energies

Article
Investigation of Effective Thermal Conductivity for
Ordered and Randomly Packed Bed with Thermal
Resistance Network Method
Jian Yang 1, * , Yingxue Hu 2 and Qiuwang Wang 1
1 Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, Ministry of Education, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an 710049, China; [email protected]
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-29-8266-3502




Received: 3 April 2019; Accepted: 30 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019


Abstract: In the present paper, the effective thermal conductivities of Li4 SiO4 -packed beds with both
ordered and random packing structures were investigated using thermal resistance network methods
based on both an Ohm’s law model and a Kirchhoff’s law model. The calculation results were also
validated and compared with the numerical and experimental results. Firstly, it is proved that the
thermal resistance network method based on the Kirchhoff’s law model proposed in the present
study is reliable and accurate for prediction of effective thermal conductivities in a Li4 SiO4 -packed
bed, while the results calculated with the Ohm’s law model underestimate both ordered and random
packings. Therefore, when establishing a thermal resistance network, the thermal resistances should
be connected along the main heat transfer direction and other heat transfer directions as well in the
packing unit. Otherwise, both the total heat flux and effective thermal conductivity in the packing
unit will be underestimated. Secondly, it is found that the effect of the packing factor is remarkable.
The effective thermal conductivity of a packed bed would increase as the packing factor increases.
Compared with random packing at similar packing factor, the effective thermal conductivity of
packed bed would be further improved with an ordered packing method.

Keywords: packed bed; effective thermal conductivity; thermal resistance network; Kirchhoff’s law
model; Ohm’s law model

1. Introduction
Nuclear power would have great potential to provide sufficient energy to satisfy mounting
demand and can be used sustainably with relatively small impact on the environment. In 2006, seven
main countries or areas, including USA, EU, Russia, Japan, China, India and South Korea, joined the
international thermonuclear experimental reactor program (ITER), and the Chinese helium-cooled
solid breeder test blanket module (CN HCSB TBM) is one of the most important parts of the ITER
test-object program. In CN HCSB TBM, Li4 SiO4 ceramic particles with diameter of about 0.5–1.0 mm
were adopted as tritium breeders in the test, and this tritium breeder would have many advantages
for a nuclear fusion reactor, such as high lithium content, low neutron activation rate, high tritium
release rate under low temperature conditions, etc. Since the effective thermal conductivity of a
Li4 SiO4 -packed bed is quite important for the design of the test blanket module, it is necessary to
predict the effective thermal conductivity accurately. In the test blanket module (CN HCSB TBM), the
Reynolds number for the purge gas (helium) is very low and the gas velocity is usually under 0.001
m/s. Therefore, the thermal convection in the Li4 SiO4 -packed bed would be negligible. Furthermore,

Energies 2019, 12, 1666; doi:10.3390/en12091666 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 1666 2 of 14

