate the effect of pressure on the radiation heat
transfer of the gas mixture. The findings show that increasing the pressure within a
certain range can improve the radiation heat transfer of a gas mixture, and this effect
is also related to temperature, molar ratio, and path-length. In conclusion, the new
WSGG model can be used to calculate and study actual combustion conditions as
well as provide a theoretical foundation for the study of radiative energy utilization.
Revised from Shan et al., New pressurized WSGG model and the effect of pressure on the radiation
heat transfer of H2 O/CO2 gas mixtures, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Copyright
(2018), with permission from Elsevier.
Revised from Shan et al., New weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for typical pressurized oxy-
fuel conditions, International Journal of Energy Research, Copyright (2017), with permission from
John Wiley and Sons.

34 3 Gas Radiation Model Under Complex Combustion Conditions
3.1 Non-gray Gas Radiation Models
3.1.1 SNB Model
The SNB model is a band model that was proposed by Malkmus in 1967 [1]. It is
the model closest to the LBL model among all gas radiation characteristics models
and is frequently used as a reference model for comparison. The SNB model divides
the spectrum into many small wavenumber intervals Δν; it is assumed that each
wavenumber interval Δν contains N spectral lines with a random distribution of the
intensity or location. Thus, the probability of a spectral line appearing in any position
of Δν is the same. For the wavenumber interval Δν, it is assumed that the intensity
of blackbody radiation is constant in the wavenumber interval Δν; thus, Δν should
be sufficiently small. However, Δν cannot be too small to ensure the validity of the
statistical spectral distribution. The wavenumber interval Δν is generally selected to
be from 5 to 50 cm−1 .
The SNB model parameters developed by EM2C Laboratory (France) in 1997
[2] have been demonstrated in many SNB model databases to be closest to those of
the LBL model based on the HITEMP2010 database, and this SNB model has been
recommended as a benchmark [3, 4]. Furthermore, the EM2C laboratory developed
new SNB parameters in 2012 [5]; the CO2 and H2 O parameters of this model are
based on the CSCD-4000 and HITEMP databases, respectively. However, recent
studies showed that when the two EM2C SNB models are used under pressurized
oxy-fuel combustion conditions, the early SNB models are much closer to the LBL
model based on the HITEMP2010 database [6].
The SNB model of the EM2C divides the spectrum into narrow bands of 25 cm−1 ,
and the transmittance of an isothermal homogeneous gas mixture in a band is
expressed as
⎡ ⎛/ ⎞⎤
2γ ⎝ X P Lkδ
τ v = exp⎣− 1+ − 1⎠⎦ (3.1)
δ γ
where the EM2C database provides the parameters k and δ, and the average spectral
half-width γ is calculated by solving the following equations:
⎧ ( )0.5 [ ( )]⎫
P Tref Tref 0.0792 1 − X CO2 − X O2
γ H2 O = 0.462 X H2 O + ×
Pref T T +0.106X CO2 + 0.036X O2
(3.2)
( )
P Tref 0.7 [ ( ) ]
γ CO2 = 0.07X CO2 + 0.058 1 − X CO2 − X H2 O + 0.1X H2 O (3.3)
Pref T
3.1 Non-gray Gas Radiation Models 35
where Pref = 1 bar and T ref = 296 K. An increase in pressure primarily influences
the radiation characteristics by affecting the average spectral half-width γ and the
pressure term P in Eqs. (3.2) and (3.3). Thus, the gas transmittance decreases as the
pressure increases.
3.1.2 WSGG Model and Improvement
The WSGG model was first proposed by Hotel [7], and the relevant radiation heat
transfer calculation was performed using the WSGG model in conjunction with
the regional method. Modest [8] pointed out that the WSGG model considers the
absorption coefficient and is not limited to calculating total emissivity. This model
can also be used to solve the radiation transfer equation and is suitable for the arbitrary
solution method of the radiation transfer equation. The core idea of the WSGG model
is to use the n gray gases to represent the actual non-gray gas; the total emissivity
or the radiative heat flux of each gray gas is multiplied by the weight, and the total
value equals their sum [9]. The emissivity on the path-length L through the WSGG
model can be expressed as
Σ
n
[ ]
ε= ai 1 − exp(−κi X P L (3.4)
i=1
where X is the mole fraction of the gas mixture„ expressed as the sum of the molar
fractions of H2 O and CO2
X = X H2 O + X CO2 (3.5)
The absorption coefficient κ i of each gray gas is constant in a specific spectral

region, and ai represents the ratio of blackbody radiation in this spectral region,
which is also known as weight. The sum of the weights must be 1, including the
weight of the white gas a0 , and the corresponding absorption coefficient is κ 0 = 0;
thus, there is:
Σ
n
ai = 1 (3.6)
i=0
The WSGG model is concerned with calculating the absorption coefficient κ i and
the weighting factor ai of each gray gas.
3.1.3 Solving the Radiation Transfer Equation Coupled Gas

Radiation Model
The radiation transfer equation (RTE) describes the process of radiation transfer in
a medium; for a medium with absorption, emission, and non-scattering properties,
the radiation transfer equation is [9]
d Iν
= κν Ibν − κν Iν (3.7)
ds
where I ν and I bν are the spectral and blackbody spectral emission intensity, respec-
tively. The left side of the RTE represents the change of radiation intensity at a
point along the path-length in the medium. The first term on the right represents the
emission intensity at a point along the path-length in the medium, and the second
represents the radiation intensity absorbed at a point along the path-length in the
medium.. The RTEs for the entire spectrum as well as all spatial directions must be
calculated to obtain the radiation transfer of the entire space.
Numerous approaches were noted to solve the RTE. The discrete coordinate
method (DOM) was used in this book because it had broad applicability [10].
Following that, the DOM for the RTE coupled with the WSGG and SNB models
is represented in one- and two-dimensional settings.
The RTE of each gray gas in the WSGG model was solved for the radiation
transfer problem under the one-dimensional condition and the results of four gray
gases were then summed. For each gray gas, the RTE can be written as:
d Ii (x, ŝ)
= κi ai Ib (x) − κi Ii (x, ŝ) (3.8)
ds
/
where the blackbody emission intensity is expressed as Ib (x) = σ T (x)4 π ; the
items in Eq. (3.8) are determined based on the state at position x. Figure 3.1a depicts
the solution diagram of the one-dimensional RTE for the DOM. The one-dimensional
transfer directions are divided into positive and negative series during the solution
process, the cosine of the angle between each direction and the x-axis is ul , and the
direction weight is wl . Thus, the RTE in each direction can be expressed as follows:
d Ii+ (x, ŝ)

μl = κi ai (x)Ib (x) − κi Ii+ (x, ŝ) (3.9a)
dx
d Ii− (x, ŝ)

−μl = κi ai (x)Ib (x) − κi Ii− (x, ŝ) (3.9b)
dx
Given that the left and right sides are blackbody walls, x 0 and x s represent the left
and right wall positions, respectively. Thus, the boundary conditions can be expressed
as:
Fig. 3.1 Diagram of DOM calculation process: a one-dimensional case and b two-dimensional
case
Ii+ (x0 , l) = Ib,i (x0 ) (3.10a)
Ii− (xs , l) = Ib,i (xs ) (3.10b)
The one-dimensional axis was divided into some computing units; therefore, the
partial differential equation was written as a difference equation for each unit, and the
latter format was selected as the differential way. The discrete form of the difference
equation is as follows:
μl Ii+ (xm−1 , l) + κi Ib,i (xm )Δx

Ii+ (xm , l) = (3.11a)
μl + κi Δx
μl Ii− (xm+1 , l) + κi Ib,i (xm )Δx

Ii− (xm , l) = (3.11b)
μl + κi Δx
After calculating the intensity of the emission along the path-length, the radiative
heat flux q and the radiation source q̇ can be written as:
ΣΣ
qm = 2π μl wl [Ii+ (xm , l) − Ii− (xm , l)] (3.12a)
i l
ΣΣ
q̇m = {2π κi wl [Ii+ (xm , l) + Ii− (xm , l)] − 4π κi wl Ib,i (xm )} (3.12b)
i l
The radiation heat flux q and the radiation source term q̇ in the calculation of
radiation transfer were mainly investigated. Additionally, the radiation source term
q̇ can be added to the energy equation of the CFD as a part of the source term for the
numerical simulation of a practical problem.
As demonstrated in Sect. 3.1.1, the SNB model can be used to calculate the trans-
mittance of a given path-length. Additionally, the emissivity can be determined using
the relationship between transmittance and emissivity. Thus, the average emissivity
is expressed as
ε L = 1 − exp(−κ X P L) (3.13)
The average absorption coefficient κ of the path-length L can be calculated using

Eq. (3.13). When solving the RTE, the entire spatial region was divided into many
small calculation units. Furthermore, the gas mixture medium can be considered a
homogeneous gas within a small path-length Δx of each unit. Thus, the spectral
absorption coefficient κ v can be calculated from the transmittance of the unit path-
length Δx by using the SNB model. Thus, the RTE can be written as:
d Iν (x, ŝ)
= κν aν Ib (x) − κν Iν (x, ŝ) (3.14)
ds
The DOM was used to solve the RTE for each band of the SNB model, and the
results were then summed. The radiation heat flux q and the radiation source term q̇
were then calculated, and the detailed processes are similar to those of the WSGG
model.
For the radiation transfer problem under the two-dimensional condition, the
WSGG model was used to describe the radiation characteristics. The radiation
transfer equation for DOM can be written as shown in Eq. (3.15), where μl or ηl is
the cosine of the angle between the discrete direction and the x- or y-axis. Moreover,
Fig. 3.1b depicts the calculation diagram:
∂ Ii (x, y, ŝ) ∂ Ii (x, y, ŝ)

μl + ηl = κi Ii,b (x) − κi Ii (x, y, ŝ) (3.15)
∂x ∂y
The radiation transfer calculation was performed in a two-dimensional plane

region along two diagonal directions, as shown in Fig. 3.1b. Thus, there are two
major directions ŝ1 and ŝ2 ; moreover, each major direction includes both positive and
negative directions. Consequently, four groups of directions exist when the discrete
ordinate method is used. If the specific direction of each group is represented by the
subscript l, the radiation transfer equations of the positive and negative directions of
ŝ1 can be written as:
∂ Ii+ (x, y, ŝ 1 ) ∂ I + (x, y, ŝ 1 )

μl + ηl i = κi Ii,b (x) − κi Ii+ (x, y, ŝ1 ) (3.16a)
∂x ∂y
∂ Ii− (x, y, ŝ 1 ) ∂ I − (x, y, ŝ 1 )

μl + ηl i = κi Ii,b (x) − κi Ii− (x, y, ŝ 1 ) (3.16b)
∂x ∂y
The calculation region was divided into a square lattice; thus, Δx = Δy. The
difference format is as follows:
μl Ii+ (xm−1 , yn , l) + ηl Ii+ (xm , yn−1 , l) + κi Ib,i (xm , yn )Δx

Ii+ (xm , yn , l) =
μl + ηl + κi Δx
(3.17a)
μl Ii− (xm+1 , yn , l) + ηl Ii− (xm , yn+1 , l) + κi Ib,i (xm , yn )Δx
Ii− (xm , yn , l) =
μl + ηl + κi Δx
(3.17b)
Similarly, the positive and negative radiation transfer equations of ŝ2 are
analogous.
When the SNB model is used under the two-dimensional condition, the DOM
with the SNB model is similar to that with the WSGG model. However, unlike the
WSGG model, which needs only the bands of four gray gases for calculations, the
SNB model needs the radiation transfer equations of all the narrow bands to be solved
and the results to be added together. Thus, the RTE can be written as follows:
∂ Iν (x, y, ŝ) ∂ Iν (x, y, ŝ)

μl + ηl = κν Iν,b (x, y) − κν Iν (x, y, ŝ) (3.18)
∂x ∂y
Similar to the one-dimensional condition, as a result of the radiation transfer

calculation, the radiation heat flux and radiation source term can be calculated by
solving Eq. (3.12) after the radiation intensity for each unit is calculated and all are
summed.
3.2 Development of WSGG Model Under Complex

Combustion Conditions
3.2.1 New WSGG Model
In this section, the WSGG model is improved to accommodate pressurized condi-

tions. As shown in Eq. (3.4), the WSGG model emissivity contains the pressure term
P, and the pressure is P = 1 bar at atmospheric pressure. Thus, the WSGG model
correlations for atmospheric pressure can also be used under pressurized conditions
by changing the pressure term P; however, this introduces significant errors [6].
Therefore, this book presents a new WSGG model for high-pressure conditions. Here
the pressure term P with the absorption coefficient κ i in the Eq. (3.4) is combined
as κ p,i to represent the absorption coefficient under different pressures. Thus, the
emissivity of new WSGG model is expressed as:
Σ
n
ε= ai [1 − exp(−κ p,i X L)] (3.19)
i=1
There are two types of WSGG models for oxy-fuel combustion: those with three
gray gases and those with four gray gases. Johansson’s study showed that the WSGG
model with four gray gases and one white gas is better than that with three gray gases
and one white gas [11]. Currently, the majority of the WSGG models proposed by
scholars for oxy-fuel combustion have four gray gases. Thus, the model containing
four gray gases and one white gas is chosen to investigate the new WSGG model
correlations for pressurized oxy-fuel combustion; thus, n = 4. In the WSGG model,
the weight value ai is mainly dependent on temperature; thus, ai can be expressed as
the polynomial of the dimensionless temperature term with m-th power
Σ
m ( )m− j
T
ai = ci, j (3.20)
j=0
Tref
In Eq. (3.20), T ref is the reference temperature, which can make the polynomial
coefficient ci,j dimensionless, so as to improve the accuracy of the polynomial [11,
12]. The recommended value of T ref is 2000 K in the literature [13] for higher model
accuracy, and this value is also used here. As shown in Eq. (3.21), the polynomial
coefficient ci,j and the absorption coefficient κ i with same molar ratio M and different
pressures are expressed as the polynomial of pressure:
ci, j = C2i, j P 2 + C1i, j P + C0i, j (3.21a)
κi = K 2i P 2 + K 1i P + K 0i (3.21b)
3.2 Development of WSGG Model Under Complex Combustion Conditions 41
In this book, the molar ratio of H2 O to CO2 is represented by M:
M = X H2 O / X CO2 (3.22)
To improve the accuracy of the polynomial in Eq. (3.22), piecewise fitting within
different pressure ranges is used.
3.2.2 Fitting Process of WSGG Model Correlations
In this section, the detailed fitting process of WSGG model correlations under
pressurized conditions is elaborated.
(1) First, the SNB model of the EM2C database was used to calculate the emissivity
of a gas mixture over a pressure range of 1–30 bar; then, the emissivity table was
established as a database. Under each pressurized condition, the molar ratio range
was 0.125–4, the temperature range was 500–2500 K, and the path-length range was
0.001–60 m.
When calculating emissivity under various conditions with the SNB model, the
transmittance τ ν in a narrow band was first calculated using Eq. (3.1), and the emis-
sivity in the narrow band of the gas mixture was then calculated using Kirchhoff’s
law and the relationship between the gas transmittance and the absorptivity:
εν = α ν = 1 − τ ν (3.23)
The emission intensity in the narrow band I v was then calculated, followed by
the sum of all emission intensities to obtain the emission intensity I for the entire
spectral range. The emission intensity in the narrow band I v is
Iν = Ibν × ε ν (3.24)
The gas emissivity was calculated as:
ε = I /Ib (3.25)
where the blackbody emission intensity was calculated using Stefan-Boltzmann’s

law:
Ib = σ T 4 /π (3.26)
The entire calculation process is depicted in Fig. 3.2.

(2) The purpose of this second step was mainly to determine the absorption coeffi-
cient κ i of each gray gas. For a gas mixture with a certain molar ratio under a certain
pressure condition, there is a certain absorption coefficient κ i . Therefore, in the SNB
model emissivity table with a certain pressure P and a certain molar ratio M, for each
Fig. 3.2 Emissivity calculation process using the SNB model
certain path-length, all emissivity values with different temperatures were added to
determine the sum of emissivity εL , which is only associated with the path-length L:
Σ
εL = εt,L (3.27)
t
where εL is expressed in the form of Eq. (3.28) in the WSGG model:
Σ
n
εL = Ai [1 − exp(−κi X L)] (3.28)
i=1
where Ai is the sum of the single gray gas weights ai at different temperatures:
3.2 Development of WSGG Model Under Complex Combustion Conditions 43
Σ
Ai = ai,t (3.29)
t
The optimal absorption coefficient κ i was determined by minimizing the differ-

ence between the εL calculated by using the SNB model and that calculated by using
the WSGG model for different path-lengths. During the optimal process, we used
the sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithm, which is a constrained opti-
mization algorithm that was achieved using the MATLAB software. After this step,
the κ i of each molar ratio M can be determined.
(3) The third step was to determine the weight ai,t at different temperatures and
values of the polynomial coefficient ci,j . During this step, first, ai,t was determined for
a certain pressure and a certain molar ratio. Considering the absorption coefficient
κ i that was determined in the second step, the weight coefficients ai,t at each specific
temperature T can be determined by minimizing the sum of differences between
εt ,L calculated by using the SNB model and that calculated by using the WSGG
model for different path-lengths. In this process, the SQP algorithm was again used.
After determining the weight coefficient ai,t at different temperatures, the nonlinear
polynomial regression analysis was used to determine the polynomial coefficient ci,j
in Eq. (3.20).
(4) The final step was to determine the coefficients of the molar ratio polyno-
mial, i.e., C0i,j , C1i,j and C2i,j , in Eq. (3.21a) and the coefficients K0i , K1i and K2i
in Eq. (3.21b). The nonlinear polynomial regression analysis method was used to
determine the coefficients in this process. To ensure accuracy, the piecewise fitting
method was used and the pressure range was divided into six segments (1–2, 2–4,
4–6, 6–10, 10–20, and 20–30, bar) during the actual fitting process.
The following subsection describes the new WSGG model correlation coeffi-
cients.
3.2.3 WSGG Model Coefficients for Complex Combustion

Conditions
In order to make the new model suitable to the pressure range of 1–30 bar, piecewise fit
was used to improve polynomial accuracy in different pressure ranges,. Considering
most combustion chambers are in the temperature range of 500–2500 K, the new
model uses this temperature range [14–17] Additionally, the temperature range of
many published WSGG models is included in it [13, 18, 19]. The path-length range
is 0.001–60 m, which covers nearly the entire size range of the combustion chambers
[20–22]. The model is also suitable for a broad molar ratio range of 0.125–4, which
can represent various organic fuels, where M is 0.5 for acetylene and benzene, M is
1 for olefins and many oil fuels [23, 24], and M is 2 for the combustion of methane
or methanol. In addition, the molar ratio M less than 1 can represent the dry cycle
conditions of oxy-fuel combustion, while the M more than or equal to 1 can represent
the wet cycle conditions oxy-fuel combustion [11–13].
Table 3.1 The method for

If (MR ≤ 0.2) Use parameters for MR = 0.125
applying a new WSGG model
in CFD calculation [12] Else if (MR ≤ 0.4) Use parameters for MR = 0.25
Else if (MR ≤ 0.6) Use parameters for MR = 0.5
Else if (MR ≤ 0.9) Use parameters for MR = 0.75
Else if (MR ≤ 1.1) Use parameters for MR = 1
Else if (MR ≤ 2.5) Use parameters for MR = 2
Else Use parameters for MR = 4
According to the development process of WSGG model described in Sect. 3.2,

new model coefficients such as C0, C1, C2 and K0, K1, K2 can be obtained. The new
WSGG model parameters are shown in the appendix of this book, which includes
seven tables with different M (i.e., 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, and 4).
There are two methods to use new WSGG model for a given MR. The first method
was presented in literature [12] by Yin et al., and it recommends a specific table for
a given M in actual CFD calculation, with the detailed method being shown in Table
3.1. The second method is the linear interpolation method to use two table results
for a given M.
To compare these two methods, the emissivity of the gas mixture was investigated
for two cases with the M of 0.15 and 1.5; moreover, the temperature of gas mixture
is 1500 K and the pressure is 5 bar. The results are shown in Fig. 3.3.
It can be seen from Fig. 3.3 that the results of the two methods were similar when
compared with the SNB benchmark solution. In general, the linear interpolation
method is slightly more accurate than the specific table method. However, this advan-
tage is not immediately apparent, and the linear interpolation method is relatively
more complex. The specific table method is simpler and more convenient. Further-
more, it has been presented by scholars and applied in CFD calculation in previous
1.0 1.0
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8
T=1500 K T= 1500 K
0.6 P=5 bar 0.6 P=5 bar
Emissivity
Emissivity
M=0.15 M=1.5
0.4 0.4
SNB
SNB
WSGG (Specific table)
WSGG (Specific table)
WSGG (Linear interpolation)
WSGG (Linear interpolation)
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Path-length L (m) Path-length L (m)
Fig. 3.3 Comparison between two methods for applying new WSGG model for a given MR
(1500 K, 5 bar): a MR = 0.15 and b MR = 1.5
3.3 Model Calculation Results 45
research. Although a minor error exists, it is not visible. Thus, the specific table
method in Table 3.1 is recommended first for a given M in actual CFD calculations.
3.3 Model Calculation Results
3.3.1 Design of Investigated Cases
In order to investigate the applicability of the new model under high pressure condi-
tions and the effect of pressure on the radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture,
the one-dimensional infinite parallel plates cases are used in this study because
one-dimensional calculation is not only simple but also enough to investigate the
accuracy of the model and the effect of pressure on the radiation heat transfer. Thus,
many studies used one-dimensional cases [11–13, 18, 19]. In the course of inves-
tigating model accuracy, non-isothermal homogeneous cases and non-isothermal
non-homogeneous cases were chosen for study because non-isothermal conditions
are more consistent with real conditions. Furthermore, the two boundary plates are
blackbody walls with temperatures of 1000 K, the temperature distribution between
the plates can be found in [13, 25, 26], and this temperature distribution is similar to
that of a real furnace
( )
2π x
T = 1400 − 400 cos (K) (3.30)
L
where x is the position of the one-dimensional length coordinate, and L is the distance
between the two plates. For non-isothermal, homogeneous conditions (case 1 series),
five cases with different M of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 were selected. The total molar
fraction was set to 0.9, which covers both air–fuel and oxy-fuel conditions [27]. Table
3.2 displays the specific information.
For the non-homogeneous conditions, similar to literature [18], the molar fractions
of H2 O and CO2 are varying, while the molar ratio remains constant. In this study,
three different cases with the M of 0.5, 1, and 2 were selected; furthermore, the molar
Table 3.2 Non-isothermal and homogeneous case conditions (case 1 series)

Non-isothermal homogeneous
Case T (K) XH2 O XCO2 M X
1.1 Equation (3.30) 0.18 0.72 0.25 0.9
1.2 Equation (3.30) 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9
1.3 Equation (3.30) 0.45 0.45 1 0.9
1.4 Equation (3.30) 0.6 0.3 2 0.9
1.5 Equation (3.30) 0.72 0.18 4 0.9
Table 3.3 Non-isothermal and non-homogeneous case conditions (case 2 series)

Non-isothermal non-homogeneous
Case T (K) X H2 O M X (range)
2.1 Equation (3.30) Equation (3.31a) 0.5 0.6–0.9
2.2 Equation (3.30) Equation (3.31b) 1 0.64–0.96
2.3 Equation (3.30) Equation (3.31c) 2 0.6–0.9
fraction distributions of H2 O in these three cases are expressed as Eq. (3.31), and the
specific information of the cases is shown in Table 3.3. Furthermore, when solving
RTE with DOM, the S 8 discrete format is used.
( )
2π x
X H2 O = 0.25 + 0.05 cos (3.31a)
L
( )
2π x
X H2 O = 0.4 + 0.08 cos (3.31b)
L
( )
2π x
X H2 O = 0.5 + 0.1 cos (3.31c)
L
3.3.2 Emissivity Results
In this section, the accuracy of new model in the emissivity calculation is investigated
under pressurized oxy-fuel conditions, and the influence of the pressure, temperature,
and molar ratio on the emissivity of the gas mixture is also investigated.
First, the results of the benchmark in this study were compared with the results
published in [27] using the same model (SNB model of EM2C) to verify the accuracy
of the benchmark model used in this study. Figure 3.4 shows the comparison of the
emissivity from the SNB model with the published emissivity results. The results
of the SNB model used in this paper were consistent with previously published
benchmark results [27], indicating that the SNB model of EM2C in this paper is
accurate and can be used as benchmark.
First, the new WSGG model was used to predict the emissivity of the gas mixture,
and the results were compared to the benchmark solution. In addition, Fig. 3.5 depicts
the emissivity of a gas mixture calculated using the WSGG model and the benchmark
SNB model under various conditions.
Figure 3.5a depicts the emissivity of the gas mixture at different pressures of 1
(atmospheric), 2, 5, 15, and 30 bar with a path-length range of 0.001–60 m with a
temperature of 1500 K and molar ratio of 1. It can be seen that the results of the
WSGG model are in good agreement with that of the SNB model, indicating that
the new WSGG model has suitable accuracy when calculating the emissivity at a
0.8
1000 K
0.6
Emissivity
1800 K
0.4
SNB in calculation
Benchmark
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Path length L (m)
Fig. 3.4 Comparison of the emissivity calculated using the SNB model with the published
emissivity results in literature
1.0 1.0
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
P=5 bar
Emissivity
Emissivity
M=1
SNB 1bar WSGG 1bar
0.4 0.4 SNB 600K WSGG 600K
T=1500 K SNB 2bar WSGG 2bar
SNB 900K WSGG 900K
SNB 5bar WSGG 5bar
M=1 SNB 15bar WSGG 15bar
SNB 1200K WSGG 1200K
SNB 1500K WSGG 1500K
0.2 SNB 30bar WSGG 30bar 0.2 SNB 1800K WSGG 1800K
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.0 1.0
(c) (d)
0.8 0.8
0.6 T=1500 K 0.6

