Comparison of 1-equation and 2-equation Models for Convective

Heat Transfer in Saturated Porous Media

C Singh, Non-member
Prof R G Tathgir, Non-member
Prof K Muralidhar, Non-member

In this paper, a comparison of the 1-equation and 2-equation thermal models for heat transfer in porous media for an
energy storage system has been presented. Two case studies dealing with glass-water and air-metal combinations have
been studied at various Reynolds numbers ranging from 10 to 10 000. The 2-equation model is based on thermal non-
equilibrium between the fluid and the solid phases. It is solved over a semi-infinite region for the fluid and solid phase
temperatures. The validity of thermal equilibrium between solid and fluid phases has been examined. The governing
equations have been solved by the finite difference method. For the glass-water system, the thermal front in water as
predicted by the 1-equation model moves faster when compared to the 2-equation model at low Reynolds numbers. The
fractional heat flow rate to the solid phase has been found to be higher at low Reynolds numbers. With an increase in
Reynolds number, the difference between the 1 and 2-equation models decreases. For the air-metal system, the difference
between the 1 and 2-equation models is dominated by the thermal diffusivity of the metal. In this system, heat loss to the
ambient at the transverse boundaries affects the temperature profiles in such a way that the temperature front becomes
immobile. In a glass-water system, this effect is negligible. Since, the temperature difference between the fluid and the
solid is high at high Reynolds numbers, indicating that the thermal non-equilibrium is important and should be
included in modelling, particularly at short times.

Keywords: 1-equation model; 2-equation model; Air-metal system; Glass-water system; Porous medium; Thermal non-equilibrium

NOTATION T : temperature
AIF : specific area of the porous insert, m–1 u : fluid velocity in the axial direction, m/s
Af : non-dimensional value of AIF : AIF × R U : characteristic fluid velocity equal to the average
Cp : specific heat, kJ/kg K velocity in the channel, m/s
D : characteristic length scale, also the channel 1a : thermal diffusivity, m2/h
height, m
b : thermal capacity ratio between the fluid and the
dp : particle diameter, m solid
h : heat transfer coefficient at the particle surface, e : porosity of the medium
W/m2 K
l : thermal conductivity ratio between the fluid and
k : thermal conductivity, Wm–1 K–1 the solid
L : length of the domain, m
m : dynamic viscosity of the fluid, kg/ms
Nu : Nusselt number hD/k
n : kinematic viscosity of the fluid, m2/s
Pe : Peclet number, Re Pr
r : material density, kg/m3
Pr : Prandtl number, mCp/k
Re : Reynolds number, ruD/m Subscripts
t : time non-dimensionalized by a f /D 2 f : fluid

C Singh and Prof R G Tathgir are with Mechanical and Industrial

m : porous medium
Engineering Department, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Patiala (Pb) 147 004 while Prof K Muralidhar is with the Department of
s : solid
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208 016.
x : x-component
This paper was received on February 19, 2002. Written discussion on this paper
will be entertained till December 31, 2003. y : y-component