since the temperature difference in the Li4 SiO4 -packed bed is relatively small, the thermal radiation
would also be small, and the heat conduction in the Li4 SiO4 -packed bed should be dominant.
In recent years, research on the effective thermal conductivity of a packed bed has been popular,
including experimental measurements, numerical simulations, etc. For example, Donne et al. [1]
have measured the effective conductivity of a Li4 SiO4 pebble bed, which was performed at Karlsruhe
Research Center. The pebble bed is contained between two concentric tubes of stainless steel with
a height of 530 mm. The outer diameter of the inner tube and the inner diameter of the outer tube
were 16 mm and 51 mm, respectively. The effective thermal conductivity of a lithium orthosilicate
pebble bed with packing factor of about 65% was measured. They found that, the effective thermal
conductivity was a linear function of the mean temperature from 0 ◦ C to 900 ◦ C in the Li4 SiO4 pebble bed.
Mandal et al. [2] have experimentally measured the effective thermal conductivity of a lithium-titanate
pebble bed at variable gas flow rates and different bed wall temperatures. They found that the effective
thermal conductivity of the pebble bed was a function of the particle Reynolds number and temperature.
The effective thermal conductivities of Li2 TiO3 - and Li2 ZrO3 -packed beds were also experimentally
measured by Hatano et al. [3] and Earnshaw et al. [4], respectively. As for numerical simulations, these
provide another way to predict the effective thermal conductivity of packed bed, which mainly includes
the finite element method (FEM) and finite volume method (FVM). Panchal et al. [5] have numerically
studied the effective thermal conductivities in both ordered and randomly Li2 TiO3 -packed beds with
the FEM method. In their study, the numerical results of randomly packed bed could agree well with
the experimental results of Hatano et al. [3], where the maximal deviation between the numerical and
experimental results was about 9%. Wang et al. [6] have numerically studied the effective thermal
conductivity of different ordered packings with the FVM method. The effects of different parameters
were investigated, including properties of particle and gas materials, bed porosity, particle size, gas
flow rate and particle-to-particle contact area. In their study, the numerical results of ordered packed
beds agreed well with the published results. Chen et al. [7] have simulated heat transfer in unitary
pebble beds with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and discrete element method (DEM) in turn to
evaluate the effective thermal properties. Based on comparison with existing experimental data in the
literature, their numerical results for the effective thermal conductivity could agree well with lithium
ceramic pebble bed experiments within a deviation of 20%. Later, Chen et al. [8] also simulated heat
transfer for the mono-sized beryllium pebble bed as well as the multi-sized Li2 TiO3 /Be12 Ti pebble bed
to evaluate the effective thermal conductivity. Numerical simulation has proved to be available and
accurate to predict the effective thermal conductivity of a packed bed, even if it is sometimes CPU
time consuming. Meanwhile, in recent years, it has also been popular to evaluate the effective thermal
conductivity of a packed bed with the thermal resistance network method, which would be highly
efficiency and time-saving. Zhao et al. [9] and Wang et al. [6] have proposed a theoretical method,
based on thermal resistance network, to predict the effective thermal conductivity of a Li4 SiO4 -packed
bed. Their theoretical results were obtained from some ordered packing structures, such as simple
cubic packing (SC) or other simplified packing models. The thermal resistance network has also been
used by Mandal and Gupta [10] to evaluate the effective thermal conductivity of a randomly packed
bed in a cylindrical tube. They found that the effective thermal conductivity of a packed bed would
depend on particle size and air film thickness. Antwerpen et al. [11] have calculated the effective
thermal conductivity in randomly packed pebble beds of mono-sized spheres with a thermal resistance
network. In their studies, the porous structure, solid and gas thermal conduction contact area, surface
roughness and thermal radiation were fully considered. However, in these studies [6,9–11], the thermal
resistance networks for the related packed beds would be oversimplified, where the infinitesimal
thermal resistances were only connected with each other along the main heat transfer direction and
strictly separated along other directions in the packed bed. This may lead to extra deviations. Moreover,
some other related studies for prediction of effective thermal conductivity of packed beds can also be
found in the recent literature [12–14].
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 3 of 14

InEnergies 2019, 12, x study,

the present FOR PEER REVIEW
two kinds of thermal resistance networks were adopted to predict 3 of the
14