Emissivity
Emissivity
P=5 bar
SNB
0.4 0.4 T=1500 K WSGG
SNB M=0.125 WSGG M=0.125
SNB M=0.5 WSGG M=0.5
P=5 bar WSGG-J
WSGG-Y
0.2
SNB M=1 WSGG M=1
0.2
M=1 WSGG-S
SNB M=4 WSGG M=4
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fig. 3.5 Emissivity of the gas mixture a at different pressures (1500 K, M = 1), b at different
temperatures (5 bar, M = 1), c with different molar ratios (5 bar, 1500 K), and d calculated by
different WSGG models (5 bar, 1500 K, M = 1)
high pressure. In addition, the emissivity of the gas mixture was greater when the
pressure was raised; furthermore, the emissivity increased quickly when the pressure
was below 5 bar while slowly when the pressure was higher than 5 bar. This result
indicates that elevating the pressure can enhance the emissivity of the gas mixture
and that the effect of pressure on the emissivity is reduced as the pressure increases.
Furthermore, there is a significant effect of pressure on the emissivity when the
pressure is below 5 bar.
The emissivity at different temperatures with a molar ratio of 1 at a pressure of
5 bar is shown in Fig. 3.5b, and it can be found that the results of the WSGG model
were consistent with that of the SNB model. As shown in Fig. 3.5b, the emissivity
of the gas mixture was reduced when the temperature increased from 600 to 1800 K;
furthermore, the decrease of emissivity from 600 to 1200 K was more than that
from 1200 to 1800 K. This indicates that the emissivity of the gas mixture decreases
with the temperature and that the effect of temperature is reduced as the temperature
increases under high-pressure conditions; this is consistent with the results in the
literature [13].
Figure 3.5c shows the emissivity of the gas mixture with different molar ratios at
a temperature of 1500 K and pressure of 5 bar. Through comparing the cases with
different molar ratios of 0.125, 0.5, 1, and 4, it can be seen that the increase of molar
ratio could enhance the emissivity of the gas mixture, moreover, the increment of
emissivity from the M of 0.125 to 0.5 was more than that from the M of 0.5 to 4. This
indicates that there is greater emissivity for higher molar ratio under high-pressure
conditions and that the effect of M is reduced as the M increases; thus, the higher
the ratio of H/C is in the fuel, the greater the emissivity of flue gas. Furthermore, for
pressurized oxy-fuel combustion, the flue gas emissivity of the wet cycle condition
is higher than that of the dry cycle condition, and the molar ratio has a greater effect
on the emissivity of the flue gas in the dry cycle condition than in the wet cycle
condition.
Figure 3.5d further shows the emissivity calculated through different WSGG
models with a molar ratio of 1 at a temperature of 1500 K and a pressure of 5 bar.
The emissivity was calculated through the new pressurized WSGG model (WSGG)
proposed in this paper and three WSGG models proposed by Smith (WSGG-S)
[28], Yin (WSGG-Y) [12] and Johansson (WSGG-J) [11]. Subsequently, the emis-
sivity results were compared with the benchmark from the SNB model. As shown
in Fig. 3.5d, the new WSGG model can accurately predict the emissivity of the
gas mixture in the path-length range of 0.001–60 m under high-pressure conditions.
Furthermore, the results of the WSGG models proposed by other researchers were
quite different from the benchmark, which further indicates that the results are not
ideal when the atmospheric WSGG model is applied in high-pressure conditions;
thus, it is necessary to develop new pressurized WSGG model [6]. In addition,
Johansson’s WSGG model is closer to the benchmark than Yin’s WSGG model;
this is because Yin’s model is based on the EWB model, while Johansson’s model
is based on the SNB model of EM2C, which is the benchmark used in this study.
Smith’s model was developed in an early year and based on an old database of the
wide band model; furthermore, its structure is not optimal, and its path-length range
is limited. Therefore, Smith’s model has been completely unsuitable for the radiation
characteristic calculation of the gas mixture under high-pressure conditions.
3.3.3 One-Dimensional Case Results
In this section, the results of one-dimensional cases were mainly discussed to verify
the adaptability of the new WSGG model under high-pressure conditions. The
non-isothermal, homogeneous cases and non-isothermal, non-homogeneous cases
described in Sect. 3.3.1 were investigated. Furthermore, each case was evaluated
at four different high pressures: 2, 5, and 30 bar; furthermore, three different path-
lengths of 1, 5, and 10 m were used in each case for comparison. In the course
of numerical calculation, one-dimensional space was divided into 100 grids. The
radiation heat transfer results of one-dimensional cases mainly include the radiation
heat flux and the radiation source term, which were calculated by the new WSGG
model and the SNB model, respectively. Subsequently, the errors were analyzed to
determine the accuracy of the new model. In this study, the errors of the radiation
heat flux and radiation source term can be defined as [18]:
|qWSGG − qSNB |
δq = × 100% (3.32)
max |qSNB |
|q̇WSGG − q̇SNB |
δ q̇ = × 100% (3.33)
max |q̇SNB |
where, symbol ‘max’ represents the maximum absolute value of the radiation heat
flux or the radiation source term calculated by the SNB model. The radiation heat
flux error at the wall δqwall and the radiation source error at the midpoint δ q̇half were
primarily considered in this study because the heat flux error δqwall and source term
error δ q̇half are typically the largest and are frequently of concern to researchers [13,
18]. Furthermore, in each case, the average heat flux error δqavg and the average
source term error δ q̇avg were investigated. The errors of the new model in these cases
with varying high pressures and path-lengths are listed in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 was used to investigate the new model errors at various high pressures.
In the 5-bar pressurized condition, the maximum wall heat flux error was 14.85%
(case 1.5, 10 m), and the average heat flux error was not > 5.9% (case 1.5, 10 m).
Additionally, the maximum midpoint source term error was 3.93% (case 1.5, 1 m),
and the average source term error was no more than 3.26% (case 1.5, 10 m). For non-
homogeneous conditions, the maximum wall heat flux error was 11.28% (case 2.3,
10 m), and the average heat flux error was not > 4.28% (case 2.3, 10 m). Additionally,
the maximum midpoint source term error was 3.18% (case 2.1, 5 m), and the average
source term error was not > 3.33% (case 2.3, 1 m). Thus, the maximum average
error at 5 bar pressure is no more than 6%. Furthermore, the average error was no
more than 5% at the pressure of 2 bar, this indicates that the errors change little
Table 3.4 Errors of the new WSGG model in one-dimensional cases

Pressure 2 bar 5 bar 30 bar
δqwall δqavg δ q̇half δ q̇avg δqwall δqavg δ q̇half δ q̇avg δqwall δqavg δ q̇half δ q̇avg
L=1m
Case 1.1 6.70 5.24 4.86 2.38 3.57 1.53 1.05 1.04 2.41 2.26 5.84 2.77
Case 1.2 4.78 3.88 3.63 1.80 4.15 1.14 0.90 1.54 4.18 2.09 5.15 2.51
Case 1.3 4.38 2.65 2.16 1.27 5.05 1.84 2.58 2.48 6.39 2.41 3.16 2.25
Case 1.4 4.29 1.69 1.05 1.23 5.38 2.20 3.41 2.92 7.95 3.18 0.58 1.87
Case 1.5 4.19 1.01 0.04 1.19 5.61 2.47 3.93 3.21 9.68 3.77 4.38 3.23
Case 2.1 4.18 3.28 3.51 1.59 3.18 1.08 0.08 1.87 3.18 1.24 2.27 1.58
Case 2.2 3.88 2.02 1.91 1.18 4.50 2.00 1.87 2.86 5.56 1.67 0.30 1.36
Case 2.3 3.12 0.73 0.83 1.03 4.16 2.46 2.43 3.33 6.60 3.48 3.24 1.85
L=5m
Case 1.1 2.73 4.53 6.59 3.14 0.52 1.59 2.60 1.42 9.03 3.08 2.72 2.94
Case 1.2 2.79 3.81 5.43 2.34 2.27 2.13 2.61 1.14 12.49 4.61 2.99 3.39
Case 1.3 2.89 3.82 5.48 2.22 4.37 2.70 2.63 1.14 16.28 6.36 2.03 3.82
Case 1.4 3.30 3.80 5.50 1.99 6.72 3.33 2.50 1.55 20.36 7.88 2.08 4.66
Case 1.5 3.74 3.69 5.14 1.80 8.61 3.96 2.39 1.96 22.62 9.06 4.23 5.62
Case 2.1 2.73 4.32 6.14 2.92 2.07 2.73 3.18 1.63 10.61 4.09 3.46 3.05
Case 2.2 2.90 4.29 6.00 2.68 3.90 3.12 3.04 1.39 15.02 5.99 2.57 3.62
Case 2.3 3.34 4.44 5.97 2.51 5.66 3.67 2.86 1.41 18.19 6.99 2.32 4.20
L = 10 m
Case 1.1 3.73 4.39 5.26 2.40 3.36 1.41 0.46 0.81 15.90 6.38 3.41 4.25
Case 1.2 3.93 3.86 4.34 1.78 6.26 2.30 0.08 1.44 19.69 7.92 2.89 4.74
Case 1.3 4.56 3.44 3.57 1.46 9.94 3.62 0.30 2.26 23.48 9.90 1.37 5.04
Case 1.4 6.11 3.50 3.04 1.48 13.19 5.02 0.35 2.94 27.19 12.50 0.22 5.56
Case 1.5 7.54 3.67 2.56 1.76 14.85 5.90 0.31 3.26 29.43 13.69 0.83 6.07
Case 2.1 3.73 3.85 4.91 1.94 5.04 2.14 1.39 1.19 17.80 6.75 3.16 4.42
Case 2.2 4.25 3.58 4.50 1.76 8.80 3.25 0.99 1.98 22.12 8.91 1.88 4.82
Case 2.3 5.17 3.66 4.54 1.80 11.28 4.28 1.19 2.49 25.37 10.69 1.58 5.37
from 2 to 5 bar. However, on the whole, there are more errors for higher pressure.
At a pressure of 30 bar, for homogeneous condition, the maximum of average heat
flux error increment was 7.79% (case 1.5, 10 m), and the maximum of average
source term error increment was 3.66% (case 1.5, 5 m) when compared with the
5 bar pressure conditions; while for non-homogeneous conditions, the maximum of
average heat flux error increment was 6.41% (case 2.3, 10 m), and the maximum of
average source term error increment was 3.23% (case 2.1, 10 m). It can be seen that
there is not significant increment of the average error, and this indicates that the error
of the new model will increase with the pressure but remains within a certain range;
therefore, the new model can ensure the accuracy of calculation.
In addition to the pressure, it can be found in general that the errors would be
slightly more for the cases with a higher M; it implies to some extent that the model
accuracy is slightly worse when the weighted sum of gray gases method is used
to predict the radiation characteristics of the flue gas with a high moisture ratio. In
addition, the errors will also increase with the path-length, especially for the heat
flux. Table 3.4 also shows that the average errors in the cases with a path-length of
5 m were very low (below 7%), this indicates that the new model has a practical
significance since the size of most actual combustion chambers is no more than 5 m
[17, 22]. Moreover, it also can be found that the errors of the non-homogeneous
conditions were less than that of the homogeneous conditions; therefore, the new
model is more suitable for the actual problems with non-homogeneous condition.
Figure 3.6a, b intuitively reflect the new WSGG model results of the homogeneous
cases (case 1.2) with M = 0.5 under different pressures (L = 1 m). Figure 3.6c, d
show the new WSGG model results of the homogeneous cases (case 1.2) with M
= 0.5 for different path-lengths (P = 5 bar). Furthermore, the new WSGG model
results of the homogeneous cases (P = 5 bar, L = 1 m) with different molar ratios
are shown in Fig. 3.6e, f.
The radiation heat flux curves at different pressures were similar as shown in
Fig. 3.6a, b, and increasing pressure can increase the absolute value of the radiation
heat flux. When calculating the heat flux and source term in high-pressure conditions,
e.g., 2, 5, and 30 bar, the new WSGG model agrees well with the benchmark. Further-
more, the error of the midpoint source term is slightly higher in the 30-bar pressure
condition than in the low-pressure conditions. The error results in Table 3.4 show that
the new WSGG model has good accuracy under different pressures, and in general,
the higher the pressure, the greater the source term errors. Figure 3.6c, d show that
the new WSGG model results for different path-lengths of 1, 5, and 10 m are consis-
tent with the benchmark. Furthermore, the wall heat flux error with a path-length of
10 m is slightly greater than that with a path-length of 1 m, indicating that the heat
flux error will be greater in general for longer path-lengths. Furthermore, as shown
in Table 3.4, the new WSGG model errors for different path-lengths are not large,
indicating that the new model is accurate. Figure 3.6e, f show that the new model
results agree well with the benchmark for various molar ratios. Furthermore, Table
3.4 shows that the errors will be slightly higher for higher molar ratios. The results
shown in Fig. 3.6 and Table 3.4 concluded that the new WSGG model is in good
agreement with the reference model for calculating the radiation heat transfer of the
flue gas mixture, and that, while different conditions (e.g., pressure, path-length, and
molar ratio) will affect model accuracy, the errors are still not very high and within a
certain range in general. Thus, the new WSGG model has reasonable accuracy and
can be used to calculate the radiation heat transfer of a gas mixture under pressurized
conditions.
150 600
(a) Case 1.2 (b) Case 1.2
100 M=0.5 M=0.5
Radiation source term (kW/m3)

Radiation heat flux (kW/m2)
L=1 m L=1 m
50 0
0
SNB 2 bar
WSGG 2 bar
SNB 5 bar SNB 2 bar
-50 -600 WSGG 2 bar
WSGG 5 bar
SNB 30 bar SNB 5 bar
WSGG 30 bar WSGG 5 bar
-100 SNB 30 bar
WSGG 30 bar
-150 -1200
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
x (m) x (m)
150 500
(c) (d) Case 1.2
Case 1.2
100
M=0.5 Radiation source term (kW/m3) M=0.5
P=5 bar P=5 bar

50 0
0 SNB 1m
WSGG 1m
SNB 5m SNB 1m
-50 WSGG 5m -500 WSGG 1m
SNB 10m SNB 5m
WSGG 10m WSGG 5m
-100 SNB 10m
WSGG 10m
-150 -1000
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dimensional coordinate x* Dimensionless coordinate x*
150 500
(e) (f) P=5 bar
100 P=5 bar L=1 m
Radiation source term (kW/m3)
L=1 m
50 0
0
SNB M=0.25
WSGG M=0.25
SNB M=0.25
-50 SNB M=0.5 -500
WSGG M=0.25
WSGG M=0.5
SNB M=0.5
SNB M=1
WSGG M=0.5
-100 WSGG M=1 SNB M=1
WSGG M=1
-150 -1000
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
x (m) x (m)
Fig. 3.6 New WSGG model results of homogeneous cases: a radiation heat flux and b radiation
source term under different pressures (case 1.2, M = 0.5, L = 1 m); c radiation heat flux and d
radiation source term with different path-lengths (case 1.2, MR = 0.5, P = 5 bar, x* = x/L); e
radiation heat flux and f radiation source term with different molar ratios (M = 0.25 for case 1.1,
M = 0.5 for case 1.2, M = 1 for case 1.3, P = 5 bar, L = 1 m)
3.3.4 Effect of Pressure on Radiation Heat Transfer
This section investigates the effect of pressure on the radiation heat transfer of the
gas mixture. The isothermal homogeneous cases are discussed in order to investigate
the effect of pressure on the radiation heat flux of the gas mixture with various
molar ratios, temperatures T, and path-lengths L. The isothermal, homogeneous case
is convenient for comparative study since it has explicit characteristic parameters;
thus, the isothermal, homogeneous results are of general significance.
The effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux of a gas mixture with
different molar ratios is shown in Fig. 3.7. In this case, the average radiation heat flux
is defined as the average value of all the radiation heat fluxes at every grid point along
the path-length in a one-dimensional case. In the isothermal, homogeneous cases,
five kinds of gas mixtures have different M of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4, respectively; the
total molar fraction is 0.9; the temperature is 1500 K; and the path-length is 1 m. In
the pressure range of 1–30 bar, the effect of pressure on the average radiation heat
flux was investigated.
40 90
(a) T=1500 K (b)
80
Average radiation heat flux (kW/m2)
L=1 m M=1
1200 K
1350 K
35 70
L=1 m 1500 K
1650 K
60 1800 K
50
30
M=0.125 40
M=0.25
M=1 30
25 M=2
M=4 20
10
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pressure P (bar) Pressure P (bar)
40
(c)
T=1500 K
35 M=1
30
25
1m
3m
5m
20 6m
10 m
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pressure P (bar)
Fig. 3.7 Effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux of the gas mixtures a with different
molar ratios, b at different temperatures, and c with different path-lengths
The average radiation heat flux of the gas mixture increased rapidly at first, then
slowly, and finally began to decrease in each case from 1 to 30 bar pressure (Fig. 3.7a).
It implies that increasing the pressure in a specific range can improve the radiation
heat transfer of the gas mixture. Additionally, the enhancing effect will gradually
diminish as the pressure increases. In contrast, the radiation heat transfer is reduced
if the pressure exceeds a certain threshold. Thus, an optimal pressure was noted at
which the average heat flux of a gas mixture is greatest.
The optimum pressure to improve heat transfer was ~13, ~5, and ~3 bar for the
M of 0.25, 1, and 4, respectively (Fig. 3.7a). This means that as the molar ratio of
the gas mixture increases, the pressure at which the radiation heat flux begins to
decrease is lower. Thus, the optimal pressure for enhancing heat transfer decreases.
Increasing the H2 O concentration in the gas mixture results in the best radiation
heat transfer enhancement at lower pressure. In practical industrial applications, the
optimal pressure will be lower for the fuel with a higher H/C ratio. Thus, the optimal
pressure for enhancing the radiation heat transfer of methane combustion will be
lower than that of fuel oil combustion. Additionally, the optimal pressure for the
radiation heat transfer of wet flue gas cycle oxy-fuel combustion is lower than that
of dry flue gas cycle oxy-fuel combustion. Furthermore, Fig. 3.7a shows that if the
molar ratio was lower, the variation range of radiation heat flux over the pressure
range was larger. This implies that pressure has a greater influence on radiation heat
transfer of gas mixtures with a lower M. Thus, pressure has a greater influence on
radiation heat transfer of the CO2 molecule than the H2 O molecule.
All of the curves in Fig. 3.7a roughly intersected at a pressure of about 9 bar,
implying that there is a pressure boundary dividing the entire pressure range into
two sections. The radiation heat flux of the gas mixture generally increases with
the molar ratio when the pressure is below the boundary pressure, and it decreases
with the molar ratio when the pressure is greater than the boundary pressure. Thus,
increasing the molar ratio of the gas mixture can improve its radiation heat transfer
under lower pressure, but decreasing the molar ratio of the gas mixture is required
to improve its radiation heat transfer under higher pressure.
The effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux of the gas mixture at
different temperatures is shown in Fig. 3.7b. The five gas mixtures in the isothermal,
homogeneous cases have temperatures of 1200, 1350, 1500, 1650, and 1800 K.
Additionally, the cases have a molar ratio of 1 and a path-length of 1 m. In the
pressure range of 1–30 bar, the effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux
was investigated. The average radiation heat flux of the gas mixture increased first
and then decreased with pressure at different temperatures as shown in Fig. 3.7b.
Optimal pressure for heat transfer enhancement was noted, as discussed previously
in Fig. 3.7a. Moreover, Fig. 3.7b also shows that the optimal pressure was ~2, ~4, and
~8 bar when the temperature was 1200, 1500, and 1800 K, respectively, indicating
that the optimal pressure increases with temperature. Furthermore, Fig. 3.7b shows
that the higher the temperature is, the more obvious change of the radiation heat
flux caused by pressure, which indicates that pressure has a greater effect on the
radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture at higher temperatures. Thus, for high-
temperature combustion chambers, the pressurization method improves radiation
3.4 Summary 55
heat transfer more clearly, and the pressure range to improve radiation heat transfer
is wider. Furthermore, Fig. 3.7b shows that the average radiation heat flux is greater
at higher temperatures, implying that temperature has a significant influence on the
radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture. The radiation intensity is quite high in
combustion chambers with high temperatures and pressures, such as those found in
rocket engines.
The effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux of gas mixtures with
different path-lengths is shown in Fig. 3.7c. In the isothermal, homogeneous case,
the path-lengths of the five gas mixtures are 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 m. Additionally, the
molar ratio of cases is 1 and the temperature is 1500 K. In the pressure range of
1–30 bar, the effect of pressure on the average radiation heat flux was investigated.
The variations in average radiation heat flux with pressure for gas mixtures with
different path-lengths were different as shown in Fig. 3.7c. For gas mixtures with
path-lengths no more than 5 m, the average radiation heat flux increased first and
then decreased with pressure. Additionally, when the radiation heat flux began to
decrease, the pressure was about 5, 2, and 1.5 bar for the path-lengths of 1, 3, and
5 m, respectively. When the path-length was more than 5 m, the average radiation
heat flux of the gas mixture decreased without any initial increase, e.g., the path-
lengths of 6 and 10 m, which are shown in Fig. 3.7c. This suggests that the variation
of radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture with pressure can be affected by the
path-length. In general, for a longer path-length, the optimal pressure for enhancing
radiation heat transfer is lower. Nonetheless, the radiation heat flux decreases with
pressure and does not undergo any process of first increasing when the path-length
exceeds a certain value. Thus, the curves in Fig. 3.7c have no peak, and no optimum
pressure was noted for the cases with a longer path-length. When evaluating the
effect of pressure on radiation heat transfer in practical applications, considering the
size of the combustion chambers and the actual path-length in addition to the specific
flue gas characteristics is necessary. Furthermore, Fig. 3.7c shows that the variation
of radiation heat flux in the pressure range of 1–30 bar is not very different for the
gas mixtures with different path-lengths.
The curves in Fig. 3.7c intersected at approximately 3 bar. Thus, a boundary
pressure exists that divides the pressure range into two sections, with different trends
in the radiation heat flux curves in these two sections. The average radiation heat
flux decreased with path-lengths when the pressure was greater than the boundary
pressure as shown in Fig. 3.7c. The size of the high-pressure combustion chamber
should not be too large to ensure adequate radiation heat transfer intensity.
3.4 Summary
In this chapter, a new WSGG model and its parameters suitable for H2 O/CO2 mixtures
at pressures ranging from 1 to 30 bar were established based on the SNB model. In
addition, the new model was used to calculate the emissivity and one-dimensional
radiation heat transfer of the gas mixture. The results were also compared with the
benchmark. Finally, the new WSGG model was used to investigate the effect of
pressure on the radiation heat transfer of a gas mixture. The following conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) The gas mixture emissivity calculated by the new WSGG model is consis-
tent with the benchmark under high-pressure conditions. Additionally, no ideal
results were noted for other atmospheric WSGG models. Thus, the development
of a new pressurized WSGG model is of great significance.
(2) The results of the new WSGG model in one-dimensional cases are in good
agreement with the benchmark. The maximum average heat flux and maximum
average source term errors are around 10% and 6%, respectively. According to
the most actual pressurized combustion chambers with small size, it can be seen
that the average error is no more than 4% for the cases with a path-length of
1 m. Thus, the new WSGG model can provide a reasonably accurate prediction
of radiation heat transfer for the gas mixtures under high-pressure conditions
and can be used for numerical calculation or design of pressurized combustion
chambers.
(3) In a certain pressure range, increasing the pressure can improve H2 O/CO2
mixture radiation heat transfer. Thus, pressurized oxy-fuel combustion can
improve flue gas radiation heat transfer when compared to atmospheric oxy-fuel
combustion. Both the emissivity and radiation heat transfer intensity of the oxy-
fuel gas mixture increased with pressure. Furthermore, as pressure increases,
this effect gradually diminishes; when pressure exceeds this range, the radiation
heat flux decreases. Thus, an optimum pressure exists to improve the radiation
heat transfer of the gas mixture.
(4) The optimal pressure for radiation heat transfer enhancement can be influenced
by the molar ratio of H2 O/CO2 , temperature, and path-length of the gas mixture.
The higher the molar ratio is, the lower the optimal pressure will be; nevertheless,
the optimum pressure will be higher for a higher temperature; moreover, there
is a lower optimum pressure for the longer path-length.
(5) Pressure has a greater effect on the radiation heat transfer of a gas mixture with
a lower molar ratio as well as a greater influence on the radiation heat transfer
characteristics of CO2 than H2 O. Thus, an increase in pressure can effectively
improve the radiation heat transfer of the dry flue gas recycle condition in
oxy-fuel combustion to wet flue gas recycling. Furthermore, pressure has a
greater influence on the radiation heat transfer of a gas mixture with a higher
temperature. However, the effect of pressure on the radiation heat transfer of
gas mixtures with different path-lengths is similar.
References
1. Malkmus W (1967) Random Lorentz band model with exponential-tailed S−1 line-intensity
distribution function. JOSA 57(3):323–329
References 57
2. Soufiani A, Taine J (1997) High temperature gas radiative property parameters of statistical
narrow-band model for H2 O, CO2 and CO, and correlated-K model for H2 O and CO2 . Int J
Heat Mass Transf 40(4):987–991
3. Goutiere V, Liu F, Charette A (2000) An assessment of real-gas modelling in 2D enclosures. J
Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 64(3):299–326
4. Chu H, Liu F, Zhou H (2011) Calculations of gas thermal radiation transfer in one-dimensional
planar enclosure using LBL and SNB models. Int J Heat Mass Transf 54(21–22):4736–4745
5. Rivière P, Soufiani A (2012) Updated band model parameters for H2 O, CO2 , CH4 and CO
radiation at high temperature. Int J Heat Mass Transf 55(13–14):3349–3358
6. Chu H, Gu M, Consalvi J et al (2016) Effects of total pressure on non-grey gas radiation transfer
in oxy-fuel combustion using the LBL, SNB, SNBCK, WSGG, and FSCK methods. J Quant
Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 172:24–35
7. Hottel H, Sarofim A (1967) Radiative transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York
8. Modest M (1991) The weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for arbitrary solution methods in
radiative transfer
9. Modest M (2013) Radiative heat transfer, 3rd edn. Academic press, Amsterdam
10. Chandrasekhar S (1960) Radiative transfer. Dover Publications, New York
11. Johansson R, Andersson K, Leckner B et al (2010) Models for gaseous radiative heat transfer
applied to oxy-fuel conditions in boilers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 53(1–3):220–230
12. Yin C, Johansen L, Rosendahl L et al (2010) New weighted sum of gray gases model appli-
cable to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of oxy-fuel combustion: derivation,
validation, and implementation. Energy Fuels 24(12):6275–6282
13. Kangwanpongpan T, França F, Silva R et al (2012) New correlations for the weighted-sum-of-
gray-gases model in oxy-fuel conditions based on HITEMP 2010 database. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 55(25–26):7419–7433
14. Rashedul H, Kalam M, Masjuki H et al (2014) Numerical study on convective heat transfer of
a spark ignition engine fueled with bioethanol. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 58:33–39
15. Arghode V, Gupta A (2010) Effect of flow field for colorless distributed combustion (CDC)
for gas turbine combustion. Appl Energy 87(5):1631–1640
16. Zhang J, Dai B, Meng Y et al (2015) Pilot-scale experimental and CFD modeling investigations
of oxy-fuel combustion of Victorian brown coal. Fuel 144:111–120
17. Bahramian A, Maleki M, Medi B (2017) CFD modeling of flame structures in a gas turbine
combustion reactor: velocity, temperature, and species distribution. Int J Chem Reactor Eng
15(4)
18. Dorigon L, Duciak G, Brittes R et al (2013) WSGG correlations based on HITEMP2010 for
computation of thermal radiation in non-isothermal, non-homogeneous H2 O/CO2 mixtures.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 64:863–873
19. Bordbar M, W˛ecel G, Hyppänen T (2014) A line by line based weighted sum of gray gases model
for inhomogeneous CO2 –H2 O mixture in oxy-fired combustion. Combust Flame 161(9):2435–
2445
20. Yin C (2016) Effects of moisture release and radiation properties in pulverized fuel combustion:
a CFD modelling study. Fuel 165:252–259
21. Gicquel L, Staffelbach G, Poinsot T (2012) Large eddy simulations of gaseous flames in gas
turbine combustion chambers. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38(6):782–817
22. Li Y, Han J, Chen X et al (2017) Numerical study of the internal flow field of a dual pulse
solid rocket motor including conjugate heat transfer. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerosp Eng
231(8):1535–1549
23. Westbrook C, Pitz W, Herbinet O et al (2009) A comprehensive detailed chemical kinetic
reaction mechanism for combustion of n-alkane hydrocarbons from n-octane to n-hexadecane.
Combust Flame 156(1):181–199
24. Seshadri K, Frassoldati A, Cuoci A et al (2011) Experimental and kinetic modeling study of
combustion of JP-8, its surrogates and components in laminar premixed flows. Combust Theor
Model 15(4):569–583
25. Andersson K, Johansson R, Johnsson F et al (2008) Radiation intensity of propane-fired oxy-

fuel flames: implications for soot formation. Energy Fuels 22(3):1535–1541
26. Kangwanpongpan T, Silva R, Krautz H (2012) Prediction of oxy-coal combustion through an
optimized weighted sum of gray gases model. Energy 41(1):244–251
27. Johansson R, Leckner B, Andersson K et al (2011) Account for variations in the H2 O to CO2
molar ratio when modelling gaseous radiative heat transfer with the weighted-sum-of-grey-
gases model. Combust Flame 158(5):893–901
28. Smith T, Shen Z, Friedman J (1982) Evaluation of coefficients for the weighted sum of gray
gases model. J Heat Transfer 104(4):602–608
Chapter 4
Thermodynamic Calculation of Radiative
Energy in Combustion Medium
This chapter combines the radiation transfer process with the thermodynamic second
law to obtain more accurate results for energy quality and its variability in the spec-
tral radiation transfer process. First, the fundamental concepts of the monochromatic
radiative exergy theory are reviewed and discussed. This theory is then combined
with the radiation transfer equation, and the spectral radiative entropy and the radia-
tive exergy transfer equations are established and verified using the second law of
thermodynamics. Finally, one-dimensional furnace case calculations are performed
to determine the spectral distribution and variation of radiative energy and radia-
tive exergy in the combustion medium. Furthermore, the effects of the temperature
field, gas molar ratio, and particle number density on spectral radiation characteris-
tics are investigated. This is useful for studies into flame energy spectrum-splitting
conversion systems.
4.1 Thermodynamic Theory of Spectral Radiation