104 IE (I) Journal—MC

INTRODUCTION
Energy storage systems built with porous media are of great
practical interest. This is an attractive method of storing
momentarily available excess energy and reusing it at a later
point of time. The idea of periodically storing energy and
releasing energy is called regeneration. Regenerators, based
upon this very idea are used in Stirling Cryocoolers. The
regenerators act as a thermal sponge, absorbing energy into its
solid phase, when exposed to a hot fluid medium and releasing
it to the cold fluid at a later stage in the cycle. These
applications suggest that investigation of thermal non-
equilibrium fluid flow through the porous formation is
important. Non-equilibrium modelling requires that
individual temperatures be assigned to the fluid and the solid
phases within the representative elementary volume along
with the relation connecting them at their interface. In a
thermal storage system, heat transfer between the solid and
the fluid phase is a key phenomenon and both the phases are
inherently in thermal non-equilibrium1. Hence, the
corresponding models of heat transfer will necessarily be of
the 2-equation type, one equation each for the fluid and solid
phase temperatures. An important application of an energy
storage system involves cold water storage in a natural aquifer
bounded by an impervious stratum in the winter months and
reusing it during summer.
Kuznetsov1,2 has analytically investigated the effect of thermal
non-equilibrium between the solid and fluid phases in packed
beds and semi-infinite porous media. The temperature
difference between fluid and solid phases forms a thermal
wave localized in space. Phase difference was suggested to
occur between the propagating waves in fluid and solid phases
due to the effects of thermal non-equilibrium. Kuznetsov and
Vafai3 have developed an analysis for flow in porous media
under thermal non-equilibrium. They determined conditions
under which approximations such as thermal equilibrium,
filtration and the frontal model are valid for packed beds.
Sozen and Vafai4 studied the effects of thermal non-
equilibrium during condensing gas flow through porous beds.
The effects of thermal non-equilibrium was suggested to be
more significant at higher Reynolds number and higher
porosity. Muralidhar and Suzuki5 analyzed the oscillatory
flow and heat transfer in a regenerator using the thermal non-
equilibrium model. A pulsating flow of gas was used with
metallic mesh screens over a wide range of Reynolds number
and frequencies. Quantities such as the friction factor and
regenerator effectiveness have been calculated. Amiri and
Vafai6 have analyzed the validity of the local thermal
equilibrium application for transport in porous media. Sozen
and Kuzay7 studied enhanced heat transfer in a heated tube
carrying mesh screens while continuing to employ the thermal
equilibrium model.
The comparison of the 1-equation and the 2-equation models
has been carried out in the present work for two different
porous domains consisting of glass-water and air-metal.
Reynolds numbers and dimensionless channel lengths ranging
from 10 to 10 000 and 1 to 100, respectively have been
Vol 84, October 2003
investigated. The flow rate is taken to be steady, while the
thermal fields evolve in time. The governing partial
differential equations have been solved by a finite difference
method. The objective of the study is to examine conditions
under which thermal non-equilibrium becomes significant in
the widely differing conditions.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The analysis has been carried out in the dimensionless form of
the governing partial differential equations. Defining a scale D
for the transverse length, a scale U for velocity and a scale DT
equal to the difference between the hot and cold fluid tempera-
tures will generate following dimensionless parameters.
Re: Reynolds number of the mean flow rUD/m; Pr: Prandtl
number of the fluid medium mCp/k; Pe: Peclet number of the
mean flow (n/a)Re; Nu: Nusselt number at the solid-fluid
interface hD/kf ; l: fluid-solid thermal conductivity ratio
kf /ks; lm: fluid-porous medium thermal conductivity ratio
kf /km ; b: fluid-solid thermal capacity ratio (rCp )f /(rCp )s;
bm: fluid-porous medium thermal capacity ratio (rCp )f /(rCp )m;
Af : ratio of the length scale for solid-to-fluid heat transfer
and the overall length scale; T : dimensionless temperature,
(T – Tcold )/(Thot – Tc o l d ).
The problem under investigation is forced convection through
porous media as shown in Figure 1. Two case studies, namely,
glass-water and air-metal as porous media have been taken up
for discussion. The physical region has a length L in the
longitudinal direction and the transverse dimension is D, the
channel height. In the 1-equation model, thermal equilibrium
is assumed to exist between the fluid and the solid phases. The
1-equation model is similar to the advection-diffusion
equation for energy transfer in a homogeneous fluid. Heat
capacity effects are significant in the fluid and the solid phases,
but transport is that of the fluid alone. The corresponding
Cartesian form of the volume-averaged energy equation in
dimensionless form is written as8:
1 ∂T ∂T
+u
Pe.β m ∂t ∂x
1  ∂   keff ,m  ∂T  ∂   keff ,m  ∂T
+ 


=   
Pe  ∂x   k f  ∂x  ∂y   k f  ∂y   (1)
     