effective thermal conductivity of Li4 SiO4 packed beds. One is the thermal resistance network based
In the present study, two kinds of thermal resistance networks were adopted to predict the
on the Ohm’s law, where the infinitesimal thermal resistances were only connected with each other
effective thermal conductivity of Li4SiO4 packed beds. One is the thermal resistance network based
along onthethe
main heat transfer direction and separated along other directions. This thermal resistance
Ohm’s law, where the infinitesimal thermal resistances were only connected with each other
network is similar
along the main to heat
studies in thedirection
transfer literature
and[6,9]. Based along
separated on thisother
simplified thermal
directions. This resistance network,
thermal resistance
another more elaborated
network is similar tothermal
studiesresistance network
in the literature based
[6,9]. on Kirchhoff’s
Based law was
on this simplified proposed,
thermal where
resistance
the infinitesimal thermal resistances were not only connected along the main
network, another more elaborated thermal resistance network based on Kirchhoff’s law was heat transfer direction,
but also connected
proposed, where along other directions
the infinitesimal thermalin resistances
the packedwere bed.notBoth
only ordered
connected and random
along packing
the main heat
structures were
transfer constructed
direction, forconnected
but also the present investigations.
along For in
other directions ordered packings,
the packed including
bed. Both orderedsimple
and
cubic random
(SC), body packing
centrestructures wereand
cubic (BCC) constructed
face centreforcubic
the present
(FCC) investigations.
packings, the CFDFor ordered packings,
simulations were
including simple cubic (SC), body centre cubic (BCC) and face centre cubic
also performed for the comparisons. For random packings, ten typical random packing units were (FCC) packings, the CFD
simulations
selected were also performed
for the investigations and thefor the comparisons.
experimental resultsFor
as random
reportedpackings, ten literatures
in the open typical random were
adoptedpacking units
for the were selectedAccording
comparisons. for the investigations and the
to the authors’ bestexperimental
knowledge,results
almostas no
reported
studiesin have
the
open literatures were adopted for the comparisons. According to the authors’ best knowledge,
been performed on the prediction of the effective thermal conductivity for Li4 SiO4 -packed beds with
almost no studies have been performed on the prediction of the effective thermal conductivity for
a thermal resistance network of both Ohm’s law model and Kirchhoff’s law model to date, and the
Li4SiO4-packed beds with a thermal resistance network of both Ohm’s law model and Kirchhoff’s
results will be meaningful for the thermal design and analysis of a helium-cooled solid breeder blanket.
law model to date, and the results will be meaningful for the thermal design and analysis of a
helium-cooled solid breeder blanket.
2. Physical Model and Material Thermal Conductivity
2. Physical
2.1. Physical Model and Material Thermal Conductivity
Model
In2.1.
thePhysical
present study, both ordered and random packings were constructed for the investigations.
Model
As for ordered
In the presentthree
packings, different
study, bothkinds of ordered
ordered packing structures
and random packings were were constructed,
constructed including
for the
simpleinvestigations.
cubic (SC), bodyAs forcenter
ordered cubic (BCC) three
packings, and face center
different cubic
kinds of (FCC)
ordered packings. The images
packing structures werefor
different ordered packing units are presented in Figure 1, and the typical packing
constructed, including simple cubic (SC), body center cubic (BCC) and face center cubic (FCC) parameters are listed
in Table 1. As shown
packings. The imagesin Figure 1, the ordered
for different SC packing unitunits
packing consists of eight 1/8
are presented particles
in Figure at eight
1, and cubic
the typical
corners, the BCC
packing packingare
parameters unit consists
listed of eight
in Table 1. As1/8 particles
shown at eight
in Figure cubic
1, the cornersunit
SC packing andconsists
one fullofparticle
eight
at the 1/8
cubic center,atthe
particles FCC
eight packing
cubic corners,unit
theconsists of eight
BCC packing 1/8consists
unit particles at eight
of eight 1/8 cubic corners
particles and
at eight four
cubic
corners and one full particle at the cubic center, the FCC packing unit consists of
1/2 particles at four cubic face centers. In Table 1, it should be noted that the packing factor of FCC eight 1/8 particles
packingat eight
is thecubic corners
highest and and
it is four 1/2 particles
the lowest for SCatpacking.
four cubic face the
Here, centers. In Table
packing 1, it
factor should
means bevolume
the noted
that
ratio of the particles
solid packing factor
in theofpacking
FCC packing
unit. is the highest and it is the lowest for SC packing. Here, the
packing factor means the volume ratio of solid particles in the packing unit.

.
(a) (b) (c)

FigureFigure
1. The1. ordered
The ordered packing
packing units:
units: (a) (a) simple
simple cubic(SC)
cubic (SC)packing;
packing; (b)
(b) body
body center
center cubic
cubic (BCC)
(BCC)
packing; and (c) face center cubic (FCC) packing.
packing; and (c) face center cubic (FCC) packing.

Table 1. Typical
Table packing
1. Typical parameters
packing forfor
parameters ordered
orderedpacking
packingunits.
units.

Packing
Packing dp dp (mm)
(mm) UnitUnit
SizeSize Packing Packing Factor (%)
Factor (%)
SC 0.5 1dp × 1dp × 1dp 50.8
SC 0.5 1dp × 1dp × 1dp 50.8
BCC 0.50.5 1.155d p × 1.155dp × 1.155dp 66.0
BCC 1.155d p × 1.155dp × 1.155dp 66.0
FCC
FCC 0.50.5 1.414d p × 1.414d
1.414dp × 1.414d p × 1.414dp
p × 1.414dp 71.9 71.9

As for random packing, it was generated with discrete element method (DEM) as reported in
As for random
literatures packing,
[15–17]. it was generated
1000 particles with
were fallen discrete
freely from aelement method
high plane (DEM)container
to a square as reported
within
literatures
dimensions of 10dp × 10dp × 20dp, where the container’s height is 20dp. When the maximal speedwith
[15–17]. 1000 particles were fallen freely from a high plane to a square container of
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 4 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