Transfer in Combustion Medium
4.1.1 Comments on Monochromatic Radiative Exergy Theory
In Chap. 2, a monochromatic spectral radiative exergy theory is developed to char-

acterize the ability of monochromatic radiation to do work; this is a very delicate
model. A spectral radiative exergy transfer equation is established in this chapter
based on this important idea. The concept of equivalent temperature, which should
have the dimension of temperature and is defined to express the quality of energy,
is required to describe the available energy of monochromatic radiation. Conse-
quently, an infinite-staged Carnot heat engine model could be established based on

60 4 Thermodynamic Calculation of Radiative Energy in Combustion Medium
the concept of equivalent temperature and the differences between the radiative and
thermal energy to derive the monochromatic photon exergy as shown in Chap. 2.
The monochromatic photon exergy derived from the infinite-staged Carnot heat
engine can be expressed as an integral form:
(ν ( )
T0
Eν = h 1 − dν (4.1)
Tν
ν0
T ν in Eq. (4.1) is considered to be related to the emission temperature and the

frequency or the wavelength following the relevant theory. If the equivalent temper-
ature is expressed in terms of wavelength and Eq. (4.1) is integrated to correspond
to the macroscopic blackbody radiation exergy as described in Petela’s theory, the
following equation is obtained:
f T3
Tλ4 = (4.2)
λ
In addition, the corresponding spectral radiative exergy–energy coefficient can be
calculated by comparing it with the photon energy:
( )
4 T0 1 T0 4
ηλ = 1 − + (4.3)
3 Tλ 3 Tλ
when T > T 0 : 4.5638 × 10−3 T 3 = λTλ4 ; when T < T 0 : 5.33 × 10−3 T 3 = λTλ4 .
Furthermore, the entropy of a monochromatic photon was studied using the
infinite-staged Carnot heat engine model, and the entropy of the photon with
frequency ν is:
(ν
hdν
Sν = (4.4)
Tν
0
After substituting Eq. (4.2) into Eq. (4.4), the coefficient of the spectral radiative
entropy to the energy can be obtained using a comparison with the photon energy:
Sν 4
ξν = = (4.5)
hν 3Tλ
Following that, some remarks on the radiative exergy theory are made. First,
the Gouy–Stodola theorem was used to demonstrate that the relationship between
monochromatic photon exergy and entropy represented by Eqs. (4.1) and (4.4) was
proved to be in agreement with:
E = H − H0 − T0 (S − S0 ) (4.6)
4.1 Thermodynamic Theory of Spectral Radiation Transfer in Combustion … 61
Thus, the proposed entropy and exergy theories are intrinsically harmonious.
Furthermore, the new spectral radiative exergy theory focuses on monochromatic
radiation’s ability to do work, which is greater for shorter wavelength radiation.
The radiative exergy in the entire blackbody spectrum corresponds to the blackbody
radiative exergy expression proposed by Petela [1].
Second, it is evident that the equivalent temperature [2, 3] is explicitly defined to
characterize the spectral radiative energy quality; this is different from the concept
of radiation temperature, which is only related to the spectral radiation intensity.
Furthermore, the spectral radiative exergy coefficient derived from the infinite-staged
Carnot heat engine model differs from the Carnot efficiency, reflecting the differences
between the radiation and thermal energy. Thus, the method proposed in Eq. (4.3)
appears to be more appropriate for the theoretical characterization of the spectral
radiative exergy.
Finally, a special relationship between the monochromatic photons and spectral
radiation is investigated from the perspective of radiative exergy. According to the
infinite-staged Carnot engine model, for a photon of hν, hν 0 is the reference state for
calculating its radiative exergy. Furthermore, for blackbody spectral radiation I b,λ ,
I b,λ (T 0 ) is the reference state for calculating its radiation exergy [2, 3]. The macro-
and microscales should have a corresponding relationship. Consequently, Eqs. (4.1)
and (4.2) indicates the following relationship between photons and spectral radiation:
Ib,λ (T0 ) hν0 T4

= = 04 (4.7)
Ib,λ hν Tλ
4.1.2 Spectral Radiative Exergy Transfer
The following is a spectral radiation transfer equation with emission, absorption, and
scattering [4]:
(
d Iλ (s) ( ) κs,λ ( ) ( )
= − κa,λ + κs,λ Iλ (s) + κa,λ Ib,λ + Iλ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' (4.8)
ds 4π
4π
where κ a,λ is the spectral absorption coefficient, κ s,λ is the scattering coefficient, and
Φ(s' , s) is the scattering phase function.
The spectral radiative exergy transfer equation can be directly obtained using the
spectral radiative exergy theory:
Fig. 4.1 Radiation energy,

exergy, and entropy transfer
processes
( )
d E λ (s) ( ) 4 T0 T04
= − κa,λ + κs,λ E λ (s) + κa,λ Ib,λ 1 − +
ds 3 Tλ 3Tλ4
(
κs,λ ( ) ( )
+ E λ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' (4.9)
4π
4π
The first term on the right side of the equation represents the exergy intensity
reduction caused by absorption and scattering, the second term is the exergy of the
emission, and the third term is the exergy enhancement caused by spatial scattering
in the direction of radiation transfer. The spatial propagation of spectral radiative
exergy is described in Eq. (4.9). The transfer process for the radiative exergy is very
similar to the transfer process for radiative energy shown in Fig. 4.1. The exergy is
generated for radiation transfer in a participating medium, and it varies primarily in
the radiation field, as well as in the media [3]. Thus, the exergy loss in the participating
media radiation transfer consists primarily of the exergy loss in the radiation field
and the exergy loss in the media as a result of radiation.
To determine the variation of the radiative exergy in the radiation field, Eq. (4.9)
is integrated over the entire solid angle of the space to obtain the local net exergy
loss of the radiation with a spectrum interval dλ after passing through the differential
unit dV.
( [ ( )]
4 T0 T04
d E R,λ = −κa,λ d V dλ
V
E λ (s) − Ib,λ 1 − + dΩ
3 Tλ 3Tλ4
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ') ( ' ) '
− κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ E λ (s) − E λ s Φ s , s dΩ ⎦dΩ (4.10)
4π
4π 4π
Due to the radiation transfer in the participating media, the media also obtain or
lose energy through radiation absorption or emission; thus, the exergy of the media
varies [3]. As shown in Fig. 5.1b, the local net exergy increment of the media due to
the radiation heat flux can be calculated according to the definition of thermal exergy
[3]:
( ) ( )(
T0 T0 [ ]
V
d E M,λ = d Qλ 1 − = κa,λ d V dλ 1 − Iλ (s) − Ib,λ dΩ (4.11)
TM TM
4π
Thus, Eqs. (4.10) and (4.11) are combined. After the radiation of wavelength λ
passes through a differential unit dV within the spectral interval dλ, the radiation
exergy loss in the entire system is:
d E RV M,λ = −d E R,λ
V
− d E M,λ
V
⎡ ( ) ⎤
T0
( ⎢ E λ (s) − Iλ (s) 1 − ⎥
⎢ TM ⎥
= κa,λ d V dλ ⎢ ( 4 )⎥dΩ
⎣ T0 4 T0 T0 ⎦
4π −Ib,λ − +
TM 3 Tλ 3Tλ4
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ') ( ' ) '
+ κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ E λ (s) − E λ s Φ s , s dΩ ⎦dΩ (4.12)
4π
4π 4π
T4
Because Ib,λ 3T0 4 = 13 Ib,λ (T0 ) according to Eq. (4.7), which is constant for a
λ
radiation with wavelength λ in a spectrum of dλ. That is, its value does not change
after passing through a differential unit dV; therefore:
( (
T4 1
d V dλ Ib,λ 0 4 dΩ = d V dλ Ib,λ (T0 )dΩ = 0 (4.13)
3Tλ 3
4π 4π
Therefore, Eq. (4.12) is rewritten as:
d E RV M,λ = −d E R,λ
V
− d E M,λ
V
( [ ( ) ( )]
T0 T0 4 T0
= κa,λ d V dλ E λ (s) − Iλ (s) 1 − − Ib,λ − dΩ
TM TM 3 Tλ
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ) ( )
+ κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ E λ (s) − E λ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' ⎦dΩ (4.14)
4π
4π 4π
The first term on the right side of the equation is the radiative exergy loss caused
by the absorption and emission process and the second term is the exergy loss caused
by the scattering process.
4.1.3 Spectral Radiative Entropy Transfer
According to the monochromatic photon entropy expression described in Chap. 2,

a spectral radiative entropy transfer equation can be derived by analogy with the
spectral radiative exergy transfer Eq. (4.9):
(
d Sλ (s) ( ) 4Ib,λ κs,λ ( ) ( )
= − κa,λ + κs,λ Sλ (s) + κa,λ + Sλ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' (4.15)
ds 3Tλ 4π
4π
The first term on the right side of the equation represents the entropy intensity
reduction due to absorption and scattering, the second term is the entropy of the
emission, and the third term is the entropy enhancement in the direction of radia-
tion transfer from the spatial scattering. Equation (4.15) reflects the spatial transfer
process of radiative entropy. It can be seen in Fig. 4.1 that the transfer process for the
radiative entropy is very similar to the radiative energy and exergy transfer processes.
Therefore, the entropy generation in the participating media radiation transfer also
includes the entropy generation in the radiation field and the entropy generation in
the medium caused by the radiation [5, 6].
For the radiative entropy generation in the radiation field, the local net entropy
increment of the radiation with the spectrum interval dλ after passing through the
differential unit dV can be obtained by integrating Eq. (4.15) over the entire solid
angle of the space:
( [ ]
4Ib,λ
V
d S R,λ = −κa,λ d V dλ Sλ (s) − dΩ
3Tλ
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
( ') ( ' ) '
− κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ Sλ (s) − 1 Sλ s Φ s , s dΩ ⎦dΩ (4.16)
4π
4π 4π
Due to the radiation transfer in the participating media, the media also obtain or
lose energy through radiation absorption or emission; thus, the entropy of the media
varies [5, 7]. As shown in Fig. 4.1c, the local net entropy increment of the media
due to the radiation heat flux can be calculated according to the definition of thermal
entropy [5, 7]:
(
d Qλ Iλ (s) − Ib,λ
V
d S M,λ = = κa,λ d V dλ dΩ (4.17)
TM TM
4π
As a result, Eqs. (4.16) and (4.17) are combined. After the radiation of wavelength
λ passes through a differential unit dV within the spectral interval dλ, the radiative
entropy generation in the entire system is:
d S RV M,λ = d S R,λ
V
+ d S M,λ
V
( [ ]
4Ib,λ Iλ (s) Ib,λ
= −κa,λ d V dλ Sλ (s) − − + dΩ
3T λ TM TM
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ) ( )
− κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ Sλ (s) − Sλ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' ⎦dΩ (4.18)
4π
4π 4π
The first term on the right side of the equation is the radiative entropy generation
caused by the absorption and emission processes and the second term is the entropy
generation caused by the scattering process.
The spectral radiative exergy transfer equation (Eq. 4.9), the entropy transfer
equation (Eq. 4.15), and the exergy loss or entropy generation in the radiation
transfer process can be combined with various radiation transfer numerical calcula-
tion methods, such as the discrete ordinate method (DOM), finite volume method
(FVM), discrete transfer method, and spherical harmonics method [4]. In this study,
some examples are analyzed using the widely applicable DOM.
4.1.4 Thermodynamic Relationship Verification
According to the Gouy–Stodola theorem in Eq. (4.6), the relationship between the
radiative entropy and exergy could be verified.
First, for the spectral radiative entropy transfer equation and exergy transfer
equation, according to Gouy–Stodola theorem, there is:
[ ]
E λ = Iλ − Ib,λ (T0 ) − T0 Sλ − Sb,λ (T0 ) (4.19)
and:
[ ] [ ]
d Eλ d Iλ − Ib,λ (T0 ) d Sλ − Sb,λ (T0 )
= − T0 (4.20)
ds ds ds
After substituting the radiation transfer equation (Eq. 4.8) and the spectral radia-
tive entropy transfer equation (Eq. 4.15) into the right side of the Eq. (4.20), the
following is obtained:
[ ] [ ]
d Iλ − Ib,λ (T0 ) d Sλ − Sb,λ (T0 )
− T0
( ds ){ ds [ ]}
= − κa,λ + κs,λ Iλ (s) − Ib,λ (T0 ) − T0 Sλ (s) − Sb,λ (T0 )
( [ ])
4Ib,λ 4Ib,λ (T0 )
+ κa,λ Ib,λ − Ib,λ (T0 ) − T0 −
3Tλ 3T0
(
κs,λ { ( ' ) [ ( ') ]} ( )
+ Iλ s − Ib,λ (T0 ) − T0 Sλ s − Sb,λ (T0 ) Φ s' , s dΩ' (4.21)
4π
4π
Consider the second item on the right side of Eq. (4.21):

[ ] [ ]
4Ib,λ 4Ib,λ (T0 ) 4T0 Ib,λ (T0 )
Ib,λ − Ib,λ (T0 ) − T0 − = Ib,λ 1 − + (4.22)
3Tλ 3T0 3Tλ 3Ib,λ
According to Eq. (4.7), there is:

[ ] ( )
4T0 Ib,λ (T0 ) 4T0 T4
Ib,λ 1 − + = Ib,λ 1 − + 04 (4.23)
3Tλ 3Ib,λ 3Tλ 3Tλ
Therefore, Eq. (4.21) is written as:

[ ] [ ]
d Iλ − Ib,λ (T0 ) d Sλ − Sb,λ (T0 )
− T0
ds ds
( )
( ) 4T0 T4
= − κa,λ + κs,λ E λ (s) + κa,λ Ib,λ 1 − + 04
3Tλ 3Tλ
(
κs,λ ( ') ( ' ) '
+ E λ s Φ s , s dΩ
4π
4π
d E(s)
= (4.24)
ds
This corresponds to the Gouy–Stodola theorem defined in Eq. (4.19).
The relationship between the spectral radiative entropy generation and exergy loss
according to the Gouy–Stodola theorem is:
d E RV M,λ = d I R,λ
V
+ d Q VM,λ − T0 d S RV M,λ (4.25)
Using Eq. (4.8) for the radiative intensity and Eq. (4.18) for entropy and
considering Eq. (4.7), the following is obtained:
V
d I R,λ + d Q VM,λ − T0 d S RV M,λ
(
[ ]
= −κa,λ d V dλ Iλ (s) − Ib,λ − Iλ (s) + Ib,λ dΩ
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ') ( ' ) '
− κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ Iλ (s) − Iλ s Φ s , s dΩ ⎦dΩ
4π
4π 4π
( [ ]
4T0 T0 T0
− κa,λ d V dλ T0 Sλ (s) − Ib,λ − Iλ (s) + Ib,λ dΩ
3Tλ TM TM
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ') ( ' ) '
− κs,λ d V dλ ⎣T0 Sλ (s) − T0 Sλ s Φ s , s dΩ ⎦dΩ
4π
4π 4π
( [ ( ) ( )]
T0 T0 4 T0
= κa,λ d V dλ E λ (s) − Iλ (s) 1 − − Ib,λ − dΩ
TM TM 3 Tλ
4π
⎡ ⎤
( (
1 ( ) ( )
+ κs,λ d V dλ ⎣ E λ (s) − E λ s' Φ s' , s dΩ' ⎦dΩ = d E RV M,λ (4.26)
4π
4π 4π
It can be seen that the entropy generation and exergy loss in the radiation process
agree with the laws of thermodynamics, demonstrating that the entropy generation
and the exergy loss are uniform and in internal harmony in the radiation transfer
process.
4.1.5 Numerical Verification
The numerical verification method proposed by Liu and Chu [7] was used to validate
the new radiative entropy transfer equation. A one-dimensional case is used with
equally high temperatures of the two boundary walls; the wall temperatures are set
to 3500 K, 2500 K, and 1750 K, respectively. The temperature of the absorbing and
emission media is constant at 350 K, the absorption coefficient is set to 0.5, and the
length is 1 m. The DOM is used for the calculation and the discrete format is S 8 .
This method has been applied in the calculation of the one-dimensional radiative
heat flux.
By integrating Eq. (4.18) on a one-dimensional space and the whole spectrum,
we can obtain the entropy generation of the radiation transfer in a one-dimensional
space [7]:
( (
ΓG = d S RV M,λ dλd V (4.27)
V λ
In one-dimensional space, the dimensionless entropy generation is defined as [7]:
Γ G TL
ΠG = (4.28)
Q
The numerical results of dimensionless entropy generation in one-dimensional

space are depicted in Fig. 4.2. The dimensionless entropy production at different
coordinates in the one-dimensional space was stable at 0.9, 0.86, and 0.8 (Fig. 4.2).
However, as demonstrated in [7], the entire system does not output work; thus,
the theoretical method can predict entropy generation:
( )
Q Q TL TL
ΠG = − =1− (4.29)
TL TH Q TH
Fig. 4.2 Numerical 1.0

verification results of
dimensionless radiative
Dimensionless entropy generation

entropy generation in the
0.9
one-dimensional case
0.8
3500 K
0.7 2500 K
1750 K
0.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Coordinate x (m)
The results of the theoretical calculation (Eq. 4.29) indicate that the dimensionless
entropy generation in the one-dimensional space is 0.9, 0.86, and 0.8 for the wall
temperatures of 3500 K, 2500 K, and 1750 K, respectively. A comparison between
theoretical results and numerical results in Fig. 4.2 shows that the numerical entropy
production in the whole space is very similar to the theoretical results. According to
Ref. [7], this approach verifies the new spectral radiative exergy theory and numerical
calculation method of the second law calculation for the spectral radiation transfer.
4.2 Radiation Energy Characteristics in Combustion

Medium of 1-D Furnace Case
4.2.1 One-Dimensional Cases
Here, the one-dimensional infinite parallel plate cases are used for calculation, which
represents the pulverized-coal furnace. Therefore, the one-dimensional radiation
media, consists of gas and particle mixture, has the absorption, emission, and scat-
tering properties. The characteristics of radiative energy and radiative exergy are
investigated under the conditions with different flue gas temperature, molar ratio,
and particle characteristics. Three furnace temperature distribution characteristics
are shown in Eq. (4.30), and the corresponding curves are shown in Fig. 4.3.
) (
2π x
T = 1400 − 400 cos (K) (4.30a)
L
( )
2π x
T = 1200 − 300 cos (K) (4.30b)
L
4.2 Radiation Energy Characteristics in Combustion Medium of 1-D … 69
2000
Fig. 4.3 Temperature
1400 K
profiles of the 1800 1200 K
one-dimensional cases 1000 K
1600
Temperature (K)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/L
Table 4.1 Molar ratio of different oxy-fuel atmospheres

Non-isothermal and homogeneous
Case T (K) X H2 O X CO2 M X
1.1 Equation (4.30a) 0.18 0.72 0.25 0.9
1.2 Equation (4.30a) 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9
1.3 Equation (4.30a) 0.45 0.45 1 0.9
1.4 Equation (4.30a) 0.6 0.3 2 0.9
( )
2π x
T = 1000 − 200 cos (K) (4.30c)
L
Four oxy-fuel atmospheres with different molar ratio are investigated; they are all
non-isothermal and homogeneous medium and the molar ratio is shown in Table 4.1.
The absorption and scattering factors for particles need to be calculated from the
Mie theory according to the fuel properties. Generally, the average absorption and
scattering factors are used, that is, the spectral distribution curve is drawn according
to the Mie theory, and then the Planck average is taken. In this book, we do not
discuss and perform the specific calculation of Mie theory. Based on the research
published results, appropriate radiation characteristic parameters are selected for
sensitivity analysis. The particle absorption factor Qabs,coal of coal is taken as 0.9, the
scattering factor Qsca.coal is taken as 1.1, the absorption factor Qabs,ash of ash is taken
as 1, and the scattering factor Qsca,ash is taken as 1.5 [8]. The projected area per unit
volume of coal, Ap,coal , is 0.75 m−1 , and the projected area per unit volume of ash,
Ap,ash , is 0.125 m−1 [9]. The calculation methods of the absorption coefficient and
the projected area per unit volume are:
κ = Q abs A p (4.31a)
σ = Q sca A p (4.31b)
A p = (π/4)nd 2 (4.32)
where n denotes the particle number density, which remains constant throughout the
reaction process:
m par t m gas
n= / (4.33)
ρ par t V par t ρgas
Here, V part is the volume of a single particle 4/3π(d/2)3 .

Thus, in this calculation, κ coal = 0.675, σ coal = 0.825, κ ash = 0.125, and σ ash =
0.1875. The scattering phase function selects the Henyey-Greenstein distribution:
( ) ( )3/2
Φ H G (φ) = 1 − g 2 / 1 + g 2 − 2g cos φ (4.34)
According to [9], g is selected as 0.86.

The DOM is used for the radiative exergy transfer calculation. The S8 discrete
format is used for the one-dimensional case, the detail of this method is introduced in
Chap. 3. The radiative exergy represented by the transfer Eq. (4.9) is discretely solved
at each grid point. The specific process is same as the solution of the one-dimensional
RTE. The radiation exergy flux in the radiation field is calculated according to the
radiative exergy transfer equation:
( (∞
( )
e= E λ+ (s) − E λ− (s) dλdΩ (4.35)
4π 0
The positive (+) and negative (−) symbols indicate the two directions of transmis-
sion, i.e., right and left, respectively; this is similar to the calculation of the radiative
heat flux.
According to the blackbody radiation distribution, the majority of the radiation
in the high-temperature furnace occurs in the near-infrared region, and the radiation
intensity is weak for the wavelength above 50 μm. Thus, the radiation intensity in
the 0–50 μm wavelength range is used to represent the total radiation intensity in the
calculation. The wavelength interval is 25 nm. The spectral radiative exergy distri-
bution in the 0–50 μm wavelength range is investigated according to the distribution
of the spectral radiation intensity of fuel combustion [10, 11].
4.2.2 Comparison of Different Gas Radiation Models’

Applications
Absorption, emission, and particle scattering states exist simultaneously in gas and
particle mixed media. The WSGG model, developed in Chap. 3, and the SNB model
are used to calculate the gas radiation properties to obtain the properties of one-
dimensional spectral radiation heat flux. The H2 O/CO2 gas molar ratio M is 0.25 in
the calculation, and the total proportion of radiation gas is 0.9; the temperature curve is
Eq. (4.30a) with an average temperature of 1400 K, the pressure is 1 bar; additionally,
the two sets of absorption coefficient and scattering coefficient of the particles are 0.63
and 0.77 and 1.35 and 1.65, respectively. The SNB model is a spectral band model,
which is more accurate in calculating spectral radiative energy, whereas the WSGG
model is a global model, which was developed in principle to calculate total heat flux.
However, Fig. 4.4 shows that the spectral characteristics of heat flux calculated by the
WSGG model are very similar to those calculated by the SNB model. This is because
particles with absorption and scattering properties play a significant role in radiation
[12]. The radiation properties of the particles are similar to the gray-body radiation,
and the calculation uses spectrally averaged absorption and emission coefficients.
Thus, under such conditions, the non-gray radiation characteristics of the gas are
weakened, and the calculation results of the WSGG model are very similar to those
of the SNB model. It also shows that the WSGG model can be used for gas radiation
calculation when calculating the spectral radiative properties of combustion media
containing particles. Given the computational efficiency of the WSGG model, the
results in Sect. 4.2 are all computed using the WSGG model introduced in Chap. 3.
45 45
(a) P=1 bar; M=0.25 SNB
(b)
40 40 P=1 bar; M=0.25 SNB
κs=0.63; σ=0.77 WSGG
κs=1.35; σ=1.65 WSGG
35 35
Energy proportion (%)
Energy Proportion (%)
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50 0-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50
Waveband (μm) Wavelength (μm)
Fig. 4.4 Comparison of spectral radiative energy calculated by WSGG model and SNB model
4.2.3 Effect of Temperature
First, the effect of temperature on the medium’s radiation characteristics is discussed.