Here T is the volume-averaged temperature common to both
the fluid and the solid phases, U is the Darcian velocity. The
equation (1) assumes that the porous medium is sufficiently
dense and hence flow development and wall effects are quite
Figure 1 Physical model of a porous region located in a channel
105
small. In turn, this leads to the result that velocity in the
porous region is spatially constant, ie, u = U everywhere. The
transport in the transverse direction is neglected as the flow is
in longitudinal direction only. Here, ( ρ Cp )m is the equivalent
heat capacity of porous media. It can be determined by rule of
mixtures as:
( ρC p )m = (1 − ε )( ρC p ) s + ε( ρC p ) f
The equivalent conductivities depend on the individual
conductivities of the solid and fluid phases, porosities, pore
geometry and contact properties between solid particles. A
variety of correlations are available depending on the
conductivity ratio and models employed for the pore
geometry and contact conductance. The rule of mixtures is
expected to be unbiased and hence has been used for both the
cases, ie, for glass-water and air-metal.
In the 2-equation model, additional equations are required for
the individual temperatures of the fluid and the solid phases
along with a relationship to represent interphase heat transfer
between them. The model can be stated in the dimensionless
form as follows4-6.
 1 ∂T u ∂T 
Fluid: ε + 
 Pe ∂t ε ∂x 
1  ∂   k eff , f x  ∂T  ∂   keff , f y
=    + 
Pe  ∂x   k f  ∂x  ∂y   k f
   
Nu A f
− (T f − T s )
Pe
(1 − ε ) ∂T β / λ  ∂   keff , s  ∂T  ∂   keff , s  ∂  
+
=   Nu f = 0.3973 Re f 0.548
Solid: Pe ∂t Pe  ∂x   ks  ∂x  ∂y   ks  ∂y  
 
Nu A f β
+ (T f − T s )
Pe
For notation, T is fluid temperature in the fluid phase energy
equation (3) and the solid temperature in the solid phase
energy equation (4), u is the Darcian velocity in the axial
direction. Division of u by e approximately reproduces the
pore velocity of the fluid.
The equations (3) and (4) can be solved after suitable initial and
boundary conditions are specified. The initial condition here
refers to quiescent flow and thermal conditions, ie, all
velocities are zero and temperatures are uniform, being zero in
the dimensionless context. Flow is driven by a prescribed
velocity at the inflow plane which is equal to unity in this case.
An adiabatic condition for temperature is prescribed at the
walls.
106
SPECIFICATION OF THE POROUS MEDIUM
To complete the mathematical formulation, one must specify
porosity, dispersion coefficients, Nusselt number and the
dimensionless parameters appearing in the equations (1), (3)
and (4). This information is available in the literature for
saturated homogeneous porous, isotropic porous medium
made up of spherical particles8. For a water saturated porous
(2) media of glass spheres, nominal dimension of the bead
diameter, has been assumed to be dp = 1 mm and the channel
height is D = 10 mm. Other quantities are given by:
6(1 − ε )D
Af = (5)
d
Nu f = 2 + 1.1 Pr 1 / 3 Re f 0.6 (6)
where Nuf and Ref being based on the particle diameter dp.
The thermal conductivities, corrected for dispersion effects
are specified as:
Longitudinal: keff , f x = εkm + 0.1 Re Pr k f (7)
Transverse: keff , f y = εk f + 0.05 Re Pr k f (8)
Porosity (e) is taken 0.37, the pore surface area parameter Af
can be calculated as 37.8, fluid-solid thermal conductivity ratio
l = 4.27, fluid-solid thermal capacity ratio b = 1.98 and
Prandtl number Pr = 7.02.
 ∂  
  For the air-metal porous system, the wire diameter is assumed
 ∂y  
to be 0.0508 mm and the channel height is 19.0 mm, as
appropriate for regenerator mesh screens used in miniature
crycoolers5. It can be shown for this geometry8 that
(3)
4(1 − ε ) R
Af = (9)
d
 