dimensions of 10dp × 10dp × 20d p , where the container’s height is 20dp . When the maximal speed of
particles is lower than−610−6 m/s, the packed bed was considered to be in steady state. As shown in
particles is lower than 10 m/s, the packed bed was considered
Figure 2a, the dimensions of the full size randomly packed bed are about to be in steady 10dstate. As shown in
p × 10dp × 10dp. For the
Figure 2a, the dimensions of the full size randomly packed bed are about 10dp × 10dp × 10dp . For the
current computational condition, direct simulation of heat transfer in the full size randomly packed
current
bed computational condition,
with so many particles directdifficult.
is quite simulation of heat transfer
Therefore, in the full
representative size randomly
packing units with packed
different
beddimensions
with so many particles is quite difficult. Therefore, representative packing
were selected for the present study, which is shown in Figure 2b–d, where the grey units with different
dimensions
areas arewere selected
filled for thegas.
with helium presentTenstudy,
typicalwhich is shown
random in Figure
packing unites2b–d,
werewhere the grey
extracted fromareas aresize
the full
filled with helium gas. Ten typical random packing unites were extracted from the
randomly packed bed, and their detailed locations, packing factors and unit sizes are listed in Table full size randomly
packed
2. It bed, andbe
should their detailed
noted that thelocations, packing
dimensions of factors and
unit-1 to unit sizes
unit-5 are thearesame,
listedwhich
in Table is 2.
1dIt should
p × 1dp × 1dp.
be noted that the dimensions of unit-1 to unit-5 are the same, which is 1d p × 1d p ×
The dimensions of unit-6 to unit-8 are the same, which is 2dp × 2dp × 2dp. The dimensions of unit-9 to1d p . The dimensions
of unit-6
unit-10 to unit-8
are theare the same,
same, which whichis 3disp 2d p×
× 3d 2dp × 2dp . The dimensions of unit-9 to unit-10 are the
p × 3dp. In order to avoid the wall effect caused by the
same, which isthe
container, × 3dp ×unit
3dppacking 3dp .should
In order nottobe
avoid the wall
too close effect
to the caused wall,
container by theand container, the packing
the distance should be
unitkept
should not be too close to the container wall, and the distance should
at least 2dp away from the container wall in the present study. The average packing be kept at least 2dp away
factor of
from the container wall in the present study. The average packing factor
these 10 packing units is 65.33%, which agrees well with the experimental data (about 65%) of these 10 packing units is as
65.33%, which
reported byagrees
Donnewell with
et al. [1].the experimental data (about 65%) as reported by Donne et al. [1].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 2. Randomly
2. Randomly packedpacked bed random
bed and and randompackingpacking
units:units: (a) randomly
(a) randomly packed packed
bed (10dbedp ×
(10d10d p × 10d
p × p×
10dp10d p); Unit-1
); (b) (b) Unit-1
(1dp(1d
× p1d×p1d × 1d
×p 1dp );p);
(c)(c)Unit-6
Unit-6(2d
(2d
p p××2d
2dpp × 2dpp););and
and(d)
(d) Unit-9
Unit-9 (3d
(3dpp××3d3d
p × 3d ). p ).
p × p3d

Table 2. Typical
Table packing
2. Typical parameters
packing for random
parameters packing
for random units.
packing units.
Packing
PackingUnit x (mm) y (mm) z (mm) dp (mm) Packing FactorPacking
(%) Unit Size
Unit-1 x1.0–1.5
(mm) y (mm) 1.0–1.5 z (mm)0.5
1.0–1.5 dp (mm)62.67 Unit Size
Unit Factor (%)
Unit-2 1.5–2.0 1.5–2.0 2.0–2.5 0.5 65.32
Unit-1
Unit-3 1.0–1.5
2.0–2.5 1.0–1.5
3.0–3.5 3.5–4.0 1.0–1.5 0.5 0.5 68.73 62.67 1dp × 1dp × 1dp
Unit-4
Unit-2 2.5–3.0
1.5–2.0 2.0–2.5
1.5–2.0 2.5–3.0 2.0–2.5 0.5 0.5 63.11 65.32
Unit-5 3.0–3.5 3.5–4.0 1.5–2.0 0.5 65.82
Unit-3 2.0–2.5 3.0–3.5 3.5–4.0 0.5 68.73 1dp × 1dp × 1dp
Unit-6 1.0–2.0 1.5–2.5 3.0–4.0 0.5 63.99
Unit-4
Unit-7 2.5–3.0
1.5–2.5 2.0–2.5 2.5–3.5
2.0–3.0 2.5–3.0 0.5 0.5 68.88 63.11 2dp × 2dp × 2dp
Unit-5
Unit-8 3.0–3.5
2.0–3.0 3.5–4.0 1.0–2.0
3.0–4.0 1.5–2.0 0.5 0.5 65.56 65.82
Unit-6
Unit-9 1.0–2.0
1.5–3.0 1.5–2.5
1.5–3.0 1.5–3.0 3.0–4.0 0.5 0.5 64.17 63.99 3d × 3d × 3d
p p p
Unit-10 2.0–3.5 1.0–2.5 2.5–4.0
Unit-7 1.5–2.5 2.0–3.0 2.5–3.5 0.5 0.5 65.05
68.88 2dp × 2dp × 2dp
Unit-8 2.0–3.0 3.0–4.0 1.0–2.0 0.5 65.56
Unit-9 1.5–3.0 1.5–3.0 1.5–3.0 0.5 64.17
3dp × 3dp × 3dp
Unit-10 2.0–3.5 1.0–2.5 2.5–4.0 0.5 65.05
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 5 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