The H2 O/CO2 molar ratio M of the one-dimensional radiation medium is 0.25; the
gas pressure is 1 bar; the length of the one-dimensional case is 1 m; the particle radi-
ation characteristics are set according to the parameters in Sect. 4.2.1, and the three
different medium temperature distributions are chosen, with average temperatures of
1400, 1200, and 1000 K, respectively as shown in Eq. (4.30). The spectral proportions
of radiative and radiative exergy (available energy) of the participating media under
different temperature conditions are shown in Fig. 4.5. Consequently, the average
radiative heat flux along the path-length is chosen. spectral proportions of radiative
energy and radiative exergy are similar. This is because the numerical solution of the
entire one-dimensional radiative energy transfer equation is consistent with that of
radiative exergy transfer equation, and radiative exergy is derived from the radiative
energy. Thus, their spectral proportion characteristics are similar. In computational
studies, the proportion characteristics of spectral energy should be mainly investi-
gated. It can also be seen from Fig. 4.5 that as the average temperature increases
from 1000 to 1400 K, the spectral proportion of the waveband of 0–2 μm increases
significantly, while the energy proportion in the waveband of 1–2 μm increases by
20% points. Overall, the spectral proportion in the waveband above 2 μm decreases
with the temperature, where it changes little in the waveband of 2–3 μm, decreases
by about 7% in the waveband of 3–4 μm, decreases by about 10% points in the wave-
band of 4–6 μm, decreases by about 5% points in the waveband of 6–10 μm, and
is reduced by about 2% points in the waveband above 10 μm. These findings show
that temperature has a significant impact on the proportional properties of radiative
energy. High temperature increases the proportion of waveband below 2 μm, that
above 2 μm decreases, which is in line with the results of Wayne’s displacement
law. The peak wavelength shifts to shorter wavelengths. It should be noted that for
radiation with wavelengths less than 2 μm, it matches well with semiconductor cells
represented by GaSb and can be directly used for photovoltaic conversion. There-
fore, increasing the proportion of spectral radiation in the waveband below 2 μm has
practical application significance.
The exergy-to-energy ratio of the radiation source term along the path length
is shown in Fig. 4.6 for various temperature conditions. The radiation source term
was chosen for analyzing the exergy-to-energy ratio because it represents the sum
of the energy entering and leaving a specific point along the path-length, which is
more comprehensive than the radiative heat flux in a single direction, and thus the
exergy-to-energy ratio reflected by radiative source term is more accurate. Figure 4.6
shows that as the average temperature increases from 1000 to 1400 K, the exergy-
to-energy ratio increases gradually. At the central location (x = 0.5 m), it is 67.5%
at an average temperature of 1000 K, and increases to about 79% at 1400 K. These
findings indicate that temperature has a significant impact on the radiation exergy-to-
energy ratio. The higher temperature means a greater exergy-to-energy ratio, which is
45 45
40
(a) Energy 1400 K 40
(b) Exergy 1400 K
P=1 bar; M=0.25 1200 K P=1 bar; M=0.25 1200 K
35 1000 K 35 1000 K
Energy Proportion (%)

30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50
Waveband (μm) Waveband (μm)
Fig. 4.5 Characteristics of spectral proportion of participating media under different temperature
conditions: a average radiative energy flux and b average radiative exergy flux
consistent with Petela’s black-body radiation exergy efficiency Eq. (2.2), so the radi-
ation energy is more valuable. This is mainly related to the increase in the proportion
of high-frequency radiation energy. Thus, increasing the temperature of the combus-
tion media is an important technical measure in terms of photovoltaic conversion and
radiation energy utilization.
Figure 4.7 further depicts the one-dimensional total radiative energy flux and
radiative exergy flux along the path-length. The radiative energy flux and the radia-
tive exergy have a similar trend, which is similar to the previous analysis; i.e., the
calculation method of the radiative exergy in the media is similar to that of radiative
energy, and the radiative exergy at each point is calculated by the radiative energy.
Furthermore, Fig. 4.7 still directly indicates that the radiative energy and radiation
exergy increase significantly as the average temperature rises, with the maximum
energy flux increasing from 25 kW/m2 at 1000 K to 150 kW/m2 at 1400 K, and the
maximum exergy flux increasing from about 20 kW/m2 to about 120 kW/m2 .
Fig. 4.6 Exergy-to energy 85

Exergy-to-energy ratio 1400 K
ratio of radiation source term 80 1200 K
along the path-length under
1000 K
Exergy-to-energy ratio (%)
different temperature 75
conditions
70
65
60
55
50
45
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x coordinate (m)
200 150
(a) Energy (b)
150 Exergy
M=0.25 100 M=0.25
Radiative Exergy flux (kW/m2)

Radiative energy flux (kW/m2)
100
50
50
0 0
-50
1400 K -50 1400 K
1200 K
-100 1200 K
1000 K
-100 1000 K
-150
-200 -150
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x coordinate (m) x coordinate (m)
Fig. 4.7 a Radiative energy flux and b radiation exergy flux along the path length under different
temperature conditions
4.2.4 Effect of Gas Molar Ratio
The effect of the gas molar ratio on the radiation properties of participating media
is discussed. The average temperature of the one-dimensional radiation media is
1400 K, and the temperature distribution follows Eq. (4.30a), the gas pressure is
1 bar, and the length of the one-dimensional case is 1 m. The particle radiation char-
acteristics are the same as those discussed above, and the H2 O/CO2 molar ratio M
of the media is chosen from the four cases in Table 4.1. Since the spectral character-
istics of radiation energy and radiation exergy are almost the same, Fig. 4.8a shows
the spectral energy proportion of the radiative media under different molar ratios.
The spectral energy proportion is very similar in all four cases. As the molar ratio
increases from 0.25 to 2, the proportion of radiation in the waveband below 3 μm
decreases slightly, while that in the waveband above 3 μm increases slightly, but
the variation does not exceed 1% point, that is, the molar ratio has little effect on
the radiation spectral characteristics. In fact, this is because, the proportion of H2 O
increases as the molar ratio, and the radiation of H2 O has its special spectrum in
the waveband of 5.6–7.6 μm, so the spectral proportion increases in the waveband
above 3 μm. However, in the presence of particle media with considerable absorption
and scattering coefficients, the particle radiation plays a decisive role in the overall
radiation characteristics, and the effect of individual gas radiation is less. Thus, gas
molar ratio variation has little effect on the radiation spectrum characteristics.
Figure 4.8b depicts the effect of the molar ratio on the average radiative energy
flux and radiative exergy flux. When it increases from 0.25 to 2, the average radia-
tive energy flux increases from 112 to 118.7 kW/m2 . This is because the increase
in the proportion of H2 O helps to improve the radiative heat transfer. Thus, the
corresponding average radiative exergy also increases from 89.2 to 94.4 kW/m2 . In
addition, the total exergy-to-energy ratio shows a downward trend in the range of
79.7–79.5%, which can be regarded as almost no variation. The effect of molar ratio
on exergy-to-energy ratio can be ignored in the presence of particle radiation.
45 125 79.75
(a) Energy (b)
40 M=0.25
P=1 bar; T=1400 K
M=0.5 115
35 79.70
M=1

Energy flux
M=2
Power flux (kW/m2)

30 105 Exergy flux
Exergy-to-energy ratio 79.65
25
95
20
79.60
15 85
10 79.55
75
5
0 65 79.50
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength (μm) Molar ratio
Fig. 4.8 a Spectral proportion characteristics of media radiation under different molar ratios; b the
influence of molar ratio on average radiative energy flux and radiative exergy flux
4.2.5 Effect of Particle Number Density
In order to consider the influence of particle characteristics, the coal particle diam-
eter is selected as 100 μm and the ash particle diameter is 30 μm. In the previous
calculation, Ap,coal = 0.75 and Ap,ash = 0.125 were selected following Eq. (4.33); the
ratio of particle number density of coal and ash is ncoal /nash = 0.54, and the propor-
tion of coal particles number is 35%. Assuming that the total number of coal and
ash particles remains constant, the radiation characteristics of participating media
are investigated when the coal particle number ratio r varies from 20 to 60%. The
burnout area in the combustion chamber is represented by a smaller proportion of
coal particles, while the combustion area is represented by a larger proportion, and
the larger the proportion, the closer it is to the combustion center.
Figure 4.9a depicts the spectral radiation characteristics of participating media
as the coal particle concentrations vary. The spectral radiation characteristics are
still consistent. When the proportion of coal particle increases from 20 to 60%,
the proportion of spectral radiation in each waveband changes less. This is because
although there are variations in the absorption and scattering coefficients of coal
and ash particles after the number density of coal particles changes, the average
absorption and scattering coefficients are used in the calculation, while the spectral
coefficients are not used. The radiation characteristics are less affected by the average
radiation parameters. However, it can still conclude that when the spectral radiation
parameters of the particles are relatively stable, the particle number density has little
effect on the spectral radiation characteristics of the participating media.
The effect of coal particle concentration on the average radiative energy flux and
radiative exergy flux is further reflected in Fig. 4.9b. The average radiative energy
flux decreases from 99.6 to 121.2 kW/m2 as the coal particle concentration increases
from 20 to 60%, indicating that the radiative heat transfer is greater when the coal
particle concentration is high, i.e., the closer to the combustion flame center, the
greater the radiative heat transfer. The corresponding average radiative exergy also
increases from 79.5 to 96.6 kW/m2 . Furthermore, the radiative energy-to-energy ratio
45 130 79.80
(a) Energy (b)
40 T=1400 K 20%
120
M=0.25 30%
35 40%

P=1 bar
50% 110
Power flux (kW/m2)

30 79.75
60%
25 100
20 90
15 79.70
80
10 Energy flux
Exergy flux
70
5 Exergy-to-energy ratio
0 60 79.65
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-10 10-50 20 30 40 50 60
Waveband (μm) Ratio of coal partical concentration (%)
Fig. 4.9 a Spectral proportion characteristics of media radiation under different coal particle
concentrations; b influence of coal particle concentration on average radiative energy flux and
radiative exergy flux
flow is almost stable at about 79.7%. These results indicate that under the combustion
conditions of solid fuels such as pulverized coal, the radiation heat transfer is greater
if the participating media is closer to the center of the combustion area, while the
proportion of ash particles is greater if the media is farther from the combustion center,
and the radiation intensity is smaller. If the combustion temperature is similar, the
change of various parameters has little effect on the radiative exergy-to-energy ratio
of the participating media. Elevating the temperature is the preferred solution to the
radiative exergy in combustion media.
4.3 Summary
This chapter combines the radiation transfer equation with the theory of the
monochromatic photon exergy developed in Chap. 2 by considering the second
law of thermodynamics. Based on the second law, the spectral radiative entropy
transfer equation and radiative exergy transfer equation are established; this process
can be used to numerically analyze the variability of the energy quality during the
spectral radiation transfer process more appropriately and accurately. The radiative
entropy and the radiative exergy are found to be consistent with the thermodynamic
Gouy–Stodola law.
Numerical calculations of the spectral radiative exergy transfer equation can be
used to determine the distribution and variation of the radiation spectral exergy flux
during the radiation transfer process. Calculating the spectral radiative exergy distri-
bution, which is very important for the analysis of the flame energy spectrum-splitting
conversion system in high-temperature engineering, is also possible. The results of
the one-dimensional cases simulating the furnace temperature field show that the
proportion characteristics of spectral radiative energy and spectral radiative exergy
are consistent, implying that the proportion characteristics of spectral energy can be
References 77
used to predict those of spectral radiative exergy. Temperature is the primary factor
influencing spectral radiative energy. A higher temperature indicates that the propor-
tion of radiative energy in the waveband of < 2 μm is greater, and more available
radiative energy exists. At the same temperature, the combustion atmosphere and
coal particle concentrations have little effect on the proportional characteristics of
spectral radiative energy. These parameters will influence the radiative energy charac-
teristics in the actual combustion process by influencing the combustion temperature.
Thus, additional experiments are required to investigate the characteristics of spectral
radiative energy.
References

2. Candau Y (2003) On the exergy of radiation. Sol Energy 75(3):241–247
3. Liu L, Chu S (2007) Radiative exergy transfer equation. J Thermophys Heat Transfer 21(4):819–
822
4. Modest M (2013) Radiative heat transfer, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam
5. Caldas M, Semiao V (2005) Entropy generation through radiative transfer in participating
media: analysis and numerical computation. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 96(3–4):423–
437
6. Caldas M, Semião V (2007) The effect of turbulence–radiation interaction on radiative entropy
generation and heat transfer. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 104(1):12–23
7. Liu LH, Chu SX (2007) Verification of numerical simulation method for entropy generation of
radiation heat transfer in semitransparent medium. J Quantit Spectrosc Radiat Trans 103(1):43–
56
89
9. Kez V, Consalvi J, Liu F et al (2019) Investigation of gas and particle radiation modelling in
wet oxy-coal combustion atmospheres. Int J Heat Mass Transf 133:1026–1040
10. Becher V, Goanta A, Spliethoff H (2012) Validation of spectral gas radiation models under
oxyfuel conditions–part C: validation of simplified models. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control
11:34–51
11. Kirdyashkin A, Orlovskii V, Sosnin E et al (2010) Energy and spectral characteristics of
radiation during filtration combustion of natural gas. Combust Explosion Shock Waves
46(5):523–527
12. Johansson R, Leckner B, Andersson K et al (2013) Influence of particle and gas radiation in
oxy-fuel combustion. Int J Heat Mass Transf 65:143–152
Chapter 5
Radiative Energy Characteristics of Solid
Fuel Combustion
In order to understand the radiative energy characteristics of solid fuel combustion,

further experimental results are introduced in this chapter. A few studies currently
exist on the radiative characteristics of fuel combustion for energy utilization. Thus,
this chapter introduces the spectral radiative characteristics of solid fuel combustion
to provide a foundation for radiative energy utilization. The radiative energy charac-
teristics of oxy-fuel combustion of various solid fuels, including pulverized coal and
semi-coke, are experimentally investigated using a modified tube furnace test plat-
form and a self-built Hencken flat-flame burner. It focused on the effects of various
fuels, temperature, atmosphere, and oxygen concentration on radiation energy and its
spectral distribution. The characteristics of radiation exergy and its spectral distribu-
tion are also investigated based on the radiation thermodynamics theory proposed in
Chap. 2. Through experiments and analysis, the preliminary results obtained in this
chapter are helpful to understand the characteristics of combustion radiative energy
and master its control methods, which can provide a reference for future studies and
design of cascade conversion of photo-thermal energy in fuel combustion.
Revised from Shan et al., Spectral energy characteristics of radiation in oxy-coal combustion for
energy utilization, Fuel, Copyright (2021), with permission from Elsevier.
Revised from Shan et al., Spectral radiation characteristics in semi-coke jet flame for energy
utilization, Fuel, Copyright (2021), with permission from Elsevier.

80 5 Radiative Energy Characteristics of Solid Fuel Combustion
5.1 Multi-scale experiments
5.1.1 Tube Furnace Experiments
5.1.1.1 Experimental System
A tube furnace platform is constructed for the solid fuel combustion experiment.
Figure 5.1 shows the experimental system, which is similar to that used in a previous
study [1]. The tube furnace was 60 cm long. A high-temperature-resistant quartz tube
(140 cm long and 6.5 cm in diameter) was used, with one side of the tube opened
for measurement. Furthermore, the sample was placed at the center of the quartz
tube, and a radiation sensor was placed 97 cm from the sample. In the experiment, a
CT-20 high-temperature radiation sensor (Captec Co., France) was used to measure
the radiative heat flux at the outlet of the quartz tube. The sensor can measure the
total radiation power in the 0.3–50 μm spectrum band and has a response time of
0.25 s. The experimental data were recorded using a Daq-5300 eight-channel data
logger (Fourier System Co., Israel), with an acquisition interval of 1 s. An infrared
filter (Spectrogon Co., Sweden), a standard shortwave pass filter that allows for the
passage of short-wavelength radiation, was placed in front of the radiation sensor
to separate the radiation spectrum. The specific cutoff band λc and transmittance
τ of the different filters are λc = 1125 ± 25 nm, τ = 94.98% (filter no. 1); λc =
4100 ± 100 nm, τ = 89.29% (filter no. 2); and λc = 10500 ± 200 nm, τ = 76.6%
(filter no. 3). Although the separation method using a filter is relatively unrefined, it
could still provide a preliminary reference based on the experimental conditions [2].
5.1.1.2 Experimental Method and Data Analysis
The experiment used two Chinese coals with different coal ranks: Ximeng lignite
(XM) and Shenhua bituminous coal (SH). The particle size of the coal samples ranged
from 75 to 150 μm and were dried in a 105 °C oven for 2 h. Table 5.1 presents the
proximate and ultimate analyses.
In the experiment, the furnace was heated to the desired temperature, and the
reaction atmosphere was then passed through the tube at 1.5 ± 0.01 L/min for 30 min
to ensure the experimental atmosphere in the tube. An empty crucible was then
quickly pushed into the center of the reaction zone, and the data were subsequently
recorded as a calibration set. After calibration, a similar process was performed for
the crucible with a coal sample weighing 0.8 ± 0.005 g and evenly placed on the
bottom of the crucible. The crucible was specially designed to conduct better radiation
measurements (Fig. 5.1). Similar experiments were conducted for each filter. The
radiative heat flux was represented by the difference between the experimental and
calibration results. The experiment was conducted in a dark laboratory to minimize
the effect of the environment as much as possible.
5.1 Multi-scale experiments 81
Fig. 5.1 Schematic diagram of the experimental setup
In the experiment, oxygen ratios of 21–60% for the O2 /CO2 atmosphere at 800 °C
and a temperature range of 600–1000 °C in a 30% O2 /CO2 atmosphere were investi-
gated. These conditions are chosen because a 30% O2 /CO2 atmosphere is often used
as an alternative air-combustion condition [3]. Moreover, the selection of temper-
ature range mainly considers the temperature of the furnace flue gas for oxy-fuel
boiler is mainly around 1000 °C [4]. Therefore, this is still meaningful to the study
of oxy-fuel combustion characterized by flue gas radiation. In this study, the control
variable method is used to achieve the general significance of the comparison between
different conditions, and it has been discovered that the radiation flux changes in a
tube furnace [1]. To provide a reference for an actual combustion furnace, the average
value of the estimated radiation flux during the period from 80 to 140 s was used, as
the radiation flux variation was relatively stable in this stage.
The instrument uncertainty (3%) of the radiation sensor is considered when eval-
uating the uncertainty factors; thus, the measured value is multiplied by 3% as the
instrument error δ 1 . In addition, the standard deviation δ 2 is used to represent the
degree of fluctuation in the experimental data because the data is investigated over a
1-min period. Furthermore, the instrument uncertainty /(δ 1 and statistical
)
uncertainty
δ 2 are used to calculate the synthetic uncertainty δ = δ1 + δ2 [2], which is shown
2 2
in the figures displaying the radiative heat flux results.

To characterize the available energy of radiation, the concept of radiative exergy
must be introduced. Therefore, the experimental data are analyzed using radiation
thermodynamics to obtain radiative exergy data in oxy-fuel combustion, serving as a
reference for combustion energy cascade conversion systems. The spectral radiative
exergy is calculated using the radiative exergy-to-energy ratio equation proposed in
82
Table 5.1 Proximate and ultimate analysis of experimental coals

Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis Qnet,ad (kJ/kg)
M ad % Aad % V ad % FCad % C ad % H ad % N ad % S ad % Oad %
Bituminous 8.59 4.54 29.21 57.66 69.85 3.50 0.71 0.43 12.38 27,168
Lignite 20.20 14.01 31.20 34.59 45.69 2.84 0.63 0.75 15.88 17,754
Note ad air dry basis. Qnet net calorific value
5 Radiative Energy Characteristics of Solid Fuel Combustion
Chap. 2:
( )
4 T0 1 T0 4
ηλ = 1 − + (5.1)
3 Tλ 3 Tλ
where T λ denotes the equivalent temperature and can be used to characterize radiation
exergy. Spectral radiation energies with different frequencies have different exergies,
so T λ is related to the wavelength and the radiation temperature. It is expressed as
f T3
Tλ4 = (5.2)
λ
Here, when T > T 0 , 4.5638 × 10−3 T 3 = λTλ4 ; when T < T 0 , 5.33 × 10−3 T 3 = λTλ4 .
In the experiment, radiative energy is divided into four different wavebands
through the three filters. When Eq. (5.1) is used to calculate the radiative exergy
for each waveband, a black-body equivalent wavelength λm is designed, and its
equivalent temperature is T λm at a certain temperature (Eq. 5.2). The exergy effi-
ciency expressed by T λm (Eq. 5.1) can be used to calculate the blackbody radiative
exergy E λ1−λ2 (T ) in the wavelength range of λ1 − λ2 :
[ ( ) ]
4 T0 1 T0 4
E λ1 −λ2 (T ) = L λ1 −λ2 (T ) × 1 − + (5.3)
3 Tλm 3 Tλm
where L λ1−λ2 (T ) denotes the blackbody radiation flux in this spectral waveband and
λm ranges between λ1 and λ2 . After obtaining the values of λm for the four wavebands
of 0.3–1.125, 1.125–4.1, 4.1–10.5, and 10.5–50 μm, Eq. (5.3) is used to calculate
the radiative exergy flux in each waveband based on the experimental radiation flux,
and the total radiative exergy flux is the sum of all fluxes.
5.1.2 The Small Hencken Flat-Flame Burner Experiment
5.1.2.1 Experimental System
In the laboratory of the current study, a Hencken flat-flame burner for diffusion
combustion was built based on the design in [5, 6]. The flat-flame burner uses gas
fuel combustion to produce flue gas with a specific composition and temperature to
support solid fuel combustion. The particle jet is ignited using the high-temperature
flue gas produced by gas fuel combustion and the particle heating rate under this
experimental condition are similar to that of actual furnace [6]. The detailed descrip-
tion of the Hencken flat-flame burner is contained in Sect. 5.1.2.2. Moreover, Fig. 5.2
shows the experiment system, which mainly includes a Hencken burner, a powder-
feeding device, a gas-supplying subsystem, and an optical measurement subsystem.
Fig. 5.2 Diagram of the experimental system based on Hencken flat-flame burner
Under the effect of the ultrasonic vibrator and the stirring motor, the pulverized fuel is
carried by air from the powder bin through the stainless-steel tube to the central burner
outlet, which is surrounded by gas outlets of carbon monoxide/propane evenly. The
high-temperature flue gas produced by gas combustion provides required temperature
and atmosphere for the combustion of solid fuel.
All experimental gases are controlled by mass-flow meters (Alicat Co.). The fuel
gas and combustion-supporting atmosphere are mixed by the gas mixer and then
enters the burner. Moreover, the AvaSpec-ULS2048XL spectrometer is used to obtain
the radiation spectrum of the target flame with a wavelength range of 200−1160 nm
(spectral resolution is 2.4 nm), and the diameter of receiving area is 1 mm for the
fiber probe. The spectrometer is calibrated by the standard blackbody furnace signal
before this experiment, so it can be used directly to obtain the radiation spectrum.
To facilitate spectrum measurement at different heights, the optical fiber probe is
connected to a collimator and fixed on the optical bracket, which is fixed on the slide
rail. The test platform is also calibrated to maintain its horizontal position, and the
experiment is conducted in a dark room to avoid interference from other visible light.
Before data collection, the probe position must be adjusted using laser alignment to
determine the flame center position. Continuous monitoring is conducted when the
flame is stable, and 50 consecutive sets of spectral data are chosen for averaging to
obtain the results. To achieve real-time spectral data processing, the probe is linked
to the computer via optical fiber. The signals at 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 cm from the
burner outlet are measured in the experiment. Because the measuring points are at
actual height, the measured results can represent the radiation intensity in the same
radiation area, which is better for comparing different cases.
5.1.2.2 Description of Small Flat-Flame Burner Facility
The Hencken burner can generate a thin-plane flame (2–3 mm) for gas combustion
and is also flexible for adjusting the flue gas composition and temperature. Further-
more, it is more suitable for optical measurement because of the absence of the need
for electric or other heating devices.
The cross-sectional size of the self-built Hencken burner is about 55 × 55 mm
(Fig. 5.2), and it can form a gas flame plane with a corresponding area. The burner
is primarily made of upper and lower chambers. The lower chamber has a height of
about 100 mm for fuel gas, while the upper chamber has a height of about 200 mm
for combustion-supporting gas. The upper and lower chambers are separated by heat-
resistant silica-gel plates. Two holes were noted at the bottom of the lower chamber
for the gas introduction. The gas fuel in the experiment is carbon monoxide. The upper
space of the gas inlets is filled with color-changing colloidal silica for adjusting and
drying the gas flow. In the upper chamber, 652 stainless-steel capillary tubes serve as
fuel channels, penetrating the silicone plate into the lower chamber to deliver fuel gas
to the burner outlet. Two symmetrically designed holes were noted in the lower part
of the upper chamber to input combustion-supporting gas (e.g., air), which enters
the upper chamber and flows outside the capillary tubes until merging with the fuel
gas at the burner outlet. The water-cooling groove is located on the periphery of
the upper chamber, and a thicker powder-feeding tube (outer diameter, 3 mm; inner
diameter, 2.5 mm; and total length, about 330 mm) is installed through the entire
central section of the burner. A quartz glass tube is placed as a protective cover in the
upper space of the burner outlet to prevent the flue gas temperature from dropping
too quickly and to suppress the influence of external factors during the experiment.
Furthermore, the Hencken burner powder-feeding device consists primarily of a
powder bin, a stepping motor, and an ultrasonic vibrator with a controller. The solid
fuel is carried to the inlet of the powder-feeding tube at the bottom of the burner
by adjusting the carrier air. A small amount of propane is added with a flow rate of
20 mL/min (SCCM) because the gas fuel CO is difficult to burn consistently at high
gas flow rates.
5.1.2.3 Experimental Method and Data Analysis
The hot flue gas produced by gas combustion in the flat-flame burner can provide the
temperature and atmosphere for solid fuel combustion. The atmosphere produced
by gas combustion is referred to as secondary airflow. The flow rate of each gas
entering the burner is reversely deduced based on secondary air conditions to obtain
the designed experimental conditions of the secondary airflow (temperature, oxygen
ratio, and gas flow rate). The appropriate method is as follows:
Since the main fuel gas in this study is CO and the atmosphere is assumed to
be O2 /N2 , the following reaction equation was used to calculate the adiabatic flame
temperature
aCO + bO2 + cN2 = aCO2 + (b − a/2)O2 + cN2 (5.4)
where a, b, and c are the flow rates of CO, O2 , and N2 , respectively, in L/min (SLM).
According to the reaction in Eq. (5.4), if the flow rates of each reactant are known,
the adiabatic flame temperature T ad can be calculated by referring to the specific
heat capacity, enthalpy, and temperature of gases. Furthermore, the conservation of
material mass before and after the reaction can be demonstrated as follows:
(a + b + c)ρT0 = V SρTad (5.5)
where ρ is the density of the mixed gas, in kg/m3 ; V is the gas velocity on the burner
section, in m/s; S is the effective area of the burner outlet and can be estimated by S
= 0.8D2 , where D = 55 mm and is the side length of the outlet section. Using the
ideal state equation Pm = NρRT and the conservation equation, the gas velocity can
be calculated as follows:
( / )
a 2 + b + c Tad
V = (5.6)
ST0
The oxygen ratio in the secondary air atmosphere is
b − a/2
YO2 = × 100% (5.7)
a/2 + b + c
The experimental cases have different secondary airflow requirements (temper-

ature, oxygen ratio, and flow rate), and the theoretical flow rate of each supplying
gas can be calculated using Eqs. (5.4)–(5.7). In this study, two secondary air atmo-
spheres, O2 /CO2 and O2 /N2 , are required; thus, O2 was mixed with air or CO2 to
adjust the atmosphere (Table 5.2). The flue gas flow rate is set to 1.5 m/s.
This study uses semi-coke made from Datong bituminous coal on a drop tube
furnace. The pyrolysis temperature is 1200 °C, and the atmosphere is N2 . The semi-
coke with a particle size of 58–96 μm is chosen and dried at 105 °C for 2 h. The
particle size range is chosen similarly to that in [5], which is the same as the size of
the pulverized solid fuel in an industrial power plant. The proximate and ultimate
analysis of the semi-coke from Datong coal is shown in Table 5.3. The amount
of solid fuel is primarily determined by the carrier gas flow, stepper motor speed,
and vibrator power. In this study, the carrier gas flow, the stepper motor speed, and
the ultrasonic vibrator power is set to 0.36 L/min, 60 rpm, and 35 W, respectively,
resulting in a calibrated feeding rate of ~ 8.2 g/h. The secondary airflow was adjusted
first during the experiment, and powder-feeding started after the gas flame was stable.
Table 5.2 Experimental cases of the flat-flame burner