(10)
  
with Nuf and Ref being based on the particle diameter. The
porosity (e) of the mesh screens is taken to be 0.703, the metal
employed is bronze, pore surface area parameter Af = 222.16,
(4)
fluid-solid thermal conductivity ratio l = 2.976 d-04, fluid-solid
thermal capacity ratio b = 4.0 d-04 and Prandtl number Pr =
0.7. Dispersion formulae in the gas phase have been assumed to
be similar to glass-water medium.
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
The governing equations are solved using an implicit form of
the finite difference method. The QUICK approach9 is used to
approximate the convective terms, while central differencing
scheme is used for the second order partial derivatives. The
forward differencing formula evaluates the time derivatives.
Gauss-Seidel iterations are used to solve the system of
algebraic equations. For the glass-water combination lengths
of L = 10 and 100 are considered. For the air-metal system the
lengths considered are L = 1 and 10. The corresponding grid
IE (I) Journal—MC
sizes for L = 1, 10 and 100 are 101, 501 and 1001, respectively.
The time step for each calculation is 0.01% of the total time of
simulation. Temperatures at different points of time have been
recorded using the 1- and 2-equation models for the above-
mentioned lengths for Re = 10, 100, 1000 and 10000. Along
with the assumption of adiabatic walls (Bi=0), a few
calculations with Bi=10 have also been discussed. The
numerical calculations were carried out on a 533 MHz
Celeron machine. Typical CPU times needed for any single
run was of the order of two minutes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The comparison of the 2-equation model has been carried out
with the 1-equation model for Reynolds numbers of Re = 10,
100, 1000 and 10 000 with lengths L = 10 and 100 for glass-
water and 1 and 10 for air-metal systems. The 1-equation
model assigns equal temperatures to the fluid and the solid
phases at a particular point in the grid and hence assumes local
thermal equilibrium. In contrast, the 2-equation model assigns
individual local temperatures to the fluid and the solid, thus
permitting thermal non-equilibrium and heat transfer
between the two phases.
Glass-water System
The temperature profiles with respect to the longitudinal
co-ordinate has been presented at various points of time in the
dimensionless form for different Reynolds numbers and
lengths. It is to be noted that the length is scaled by the channel
height D and time by D2/a f , specifically the length and time
scales are independent of the fluid velocity. The present
discussion is for the glass-water system.
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show the temperature profiles at Re = 10,
for a longitudinal dimension of 10 and 100, respectively using
the 1-equation model. Figure 2(a) indicates that the
temperature front reaches the location L = 10 after a time of
about 7.1 × 10–2. Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the corres-
ponding temperature profiles for Re = 10 using the 2-equation
model. A comparison of Figures 2(a) and 3(a) does not indicate
any noticeable difference between the 1- and 2-equation
model. The front movement predicted by the 2-equation is
marginally faster than the 1-equation model. But Figures 2(b)
and 3(b), the profiles corresponding to L = 100, reveal a
considerable difference between the 1- and the 2-equation
models. Figure 2(b) indicates that after a time of 3.41, the
temperature front has reached a location of X = 100, whereas,
at the same time, the 2-equation model shows that the temper-
ature front has reached only at a location of X = 50 and the
front becomes almost immobile. This indicates that the
movement of the thermal front predicted by the 1-equation
model is much faster than that predicted by the 2-equation