2.2. Material
2.2. Material Thermal
Thermal Conductivity
Conductivity
In LiLi
In 4SiO
4 SiO 4-packedbed,
4 -packed bed,thethe effective
effective thermal
thermal conductivity
conductivity is significantly
is significantly affectedaffected by the
by the thermal
thermal conductivities
conductivities of Li4 SiO4ofparticle
Li4SiOand 4 particle
helium and
gas.helium gas. The
The thermal thermal conductivities
conductivities of Li 4SiO
of Li4 SiO4 particle (ks )4
particle (k ) and helium gas (k ) as reported in References [9,18] are
and helium gas (kf ) as reported in References [9,18] are calculated as follows:
s f calculated as follows:

 (1.98  850 / T )(1   )

 k = (1.98+850/T)(1−ε) Li SiO
ks 
 s
1   (1.95
1+ε 8 10−3
4 −4 T )
(1.95−8×10 4 particle
4 Li 4SiO 4 particle [18]
(1)
 
 kf = 2.774 × 10 T
T )0.701 (1)
k  2.774 Helium gas

3 0.701
 f  10 T Helium gas [9]
where T is the mean temperature of packed bed. ε is the porosity of pebble.
where T is the mean temperature of packed bed. ε is the porosity of pebble.
The variations of thermal conductivities for Li4 SiO4 particles and helium gas are presented in
The variations of thermal conductivities for Li4SiO4 particles and helium gas are presented in
Figure 3. It shows that, as temperature increases, the thermal conductivity of Li4 SiO4 particle (ks )
Figure 3. It shows that, as temperature increases, the thermal conductivity of Li4SiO4 particle (ks)
decreases, while the conductivity of helium gas (kf ) increases.
decreases, while the conductivity of helium gas (kf) increases.
4.0
Thermal conductivity [W/(m·K)]

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5
kf Helium gas
ks Li4SiO4 particle
1.0

0.5

0.0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

T [K]