Case Setting flue Setting Air flow rate CO2 flow O2 flow rate CO flow rate
gas atmosphere (L/min) rate (L/min) (L/min) (L/min)
temperature
(°C)
1 1200 21% O2 /N2 35.78 – 5.01 6.54
2 1400 21% O2 /N2 29.96 – 5.34 6.98
3 1400 21% – 21.19 12.87 9.45
O2 /CO2
4 1400 30% – 18.03 16.20 9.13
O2 /CO2
Table 5.3 Proximate and ultimate analysis of the semi-coke from bituminous coal
Proximate analysis % Calorific value Qnet (MJ/kg) Ultimate analysis %
Aad V ad FCad C ad H ad Oad N ad S t,ad
9.47 5.76 84.77 28.71 85.04 0.19 4.51 0.16 0.63
Note ad air dry basis; Qnet net calorific value
The radiation spectrum was collected by spectrometer after the solid fuel flame was
stable.
The best method for measuring the temperature of the solid fuel flame is spec-
troscopy. When compared with contact measurement, this spectroscopy method does
not disturb the flame shape, which prevents the experimental results from being influ-
enced. According to the spectral signal directly measured by the spectrometer, the
two-color method coupled with the emissivity ratio model developed by the labo-
ratory of the current study is used to calculate the temperature of the semi-coke
flame. Temperature measurement is not affected by the measuring distance with this
method, and it includes the variation of spectral radiation with wavelength, yielding
a more accurate result of the temperature of burning particles. The specific principle
can be observed in [7].
This study investigates the flame radiation exergy-based experimental data and
the radiation thermodynamics theory, which provides a reference for the energy
cascading conversion system of fuel combustion, to characterize the available radi-
ation energy. Spectral radiation exergy can be obtained by multiplying the radiative
energy by a radiative exergy-to-energy ratio ηλ as shown in Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2).
The spectrum for particle radiation in solid fuel combustion is continuous and can
be approximately regarded as a gray body [8, 9] in the waveband of < 1.1 μm. In
the waveband of < 2.25 μm, no significant variation was also noted in the spectral
emissivity with temperature [10]. Spectrum continuity and emissivity stability in the
long waveband for solid vegetation combustion were also demonstrated in [11]. In a
preliminary assessment, the linear extrapolation method is used in [12] to predict the
spectral emissivity of the infrared waveband for solid fuel combustion. In this study,
the spectral emissivity is linearly extrapolated to the wavelength of 15 μm based on

the measured emissivity trend in the near-infrared spectrum. The proportional distri-
bution of spectral radiative energy and exergy in different wavebands can be obtained
after calculating the spectral radiative energy and exergy in the corresponding wide
spectral range.
5.2 Experimental Results and Discussion
5.2.1 Tube Furnace Experimental Results
5.2.1.1 Radiation Flux Results
The radiative energy and exergy flux for the two coals in the O2 /CO2 atmospheres
with different oxygen ratios are shown in Fig. 5.3a, b. For the two coals, the radiative
energy flux increases from about 2 to 9 W/m2 with an increase in the oxygen ratio
from 21 to 60%; this occurs because the combustion rate increases with the oxygen
ratio, releasing more radiative energy. Furthermore, higher local temperatures caused
by higher oxygen ratios increase radiation flux. The radiative energy flux of the
bituminous coal is greater than that of lignite. The radiative energy flux may be
affected by both volatilization and calorific value. Bituminous coal and lignite burn
more easily and have higher radiation fluxes because they have higher volatilization.
Furthermore, its radiative energy flux is slightly higher than that of lignite because
bituminous coal has the highest calorific value. In addition to the radiative energy,
Fig. 5.3a, b show that the radiative exergy flux increases from approximately 1.5
to 6 W/m2 as the oxygen ratio increases from 21 to 60%. The radiative exergy flux
of the bituminous coal is greater than the lignite; this trend is similar to that of the
radiative energy flux. Since the furnace remains at 800 °C, the results indicate that
the trend of the radiative exergy flux as a function of the oxygen ratio is consistent
with that of the radiative energy flux when the combustion temperature is constant.
A comparison of the exergy-to-energy ratio illustrates that it is stable between 0.61
and 0.63. This indicates that the radiative exergy-to-energy ratio is generally similar
at a specific combustion temperature. Theoretically, as the oxygen ratio increases,
the proportion of radiative energy in the short-wavelength range increases, and thus
the total radiative exergy increases.
Figure 5.3c, d show the radiative energy and exergy flux of two different coals
at temperatures ranging from 600 to 1000 °C in a 30% O2 /CO2 atmosphere. The
temperature has a significant impact on the radiation flux. The radiative energy flux
of the bituminous coal and lignite increases from approximately 2–14 W/m2 as the
temperature increases from 600 to 800 °C. According to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, the
radiative power is generally proportional to the fourth power of the temperature; thus
the radiative energy flux increases rapidly with the temperature [13]. The radiation
flux of the bituminous coal is similar to that of the lignite. This is due to the use
5.2 Experimental Results and Discussion 89
12 0.630 12 0.630
(a) Lignite (XM) (b) Bituminous (SH)
10 Energy flux 10 Energy flux
Exergy flux 0.625 Exergy flux 0.625
Exergy-to-energy ratio
Radiation flux (W/m2)

Exergy-to-energy ratio Exergy-to-energy ratio
8
8
6 0.620 0.620
6
4
0.615 4 0.615
2
2
0 0.610 0.610
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Oxygen ratio (%) Oxygen ratio (%)
18 0.70 18 0.70
16
(c) Lignite (XM) 0.68 16
(d) Bituminous (SH) 0.68
Energy flux 0.66 Energy flux 0.66
14 14
Exergy flux

Exergy flux
Exergy-to-energy ratio 0.64 Exergy-to-energy ratio 0.64
12 12
0.62 0.62
10 10
0.60 0.60
8 8
0.58 0.58
6 6
0.56 0.56
4 0.54 4 0.54
2 0.52 2 0.52
0 0.50 0 0.50
600 700 800 900 1000 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
0.7 1.0
(e) (f)
0.6 Lignite-Energy
0.8
Bituminous-Energy
0.5 Lignite-Exergy
Radaition fraction
Radiation fraction
Bituminous-Exergy Lignite-Energy
0.6 Bituminous-Energy
0.4
Lignite-Exergy
0.3 Bituminous-Exergy
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
20 30 40 50 60 600 700 800 900 1000
Oxygen ratio (%) Temperature (°C)
Fig. 5.3 Total radiative energy and exergy flux during oxy-coal combustion for a lignite and b
bituminous coal with different oxygen ratios and c lignite and d bituminous coal with different
temperatures. Radiation fraction and radiative exergy fraction during oxy-coal combustion with e
different oxygen ratios and f different temperatures
of highly volatile bituminous coal, which, like lignite, has a high burning intensity.
Thus, their local temperatures are higher, and the radiative energy flux is greater;
additionally, the combustion temperature influences the radiation flux significantly.
Figure 5.3c, d also show that the radiative exergy flux of the lignite and bituminous
coal increases from about 1 to 10 W/m2 with the increase in temperature from 600 to
1000 °C. The radiative exergy flux follows the same trend as the radiative energy as
temperature rises. A comparison of the exergy-to-energy ratio shows that while the
magnitudes of the radiative energy and exergy flux differ, the exergy-to-energy ratios
of the two coals increase almost linearly from 0.54 to 0.68 with the temperature, and
little difference exists between the two coals. This result indicates that the radiative
exergy-to-energy ratio is essentially similar at a specific combustion temperature.
Furthermore, the coal ranks have little influence on the exergy-to-energy ratio with
the temperature being the primary influencing factor.
The radiation and radiative exergy fractions are also investigated in this study. The
radiation fraction is defined as the ratio of the radiation power released during the
combustion process to the input power of the fuel, and the radiative exergy fraction
is defined as the ratio of the radiative exergy power to the input exergy power of the
fuel. Thus, the radiation and radiative exergy fractions can be calculated following
the definition, and their variations are then investigated under different conditions.
The chemical exergy of coal is calculated using the approximate formula shown
below:
[ ]
n(H) n(O) n(N)
E fuel = L H V 1.0064 + 0.1519 + 0.0616 + 0.0429 (5.8)
n(C) n(C) n(C)
where LHV is the low heat value, and w(C), w(H), w(O), and w(N) are the mass
fractions of the elements in the coal. The equivalent reaction time is set to 160 s
because the tube furnace is fed with coal at one time, and the input powers of different
coals are calculated according to the LHV. Assuming that the radiation basically
conforms to Lambert’s law, it can be supposed that the received radiation flux is
consistent in the entire hemisphere with the radius of the distance from the sample to
the sensor. Therefore, the output radiation power of fuel combustion can be calculated
by multiplying the hemisphere area by the detected radiation heat flux.
Despite the relevant assumptions, it is believed that the estimated results could still
reflect the relative variation of the radiation fraction under different conditions, which
differs from the radiative power variation shown in Fig. 5.3a–d. Figure 5.3e, f show
how the radiation fraction and radiative exergy fraction change with oxygen ratio
and temperature during the combustion process. As the oxygen ratio and temperature
increased, so did the radiation fraction and radiative exergy fraction. These findings
suggest that increasing the oxygen ratio and combustion temperature in the coal
combustion process can increase the proportions of radiative energy and exergy to
the total energy, which is beneficial to the graded conversion of radiative energy
during combustion. Furthermore, the variation characteristics of the radiation and
radiative exergy fractions are similar in different atmospheres. The radiative exergy
fraction is less than the radiation fraction, indicating that the quality of fuel chemical
energy is higher than that of radiative energy, and combustion is an energy-losing
process. A more efficient energy cascade conversion system must take chemical
energy conversion into account. Furthermore, lignite has been discovered to have
higher radiation and radiative exergy fractions than bituminous coal. This indicates
that lignite, which burns more easily, emits more radiation during the combustion
process. Bituminous coal is commonly used in power plant boilers because lignite
has a lower calorific value and anthracite is difficult to burn. Highly volatile solid
fuels (e.g., lignite) could be considered for combustion energy cascade conversion
systems.
5.2.1.2 Spectral Radiation Results
The spectral radiation results are discussed in this section. The spectral radiation
proportion is defined as the ratio of spectral radiation flux in a waveband to total
radiation flux. Similarly, the spectral radiative exergy proportion is defined as the
ratio of spectral radiative exergy flux in a waveband to the total radiative exergy flux.
Thus, they can be computed using the definition. Figure 5.4a, b show how the spectral
radiative energy and exergy change with the oxygen ratio during combustion in an
O2 /CO2 atmosphere at 800 °C temperature. The radiative energy ratio is highest in
the waveband of 1.125–4.1 μm and increases from about 40 to 50% with the oxygen
ratio. Additionally, the radiative energy ratio is approximately 40% in the waveband
of 4.1–10 μm, whereas it is about 10% in the spectrum of > 10 μm. The experimental
data for radiation of < 1.125 μm are close to zero due to the low energy proportion
in this spectrum. Furthermore, fluctuations affect the results. Thus, these data should
only be used as a reference.
The participating media influence the spectral radiation distribution. The energy
proportion in the far-infrared spectrum of the actual radiation is greater than that of
gray-body radiation due to the presence of CO2 and H2 O in the combustion process
[13]. The radiation proportion in the waveband of 1.125–4.1 μm is found to increase
60 60
(a) Lignite (XM) 1.125-4.1 µm (b) Bituminous coal (SH) 1.125-4.1 µm
Spectral radiation proportion (%)
50 50
40 40
energy 0.3-1.125 µm exergy 0.3-1.125 µm energy 0.3-1.125 µm exergy 0.3-1.125 µm
30 30
energy 10.5-50 µm exergy 10.5-50 µm energy 10.5-50 µm exergy 10.5-50 µm
10 10
0 0
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Oxygen ratio (%) Oxygen ratio (%)
70 70
(c) Lignite (XM) (d) Bituminous coal (SH)
60 1.125-4.1 µm 60 1.125-4.1 µm
50 50
40 40
30 energy 0.3-1.125 µm exergy 0.3-1.125 µm 30 energy 0.3-1.125 µm exergy 0.3-1.125 µm

20 energy 4.1-10.5 µm exergy 4.1-10.5 µm 20 energy 4.1-10.5 µm exergy 4.1-10.5 µm
energy 10.5-50 µm exergy 10.5-50 µm energy 10.5-50 µm exergy 10.5-50 µm
10 10
0 0
600 700 800 900 1000 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
Fig. 5.4 Spectral radiative energy and exergy during oxy-coal combustion versus the oxygen ratio
for a lignite and b bituminous coal versus the temperature for a lignite and b bituminous coal
with the increase in the oxygen ratio, whereas it decreases in the 4.1–10.5 and 10.5–
50 μm wavebands. This occurs because a higher oxygen ratio increases the burning
rate and the local combustion temperature, causing the spectral distribution to shift
to shorter wavelengths following Wien’s displacement law [13]. Furthermore, the
CO2 decrease in the atmosphere caused by an increase in the oxygen ratio reduces
the shift to longer wavelengths. Bright flames are observed during the combustion
of lignite and bituminous coal. This is attributed to the fact that bituminous coal and
lignite burn intensely and have higher burning temperatures [14]; thus, Fig. 5.4a,
b reveal higher radiation proportions in the waveband of < 4.1 μm for lignite and
bituminous coal. Furthermore, radiation accounted for a greater proportion of the
waveband of > 4.1 μm during lignite combustion because lignite contains more
moisture than bituminous coal; however, this effect is weak. In addition, Fig. 5.4a, b
show that the trend of the radiative exergy flux with increasing oxygen ratio is similar
to the trend of the radiative energy flux in various bands. This is primarily because
radiative exergy is derived from radiative energy. Moreover, the radiative exergy ratio
was also discovered to be greater than the radiative energy ratio in the waveband of
< 4.1 μm, but less than the radiative energy ratio in the waveband of > 4.1 μm. This
indicates that the exergy-to-energy ratio is greater for shorter-wavelength radiation
of < 4.1 μm, implying that shorter wavelengths are more useful.
Figure 5.4c, d depict the spectral radiative energy and exergy flux versus temper-
ature in a 30% O2 /CO2 atmosphere. In terms of the spectral radiative energy flux
characteristics, the radiative energy ratio in the waveband of 1.125–4.1 μm increases
from about 30 to 60% with the increase in the temperature from 600 to 1000 °C,
whereas that in the waveband of 4.1–10.5 μm decreases from approximately ~50 to
35%. Furthermore, the radiative energy ratio in the spectrum of > 10.5 μm falls from
approximately 15 to 5%. The radiation proportion in the waveband of < 1.125 μm
should theoretically increase with temperature. This trend, however, is not observed
in Fig. 5.4c, d because the energy ratio in this band is small and the experimental
fluctuation has a large influence on the results. These findings suggest that temper-
ature is the most important factor influencing the spectral distribution of radiative
energy in pulverized coal combustion; this is explained by Wien’s displacement law,
which states that as temperature rises, spectral radiation shifts to a shorter wavelength
[13]. Generally, radiation transfer occurs with participating media in pulverized coal
combustion. Because of the presence of soot, CO2 , and H2 O, it cannot be simply
regarded as gray-body radiation [13]. Nonetheless, the spectral radiation distribu-
tion characteristics still follow the basic law of radiation; thus, in this experiment,
the proportion of radiative energy increases in the spectrum range of < 4.1 μm and
decreases in the spectrum range of > 4.1 μm. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5.4c,
d, the different coals do not exhibit different influences on the spectral radiation as
temperature increases. Coal combustion is complete at temperatures of > 800 °C
[15]; so the spectral radiation characteristics during combustion for the two coals at
high temperatures are essentially similar. The trend of the radiative exergy flux with
increasing temperature is similar to that of the radiative energy in each waveband.
Furthermore, the radiative exergy ratio is greater than the radiative energy ratio in
the waveband of < 4.1 μm, while it is lower than the radiative energy ratio in the
waveband of > 4.1 μm; this is consistent with the results in Fig. 5.4a, b. These
findings suggest that radiation with short wavelengths of < 4.1 μm has a higher
exergy-to-energy ratio and thus has greater practical significance. Thus, increasing
the short-wavelength radiative energy ratio in combustion radiation can improve
overall radiative exergy, which is important for energy conversion and management.
5.2.2 Small Flat-Flame Burner Experimental Results
5.2.2.1 Temperature and Radiation Flux Results
Table 5.4 displays the temperature measurements made using the improved two-color
method based on spectral data. The spectral radiation that peaks near 589 and 769 nm
in the flame radiation spectra are primarily caused by the characteristic radiation of
the Na and K elements [15]. The waveband affected by characteristic radiation is thus
removed when calculating the temperature. The measured temperature is observed
to deviate from the design temperature near the burner outlet. At the measuring point
of 7 cm, for example, it is 1519.37 and 1602.71 °C in cases 2 and 3, which differ
from the design temperature of 1400 °C. This is primarily due to the deviation of
secondary airflow from ideal conditions and the temperature increase in the particles
caused by the semi-coke combustion. In addition, it may also be related to the signal-
to-noise ratio of the data collection and the model-matching degree of the two-color
method.
The measured temperature at 20 cm above the burner outlet is similar to the
design temperature, indicating that the combustion reaction has a significant impact
on the flame temperature. Despite being influenced by the experimental conditions,
the temperature results are still representative of the 10- to 14-cm middle section.
The temperature of case 2 is similar to that of case 3, close to the setting temperature
of 1400 °C, whereas the temperature of case 1 is lower due to the lower setting
temperature. Moreover, the temperature in case 4 is higher than that in case 3 by
approximately 100 °C, indicating a higher actual temperature for a higher oxygen
ratio when the setting temperature is similar.
Figure 5.5 depicts the total radiative energy and exergy along the flame under
various experimental conditions. The measurement’s spectral range of total radiative
energy is 500–1100 nm, covering visible and near-infrared wavebands. Although it
Table 5.4 Measured temperature by the two-color method based on radiation spectrum
Temperature °C 7 cm 10 cm 14 cm 17 cm 20 cm
Case 1 1517.36 1501.52 1425.56 1360.51 1218.18
Case 2 1519.37 1482.20 1463.70 1450.99 1428.38
Case 3 1602.71 1464.27 1450.05 1420.93 1420.25
Case 4 1877.65 1690.17 1597.56 1527.61 1451.74
accounts for a small proportion of the total thermal radiation spectrum, it is extremely
useful due to its short-wavelength. This waveband is important for studies because
it is suitable for photovoltaic conversion of commercial Si cells. Moreover, Fig. 5.5
shows that the radiative energy intensity under the four cases increases first and
then decreases from the burner outlet upwards. A slight fluctuation exists in case 3
as shown in Fig. 5.5c, which is due to measurement error, but it is roughly in line
with the overall trend. These findings suggest that the radiation intensity distribution
along the flame is related to the combustion reaction intensity, showing a trend
of first increasing and then decreasing and presenting a cone-shaped flame shape.
Furthermore, the highest radiation intensity is found to be at 17, 10, 17, and 15 cm
in cases 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This indicates that ignition occurs first in case
2, second in case 4, and finally in case 1 or 3. The radiation intensity peak appears
first in case 2 because it has the highest setting temperature (1400 °C). Furthermore,
the diffusion rate of O2 molecules is faster in the O2 /N2 atmosphere than in the
O2 /CO2 atmosphere, resulting in a faster oxidation rate of semi-coke and an earlier
ignition. Because the ignition occurs late in the O2 /CO2 atmosphere, the radiation
intensity peak in cases 3 and 4 occurs later than in case 2. Furthermore, because
the O2 ratio is higher in case 4, the radiation intensity peak arises earlier than that
in case 3; additionally, the radiation intensity peak in case 1 appears later because
its design temperature is lower. This analysis shows that the reaction atmosphere,
temperature, and oxygen ratio all affect the radiation intensity peak and ignition. The
O2 /CO2 atmosphere retards ignition, whereas high-temperature and high oxygen
ratio conditions promote early ignition and cause the radiation intensity to peak
earlier.
Furthermore, the highest radiation intensity in case 2 is higher than that in case
1 by about 700 W/m2 , indicating that high-temperature directly increases radiation
intensity; whereas the highest radiation intensity in case 4 is higher than that in
case 3 by about 350 W/m2 , indicating that increasing oxygen ratio will also increase
flame radiation intensity. Furthermore, the peak radiation intensity in case 2 is about
600–950 W/m2 higher than in cases 3 or 4, indicating that when the parameters
(e.g., oxygen ratio or flue gas temperature) are similar under different atmospheres,
the radiation intensity in the O2 /CO2 atmosphere is lower than that in the O2 /N2
atmosphere. This is primarily due to the lower combustion intensity caused by the
slower diffusion of O2 in the CO2 and the low local temperature caused by the higher
specific heat capacity of CO2 . Furthermore, the gasification of semi-coke and the
slow oxidation reaction rate caused by the addition of CO2 will affect the properties
and distribution of combustion potentially increasing medium absorption along the
path length and resulting in lower measured radiation intensity.
Finally, Fig. 5.5 shows that the total radiation exergy curve along the flame path
length is consistent with the radiation energy curve, and its absolute value is less than
the radiation energy. Furthermore, higher radiation intensity results in a greater differ-
ence between radiative energy and radiative exergy. Further investigation reveals that
the exergy-to-energy ratios of the four cases are all around 82%, where it is higher
and lower in cases 4 (82–85%) and case 1 (80–82.5%), respectively. The measured
temperature of each point in case 4 is higher while it is lower in case 1. The variation
800 83 1600 83.0

(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2
700
1400

82.8

Radiation power (W/m2)

600
1200
82
500
82.6
1000
400
800
300 82.4
81
600 Energy
200 Energy
Exergy 82.2
Exergy 400 Exergy-to-energy ratio
100 Exergy-to-energy ratio
0 80 200 82.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Measuring point height (cm) Measuring point height (cm)
500 83.5 900 85.5
450
(c) Case 3 800
(d) Case 4
85.0

400 700

83.0
84.5
350 600
300 500 84.0

82.5
250 400 83.5
200 300
Energy 83.0
82.0
150 Energy 200 Exergy
Exergy 82.5
100 Exergy-to-energy ratio 100
50 81.5 0 82.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Measuring point height (cm) Measuring point height (cm)
Fig. 5.5 Total radiative energy and radiative exergy along the flame under different cases
curve of the radiation exergy-to-energy ratio under the four cases is similar to the
measured temperature. It implies that the radiation temperature is the most important
factor influencing radiation exergy, whereas the influence of the spectral waveband
is not obvious in Fig. 5.5.
5.2.2.2 Spectral Radiation Results
Particle radiation dominates in solid fuel combustion, and a continuous spectrum was
noted [16, 17]. Based on the measured emissivity trend in the near-infrared spectrum,
the spectral emissivity is linearly extrapolated to the wavelength of 15 μm. Figure 5.6
show the spectral radiative energy and exergy characteristics in a broad spectrum
(cases 2 and 4 are selected). The spectral radiative energy is primarily concentrated
in the 1.1–3 μm band at the current flame temperature (~ 1200–1800 °C). The spec-
tral radiation in the wavelength of < 3 μm is useful in actual photovoltaic conversion
because the Si cell match the spectral radiation of < 1.1 μm and the III–V semi-
conductor cells (e.g., InAsSbP) matches the spectral radiation of < 3 μm [18]. High
temperatures are advantageous for the utilization of radiative energy in combustion.
The spectral radiative energy in the waveband of < 3 μm along the path length is
similar to the variation trend in Fig. 5.5 (0.3–1.1 μm) as shown in Fig. 5.6. The
spectral radiative energy in the waveband of > 3 μm shows an increasing trend at
17 and 20 cm. The radiation in waveband of > 3 μm accounts for more because the
temperatures at 17 and 20 cm are lower. The spectral distributions of the radiation
exergy under different conditions are similar to those of radiative energy because
the radiation exergy is calculated from the radiation energy. Figure 5.6e depicts the
exergy-to-energy ratio of spectral radiation in cases 2 and 4, demonstrating that
the spectral exergy-to-energy ratio is greater for shorter wavelengths in each case
which could be between 76 and 85% for the waveband of < 3 μm. The measured
temperature influences the difference in the exergy-to-energy ratio at different points.
Furthermore, the exergy-to-energy ratio is greater at higher temperatures. These find-
ings suggest that short-wavelength and high-temperature radiation energy are more
valuable.
Even when professional fixtures (e.g., optical brackets and moving rails) are used
to assist spectrometer measurement, a deviation in the measured radiation value
14 14
(a) Spectral energy in Case 2 (b) Spectral exergy in Case 2
Spectral radiation power (kW/m2)

12 12
10 10
7cm
7cm 10cm
8 10cm 14cm
8
14cm 17cm
6 17cm 6 20cm
20cm
4 4
2 2
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
Waveband (µm) Waveband (µm)
7 7
(c) Spectral energy in Case 4 (d) Spectral exergy in Case 4
6 6
7cm
5 7cm 5 10cm
10cm 14cm
4 4
14cm 17cm
3 17cm 3 20cm
20cm
2 2
1 1
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
0.90 0.90
(e) Case 2 0--1.1 µm 1.1--3 µm (f) Case 4 0--1.1 µm
3--6 µm
1.1--3 µm
6--10 µm
3--6 µm 6--10 µm
Spectral exergy-to-energy ratio
Spectral exergy-to-energy ratio
0.85 0.85 >10 µm

