2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2016.09.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterisation of flame-generated soot and soot-in-oil using electron tomography volume reconstructions and comparison with traditional 2D-TEM measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
2
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, previous works (including that of the authors) have considered the discrepancy between 2D‐ and 3D‐derived morphological parameters via 3D models of simulated (Rogak & Flagan, ; Martos et al ., ) and real soot agglomerates (van Poppel et al ., ; Orhan et al ., ). Van Poppel observed that values of surface area and volume from 2D methods were up to 16 and 125 times larger (respectively) than the real 3D‐derived values (van Poppel et al ., ).…”
Section: Emphasis For 3d Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Additionally, previous works (including that of the authors) have considered the discrepancy between 2D‐ and 3D‐derived morphological parameters via 3D models of simulated (Rogak & Flagan, ; Martos et al ., ) and real soot agglomerates (van Poppel et al ., ; Orhan et al ., ). Van Poppel observed that values of surface area and volume from 2D methods were up to 16 and 125 times larger (respectively) than the real 3D‐derived values (van Poppel et al ., ).…”
Section: Emphasis For 3d Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Rogak's study of simulated agglomerates observed that fractal dimension was generally underestimated by 10–20% when using 2D methods (Rogak & Flagan, ). Our own study found agreement with Rogak's work and additionally that volume could be underestimated by up 40% via 2D methods (Orhan et al ., ). Recently, Martos’ study of a large number of simulated agglomerates found that 2D‐derived radius of gyration underestimated the true values by over 45%, leading to a corresponding overestimation of fractal dimension (Martos et al ., ).…”
Section: Emphasis For 3d Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Issues of lengthy sample preparation and extensive data analysis, often taking several days per sample measured, make TEM analysis of soot a time consuming and expensive technique. Furthermore, large uncertainties have been recently reported in 2D-measured morphological parameters, such as the radius of gyration and the fractal dimension of soot agglomerates [18], related to the 01/01/2018 approximation and correction factors intrinsically embedded in the calculation of such parameters, as well as the imaging of two dimensional projections of three-dimensional structures. Circularity, defined as a function of area and perimeter, does not require use of correction factors [19] and will be used in this study to characterise the geometrical features of soot agglomerates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%