Figure 3. Variations
Figure 3. Variations of
of thermal
thermal conductivities
conductivities for
for Li4SiO4
Li4SiO4particles
particlesand
andhelium
heliumgas.
gas.
3. Thermal Resistance Network and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Methods
3. Thermal Resistance Network and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Methods
3.1. Thermal Resistance Networks Based on Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Law
3.1. Thermal Resistance Networks Based on Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Law
In the present study, two kinds of thermal resistance networks were developed to predict the
In the
effective present
thermal study, two of
conductivity kinds
a Li4of
SiOthermal resistance networks were developed to predict the
4 packing unit, which is shown in Figure 4. Based on the
effective thermal analogy
thermal-electrical conductivity of a both
principle, Li4SiO 4 packing unit, which is shown in Figure 4. Based on the
Ohm’s law and Kirchhoff’s law were adopted to establish the
thermal-electrical analogy principle, both
equivalent thermal resistance networks for the packing Ohm’s law and Kirchhoff’s
units. As shownlaw were adopted
in Figure to establish
4, the temperatures
the equivalent thermal resistance networks for the packing units.
on the top and bottom surfaces of the packing unit are fixed at Tt and Tb , respectively, and As shown in Figure 4, the
the
temperaturesdifference
temperature on the top is and bottom
assumed to surfaces
be small of the packing
(such as 10 K).unit
The are fixed
other fouratsurfaces
Tt and Tofb, respectively,
the packing
and the temperature difference is assumed to be small (such as 10 K). The other
unit are kept adiabatic. Furthermore, in the present study, since the gas velocity in the Li4 SiO4 packing four surfaces of the
packing unit are kept adiabatic. Furthermore, in the present study, since
unit is assumed to be very slow and the temperature difference in the packing unit is relatively the gas velocity in the
Li4SiOthe
small, 4 packing unit is assumed to be very slow and the temperature difference in the packing unit
convection and radiation heat transfer in the packing unit are not considered. Therefore,
is relatively small, theheat
only the conduction convection
transferand radiation heat
is calculated transfer
in the in the
packing packing
unit with theunitequivalent
are not considered.
thermal
Therefore,networks.
resistance only the conduction heat transfer is calculated in the packing unit with the equivalent
thermal resistance
In both networks.
the thermal resistance networks of the Ohm’s law model and Kirchhoff’s law model, the
In both the thermal
packing unit was divided into resistance networks
small thermal of the Ohm’s
resistance elements law
withmodel
total and
nodesKirchhoff’s
of I × J × K.law
As model,
for the
the packing unit was divided into small thermal resistance elements with
Ohm’s law model (see Figure 4a), the thermal resistances were only connected with each other along total nodes of I × J × K. As
the main heat transfer direction (z direction). While for the Kirchhoff’s law model (see Figure 4b),each
for the Ohm’s law model (see Figure 4a), the thermal resistances were only connected with the
othertransfer
heat along normal
the main to heat
the maintransfer
heat direction (z direction).
transfer direction While
was also for the Kirchhoff’s
considered, law model
and the thermal (see
resistances
Figure
were 4b), the heat
connected withtransfer
each other normal
alongtothe
thex,main
y andheat transfer direction
z directions. For both was also resistance
thermal considered, and the
networks,
thermal resistances were connected with each other along the x, y and z directions.
the black element (Rs ) represents the thermal resistance inside the Li4 SiO4 particle, and the white For both thermal
resistance networks, the black element (Rs) represents the thermal resistance inside the Li 4SiO4
particle, and the white element (Rf) represents the thermal resistance in the helium gas. Therefore,
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 6 of 14

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

element (Rf ) represents the thermal resistance in the helium gas. Therefore, the black-white element
them )black-white
(R element
should represent the (R m) should
thermal represent
resistance the thermal
between Li4 SiO4 resistance between
particle and helium Li 4SiO
gas. 4 particle
The and
definitions
helium gas. The definitions for the thermal resistances of R , R and
for the thermal resistances of Rs , Rf and Rm are formulated as follows:
s f R m are formulated as follows:

(a) (b)
Figure 4.
4. Thermal resistance networks on x-z cross section with a fixed yy value:
value: (a) the Ohm’s law
(b) the
model; and (b) the Kirchhoff’s
Kirchhoff’s law
law model.
model.

 element  element RsRs +

Rs = δelement = δelement
Rf Rf
Rs = ,, RR
f f= Rmm =
, ,R (2)
(2)
kskAs A
element
element kff Aelement
element 22
ks andkks fand
wherewhere are the thermal
kf are conductivities
the thermal of Li4 SiOof4 particle
conductivities Li4SiO4 and helium
particle andgas, respectively.
helium δelement is
gas, respectively.
the thickness
δelement in the thermal
is the thickness in theresistance
thermal element
resistancealong the heat
element transfer
along the heat transferAelement
direction. is the
direction. area in
Aelement is
the thermal resistance element normal to the heat transfer direction.
the area in the thermal resistance element normal to the heat transfer direction.
Based
Based on onabove
aboveanalysis,
analysis,thethetotal thermal
total thermalresistance
resistance(Rtotal ) in) in
(Rtotal thethe
packing
packingunitunit
for the
for Ohm’s law
the Ohm’s
model
law model(see (see
Figure 4a) is4a)
Figure calculated as follows:
is calculated as follows:
I J
1 −1