>10 µm
0.80 0.80
0.75 0.75
0.70 0.70
0.65 0.65
0.60 0.60
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measuring point height(cm) Measuring point height (cm)
Fig. 5.6 a–d Spectral radiative energy and exergy distribution and e and f spectral exergy-to-energy
ratio for different cases
under different conditions still exists due to the influence of the measurement envi-
ronment. The absolute value of the spectral radiative energy in Fig. 5.6 provides
only a limited amount of information. The proportion of spectral radiative energy
and exergy in various cases is discussed further. The proportion characteristics have
more significance for reference than the absolute value (Fig. 5.7). In different cases,
the largest proportion can be observed to be in a waveband of 1.1–3 μm. The propor-
tion of spectral radiative energy of < 3 μm wavelength decreases with distance
from the burner outlet, whereas the proportion of > 3 μm wavelength increases. The
spectral radiation distribution shifts to the long-wavelength direction according to
Planck’s law because the flame temperature decreases with distance; thus, the propor-
tion of the long-wavelength radiation increases while that of the short-wavelength
radiation decreases. Emissivity decreases with temperature in the experiment; this
phenomenon is more visible in the measured short-wavelength and theoretically
weakens the increasing short-wavelength proportion. Indeed, the results show that
increasing the temperature does not affect the short-wavelength proportion of the
measuring point. However, the proportion of short-wavelength radiation (< 3 μm) is
still greater than that of long-wavelength radiation for a given measuring point spec-
trum. This means that the effect of temperature on spectral emissivity is insufficient
to change the overall trend of spectral distribution with temperature. Furthermore,
Fig. 5.7 shows that the proportion of the spectral radiative energy under different
cases is relatively stable, and the variation in each waveband is within 5%. Case
4 has a higher proportion of radiative energy in the waveband of 0.5–1.1 μm than
the other cases because its measured temperature is higher, and case 2 has a higher
proportion of energy in the wavelength of < 3 μm than case 1. These characteris-
tics are especially noticeable at 20 cm, indicating that increasing the combustion
temperature may increase the proportion of short-wavelength radiation. Case 4 has
a higher proportion of energy in the wavelength of < 3 μm than in case 3, indicating
that increasing the oxygen ratio may increase the proportion of short-wavelength
radiation. Cases 2 and 3 have very similar spectral energy distribution characteris-
tics, indicating that the oxy-fuel atmosphere has little effect on the spectral radiation
proportion under similar temperature conditions. Particle radiation dominates solid
fuel combustion in an oxy-fuel atmosphere, while radiation from gases and other
media accounts for a smaller proportion [16, 17]. CO2 gasification and its high
specific heat could affect particle combustion, affecting local particle temperature
and particle emissivity. Because temperature is the most influential factor influ-
encing combustion radiation, increasing the oxygen ratio to raise the temperature is
beneficial for increasing short-wavelength radiation, which is important for radiative
energy utilization. The results of radiation exergy proportion are consistent with that
of radiative exergy in various cases as shown in Fig. 5.7e, f. Thus, the radiative energy
proportion can be approximated by the radiation exergy proportion. The proportion
of radiative exergy in the waveband of < 3 μm is slightly higher than that of radiative
energy, whereas it is slightly lower in the waveband of > 3 μm. This is because
high-frequency radiative energy has a higher equivalent radiation temperature and
its radiative exergy is relatively higher.
70 70
(a) Spectral energy in Case 1 (b) Spectral energy in Case 2

60 60
50 7cm
50
7cm 10cm
40 10cm 40 14cm
14cm 17cm
30 17cm 30 20cm
20cm
20 20
10 10
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
70 80
(c) Spectral energy in Case 3 (d) Spectral energy in Case 4

60 70
7cm 60
50
10cm 50 7cm
40 14cm 10cm
17cm 40
14cm
30 20cm 30 17cm
20 20cm
20
10 10
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
70 80
(e) Spectral exergy in Case 2 (f) Spectral exergy in Case 4
60 70
60
50 7cm
7cm
50 10cm
40 10cm
14cm 40 14cm
30 17cm 17cm
30 20cm
20cm
20
20
10 10
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
Fig. 5.7 Proportion distribution of radiative energy and radiative exergy under different experi-
mental cases
5.3 Numerical Verification
5.3.1 Design of One-Dimensional Cases
One-dimensional cases are built for media radiation transfer calculation based on
the parameters of the tube furnace experiment (e.g., furnace temperature and reac-
tion conditions). The spectral radiative energy characteristics are predicted via one-
dimensional cases, and the calculated and experimental results are compared. The
length of the quartz tube determines the size of the one-dimensional case, which
is set at 60 cm. The thermocouple temperature curve in the furnace has a trape-
zoidal distribution. The temperature formulas in Table 5.5 are used for the cases to
match the temperature distribution in the furnace. The calculated temperature has a
5.3 Numerical Verification 99
Table 5.5 Temperature curve

Furnace setting temperature Formula of temperature curve
formulas in cases
(°C)
( )
600 T = 690 − 190 cos 2πL x (K)
( 2π x )
700 T = 765 − 215 cos L (K)
( )
800 T = 865 − 215 cos 2πL x (K)
( )
900 T = 940 − 240 cos 2πL x (K)
( 2π x )
1000 T = 1015 − 265 cos L (K)
similar curve bend to the measured temperature. This study is primarily concerned
with the spectral radiation proportion; thus, it should ensure that the highest and
lowest temperatures of the one-dimensional temperature field are consistent with
the measured values and that the designing temperature curve is also as close to the
measured value as possible along the entire length. This ensures the model’s ratio-
nality and calculation precision, allowing the model to be applied to the calculation
cases.
The calculation cases are based on bituminous coal (SH) combustion and a 30%
O2 /CO2 atmosphere. The effective reaction time is set to 160 s based on the experi-
mental results. The flue gas atmosphere of the cases is calculated using the parame-
ters of airflow and coal characteristics under the assumption of complete combustion.
The calculated H2 O/CO2 molar ratio is 0.022 and the proportion of triatomic gas is
0.75. The gas radiation properties are described using the WSGG model proposed in
Chap. 3. Coal combustion generates a large number of particles and is an important
radiation medium; thus, particle radiation is taken into account in the calculation
cases. The parameters of the particles during combustion are determined using the
results reported in the existing literature and summarized in Table 5.6.
In Table 5.6, absorption coefficient κ and scattering coefficient σ is calculated
according to the formulas [17, 19]:
κ = Q abs Ap (5.9)
σ = Q sca Ap (5.10)
Table 5.6 Radiative parameters of the particles during combustion

Coal Ash
Symbol Value Symbol Value
Absorption factor [17] Qabs,coal 0.9 Qabs, ash 1
Scattering factor [17] Qsca,coal 1.1 Qsca, ash 1.4
Projected area per volume [19] Apcoal 0.75 Apash 0.125
Absorption coefficient κ coal 0.675 κ ash 0.125
Scattering coefficient σ coal 0.825 σ ash 0.175
For the total particles, κ part = κ coal + κ ash = 0.8 and σ part = σ coal + σ ash = 1.
The radiation parameters are also highest because the particle concentration is
highest at the combustion center. Furthermore, the radiation parameters are zero
because the minimum concentration at both ends is zero. Consequently, the radiation
parameter curve in the one-dimensional case is expressed by the following equations.
( )
2π x
κpart = 0.4 − 0.4 cos (5.11)
L
( )
2π x
σpart = 0.5 − 0.5 cos (5.12)
L
Furthermore, the Henyey–Greenstein distribution is chosen as the scattering phase

function:
( ) ( )3/2
ϕHG (φ) = 1 − g 2 / 1 + g 2 − 2g cos φ (5.13)
where g is set as 0.86 based on a previous study [19]. The radiation characteristics of
different temperature conditions in a 30% O2 /CO2 atmosphere are considered in the
case study, and the calculation is similar to that used in Chap. 3. The proportional
characteristics of spectral radiative heat flux are investigated here. The radiation spec-
tral proportion is unaffected by the absolute radiation intensity and can be compared
to experimental results.
Furthermore, the same analysis methods and parameters used in the flat-flame
burner experiment for semi-coke particle parameters are used here. The semi-coke
particles radiation parameters are κ part = 0.8, σ part = 1. The particle concentration
is assumed to be the greatest at the center of the flame, so the radiation parameter is
greatest, and the concentration at the two walls is the lowest to zero, so the radiation
parameter is also zero. Moreover, Eqs. (5.11) and (5.12) continue to represent the
radiation parameter distribution curves. The scattering phase function also chooses
the Henyey–Greenstein distribution as expressed in Eq. (5.13), with g = 0.86.
5.3.2 Numerical Verification Results
First, the comparison of the spectral radiation proportions calculation results in one-
dimensional cases with the tube furnace experimental results is discussed. The vari-
ations in the predicted spectral radiation proportion and the experimental results
versus the temperature under a 30% O2 CO2 atmosphere are similar, and the calcu-
lated results agree well with the experimental results for various cases at different
temperatures. The maximum difference between calculated and experimental results
is ~ 3% for the case at the temperature of 600 °C, whereas the differences are less
with a maximum of ~ 2%, for the three respective cases at temperatures of 700, 800,
and 900 °C. Furthermore, the difference is greater for the case with a temperature of
5.3 Numerical Verification 101
1000 °C, with a maximum difference of about 5%. This could be due to the difficulty
of the experimental control at high temperatures as well as the large fluctuations in the
reaction after feeding the coal. Figure 5.8a, b depict the typical cases at 700 °C and
1000 °C, respectively. These results indicate that the simulated results are reasonable
in the 600–1000 °C temperature range. Furthermore, the corresponding simulated
temperature curve has a larger gap with the measured temperature field along the
path length when the temperature difference is > 1000 °C. Thus, the theoretical
accuracy of the prediction results will be slightly reduced. Thus, the calculation and
the experimental results are relatively close to the gray-body radiation spectrum.
This also suggests that the radiation spectrum characteristics of combustion media
in the presence of particles are similar to gray-body radiation, indicating that particle
radiation has the greatest impact in solid fuel combustion [19].
The predictions of the oxyfuel conditions for cases 3 and 4 are better with small
errors up to ~ 2% for the numerical verification results of small flat-flame burner
experiment results. However, the calculation results for the air-combustion condi-
tions in cases 1 and 2 are poor, with errors of ~ 6%. Figure 5.8c, d depict typical
cases 2 and 4. The calculation results also show that the calculated radiative heat flux
and radiative source terms under oxy-fuel conditions are several times higher than
those under air-combustion conditions, indicating that the oxy-fuel combustion atmo-
sphere has stronger radiative heat transfer. The error generated when analyzing the
60 70
(a) 700°C Case Tube furnace experiment (b)
1000°C Case
Tube furnace experiment

50 60
Calculation
Experiment 50
40 Calculation
Experiment
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
0-1.125 1.125-4.1 4.1-10.5 10.5-50 0-1.125 1.125-4.1 4.1-10.5 10.5-50
80 80
(c) Case 2 Flat-flame burner experiment (d) Case 4
70 70
Flat-flame burner experiment
60 60 Calculation
Calculation Experiment
50 Experiment 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10 0--1.1 1.1--3 3--6 6--10 >10
Fig. 5.8 Comparison of the calculation results of the spectral radiation proportion in one-
dimensional cases a and b for tube furnace experiment and c and d for the small flat-flame burner
experiment
radiative energy proportion may be smaller for a higher radiative heat flux. Further-
more, regardless of the oxy-fuel or air-combustion condition, both the calculation
and experimental results of the proportional distribution are similar, indicating that
particle radiation plays a significant role in the combustion medium. The results
show that a one-dimensional numerical calculation can accurately predict the spec-
tral proportion when compared to experimental results. Thus, further studies could
adopt numerical simulation to investigate spectral radiative energy characteristics in
flame as a reasonable supplementary.
5.4 Summary
This chapter introduced the spectral radiative energy and exergy characteristics in the
oxyfuel combustion of solid fuels under different atmospheres in a fixed-bed furnace
and small Hencken flat-flame burner from the perspective of energy utilization. The
effects of various fuels, temperature, atmosphere, and oxygen ratio are investigated.
The following summary can be drawn.
1. In the tube furnace experiment, the radiative energy of coal combustion increases
with oxygen ratio and temperature, with temperature having a greater influence.
The radiative exergy follows a similar pattern as the radiative energy. Temperature
influences the radiative exergy-to-energy ratio more than coal rank and oxygen
ratio. The radiative exergy-to-energy ratios of various coals are comparable at a
given combustion temperature.
The spectral radiation ratio increases in the waveband of < 4.1 μm as the oxygen
ratio and combustion temperature increase, with the temperature being the most
influential factor. At temperatures of > 800 °C, the coals have no discernible effect
on the spectral radiation distribution. The trends of radiative exergy as temperature
and oxygen ratio increase in each waveband are similar to those of the radiative
energy. Increased short-wavelength radiation ratio during combustion can improve
total radiative exergy, which is advantageous for energy conversion and management.
The radiative exergy fraction is less than the radiation fraction during combustion,
indicating that the chemical energy in the fuel is of a higher quality than that of
radiative energy. Thus, a more efficient energy cascade conversion system must
consider chemical energy conversion. Lignite has a higher radiation fraction and
radiative exergy fraction than bituminous coal. Thus, lignite or other highly volatile
solid fuels could be used for combustion in photo-thermal energy cascade conversion
systems.
2. In a small flat-flame burner experiment, a high designed temperature and a high

oxygen ratio could increase the flame radiation intensity. The radiation intensity
is lower in the O2 /CO2 atmosphere. The oxyfuel atmosphere’s influence on the
radiative spectrum is primarily due to the actual combustion temperature. Addi-
tionally, the effects of combustion and gasification reactions on particles and
References 103
other products may affect the emission and absorption of the medium along the
path length. The total radiation exergy curve along the flame height is similar to
that of radiative energy, and its absolute value is less than that of the radiative
energy. The radiation exergy-to-energy ratio curve along the path length is similar
to that of the measured temperature in different cases. Thus, the temperature is
assumed to be the primary factor affecting radiation exergy.
The spectral radiative energy has the highest proportion in the 1.1–3 μm waveband,
reaching > 60%. In different cases, the variation of spectral radiation proportion in
each waveband is within 5%. The proportion of the short-wavelength energy can
be increased by increasing the combustion temperature and oxygen ratio, whereas
the O2 /CO2 atmosphere has little effect on the proportion of spectral radiation. The
spectral radiative energy proportion can be used to approximate the spectral radiation
exergy. Short-wavelength and high-temperature radiation energy is more important
for utilization because the spectral exergy-to-energy ratio could reach between 76
and 85% in the waveband of < 3 μm.
3. The one-dimensional calculation radiation transfer cases built on combustion
characteristics can accurately simulate the proportional characteristics of spec-
tral radiation. As a reasonable supplement, further studies could use numerical
simulation to investigate spectral radiative energy characteristics in flame.
References
1. Shan S, Zhou Z, Wang Z et al (2019) Radiative energy flux characteristics and model analysis
for one-dimensional fixed-bed oxy-coal combustion. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 20(6):431–446
2. Kirdyashkin A, Orlovskii V, Sosnin E et al (2010) Energy and spectral characteristics of
radiation during filtration combustion of natural gas. Combust Explosion Shock Waves
46(5):523–527
3. Bejarano P, Levendis Y (2008) Single-coal-particle combustion in O2 /N2 and O2 /CO2
environments. Combust Flame 153(1–2):270–287
4. Zhang Z, Li X, Luo C et al (2018) Investigation on the thermodynamic calculation of a 35
MWth oxy-fuel combustion coal-fired boiler. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 71:36–45
5. Yuan Y, Li S, Xu Y et al (2017) Experimental and theoretical analyses on ignition and surface
temperature of dispersed coal particles in O2 /N2 and O2 /CO2 ambients. Fuel 201:93–98
6. Yuan Y, Li S, Li G et al (2014) The transition of heterogeneous–homogeneous ignitions of
dispersed coal particle streams. Combust Flame 161(9):2458–2468
7. Shao L, Zhou Z, Chen L et al (2018) Study of an improved two-colour method integrated with
the emissivity ratio model and its application to air-and oxy-fuel flames in industrial furnaces.
Measurement 123:54–61
8. Sun Y, Lou C, Zhou H (2011) A simple judgment method of gray property of flames based on
spectral analysis and the two-color method for measurements of temperatures and emissivity.
Proc Combust Inst 33(1):735–741
9. Cai X, Cheng Z, Wang S (2007) Flame measurement and combustion diagnoses with spectrum
analysis. AIP Conf Proc Am Inst Phys 914(1):60–66
10. Graeser P, Schiemann M (2020) Investigations on the emissivity of burning coal char particles:
influence of particle temperature and composition of reaction atmosphere. Fuel 263:116714
11. Johnston J, Wooster M, Lynham T (2014) Experimental confirmation of the MWIR and LWIR
grey body assumption for vegetation fire flame emissivity. Int J Wildland Fire 23(4):463–479
12. Schiemann M, Gronarz T, Graeser P et al (2019) A correlation between char emissivity and
temperature. Fuel 256:115889
13. Modest M (2013) Radiative heat transfer, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
14. Moon C, Sung Y, Ahn S et al (2013) Thermochemical and combustion behaviors of coals of
different ranks and their blends for pulverized-coal combustion. Appl Thermal Eng 54(1):111–
119
15. He Y, Zhu J, Li B et al (2013) In-situ measurement of sodium and potassium release during
oxy-fuel combustion of lignite using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy: effects of O2 and
CO2 concentration. Energy Fuels 27(2):1123–1130
16. Johansson R, Leckner B, Andersson K et al (2013) Influence of particle and gas radiation in
oxy-fuel combustion. Int J Heat Mass Transf 65:143–152
89
18. Ferrari C, Melino F, Pinelli M et al (2014) Thermophotovoltaic energy conversion: analytical
aspects, prototypes and experiences. Appl Energy 113:1717–1730
19. Kez V, Consalvi J, Liu F et al (2019) Investigation of gas and particle radiation modelling in
wet oxy-coal combustion atmospheres. Int J Heat Mass Transf 133:1026–1040
Chapter 6
Outlook
From the perspective of energy cascade utilization, this book points out that the
traditional power generation method is limited by the maximum parameters of the
thermal power cycle, so it cannot effectively utilize high-temperature combustion
energy. Against this, it is proposed the academic idea of photo-thermal energy cascade
conversion for fuel combustion. Several thermal radiation theories for fuel combus-
tion are introduced based on radiative energy utilization with the main innovations
of these theories are summarized as follows:
1. A radiation engine model is proposed to explain the exergy expression of black-
body radiation using the classical thermodynamic analysis method. The infinite-
staged Carnot heat engine model is innovatively created based on the concept
of equivalent temperature, and the expression of the monochromatic radiative
exergy is deduced. Consequently, a relatively complete theory for evaluating the
energy quality of spectral radiation is established. Combining the monochro-
matic radiation exergy theory with the radiation transfer equation yields the
monochromatic radiation transfer equations for radiative entropy and radiative
exergy.
2. The WSGG model for gas medium radiation characteristics is improved to
accommodate the pressurized combustion conditions. Several parameters suit-
able for the radiation characteristics of complex combustion conditions are devel-
oped based on the improved WSGG model, particularly the WSGG model
parameters in the high-pressure range and oxy-fuel combustion conditions.
Furthermore, their accuracy and necessity are verified.
3. From the perspective of energy utilization, the radiative energy characteristics
and spectral energy distribution characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion are inves-
tigated using various furnaces, with special emphasis placed on the spectral radia-
tive exergy characteristics. The findings of the study serve as the foundation for
the design and development of a photo-thermal energy cascade conversion system
for fuel combustion.

106 6 Outlook
An initial academic research topic was noted on the theory and application of
thermal radiation in fuel combustion based on energy utilization, which inspires
academic ideas and scientific theories in related fields, as well as a foundation for
subsequent studies. Future studies should focus on the following areas:
1. The combustion flue gas contains CO2 , H2 O, CO, OH, and other complex gas-
phase components due to the complex combustion environment and various fuel
components. Furthermore, the products contain nitrogen oxide when ammonia
fuel combustion is considered. Consequently, relevant experiments and models
must be performed to accurately predict the radiation characteristics of flue gas
under complex combustion conditions.
2. Particle radiation is dominant in fuel combustion. Thus, the radiation character-
istics of oxyfuel combustion under high concentration particle conditions should
be investigated. The characteristics of high-temperature particle radiation should
be experimentally measured, and a particle radiation calculation model should
be developed.
3. The efficient calculation model of spectral radiation should be considered for
radiative energy utilization. A WSGG model suitable for the radiation character-
istics of multiple wavebands can be developed for gas media, and a database of
radiation characteristics of different wavebands can be established for particles.
4. The spectral range tested by the spectrometer in the research on the radiative
energy characteristics of combustion is limited due to the limitations of the
current test equipment. In the future, instruments with a wider spectrum, partic-
ularly those with radiative characteristics in the infrared waveband, should be
considered for experiments. The radiative energy characteristics of larger-scale
combustion equipment should be considered in the future because the current
experiments are on a small scale. For high-power combustion equipment (e.g.,
boilers), CFD simulation can be used to study the characteristics of combustion
radiative energy.
5. Using micro/nanostructured materials, the spectral radiative energy can be
adjusted based on the radiation characteristics of the combustion media.
Consequently, future studies should focus on the coupling relationship
between combustion reaction conditions and thermal radiation regulation
of micro/nanostructured materials. A test bench should be built especially
for the photovoltaic conversion of combustion flame radiation based on
the current measurement experiment for combustion radiation energy. The
micro/nanostructured emitter is used to reshape the flame spectrum to improve
the photovoltaic conversion efficiency based on fuel combustion.
Appendix
New WSGG model parameters tables

The Appendix presents the new WSGG model parameters tables, which include 7
tables. Here is the introduction for them.
1. These tables list the parameters of new WSGG model for the pressure range of
1–30 bar.
2. Each table represents a molar ratio of H2 O to CO2 (M), therefore it is suitable
for many fuels with different H/C ratio.
3. The temperature range of the new WSGG model is 500–2500 K; the path-length
range is 0.001–60 m; and the molar ratio range is 0.125–4.
4. The way to use the parameters of the new WSGG model for the gas mixture with
different molar ratios in CFD calculation refers to Table 3.1.
5. In each table, κi represents the absorption coefficient of each gray gas, and it
can be obtained through the polynomial of pressure, the polynomial coefficients
are K0, K1 and K2. What’s more, cij is the temperature-dependent polynomial
coefficient for emissivity, and it also can be obtained through the polynomial of
pressure, the polynomial coefficients are C0, C1 and C2 (Tables A.1, A.2, A.3,
A.4, A.5, A.6 and A.7).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8311-5
108 Appendix
Table A.1 M = 0.125

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κi K2 K1 K0 K2 K1 K0
κ1 − 0.058045024 − − 0.047022295 −
0.01537788 0.002916791 0.00649336 0.016409414
κ2 − 0.673880172 − − 0.316072576 −
0.19086652 0.135713662 0.043453103 0.009752138
κ3 − 5.507075299 − − 1.264334888 3.084031743
1.518124622 0.051576318 0.180656432
κ4 − 25.110022 95.6684858 58.8762886 − 2.018915 9.6257067 138.5974188
cij C2 C1 C0 C2 C1 C0
c14 − 3.850902068 − − 0.205781883 1.174774809
1.16510214 1.735122558 0.07001639
c13 3.598783466 − 5.080530622 0.206051067 − −
12.06334535 0.560529153 4.354172175
c12 − 13.08073904 − − 0.725548162 5.188950281
3.838701366 5.125955165 0.239832289
c11 1.610416686 − 1.946001892 0.125094118 − −
5.480776293 0.432411362 2.209437695
c10 − 0.715405465 0.096914706 − 0.060906654 0.554011119
0.236332058 0.023356756
c24 0.751288724 − 0.090652566 0.120040011 − −
1.97829635 0.233857594 0.873230094
c23 − 6.781313752 − − 0.658108502 3.243279142
2.528108612 0.421925566 0.382807164
c22 2.96997366 − 0.670769141 0.454887836 − −
8.173162126 0.837193064 3.940825688
c21 − 3.833825305 − − 0.569007029 1.503376939
1.349620506 0.549515246 0.230434414
c20 0.170544532 − 0.331541421 0.040754736 − 0.215398579
0.465564342 0.147913329
c34 − 0.678222711 0.000438325 0.001005701 − 0.676932193
0.368991106 0.400017837
c33 1.235267546 − 0.168094452 − 1.389840662 −
2.345866871 0.006525718 2.336147559
c32 − 2.937262245 − − − 2.758457272
1.472281114 0.430572378 0.005265644 1.59128352
c31 0.693716082 − 0.196174575 0.021290043 0.624967625 −
1.503885041 1.371826598
c30 − 0.218316101 0.160581745 − − 0.383467346
0.07809705 0.007809409 0.033701983
(continued)
Appendix 109
Table A.1 (continued)

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 0.141855152 − 0.3070343 0.030544636 − 0.240938875 −
0.021071918 0.413693435
c43 − 0.864169528 0.062856954 0.069749441 − 1.47502675
0.418354656 0.818123564
c42 0.42953348 − − − 0.99247061 −
0.805992798 0.271420584 0.080276321 1.829108199
c41 − 0.243555643 0.175139552 0.03780826 − 0.85780205
0.17523491 0.523861946
c40 0.022830086 0.013976331 0.021091998 − 0.121468098 −
0.006776357 0.075465765
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 − 0.004357269 0.05804901 8.02281E−05 − 0.079318545
0.000480755 0.00255355
κ2 − 0.017275237 0.509193538 0.000760164 − 0.578841226
0.001187873 0.00602093
κ3 0.006232793 − 5.396132511 0.00377874 − 5.281028913
0.061247201 0.027338952
κ4 0.20729775 − 163.8351094 0.168145613 − 151.728295
5.58856695 3.335851725
c14 0.011259254 − 1.800071297 0.028401936 − 2.262824648
0.275644811 0.455626465
c13 − 0.851228024 − − 1.41745442 −
0.033069238 6.175275997 0.086984569 7.631682442
c12 0.032287923 − 7.371754937 0.092172604 − 9.007340648
0.90863385 1.540539555
c11 − 0.433637372 − − 0.03928366 0.682367383 −
0.015566474 3.423063169 4.061624548
c10 0.006010849 − 0.820512509 0.006578909 − 0.813364226
0.123189112 0.12540609
c24 − 0.94472443 − − 0.666482305 −
0.055223567 2.783340948 0.036044369 1.80433932
c23 0.185444271 − 9.540784048 0.117078266 − 6.207066814
3.189273463 2.223457898
c22 − 3.747513782 − − 2.600137314 −
0.215481705 11.55374041 0.132546241 7.655158297
c21 0.097413259 − 5.333783871 0.058104907 − 3.545988702
1.699985396 1.166169427
c20 − 0.236059021 − − 0.149857847 −
0.014353135 0.438764885 0.007772699 0.158453552
(continued)
110 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 0.065396995 − 1.573214305 0.016608526 − −
0.881653541 0.281230989 0.272936123
c33 − 2.977820712 − − 0.995411958 0.794179602
0.217960295 5.305114527 0.056983673
c32 0.253555231 − 6.4202217 0.069416849 − −
3.542008127 1.27042582 0.580290408
c31 − 1.657856207 − − 0.649356055 −
0.114794456 3.326028952 0.033342346 0.207304003
c30 0.013708964 − 0.715858382 0.004027828 − 0.338862809
0.20287323 0.081953822
c44 − 0.283259619 − − 0.031651568 0.212504372
0.025128035 0.518078533 0.003487329
c43 0.081848772 − 1.787681908 0.013013248 − −
0.944684676 0.139482451 0.565452608
c42 − 1.132371585 − − 0.23294359 0.481043402
0.094138402 2.166918793 0.017788242
c41 0.04491686 − 1.009262706 0.010713886 − −
0.59016151 0.183488592 0.199467735
c40 − 0.131668981 − − 0.067606151 0.097430074
0.008028682 0.096232097 0.002731048
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.004341045 0.030904496 9.17268E−06 − 0.06737584
0.000125091 0.000167793
κ2 − 0.068346069 0.07955212 − 0.017448805 0.514266322
0.001683645 0.000225568
κ3 − 0.288744696 3.223015944 − 0.066467332 5.16535961
0.007249495 0.000991486
κ4 0.012512386 0.33528269 130.5802735 − 1.02501529 123.7854343
0.004987146
c14 − 0.04449743 0.210614989 − 0.06876591 −
0.001088357 0.001121325 0.261567379
c13 0.003529165 − − 0.003275513 − 0.082281565
0.134192958 1.166582095 0.191563109
c12 − 0.116982682 2.004424551 − 0.168831633 0.797346905
0.003550459 0.003125212
c11 0.00100271 − − 0.00106428 − −
0.019798291 1.068604819 0.049671106 0.495776323
c10 1.92965E−05 − 0.278752982 − 0.000426584 0.174739886
0.006348844 5.94421E−05
(continued)
Appendix 111