model. For Re = 10, the Peclet number Pe is 70.08, ie,
convection by the fluid velocity is 70 times the conduction
rate by thermal conductivity and thermal energy reaches
downstream mainly by advection. At this Peclet number, the
convective resistance of heat transfer, calculated on a
dimensionless basis is small. Thus, the heat flow from the fluid
to the solid per unit energy flow rate downstream is
Vol 84, October 2003
comparatively higher, the effect which is neglected in the
1-equation model. It should be noted that although Nusselt
number (Nu) at this Re is small but the factor (Nu Af /Pe) is
comparatively large. As a result the energy flow rate in the
longitudinal direction using the 2-equation model is smaller
than the 1-equation model. This phenomenon has been called
thermal retardation in the literature10.
Similar profiles for Re = 1000 are shown in Figures 2(c) and
2(d) using the 1-equation model for L = 10 and 100,
respectively, Figures 3(c) and 3(d) show the corresponding
profiles using the 2-equation model. A comparison of Figures
2(c) and 3(c) indicates that the thermal front in the 2-equation
model moves faster than the 1-equation model and the
difference is observable. A comparison of Figures 2(d) and 3(d)
reveal a difference between the results of 1- and 2-equation
model for L = 100 and Re = 1000. The temperature front
predicted by the 2-equation model reaches a location of X = 100
after a time of 9.9 × 10–2, ie, the temperature at this location is
zero prior to this time. The 1-equation model predicts a
temperature of 0.7 at this location, indicating thereby that the
front in the 1-equation model has moved faster than the
2-equation model. The difference is however less as compared
to the case of Re = 10. A Reynolds number of 1000 indicates a
Peclet number of 7080, which means that the energy flow rate
transported by the fluid is now 100 times higher than that for
Re = 10. The dimensionless convective resistance to heat flow
from the fluid to the solid is hence relatively higher than that
at Re = 10, the corresponding inter-phase heat transfer is
smaller.
The energy input rates are equal for the 1- and 2-equation models
but the inter-phase heat transfer factor is smaller in this case. It
explains why the prediction of the 1-equation is faster, but by
a lesser margin than that at Re = 10. Similarly, Figures 2(e) and
2(f) and Figures 3(e) and 3(f) indicate temperature profiles at
Re = 10 000 for lengths 10 100 using the 1- and the 2-equation
models. Over a length of 10 units, the thermal front of the
1-equation model is slower that the 2-equation model and the
difference is observable. Over a domain length of L = 100,
the 1-equation model is only slightly faster than the 2-equation
model. Increasing the domain size is equivalent to long time
scales; during this time interval, the initial length of the porous
domain attains thermal equilibrium and the overall difference
between the 1- and the 2-equation models is diminished.
In summary, it can be concluded that the fractional heat
transfer rate between the fluid and the solid is a maximum at
the smallest Re that results into a large difference between 1-
and 2-equation models. The difference decreases on domains
of larger length where long time scales are involved. As Re
increases the fractional energy transferred to the solid
decreases and the difference between 1- and 2-equation model
is reduced.
It is observed in all the figures that for L = 10, the 1-equation
model is initially slower than the 2-equation model at all
Reynolds numbers. Comparing Figure 2(a) with Figure 3(a),
Figure 2(c) with Figure 3(c) and Figure 2(e) with Figure 3(e)
reveals that the difference increases with Reynolds number. It
107
Figure 2 Variation of fluid temperature with distance using 1-equation model (glass-water system): (a,b) Re = 10; (c,d) Re = 1000; (e,f) Re = 10000