= ( 
I J
R X ( X 1 )1
Rtotaltotal K
) (3)
j=1  R
i 1 j 1 K R (i, j , k ) (3)
i=1
P z
k 2 z (i, j, k)
k =2
where Rz is the thermal resistance element along the main heat transfer direction (z direction).
where Rz is the thermal resistance element along the main heat transfer direction (z direction). And the
And the effective thermal conductivity (keff) of the packing unit for the Ohm’s law model would be
effective thermal conductivity (keff ) of the packing unit for the Ohm’s law model would be expressed
expressed as follows:
as follows:
keff = δunit (4)
keff = totalunit
R Aunit (4)
R A
where δunit is the total thickness of the packing unittotal unitthe main heat transfer direction. A
along unit is the
total where
cross-section area in the packing unit normal to the main heat transfer direction.
δunit is the total thickness of the packing unit along the main heat transfer direction. Aunit
is theAs forcross-section
total the thermal resistance
area in thenetwork
packing of the
unit Kirchhoff’s
normal to the law
mainmodel (see Figure
heat transfer 4b), according
direction.
the energy
As forconservation principle, network
the thermal resistance the energy
of equation at eachlaw
the Kirchhoff’s internal
modelnode
(see of the network
Figure can be
4b), according
formulated as follows:
the energy conservation principle, the energy equation at each internal node of the network can be
formulated as follows:
T (i  1, j , k )  T (i, j, k ) T (i  1, j, k )  T (i, j, k ) T (i, j  1, k )  T (i, j, k )
[  ][
Rx (i, j , k ) Rx (i  1, j , k ) Ry (i, j , k )
T (i, j  1, k )  T (i, j , k ) T (i, j , k  1)  T (i, j, k ) T (i, j, k  1)  T (i, j, k ) (5)
 ][  ]0
Ry (i, j  1, k ) Rz (i, j , k ) Rz (i, j , k  1)
(i  2, 3..., I  1; j  2, 3..., J  1; k  2, 3..., K  1)
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 7 of 14

T (i−1, j,k)−T (i,j,k) T (i+1,j,k)−T (i,j,k) T (i,j−1,k)−T (i, j,k)

[ Rx (i,j,k)
+ Rx (i+1, j,k)
]+[ Ry (i,j,k)
T (i,j+1,k)−T (i,j,k) T (i,j,k−1)−T (i,j,k) T (i,j,k+1)−T (i,j,k) (5)
+ R (i,j+1,k) ] + [ Rz (i,j,k)
+ Rz (i,j,k+1)
] =0
y
(i = 2, 3 . . . , I − 1; j = 2, 3 . . . , J − 1; k = 2, 3 . . . , K − 1)
where Rx , Ry and Rz are the thermal resistance element along the x, y and z directions.
The energy equation at each boundary node of the network can be formulated as follows:

For the adiabatic boundary at i = 1 ( j = 2, 3 . . . , J − 1; k = 2, 3 . . . , K − 1)





 T (2, j,k)−T (1, j,k) T (1, j−1,k)−T (1, j,k) T (1, j+1,k)−T (1, j,k)
2[ ]+[ + ]


Rx (2, j,k) Ry (1, j,k) Ry (1, j+1,k)



T (1,j,k−1)−T (1, j,k) T (1, j,k+1)−T (1, j,k)




 +[ Rz (1, j,k)
+ Rz (1, j,k+1)
]=0
(6)

For the adiabatic boundary at i = I ( j = 2, 3 . . . , J − 1; k = 2, 3 . . . , K − 1)





 T (I−1, j,k)−T (I,j,k) T (I,j−1,k)−T (I,j,k) T (I,j+1,k)−T (I,j,k)
2[ ]+[ + ]


Rx (I,j,k) Ry (I,j,k) Ry (I,j+1,k)



T (I,j,k−1)−T (I,j,k) T (I, j,k+1)−T (I,j,k)



 +[ Rz (I,j,k)
+ Rz (I,j,k+1)
]=0

For the adiabatic boundary at j= 1 (i = 2, 3 . . . , I − 1; k = 2, 3 . . . , K − 1)





 T (i−1,1,k)−T (i,1,k) T (i+1,1,k)−T (i,1,k) T (i,2,k)−T (i,1,k)
[ + ] + 2[ R (i,2,k) ]


Rx (i,1,k) Rx (i+1,1,k)



 y
 T (i,1,k−1)−T (i,1,k) T (i,1,k+1)−T (i,1,k)


 +[ Rz (i,1,k)
+ Rz (i,1,k+1)
]=0
(7)

For the adiabatic boundary at j = J (i = 2, 3 . . . , I − 1; k = 2, 3 . . . , K − 1)





 T (i−1,J,k)−T (i,J,k) T (i+1,J,k)−T (i,J,k) T (i,J−1,k)−T (i,J,k)



 [ Rx (i,J,k)
+ Rx (i+1,J,k)
] + 2[ Ry (i,J,k)
]

T (i,J,k−1)−T (i,J,k) T (i,J,k+1)−T (i,J,k)



 +[ Rz (i,J,k)
+ Rz (i,J,k+1)
]=0


 For the fixed temperature boundary at k = 1, K

T (i, j, 1) = Tb , T (i, j, K) = Tt (8)



 (i = 2, 3 . . . , I − 1; j = 2, 3 . . . , J − 1)