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c24 − 0.183549936 0.084078404 0.000997163 − 2.50838062
0.006635309 0.090314624
c23 0.02251814 − − − 0.240614324 −
0.645049794 0.121001585 0.002316524 7.900418475
c22 − 0.819987443 − 0.001511372 − 8.594052674
0.027368901 0.371393606 0.205890328
c21 0.013385715 − 0.481369377 − 0.073466608 −
0.412515573 0.000341438 3.747412931
c20 − 0.058588297 0.180725966 9.41016E−05 − 0.828373494
0.002037539 0.016426886
c34 0.007120625 − − − 0.17827464 −
0.136939272 0.767063216 0.001617986 3.57589716
c33 − 0.486646536 2.61798768 0.004081577 − 11.53986279
0.024345211 0.527982974
c32 0.029911359 − − − 0.538821729 −
0.639036467 2.943634875 0.00330475 13.21435518
c31 − 0.35076298 0.941371354 0.000848391 − 5.811882354
0.014969792 0.209126227
c30 0.00243684 − 0.306255004 − 0.024770429 −
0.062783163 3.91602E−05 0.454416622
c44 − − 0.424483866 0.000972025 − 1.357228718
0.001209687 0.012322809 0.102594274
c43 0.004167377 0.035936598 − − 0.303763694 −
1.435055924 0.002483319 4.131319522
c42 − − 1.741123173 0.002083603 − 4.658203015
0.005520728 0.015739528 0.313680131
c41 0.003277925 − − − 0.116162353 −
0.027855502 1.012202532 0.000461543 2.396772654
c40 − 0.024997829 0.329772614 − − 0.579566894
0.000793641 0.00012914 0.000781901
112 Appendix
Table A.2 M = 0.25

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κ1 0.000260142 0.021098919 0.019706494 0.002762583 − 0.094691834
0.021398633
κ2 − 0.260162628 0.134943042 0.007245418 − 0.541281231
0.03946414 0.036425582
κ3 − 3.165876589 1.413980514 − 0.4049708 4.409569551
0.674316562 0.042760927
κ4 − 70.8101863 65.7415113 − 0.8279821 2.2604134 134.5694663
17.8958798
c14 − 6.064331778 − − 1.722102397 −
1.897774928 3.502486507 0.279318898 1.291851864
c13 5.789198448 − 10.19417822 0.879544036 − 3.425695684
18.60904741 5.405497313
c12 − 19.73553983 − − 6.006012522 −
6.08096326 10.11829757 0.983711289 3.048250836
c11 2.49708555 − 3.899847524 0.439114875 − 1.030294444
8.170297445 2.619579555
c10 − 0.982415313 − − 0.266382293 0.259533327
0.31347121 0.132956716 0.053577211
c24 1.048111372 − 1.043304609 0.110650161 − −
3.000066738 0.210870104 0.785243815
c23 − 9.505174945 − − 0.193374029 3.551520309
3.319609574 3.015865679 0.305555613
c22 3.724120102 − 3.032319635 0.302325313 0.283485595 −
10.73988929 5.327250985
c21 − 5.058396691 − − − 2.795665643
1.713947402 1.454377193 0.135506458 0.223506615
c20 0.24179049 − 0.506498954 0.015578492 0.066327827 −
0.736339825 0.193988355
c34 − 1.046090132 − 0.032276052 − 0.814877979
0.440464244 0.476552175 0.545105537
c33 1.464744372 − 1.646393482 − 2.060895535 −
3.450386434 0.133869834 2.981713633
c32 − 4.112109282 − 0.185201191 − 3.938067331
1.753974736 2.01758806 2.744070267
c31 0.896329718 − 0.920954421 − 1.406221941 −
2.157159381 0.089842892 2.261117783
c30 − 0.473998229 0.005833325 0.003983177 − 0.559621864
0.168009114 0.146880622
(continued)
Appendix 113

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 0.153686442 − 0.144768416 − 0.194861248 −
0.398951841 0.021981186 0.34018725
c43 − 1.111209221 − 0.078681094 − 1.222704318
0.453429074 0.285192791 0.706959668
c42 0.456645598 − 0.080216019 − 0.957039157 −
0.974084861 0.102716163 1.544584976
c41 − 0.234747134 0.038677374 0.058506227 − 0.748449356
0.180339844 0.597830999
c40 0.021283994 0.043755125 0.033917659 − 0.164804626 −
0.012850749 0.071642372
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 0.000272114 − 0.0648745 − 0.009847405 0.003278311
0.003982422 0.000321852
κ2 0.000302027 0.013514571 0.452614869 0.00415852 − 0.484238505
0.014894995
κ3 − 0.157551313 4.877479809 0.025578953 − 6.106014537
0.010150446 0.26158087
κ4 0.51556255 − 151.6338213 0.30306025 − 142.9445955
7.37985395 4.65663585
c14 0.036076735 − 2.590983232 − 0.229752409 −
0.510188909 0.011655662 0.130298384
c13 − 1.570180146 − 0.02125929 − −
0.108096779 8.674761112 0.429179805 1.335419893
c12 0.114034125 − 10.35999292 − 0.083400904 3.686421361
1.737030073 0.003994051
c11 − 0.824022206 − − 0.144310452 −
0.050688663 4.907255998 0.00651155 2.419361536
c10 0.010566089 − 1.001810339 0.002804703 − 0.595931123
0.175760157 0.061545308
c24 − 0.0610616 0.921247168 − 0.010156265 − 0.899824936
2.566324727 0.083751634
c23 0.203398413 − 8.691804773 − − −
3.127513191 0.017398909 0.034010007 1.920510739
c22 − 3.801892279 − 0.001575588 0.422754715 0.816781429
0.241882504 10.69355266
c21 0.113706719 − 5.207936249 0.006395753 − 0.24819314
1.823426973 0.352937325
c20 − 0.267017652 − − 0.040612556 0.281690031
0.017119701 0.473576583 0.000365146
(continued)
114 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 0.044992603 − 0.710817135 − 0.167250148 −
0.56995653 0.011623499 1.674243273
c33 − 1.976911377 − 0.031171985 − 5.332714522
0.153786889 2.327104121 0.409478302
c32 0.189674527 − 2.888663037 − 0.26703162 −
2.499612539 0.026788164 5.918545035
c31 − 1.304896567 − 0.007231877 0.008693203 2.322103836
0.095073311 1.772129583
c30 0.013187169 − 0.590165414 − − 0.034111259
0.191332479 0.00116912 0.012519052
c44 − 0.100392878 − 0.003716837 − 0.511399484
0.011740914 0.126158122 0.09861323
c43 0.041321025 − 0.466186472 − 0.0105463 0.294449631 −
0.368389933 1.64362723
c42 − 0.522541079 − 0.009388058 − 0.2817258 1.956637452
0.054047123 0.585297294
c41 0.031818923 − 0.23318168 − 0.053671084 −
0.362264864 0.001237792 1.072392265
c40 − 0.119628134 0.026687852 − 0.044269319 0.261742394
0.007702265 0.001671755
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.001418175 0.057884953 − 0.00278336 0.041070755
2.49958E−05 5.12195E−05
κ2 − 0.052177218 0.361131132 − 0.047576588 0.341894754
0.001317627 0.001039505
κ3 − 0.08011011 5.487466178 − 0.03041448 5.805430716
0.002404661 0.000714791
κ4 0.024558908 0.33670318 120.8613394 − 1.63703672 108.457883
0.009449128
c14 − 0.018544647 0.906958579 − 0.087532455 0.095485681
0.000907456 0.002328164
c13 0.00196506 − − 0.006696466 − −
0.012272983 3.575065054 0.232354374 1.065999992
c12 − − 4.811424145 − 0.206749448 1.855112595
0.000723435 0.061805532 0.006760405
c11 − 0.077299836 − 0.002735037 − −
0.000737483 2.326662017 0.070274884 0.764175695
(continued)
Appendix 115

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c10 0.00040256 − 0.465223537 − 0.006908949 0.144903909
0.024453117 0.000364744
c24 − 0.100830809 0.367474828 0.003100054 − 3.612973652
0.002978478 0.183014773
c23 0.011851962 − − − 0.529909467 −
0.405065622 1.135041672 0.008803162 11.57249382
c22 − 0.571982849 1.137203301 0.008684268 − 13.22977935
0.016551444 0.537360192
c21 0.008852184 − − − 0.231664717 −
0.303239869 0.494424585 0.003587363 6.216697403
c20 − 0.03840012 0.400585894 0.000592499 − 1.260250042
0.001332861 0.043090286
c34 − 0.134644692 − − 0.214719205 −
0.002867315 2.223807053 0.003163743 3.706726049
c33 0.005296042 − 7.292974644 0.00935987 − 12.36107518
0.346744886 0.681426482
c32 − 0.267052354 − − 0.792064934 −
0.000645763 8.532992502 0.010136041 15.23713272
c31 − − 3.894901531 0.004663705 − 7.667090737
0.00232512 0.053016598 0.381402554
c30 0.000748898 − − − 0.060652777 −
0.003105552 0.251825546 0.000719668 0.93956577
c44 0.005583987 − 1.330598684 0.00103023 − 0.326397232
0.199204644 0.057919443
c43 − 0.596238774 − − 0.209636249 −
0.015544385 4.161710142 0.003301908 1.326650302
c42 0.014286316 − 4.753010915 0.004159883 − 2.444439431
0.610345727 0.292388494
c41 − 0.231579897 − − 0.159990859 −
0.00466845 2.508414561 0.00215353 2.082602037
c40 8.90769E−05 − 0.600717422 0.000257493 − 0.726559018
0.007236503 0.016896903
116 Appendix
Table A.3 M = 0.5

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κ1 − 0.051217731 0.012658646 0.000143851 − 0.071597073
0.012077942 0.002695068
κ2 0.035767828 − 0.455118129 0.00588544 − 0.541750918
0.026409718 0.009961336
κ3 − 1.000638423 3.564692907 − 0.685452618 4.200229864
0.072214562 0.073505899
κ4 − 46.3513798 72.1390752 − 2.52883435 117.6132419
11.1204224 0.57769135
c14 0.072101852 0.212168628 0.495745413 − 1.261179223 −
0.182453255 0.584055349
c13 − − − 0.549802055 − 0.713970797
0.176938776 0.98665964 1.867044609 3.730649005
c12 0.003702676 1.900306802 2.168912647 − 3.747861938 0.781562119
0.57323726
c11 0.14536603 − − 0.231008968 − −
1.359462281 0.86300561 1.391559555 1.141382811
c10 − 0.123133755 0.485979023 − 0.056660904 0.622397208
0.01815193 0.019020051
c24 − 1.102518249 − 0.051842024 − −
0.266118058 1.796530149 0.066981477 0.729371022
c23 0.788141928 − 6.067914554 − − 3.814530105
3.43698822 0.086526568 0.560959005
c22 − 3.381831676 − − 1.738476516 −
0.682800412 7.149705326 0.013752304 6.539187441
c21 0.11894581 − 3.146113604 0.062342885 − 4.120598945
0.969533483 1.343570303
c20 0.031983916 − − − 0.302981546 −
0.011078278 0.121262161 0.021980506 0.533524122
c34 0.36129516 − 1.453941704 0.060266775 − 0.456040321
1.618862614 0.517855151
c33 − 5.464112511 − − 2.146710819 −
1.193967318 4.841806424 0.244844036 2.003496167
c32 1.347066788 − 5.750086165 0.362130214 − 3.225363322
6.476488234 3.244253663
c31 − 2.94954013 − − 2.007261478 −
0.549202024 2.894957554 0.217452853 2.337396937
c30 0.016263632 − 0.568381602 0.035072757 − 0.730065047
0.223430408 0.341890379
(continued)
Appendix 117

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 − 0.192668602 − − 0.094740985 −
0.038176376 0.290474834 0.019022957 0.171233276
c43 0.165956106 − 1.099037011 0.076640575 − 0.684685563
0.813482201 0.427675415
c42 − 1.276439675 − − 0.748586139 −
0.252024918 1.477501611 0.117686769 0.959147135
c41 0.157947936 − 0.77471381 0.081313359 − 0.509668654
0.898993938 0.613202206
c40 − 0.258271372 − − 0.20765052 −
0.03501642 0.09428591 0.021050591 0.048907522
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 0.000397181 − 0.074400389 5.33191E−05 − 0.060576533
0.004409217 4.20723E−05
κ2 − 0.045938145 0.44217599 − 0.052585224 0.422548988
0.001865998 0.00242865
κ3 − 0.328082628 4.912116166 − 0.032020864 5.81579623
0.028656295 0.004414892
κ4 0.3809067 − 4.4592859 130.2281541 0.174125725 − 122.6685405
1.95866445
c14 0.019591928 − 2.287978977 0.004919592 − 2.280069366
0.265010089 0.175657808
c13 − 0.924484768 − − 0.0197488 0.672908402 −
0.061848435 8.120156455 8.126285122
c12 0.073633703 − 10.31717796 0.029937763 − 10.31045446
1.223525872 0.960229649
c11 − 0.719844354 − − 0.579997563 −
0.040131678 5.248748127 0.019384347 5.156571303
c10 0.009829313 − 1.085109552 0.004499026 − 0.981804228
0.174414635 0.125215362
c24 − 0.631704295 − − 0.751370504 −
0.032449834 2.175444392 0.035691288 2.776749308
c23 0.124014896 − 7.618304285 0.121341329 − 8.924126078
2.354068402 2.555663966
c22 − 3.167611044 − − 3.159642079 −
0.171137343 9.737564919 0.150480646 10.43339224
c21 0.094110618 − 5.055667613 0.077695963 − 1.6105904 5.083687178
1.704408402
c20 − 0.283847066 − − 0.258730739 −
0.01673199 0.540962452 0.013345557 0.512176081
(continued)
118 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 0.008573392 − − 0.026887254 − 0.872488201
0.178994695 0.072307385 0.446343797
c33 − 0.782856492 0.250029695 − 1.481354351 −
0.044725821 0.091087218 2.271947155
c32 0.08030118 − − 0.114019003 − 1.940471414
1.265334252 0.181049788 1.821228055
c31 − 0.856068461 − − 0.986987577 −
0.056675991 0.305054657 0.06192193 0.901715531
c30 0.0113222 − 0.428593507 0.011905007 − 0.516485215
0.171520267 0.189665729
c44 0.000496379 − 0.067506568 − 0.007625321 −
0.04302132 0.003042491 0.108973964
c43 0.003377236 0.100756959 − 0.010407049 − 0.128159882
0.256830499 0.005586987
c42 − − 0.422370503 − 0.007641631 0.313380119
0.01463254 0.009010189 0.014380332
c41 0.017625493 − − 0.010472635 − −
0.137727147 0.373225726 0.058327526 0.592120552
c40 − 0.102289412 0.1492986 − 0.063007497 0.265753461
0.007098197 0.003786068
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.005953598 0.021423143 − 0.000738998 0.067460095
0.000154714 9.07636E−06
κ2 − 0.032501215 0.487350858 0.000176 − 0.889457096
0.001068267 0.012489443
κ3 0.002436474 − 6.243964451 0.00102276 − 5.597251625
0.079309611 0.018699699
κ4 0.011847972 1.38047986 105.5048727 − 2.36441129 96.3884145
0.014557454
c14 − 0.067247136 0.717254487 0.000360608 − 1.427064935
0.003742753 0.050310614
c13 0.009693172 − − − 0.184171066 −
0.124891953 3.092478768 0.00137968 4.844598452
c12 − 0.011129425 4.360267975 0.002010475 − 5.595976783
0.00769628 0.24479111
c11 0.001677319 0.06414347 − − 0.126063734 −
2.104196946 0.001164654 2.20581289
(continued)
Appendix 119

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c10 7.25994E−05 − 0.391208022 0.000228333 − 0.319499012
0.021891474 0.021420696
c24 0.002076483 − 1.039409101 − 0.049535938 1.064968585
0.007923042 0.000860365
c23 − − − 0.002423661 − −
0.002751003 0.091690145 3.30637897 0.124877515 4.712497206
c22 − 0.261897785 3.724474882 − 0.080698975 7.280725976
0.002284887 0.002115575
c21 0.003600216 − − 0.000488161 0.008603459 −
0.18821585 1.730483647 4.422047783
c20 − 0.015295754 0.630438523 0.000142958 − 1.088719793
0.000428204 0.019041553
c34 − 0.350889691 − 0.00127182 − −
0.014044984 3.006622885 0.034159866 1.432353479
c33 0.039783334 − 9.636721619 − 0.001626895 6.228465747
1.018218045 0.002688274
c32 − 1.000523135 − 0.000927798 0.163735479 −
0.037455841 11.12955614 9.747258712
c31 0.013746173 − 5.28008664 0.000659721 − 5.968191016
0.387873668 0.160549845
c30 − 0.055416851 − − 0.038516541 −
0.00183258 0.560581933 0.00030421 0.833923567
c44 0.012596403 − 1.583595155 − 0.029275188 −
0.318020533 0.000738291 0.028441657
c43 − 0.972268084 − 0.001604324 − −
0.037630727 4.846613208 0.039441919 0.306433404
c42 0.038445776 − 5.419557614 − − 1.248396584
1.031237201 0.000695819 0.039847238
c41 − 0.437460358 − − 0.0594897 −
0.015684523 2.934283646 0.000195234 1.570586132
c40 0.001793206 − 0.757137341 − − 0.727663829
0.041923633 1.87122E−05 0.00421159
120 Appendix
Table A.4 M = 0.75

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κ1 − 0.057219031 0.010379033 0.00062775 − 0.074694357
0.014676706 0.005547543
κ2 0.044231636 − 0.489107698 0.002865826 0.016561939 0.507109291
0.057168886
κ3 − 0.997952669 3.610363064 − 0.881421592 4.008762698
0.061263582 0.102597952
κ4 − 58.56955557 55.84487414 1.38961895 − 114.4740095
16.27600622 6.07626245
c14 − 1.075074122 − − 1.318724949 −
0.134374948 0.203617617 0.19555829 0.446185906
c13 0.549739892 − 0.363828107 0.629837277 − 0.5436276
3.877877616 4.127972131
c12 − 5.291493432 − − 4.463101086 0.636112252
0.902386508 0.263309992 0.713045896
c11 0.624832278 − 0.232752765 0.32280397 − −
3.033539275 1.86631316 0.893586233
c10 − 0.1035341 0.403962948 0.305476265 − 0.161353888 0.53037114
0.038453289
c24 − 0.478719625 − 0.099437573 − −
0.113642934 1.227911341 0.33624188 0.450310356
c23 0.3120071 − 4.403336192 − 0.46842419 2.577169601
1.600413924 0.26587031
c22 − 1.565443186 − 0.22028786 0.394544575 −
0.153635668 5.571011018 4.724907908
c21 − − 2.620464287 − − 3.124460312
0.145377536 0.227243568 0.061408541 0.647179572
c20 0.090238864 − − − 0.182432509 −
0.152360084 0.054834548 0.00023561 0.362521839
c34 0.402032766 − 1.370769812 0.025516366 − 0.104666877
1.650060295 0.263976027
c33 − 5.722641236 − − 1.245893332 −
1.353282952 4.670575543 0.124590002 0.631851535
c32 1.568086648 − 5.731355735 0.221635964 − 1.352692792
7.044800566 2.162567726
c31 − 3.393261605 − − 1.529461017 −
0.667177822 3.025640916 0.156622084 1.340262695
c30 0.028107606 − 0.626689288 0.028737777 − 0.597584509
0.307608799 0.294316751
(continued)
Appendix 121

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 − 0.233278803 − − − −
0.072742674 0.28964452 0.007749321 0.002196468 0.078667393
c43 0.28364328 − 1.110638138 0.039843189 − 0.308693902
0.982148764 0.093576464
c42 − 1.531563576 − − 0.361320216 −
0.39387718 1.503327308 0.07883744 0.422999548
c41 0.229499034 − 0.792391643 0.068336597 − 0.199105148
1.073240047 0.454271925
c40 − 0.304635067 − − 0.198489767 0.008318436
0.047254642 0.099452743 0.021124787
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 − 0.038902986 − − 0.009844493 0.031799005
0.003443947 0.037960613 0.000538632
κ2 − 0.41665052 − − 0.209707356 −
0.033859347 0.505642281 0.01208437 0.047882442
κ3 − 1.890247779 0.998226542 − 0.361340696 5.127685238
0.166645989 0.026535328
κ4 0.13146615 − 111.4613439 0.074447313 0.284628175 110.0633439
0.29048485
c14 0.032913547 − 3.088967402 − 0.266398045 0.521326805
0.478950722 0.019987898
c13 − 1.516140858 − 0.055120299 − −
0.096295294 10.41470324 0.640322051 2.926887103
c12 0.107382318 − 12.70891572 − 0.452402646 4.702748964
1.836812637 0.051760042
c11 − 1.03730788 − 0.016803376 − −
0.058641784 6.404938329 0.040298405 2.655326358
c10 0.010307842 − 1.180872848 − − 0.602781218
0.19631606 0.000899667 0.032722403
c24 0.004881252 0.268764138 − − 0.30594416 −
1.357433308 0.006123281 1.184350252
c23 − − 4.759582107 0.038646356 − 4.49801904
0.000611471 1.13821429 1.330167409
c22 − 1.81956389 − − 1.978644304 −
0.032098422 6.386804662 0.069473201 5.995795069
c21 0.043466713 − 3.811620702 0.04645599 − 3.257166924
1.238470683 1.16399738
c20 − 0.269908619 − − 0.215866278 −
0.013975873 0.492582065 0.010164551 0.305535608
(continued)
122 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 − 0.366853394 − 0.016887715 − 0.840636822
0.044426239 1.299569133 0.357731324
c33 0.098278334 − 3.510626021 − 1.36946698 −
0.681199401 0.070553342 2.71543192
c32 − − − 0.102824342 − 2.825924075
0.040998777 0.034630162 2.956901614 1.861373156
c31 − 0.573022923 0.425243733 − 1.063931472 −
0.027856712 0.061592247 1.305728307
c30 0.017420967 − 0.576585033 0.01350625 − 0.604171239
0.243799642 0.224909043
c44 0.014146133 − 0.277429679 − 0.025448854 −
0.178802548 0.002450877 0.350586403
c43 − 0.443660667 − 0.01026671 − 0.963253606
0.030824237 0.709575812 0.081689917
c42 0.008786455 − 0.629642222 − 0.100686506 −
0.252335805 0.015863455 0.601094911
c41 0.016358647 − − 0.011665602 − −
0.113169415 0.333657692 0.093772887 0.281087243
c40 − 0.110594683 0.154001828 − 0.066057268 0.267851441
0.008256228 0.003995814
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.000564298 0.07102111 4.2926E−05 − 0.095622584
2.8331E−06 0.001580959
κ2 0.001942331 − 1.384587938 0.00176858 − 1.604808182
0.073806691 0.081342694
κ3 0.012392946 − 8.927256113 0.004676879 − 7.081416023
0.407899129 0.161285777
κ4 0.018036914 1.47273743 103.8232912 − 2.35504697 97.0086508
0.009041962
c14 0.005049134 − 3.022358992 0.003134377 − 2.712437936
0.234075495 0.180284291
c13 − 0.81105287 − − 0.608471757 −
0.017500697 10.17853674 0.010506594 8.924555694
c12 0.021960458 − 11.97296449 0.012391884 − 9.983880961
1.011823899 0.720998255
c11 − 0.512774788 − − 0.328577306 −
0.011378759 5.367844811 0.005673377 3.966048071
(continued)
Appendix 123

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c10 0.002057426 − 0.874046664 0.000879817 − 0.55272176
0.089419883 0.049801447
c24 − 0.253203147 − − 0.0029138 0.156637239 0.121386364
0.005687279 0.700540262
c23 0.020889532 − 1.730747567 0.00768008 − − 2.564
0.875872017 0.396911659 678859
c22 − 1.070007257 − − 0.304373703 5.882062259
0.027286805 1.128064219 0.006530444
c21 0.014261393 − 0.011844366 0.001822904 − −
0.51751916 0.055029814 4.262546992
c20 − 0.051266625 0.493615512 4.62904E−05 − 1.114785748
0.001696097 0.014639635
c34 0.000312437 − − 0.001911608 − −
0.080090742 0.278241209 0.058698357 1.345757265
c33 − 0.268947269 1.569482919 − 0.00340132 0.019901936 6.570709643
0.00335052
c32 0.008310177 − − 2.907214 0.000237325 0.211991548 −
0.342917703 10.77625801
c31 − 0.1972682 1.877570937 0.001429062 − 6.676317627
0.006758912 0.206428601
c30 0.001152231 − − − 0.048357572 −
0.025453145 0.15498585 0.000474059 0.980684342
c44 0.001902201 − − − 0.056560342 −
0.002068572 0.510719862 0.001678396 0.251059634
c43 − − 1.678877245 0.004439425 − 0.435225569
0.004887969 0.001705488 0.126070794
c42 0.0026503 0.035508712 − − 0.051899155 0.375775583
1.800692423 0.003610392
c41 0.000808356 − 0.375268919 0.001014392 0.022292152 −
0.050836043 1.169709457
c40 − 0.03939189 0.233111394 − 0.001627853 0.683987634
0.000981876 0.000220865
124 Appendix
Table A.5 M = 1
P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κ1 − 0.081448825 − 0.000864595 − 0.074800399
0.023790214 0.002443296 0.00648264
κ2 − 0.366457306 0.21847772 0.000731319 0.035172062 0.482394599
0.098932084
κ3 − 2.057737171 2.944584676 − 0.973859027 3.943178351
0.410099882 0.117809229
κ4 − 42.34449532 59.57355714 − 6.92563965 94.1426706
9.89783392 0.83068445
c14 0.146388406 0.370016121 0.217756312 − 0.91945684 0.239554131
0.133781409
c13 − − − 0.473798549 − −
0.083120074 2.421659879 0.443538656 3.083571614 1.347389678
c12 − 4.521505523 0.085494128 − 3.567226694 2.406334374
0.485981366 0.589052013
c11 0.55684035 − 0.281589319 0.291446386 − −
3.031216099 1.589363583 1.540539857
c10 − 0.519086447 0.218241077 − 0.142323742 0.593255647
0.132370278 0.037742568
c24 0.21711866 − − 0.079427312 − −
0.580025964 0.454280171 0.189851541 0.683863625
c23 − 0.9647052 2.383235586 1.516783791 − 0.277513938 2.859544568
0.24753457
c22 1.529733352 − − 0.254529042 0.287916284 −
3.54582877 1.920137248 4.486810116
c21 − 2.293561238 0.881870488 − − 2.78127746
1.00260602 0.104030225 0.453293838
c20 0.226845976 − 0.192609708 0.010886816 0.128406199 −
0.539168934 0.278703918
c34 − 0.556659211 − 0.002172357 − −
0.320809314 0.147289776 0.104710652 0.116476734
c33 0.958765864 − 0.194782685 − 0.541639001 0.428506742
1.300978382 0.020973842
c32 − 0.796693448 0.246518783 0.071137741 − −
1.036536552 1.143489416 0.303812661
c31 0.507634118 − − − 0.971597734 −
0.076728817 0.576484461 0.072739954 0.351641276
c30 − 0.1158029 0.096535014 0.348535756 0.014396399 − 0.432090554
0.205640983
(continued)
Appendix 125