108 IE (I) Journal—MC

Figure 3 Variation of fluid temperature with distance using 2-equation model (glass-water system): (a,b) Re = 10; (c,d) Re = 1000; (e,f) Re = 10000

Vol 84, October 2003 109

can be explained by examining the 1-equation model carefully.
Here, the mean values of conductivity and thermal capacity
averaged over the two phases are considered and the mean
values are higher than that of the fluid values alone.
The temperature profile for the 1- and the 2-equation models
at Bi=10, Re=1000 and L = 10 were compared with the
corresponding profiles of Bi=0.0 (adiabatic boundaries). No
observable difference between the longitudinal and transverse
temperature profiles and transverse profiles was recorded.
Hence, it can be concluded that the heat loss parameter up to
Bi=10 does not significantly change the solution. A Biot
number of 10 indicates that the external convective resistance
at the side boundaries is 1/10th the internal conductive
resistance and hence some heat loss is taking place. The Peclet
number in the present calculations being quite high, the fluid
has a greater tendency to transfer energy downstream rather
than conduct transversely. It explains why heat losses are not
important in the present context.
Air-metal System
The second part of the study is carried for the air-metal system
where the metal is placed in the channel in the form of mesh
screens. The Prandtl number Pr for air is 0.7. Hence, the
energy flow rate in the air-metal configuration is small
compare to the glass-water system at a given Reynolds
number. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) indicate the temperature profiles
for L = 1 and 10 at Re = 100 using the 1-equation model.
Similarly, Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the corresponding
temperature profiles predicted by the 2-equation model.
Figure 4(a) indicates that the temperature wave front reaches
X = 0.83 after a time of 2.1 × 10–2, while Figure 5(a) indicates
that over the same time interval the wave front reaches a
distance of X = 1.0. Hence, the movement of the temperature
front predicted by the 1-equation model is slower than that
predicted by the 2-equation model for a domain size of unit
length. Referring to Figures 4(b) and 5(b), it can be seen that
the 1-equation model is marginally slower than the 2-equation
model for L = 10. At this Reynolds number, the convective
resistance to heat transfer between the two phases, calculated
on dimensionless basis, is small. Hence, the heat flow from the
fluid to the solid per unit energy flow rate downstream is
comparatively higher, an effect that is neglected in the 1-equation
model. This factor considered alone should make the front
movement predicted by the 2-equation model slower after
some length as in case of the glass-water porous medium,
instead the 1-equation model remains slower.
The thermal diffusivity of metal is quite large (0.36 m2/h) as
compared to the glass (0.00216 m2/h) and hence, metal has a
greater tendency to conduct heat downstream as compared to
glass. A part of the thermal energy conducted by metal will
further be returned to the fluid at a downstream location.
Thus, the energy transfer mechanism can be visualized as
follows. Hot air first conducts energy to the cold metal and the
heated metal mesh further conducts a part of its energy back to
the cold fluid downstream, while the rest of the energy is
stored in the metal, depending upon the thermal capacity. As a
110
large portion of part of the energy is returned to the fluid, the
difference between the 1- and the 2-equation models over
longer domains and time scales is less. The front predicted by
the 2-equation model keeps pace with the 1-equation model
throughout indicating that energy received back from metal
recharges the fluid. Heat transfer between the fluid and solid is
large enough at Re = 100, so a large portion of heat is being
received back. The overall energy flow rate in the channel
being small (Pe = 70), comparatively more time is available for
recharging of energy.
Figures 4(c) and 4(d) indicate the temperature profiles for L = 1
and L = 10 at Re = 1000 using the 1-equation model. Figures 5(c)
and 5(d) are the corresponding profiles predicted using the
2-equation model. Comparing Figures 4(c) and 5(c), the front
movement of the 2-equation model is seen to be slightly faster
than the 1-equation model. Similarly, comparing Figures 4(d)
and 5(d), the 1 and 2-equation models are almost similar for a
domain of L = 10, (2-equation model is only slightly ahead of
1-equation model). The energy flow rate is higher in the
present case, Pe = 700, and the relative convective resistance
to heat transfer between the phases is higher. Since, the energy
flowing to the solid is reduced, the corresponding energy
conducted back from the solid to the fluid is also less as
compared to case of Re = 100. This discussion reveals that heat
transfer from the fluid to the solid does not have a dominating
influence. Hence, the 2-equation model remains close to
the 1-equation model. On comparison of temperature profiles
at Re = 1000 with those at Re = 100, it is seen that they are
similar for L = 1 and L = 10.
At Re = 10 000, the fluid speed is high and the relative convec-
tive resistance at the fluid-solid inter-phase is large in com-
parison to that within the fluid phase. Hence, the heat trans-
ferred to the solid is small, and the energy conducted back to
the fluid is also less. Thus, the temperature front moves faster
through the porous medium. Comparing Figures 4(e) and 5(e),
no significant difference is visible between the 1-equation
model and the 2-equation model for L = 1, the front
movement of the 1-equation model being slightly faster than
the 2-equation model. For L = 10, the 1-equation model is
quite ahead of the 2-equation model [Figures 4(f) and 5(f)].
This result is because the energy flow rate associated with the
through-flow is high and the convective resistance at the fluid-
solid interface is high. Hence, less heat is transferred to the
solid but only a fraction is conducted back to the fluid and the
recharging phenomenon seen at low Reynolds number is
ineffective.
Calculation were carried out for analyzing the role of heat
losses to the ambient by setting Biot number Bi = 10. Since,
axial conduction plays an important role in an air-metal
system, transverse conduction for Bi > 0 was also seen to alter
the temperature profiles. Specifically, the thermal front was
seen to become immobile after a certain time, which depends
on the Reynolds number. Since, this indicates a steady state,
the predictions of the 1- and 2-equation models were quite
close.
IE (I) Journal—MC
Figure 4 Variation of fluid temperature with distance using 1-equation model (air-metal system): (a,b) Re = 100; (c,d) Re = 1000; (e,f) Re = 10000

