Smooke & Giovangigli mechanism

[Eric Albin]

Hello,

I believe there is an error inside the chem.inp file when defining the
falloff reactions for the Smooke & Giovangigli mechanism (Premixed and
nonpremixed test problem results, p23). Indeed, there is written:
CH4(+M)=>CH3+H(+M) 6.300E+14 0.000 104000.
LOW/6.300E-03 0. 18000./
CH4/ 6.5/ CO2/1.50/ CO/ 0.75/ N2/ 0.40/ O2/ 0.40/ H2O/ 6.50/
CH3+H(+M)=>CH4(+M) 5.200E+12 0.000 -1310.
LOW/6.300E-03 0. 18000./
CH4/ 6.5/ CO2/1.50/ CO/ 0.75/ N2/ 0.40/ O2/ 0.40/ H2O/ 6.50/

I believe the right settings are:
CH4(+M)=>CH3+H(+M) 6.300E+14 0.000 104000.
LOW/1.0E17 0. 86000./
CH4/ 6.5/ CO2/1.50/ CO/ 0.75/ N2/ 0.40/ O2/ 0.40/ H2O/ 6.50/
CH3+H(+M)=>CH4(+M) 5.200E+12 0.000 -1310.
LOW/8.25E14 0. -19310./
CH4/ 6.5/ CO2/1.50/ CO/ 0.75/ N2/ 0.40/ O2/ 0.40/ H2O/ 6.50/


Indeed, when reading the documentation of cantera (Defining Phases and
Interfaces, p39), it seems that the ratio between the pre-exponential
factor should be 0.0063 and the difference between activation energy
of 18000cal/mol.
With these settings, the burning velocity fits much better other
detailed mechanisms (Konnov, GRI or Dagaut) in cantera.

Have a nice day

[Nils Erland Haugen]

Hi Eric
I tried to call you but I guess you were already gone :-)
I did not really understand your email below; does this mean that the
H2_flamespeed case is now giving the correct results or is this
somthing else?
Have a nice weekend,
Nils Erland

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pencil-code-discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pencil-co...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pencil-code-dis...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pencil-code-discuss?hl=en.
>

[Eric Albin]

Yes, I was out from the office for a while.
These discrepancies are still present. As we discussed, I send you the
files by E-mail and I will do a point later.
Have a nice week-end,
Eric

On Apr 27, 4:18 pm, Nils Erland Haugen <nils.e.hau...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Eric
> I tried to call you but I guess you were already gone :-)
> I did not really understand your email below; does this mean that the
> H2_flamespeed case is now giving the correct results or is this
> somthing else?
> Have a nice weekend,
> Nils Erland
>