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 0.070811472 − 0.004914189 0.005102343 − 0.023394446
0.218817618 0.096639488
c43 − 0.392254183 0.200578808 − 0.248867375 −
0.152556946 0.005923639 0.099180804
c42 0.072046946 0.067666065 − − − 0.153486373
0.499320111 0.022920105 0.068803075
c41 0.03046821 − 0.34012591 0.041850991 − −
0.460064381 0.24367071 0.138192556
c40 − 0.232963461 − − 0.16999617 0.073982161
0.02140395 0.036096688 0.017440017
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 0.000238154 − 0.064278933 0.000773065 − 0.09382017
0.001346511 0.009479518
κ2 − 0.07968439 0.399805821 0.001988691 − 0.735117387
0.005234965 0.019542808
κ3 − 0.324420911 5.207776735 0.013275033 − 7.040362339
0.034487099 0.267582809
κ4 0.15579985 − 107.4087334 0.104081775 0.38447265 104.9428687
0.33681325
c14 − 0.663774627 0.417427083 0.049990866 − 5.124685923
0.080977915 0.906581194
c13 0.231843366 − − − 2.878295743 − 16.641143
1.733723964 2.87549735 0.154447539
c12 − 1.335731611 5.398362732 0.170901473 − 19.15680136
0.218180015 3.291830418
c11 0.072282242 − − − 1.586894975 −
0.216939069 3.523611609 0.079918311 8.867395968
c10 − − 0.883288285 0.013536688 − 1.503262732
0.004105258 0.06473366 0.273914405
c24 0.042091283 − − − 1.218702322 −
0.048378398 0.652379727 0.064589175 4.414367589
c23 − − 3.035827478 0.203092676 − 13.39362032
0.093730746 0.381772087 3.889011426
c22 0.045712076 1.22385872 − − 4.402233589 −
4.88950841 0.226120229 14.17379461
c21 0.01111101 − 3.053939322 0.102785744 − 6.034368984
0.982024242 2.028810925
c20 − 0.201711195 − − 0.290579401 −
0.006969352 0.286225214 0.015244214 0.521539409
(continued)
126 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 − 0.366917729 − 0.012209955 − 0.600570065
0.047927145 1.201398232 0.294232916
c33 0.125436003 − 3.821318754 − 0.763656649 −
0.892203379 0.030012775 0.517685409
c32 − 0.549222591 − 0.022614324 − −
0.097831366 4.371154983 0.629803549 1.633042971
c31 0.016662866 0.071226063 1.819400304 − 0.199350888 1.865377023
0.005968403
c30 0.002813026 − 0.095805526 0.000230625 − −
0.075236234 0.016812407 0.161771009
c44 0.019972758 − 0.311360984 0.020367111 − 0.681188246
0.228112784 0.292116777
c43 − 0.710584548 − − 1.056976776 −
0.057986934 1.113036776 0.070648248 2.735582834
c42 0.053172885 − 1.593910447 0.08747822 − 4.204337395
0.733281052 1.374184225
c41 − 0.213461066 − − 0.707455132 −
0.011874617 1.107109932 0.043536602 2.93124288
c40 − 0.0549717 0.313051215 0.005826392 − 0.773610849
0.003625715 0.078500879
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.002310565 0.058793577 1.5392E−07 0.000319963 0.076273201
5.56771E−05
κ2 − 0.009334063 0.697138555 0.000223124 − 0.833006573
0.000519208 0.012305972
κ3 0.003023592 − 6.144833522 0.000169144 0.046913711 4.838028
0.07551552
κ4 − 2.74666855 93.0931098 − 3.20089478 88.7690804
0.013640226 0.025541464
c14 0.004955115 − 2.896240981 0.000580094 − 1.299635767
0.233379193 0.06604851
c13 − 0.773432495 − − 0.237919989 −
0.016184009 9.41886355 0.002224971 4.292228618
c12 0.01942333 − 10.68699196 0.003038252 − 4.649518347
0.930068047 0.300492814
c11 − 0.459708327 − − 0.142363049 −
0.009857563 4.601604253 0.001574029 1.568112201
(continued)
Appendix 127

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c10 0.001707404 − 0.713283564 0.000262172 − 0.0213696 0.186295292
0.076623656
c24 − 0.01084288 0.431888009 − − 0.015631432 2.280998461
1.920853879 0.000534682
c23 0.036580348 − 5.263105328 0.001127219 0.000416312 −
1.410836646 8.780702192
c22 − 1.630650863 − − − 12.05129407
0.044154326 4.65455767 0.000463029 0.07846768
c21 0.021836235 − 1.443070224 − 0.089921418 −
0.760185961 0.000321149 6.696123616
c20 − 0.099731241 0.184860821 0.000237772 − 1.402424647
0.003223401 0.030370395
c34 0.007876178 − 1.084708436 8.7634E−05 0.065146121 −
0.29930899 3.088976014
c33 − 0.923443247 − 0.001050728 − 11.272555
0.025937234 2.523105561 0.306099011
c32 0.032202397 − 1.420921519 − 0.500359866 −
1.031080724 0.003209309 15.04320798
c31 − 0.488835188 0.084371554 0.00254401 − 8.301229018
0.017106779 0.315023451
c30 0.003039747 − 0.18103585 − 0.062023547 −
0.079184308 0.000582152 1.194361692
c44 − 0.027984724 − − − 0.440501738
0.000114039 0.471711776 0.00037681 0.012370531
c43 − − 1.340388609 0.000648867 0.075558773 −
0.000106282 0.056040028 1.593647249
c42 − 0.052839093 − 0.000278281 − 2.438381437
0.001044729 1.213600829 0.156220228
c41 0.001765722 − − − 0.114872766 −
0.036375504 0.023168927 0.000703969 2.060257637
c40 − 0.030963588 0.357785611 0.000106364 − 0.865052989
0.000961803 0.015763113
128 Appendix
Table A.6 M = 2
P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
κ1 0.004183992 − 0.068147347 0.001049754 − 0.072554919
0.010373304 0.006308614
κ2 0.101532064 − 0.650404666 − 0.06265385 0.461490718
0.24119527 0.003164009
κ3 0.28644159 − 4.391868256 − 1.04745419 3.943379962
0.021764799 0.136045831
κ4 8.0948341 − 75.08422843 − 5.649844395 67.07187336
15.57011057 0.512054615
c14 − 4.952590649 − − 1.125891931 0.112474264
1.243515114 3.230723556 0.16596521
c13 4.024870484 − 9.80373301 0.547003288 − −
16.03976646 3.494118478 1.376094169
c12 − 18.38733328 − − 3.61377363 3.128227747
4.646282902 10.31072653 0.619241648
c11 2.213411654 − 4.398299147 0.27025991 − −
8.583966607 1.344376897 2.308273297
c10 − 1.141064195 − − 0.064988686 0.767119204
0.312189098 0.251363117 0.028771924
c24 1.022651866 − 2.072909162 0.041428824 0.103572986 −
3.552667663 1.314679965
c23 − 10.26320718 − − − 5.156706239
3.034288688 5.451248065 0.082650091 0.944047166
c22 3.092021234 − 4.144747873 0.00323339 2.096348852 −
9.902423135 7.497644722
c21 − 3.74565114 − 0.055065157 − 4.523253504
1.283581888 0.781372714 1.583956059
c20 0.170701212 − 0.172432498 − 0.357434561 −
0.428002848 0.021821394 0.628351897
c34 − 0.491749416 − 0.141233332 − 1.693283319
0.169652676 0.359970633 1.156649576
c33 0.442677898 − 0.796605744 − 3.994202978 −
0.933503277 0.479159192 5.371458409
c32 − − − 0.610477647 − 6.221918426
0.280246772 0.272482378 0.053479685 5.191630272
c31 − 1.103029518 − − 3.002659825 −
0.028079824 0.868840988 0.342844492 3.409042933
c30 0.003524402 − 0.513453948 0.062865637 − 0.962470141
0.235812241 0.579002806
(continued)
Appendix 129

P 1–2 (bar) 2–4 (bar)
c44 − 0.273735321 − − 0.686830899 −
0.091987818 0.45756688 0.095294195 1.270532531
c43 0.22100344 − 1.371797813 0.310391434 − 3.996331278
0.746942528 2.237985249
c42 − 0.871602241 − − 2.741791606 −
0.185834346 1.444010654 0.377593742 4.417351799
c41 0.104545042 − 0.632332312 0.209376196 − 1.958206249
0.713569443 1.586168718
c40 − 0.339474539 − − 0.404294299 −
0.050658366 0.102051908 0.045555111 0.252104451
P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
κ1 0.003229656 − 0.122104619 − 0.00344049 0.057884645
0.027415647 0.000129145
κ2 0.009640626 − 0.752099816 − 0.035605164 0.610365626
0.061216963 0.002559335
κ3 0.012599525 − 6.372755034 0.010755696 − 6.918604503
0.154471002 0.234382942
κ4 0.162621135 0.551197145 76.67165036 0.024912611 1.913612077 73.45466762
c14 0.02669609 − 3.299899722 − 0.01422528 0.005744987 2.088941304
0.441609632
c13 − 1.863738417 − 0.032213453 0.257625943 −
0.117315195 12.17842603 7.924782496
c12 0.17056835 − 15.72745821 − − 10.30490483
2.695273977 0.019433268 0.651505371
c11 − 1.589277096 − 4.64254E−05 0.484419147 −
0.100463191 8.111319659 5.100518141
c10 0.021670644 − 1.560141458 0.00156096 − 0.918720567
0.335037148 0.107475564
c24 − 0.964141807 − − 0.00235737 0.329601947 −
0.056369945 3.192174961 1.329388501
c23 0.214602924 − 10.88884936 0.017885091 − 4.038387442
3.566095004 1.244044355
c22 − 4.694839548 − − 1.636750238 −
0.287728588 13.23621587 0.033364931 4.044771639
c21 0.15548982 − 6.636540992 0.021027002 − 1.436905595
2.513976583 0.840593775
c20 − 0.433015093 − − 0.10511875 0.224239553
0.028218215 0.828324889 0.002806725
(continued)
130 Appendix

P 4–6 (bar) 6–10 (bar)
c34 0.032544213 − 0.310336239 − 0.240182897 −
0.37615633 0.017045536 1.602468165
c33 − 1.563266795 − 0.05712493 − 6.568598385
0.138362465 1.100461299 0.887834189
c32 0.214377966 − 1.342127302 − 1.20605937 −
2.387283764 0.069085463 10.01324806
c31 − 1.616689565 − 0.034705464 − 6.26694919
0.144522636 1.038311585 0.676222494
c30 0.033221284 − 0.636908053 − 0.00613553 0.132671745 −
0.379034873 1.016486384
c44 − 0.2284234 − 0.01769543 − 1.132825919
0.036416871 0.378939715 0.348211345
c43 0.1368212 − 1.452765098 − 1.253366932 −
0.907812765 0.061672751 4.368530854
c42 − 1.346845869 − 0.077428247 − 6.451051206
0.190462497 1.831668777 1.640951928
c41 0.119726628 − 0.834686499 − 0.874140442 −
0.946690511 0.039401526 4.361685669
c40 − 0.304147717 − 0.005271656 − 1.132980309
0.030447881 0.093233799 0.114538519
P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
κ1 − 0.001001522 0.070367699 2.57969E−05 − 0.083206865
0.000010079 0.000357954
κ2 0.000828472 − 0.896926105 − 0.030226761 0.243253987
0.026928953 0.000395133
κ3 0.003537674 − 5.790460822 − 0.241284234 2.620395694
0.049388345 0.003070793
κ4 − 20.3083014 − − 4.1546312 79.7891458
0.50529203 57.47176148 0.040760788
c14 0.005272638 − 2.617542346 0.000628086 − 0.807565716
0.24209429 0.058704422
c13 − 0.80555887 − − 0.208471598 −
0.017368005 8.445966029 0.002341971 2.514634025
c12 0.020354739 − 9.29373891 0.003089189 − 2.428229084
0.948268855 0.259682365
c11 − 0.444470067 − − 0.121946735 −
0.009697269 3.726657912 0.001567579 0.528067406
c10 0.001544399 − 0.531765809 0.000249194 − 0.030818074
0.068614479 0.017662988
(continued)
Appendix 131

P 10–20 (bar) 20–30 (bar)
c24 − 0.851982883 − − 0.049113904 2.306312502
0.024801485 4.308786366 0.001195783
c23 0.076612665 − 11.77854649 0.003354906 − −
2.605336006 0.111085754 8.80335485
c22 − 2.742478323 − − 0.042432626 12.05569561
0.082157704 10.22277525 0.002851596
c21 0.035044699 − 2.920733202 0.00055274 0.043720175 −
1.129153506 6.739957044
c20 − 0.13657211 0.092784945 9.48019E−05 − 1.367970879
0.004637515 0.021833527
c34 0.033698663 − 6.421483327 − 0.677485429 −
1.069654245 0.013745414 9.543679249
c33 − 3.228997716 − 0.046287167 − 32.46642159
0.10310669 18.57655868 2.31102843
c32 0.109869763 − 17.58816186 − 2.882857193 −
3.343633889 0.056933413 40.22038919
c31 − 1.361134376 − 0.029860015 − 21.18599073
0.046910789 5.944994268 1.53083095
c30 0.006589173 − 0.823860199 − 0.281494005 −
0.178609938 0.005497989 3.543353951
c44 − 0.458520277 − 0.014217524 − 7.377143959
0.014619884 3.702958887 0.672233015
c43 0.044681395 − 11.48749491 − 2.246992034 −
1.395777107 0.047277637 24.58427511
c42 − 1.455667037 − 0.057150227 − 29.85978468
0.047743582 11.99795553 2.735096147
c41 0.020489745 − 4.334881025 − 1.415510895 −
0.594428938 0.029348693 15.92854058
c40 − 0.095838635 − 0.005248798 − 3.400402971
0.003256268 0.117998837 0.250182773
132 Appendix
Table A.7 M = 4
P 1–2 2–4
κ1 − 0.0118807 0.046532356 0.018045543 0.000754349 − 0.06752071
0.003475325
κ2 0.016125356 0.065470566 0.394837816 − 0.086330646 0.447485527
0.007466612
κ3 − 5.792356922 − − 1.048119719 4.003185597
1.416839776 0.383808258 0.141469638
κ4 − 100.6233201 − − 9.80541848 52.42165954
26.39996476 27.1921835 0.89447472
c14 − 1.899480863 − − 1.497825229 −
0.361394306 0.579049571 0.220416154 0.339650914
c13 1.292774778 − 1.54464316 0.701108077 − −
6.574744127 4.520110356 0.197957579
c12 − 7.991516215 − − 4.53672888 2.177164989
1.650468142 1.18528327 0.76368654
c11 0.879092358 − 0.293455506 0.321411648 − −
3.947963937 1.647388273 2.076972979
c10 − 0.494250895 0.321309732 − 0.103367952 0.747901899
0.124607614 0.035814185
c24 − 0.281809353 − 0.103422307 − −
0.106869686 1.101283986 0.327830563 0.723172126
c23 0.275276188 − 3.744270311 − 0.316857359 3.354365269
0.954798952 0.263075707
c22 − 1.271623902 − 0.17996892 0.856379971 −
0.208410976 4.888539825 5.611571547
c21 0.01913329 − 2.749736151 − − 3.775703659
0.671570019 0.011633992 1.123019209
c20 0.006765944 0.125801296 − − 0.296651647 −
0.269812754 0.012641271 0.533884597
c34 1.212447928 − 3.59044676 0.114052604 − 1.001655337
4.276503486 0.785317125
c33 − 13.94028924 − − 2.885346145 −
3.896163398 11.31184997 0.408054214 3.15440051
c32 4.371944412 − 12.47918026 0.554057703 − 3.660562599
16.10193081 4.05684856
c31 − 7.533934773 − − 2.555029124 −
1.930912478 5.708099259 0.331516476 2.147871972
c30 0.2068702 − 0.985055123 0.065144754 − 0.765549326
0.928642764 0.535438972
(continued)
Appendix 133

P 1–2 2–4
c44 − 2.720486059 − − 0.598221992 −
0.784929254 2.501760427 0.108405251 0.963328305
c43 2.556968686 − 8.040241285 0.35775723 − 2.990216208
8.898774607 1.975339157
c42 − 10.20784647 − − 2.466137438 −
2.894585214 8.858495322 0.438738228 3.198465199
c41 1.28056023 − 3.645660877 0.243131241 − 1.301464732
4.719207655 1.472251605
c40 − 0.660321266 − − 0.399375039 −
0.14439866 0.28544653 0.053115547 0.128686529
P 4–6 6–10
κ1 − 0.037797356 − − 0.003537295 0.059964575
0.003265611 0.033250666 0.000144913
κ2 − 0.228427482 0.086614007 − − 0.741252683
0.020436351 0.00042186 0.000765906
κ3 − 0.248233515 5.391173361 0.010914711 − 6.645531657
0.028247323 0.195798405
κ4 2.93997374 − 122.8572154 − 30.50830082 −
23.14126432 1.485981212 39.7057972
c14 − 0.190893147 2.013580586 0.009597319 − 3.956798381
0.040760102 0.435121011
c13 0.142201688 − − − 1.548329084 −
0.576849448 7.028498975 0.036979384 13.32905159
c12 − 0.345800183 9.175156901 0.051062233 − 15.76014222
0.15332886 1.978043925
c11 0.052264801 0.16145289 − − 1.036115868 −
5.005988089 0.029089483 7.325211727
c10 − − 1.068223823 0.005641115 − 0.1846925 1.224942086
0.002378417 0.110455601
c24 0.079797092 − − 0.004580986 0.289056045 −
0.310373219 0.414998056 1.303793839
c23 − 0.672362246 1.505960585 − − 3.917296544
0.236426636 0.001780621 1.137403168
c22 0.21519024 − − − 1.562949116 −
0.044620267 2.571111715 0.015724164 3.903609475
c21 − − 2.088209175 0.015978139 − 1.404652596
0.055723216 0.524788692 0.841070728
c20 0.000578303 0.161103676 − − 0.107988089 0.218180008
0.203205881 0.002274263
(continued)
134 Appendix

P 4–6 6–10
c34 − 2.212440393 − 0.04636861 − 3.290108588
0.247844436 5.199022105 0.967692998
c33 0.767702487 − 17.03356977 − 2.919302005 −
6.864673228 0.141955253 8.922602992
c32 − 7.235065311 − 0.14372131 − 6.661333007
0.809252079 19.69413637 2.875353251
c31 0.324373757 − 9.021212572 − 1.06201304 −
2.86080294 0.05590704 0.825574646
c30 − 0.289501774 − 0.005443042 − −
0.035001371 0.931875674 0.092167763 0.097857296
c44 0.213259707 − 4.738259175 − 1.125850147 −
2.11383471 0.064635018 4.695639852
c43 − 6.750228428 − 15.397135 0.193769558 − 13.96082495
0.674425216 3.351933535
c42 0.739963608 − 17.87382777 − 3.260708406 −
7.51674315 0.192651718 13.21672981
c41 − 3.279010757 − 0.073696341 − 4.003366167
0.317528974 8.73302127 1.191072373
c40 0.037574547 − 1.493387883 − 0.156264934 0.035586732
0.368903937 0.009459122
P 10–20 20–30
κ1 1.01394E−05 0.000877851 0.071053809 − 0.000820106 0.077721091
3.64156E−06
κ2 − 0.027619376 0.474279951 7.37434E−05 − 0.793176487
0.000590661 0.001613542
κ3 − 0.148155372 4.471821161 − 0.135440616 4.615561915
0.001743561 0.001467175
κ4 − 5.11472346 72.1738916 − 4.20738563 81.1460858
0.065420364 0.042483958
c14 0.005297004 − 2.472031235 0.000460831 − 0.744158733
0.243641147 0.060524058
c13 − 0.796799144 − − 0.208541059 −
0.017040291 7.807661507 0.001741585 2.161982325
c12 0.019188977 − 8.288656062 0.002219581 − 1.716931614
0.91216275 0.244188605
c11 − 0.408490204 − − 0.099194376 0.046425012
0.00853956 3.103947432 0.000950699
(continued)
Appendix 135

P 10–20 20–30
c10 0.001204454 − 0.400842813 0.000105691 − −
0.057915966 0.01103283 0.097314763
c24 − 0.595438003 − − 0.039793367 2.731857021
0.016265965 2.282918347 0.001020671
c23 0.05049473 − 5.550600684 0.003046364 − −
1.823487097 0.083401006 10.27177454
c22 − 1.905988933 − − 0.016877704 13.84094089
0.054023713 3.50405273 0.002930636
c21 0.022793244 − 0.002952828 0.000865876 0.050524984 − 7.6176355
0.769051793
c20 − 0.089761073 0.470461936 1.65209E−05 − 1.53462368
0.002974381 0.023265053
c34 0.011967722 − 0.551088909 0.034432204 − 20.82318902
0.349782154 1.81267679
c33 − 1.023484596 − − 5.278545817 −
0.036795007 0.480453541 0.101140796 59.8433625
c32 0.038272791 − − 0.10447045 − 59.92378613
0.964080047 1.906547168 5.37954988
c31 − 0.325605081 2.517517992 − 2.298152732 −
0.01569717 0.045417664 25.04523761
c30 0.002225962 − − 0.007080608 − 4.088875107
0.035462855 0.343198437 0.354159452
c44 − 0.008060279 0.206125135 − 1.819215925 −
0.001873681 0.033878253 23.21515909
c43 0.005754275 − − 0.099761984 − 68.54329471
0.006235992 0.694622258 5.348286015
c42 − − 1.293120049 − 5.530199727 −
0.005251633 0.064277431 0.103536768 71.28236945
c41 0.001583626 0.081398342 − 0.04534832 − 30.75433215
1.510069473 2.407115612
c40 − − 0.74031416 − 0.384067637 −
0.000434679 0.004452238 0.007205345 4.32181707

Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation For Energy Utilization in Fuel Combustion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation For Energy Utilization in Fuel Combustion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation For Energy Utilization in Fuel Combustion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Topics in Science

and Technology in China

Shiquan Shan · Zhijun Zhou

ISSN 1995-6819 ISSN 1995-6827 (electronic)

Jointly published with Zhejiang University Press

© Zhejiang University Press 2023

Hangzhou, China Shiquan Shan

3 Gas Radiation Model Under Complex Combustion Conditions . . . . . 33

5.2.1 Tube Furnace Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

As energy consumption increases and environmental problems worsen, efficient

1.1 Photo-Thermal Energy Cascade Conversion for Fuel

© Zhejiang University Press 2023 1

Fig. 1.1 Schematic diagram of photo-thermal cascade conversion of fuel combustion

flame radiation spectrum, and the optimized photo-electric conversion efficiency

1.2 Key Issues of Combustion Thermal Radiation

1.2.1 Theory of Radiation Energy Quality Theory for Fuel

Table 1.1 Comparison of various blackbody radiation exergy theories

1.2.2 Thermal Radiation Model of Non-gray Gas Medium

Large amounts of high-temperature triatomic gases were noted in the combustion

Fig. 1.3 Classification of gas non-gray radiation models

1.2.3 Radiative Energy Characteristics of High-Temperature

Because of the special temperature and atmospheric conditions in oxy-fuel combus-

1.3 Objective and Organization of This Book

of gas radiation characteristics under complex combustion conditions, particularly

1. Modest MF (2013) Radiative heat transfer. Academic Press

11. Petela R (1964) Exergy of heat radiation. J Heat Transfer 86(2):187–192

Radiative thermodynamic theory is very important in high-temperature engineering.

2.1 Exergy of Blackbody Radiation

2.1.1 Several Representative Views

Most researchers concentrate on blackbody radiation because it is the foundation

© Zhejiang University Press 2023 15

2.1.2 Discussion on the Reversibility

of space becomes 0. The radiation exergy coefficient is ηS if the first process is

Through substituting the blackbody radiation energy formula: U = aT 4 V [14]

Fig. 2.1 Model to discuss

2.1.3 Differences Among the Three Formulas

2.1.4 Radiation Engine Model for Discussing the Exergy

Fig. 2.2 The schematic

Fig. 2.3 The radiation

The entropy of blackbody radiation is 4/3σ T 3 following the thermodynamics [16].

Rin = Rout + Q + W (2.6)

Sin = Sout + S + ΔS. (2.7)

W = Rin − Rout − (Sin − Sout )T0

W = Rin − Rout − (Sin − Sout )T0

Thus, the coefficient of exergy is

2.2 Exergy of Monochromatic Radiation

2.2.1 Discussion of the Exergy of Monochromatic Photons

Blackbody radiation is the typical radiation model; therefore, it is very meaningful

The corresponding coefficient of exergy to energy is

This formula is analogous to the Carnot efficiency. Scholars generally believe

Because photons are essentially electromagnetic radiation rather than ordinary

Fig. 2.4 The infinite-staged Carnot engine model

temperature is introduced. Thus, only the quasi-equilibrium process, as discussed

If the equivalent temperature is expressed in terms of frequency v, then T (v) can

2.2.2 Discussion About the Formula of Equivalent

Substituting Eq. (2.18) into (2.15) obtains

The corresponding coefficient of exergy-to-energy ηu is W u /hv:

Petela’s formula, as mentioned in Sect. 2.1, accurately represents the exergy of

Using the relationship in Eq. (2.16), an exergy-to-energy coefficient ηu of