Vol 84, October 2003 111

Figure 5 Variation of fluid temperature with distance using 2-equation model (air-metal system): (a,b) Re = 100; (c,d) Re = 1000; (e,f) Re = 10000

112 IE (I) Journal—MC

CONCLUSIONS
A comparison of the 1- and the 2-equation models for heat
transfer in a porous medium reveals the following.
1. For glass-water porous medium, the 1-equation model
predicts a faster temperature front as compared to the
2-equation model at low Reynolds number. With an
increase in Reynolds number, the difference goes on
decreasing. For air-metal porous medium, the
temperature front predicted by the 2-equation model
is faster than the 1-equation model up to a Reynolds
number of 1000. At higher Reynolds number, the
2-equation model is slower than the 1-equation
model.
2. The heat loss taking place through the transverse
boundaries in glass-water porous medium does not
change the thermal front significantly. In case of air-
metal porous medium, the heat loss has significant
effect on the thermal front and was seen to become
immobile.
3. The domain size is equivalent to long time scales;
during this time interval, the initial length of the
porous medium attains thermal equilibrium and the
overall difference between the 1- and the 2-equation
models is diminished.
Vol 84, October 2003
REFERENCES
1. A V Kuznetsov. ‘An Investigation of a Wave of Temperature Difference
between Solid and Fluid Phases in a Porous Packed Beds.’ International Journal
of Heat Mass Transfer, vol 37, 1994, p 3030.
2. A V Kuznetsov. ‘A Perturbation Solution for a Non-thermal Equilibrium
Fluid Flow through a Three-dimensional Sensible Heat Storage Packed Bed.’
Transaction on ASME Journal Heat Transfer, vol 118, 1996, p 508.
3. A V Kuznetsov and K Vafai. ‘Analytical Comparison and Criteria for Heat
and Mass Transfer Models in Metal Hydride Packed Beds.’ International
Journal Heat Mass Transfer, vol 38, 1995, p 2873.
4. M Sozen and K Vafai. ‘Analysis of the Non-thermal Equilibrium Condensing
Flow of a Gas through a Packed Bed.’ International Journal of Heat Mass
Transfer, vol 33, 1990, p 1247.
5. K Muralidhar, K Suzuki. ‘Analysis of Flow and Heat Transfer in a
Re-generator Mesh using a Non-Darcy Thermally Non-equilibrium Model.’
International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, vol 44, 2001, p 2493.
6. A Amiri and K Vafai. ‘Analysis of Dispersion Effects and Non-thermal
Equilibrium, Non-Darcian, Variable Porosity, Incompressible Flow through
Porous Media.’ International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, vol 37, 1994, p 939.
7. M Sozen and T M Kuzay. ‘Enhanced Heat Transfer in Round Tubes with
Porous Inserts.’ International Journal Heat and Fluid Flow, vol 17, 1996, p 124.
8. M Kaviany. ‘Principles of Heat Transfer in Porous Media.’ Springer-Verlag,
1991, p 271.
9. B P Leonard. ‘A Stable and Accurate Convective Modelling Procedure based
on Quadratic Upstream Interpolation.’ Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, vol 19, 1979, p 59.
10. J Bear. ‘Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media.’ Dover, 1988.
113