The energy equations at internal and boundary nodes (Equations (5)–(8)) are solved with Gauss
Seidel iteration method, and the residual of the iteration is less than 10−6 . Finally, the effective thermal
conductivity (keff ) of the packing unit for the Kirchhoff’s law model would be expressed as follows:

I J I J
φδunit X X Tt − T (i, j, K − 1) X X T (i, j, 2) − T
b
keff = (φ = = ) (9)
Aunit (Tt − Tb ) Rz (i, j, K) Rz (i, j, 2)
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1

where φ is the total heat flux in the packing unit. Rz (i, j, K) and Rz (i, j, 2) is the thermal resistance
element along the main heat transfer direction (z direction) near the top surface or bottom surface of
the packing units, respectively. δunit is the thickness of the packing unit along the main heat transfer
direction. Aunit is the cross-section area in the packing unit normal to the main heat transfer direction.
Tt and Tb are the fixed temperatures on the top and bottom surfaces of the packing unit, respectively.
In the present study, the effective thermal conductivities of the packing unit for the Ohm’s law
model and Kirchhoff’s law model were both solved with self-developed code based on mathematical
software MATLAB. The total nodes of the thermal resistance network for both models are from
10 × 10 × 10 to 100 × 100 × 100. It was found that, the network with total nodes of 50 × 50 × 50
would be suitable for the calculations, where the deviation of keff between the case of 50 × 50 × 50 and
60 × 60 × 60 is less than 0.5% for the random packing unit-1. Therefore, the node setting of 50×50 × 50
was finally adopted for the following calculations with thermal resistance network methods.
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 8 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

3.2.
3.2.CFD
CFDSimulations
Simulations
InInthis part,
this the CFD
part, simulation
the CFD methodmethod
simulation was adopted to predict to
was adopted thepredict
effectivethe
thermal conductivity
effective thermal
ofconductivity
ordered Li4of SiO packing
ordered
4 Li 4 units
SiO 4 (SC,
packing BCC
unitsand
(SC,FCC),
BCC and the
FCC),simulation
and the results
simulation were used
results as
were
comparisons with those
used as comparisons extracted
with from thermal
those extracted fromresistance network methods.
thermal resistance network methods.
AsAsshown
shownininFigure
Figure5,5,the
theSCSCpacking
packingisisselected
selectedasasananexample
exampletotopresent
presentthetheCFD
CFDsimulation
simulation
process.
process.The Thetemperatures
temperatureson onthe
thetop
topand
andbottom
bottomsurfaces
surfacesofofthe
thepacking
packingunit
unitare fixedatatTT
arefixed t andTT
t and b b, ,
respectively,
respectively,and andthethetemperature
temperaturedifference
differenceisisassumed
assumedtotobe be1010K.
K.The
Theother
otherfour
foursurfaces
surfacesofofthe the
packing
packingunit unitare
arekept
keptadiabatic.
adiabatic.These
Thesephysical
physicalsettings
settingsare
arethe
thesame
sametotothose
thoseofofthermal
thermalresistance
resistance
networks
networksasas presented
presentedin Figure 4. Furthermore,
in Figure in the in
4. Furthermore, CFDthesimulations, the convection
CFD simulations, and radiation
the convection and
heat transfer
radiation were
heat also not
transfer considered.
were also not The governing
considered. Theequations
governingfor the conduction
equations for theheat transfer in heat
conduction the
packing
transferunit arepacking
in the formulated
unit as
arefollows:
formulated as follows:
( Fluid Region: 0    [ k  (T )]
Fluid Region : 0 = ∇ · [kf · f(∇T )]
 (10)
Solid
SolidRegion 
Region:: 0 =0 ∇ · [k s[k· s(∇T
()]
T )]

wherewhere
ks andkks fand
are kthe
f are the thermal
thermal conductivities
conductivities of Li4of
SiOLi44SiO4 particle
particle and helium
and helium gas, respectively.
gas, respectively.

(a) (b)
Figure5.5.Physical
Figure Physicalmodel
modeland
and computational
computational mesh
mesh forfor
thethe
SC SC packing
packing unit:unit: (a) physical
(a) physical model;
model; and and
(b)
(b) computational
computational mesh.mesh.

The
Theenergy
energyequations
equationsininthethepacking
packingunit
unitwere
weresolved
solvedby bywith
withthe
thecommercial
commercialsoftware
softwareANSYS
ANSYS
Fluent 16.0, and the residual of the calculation is less than 10−10 . Then, the effective thermal conductivity
Fluent 16.0, and the residual of the calculation is less than 10 . Then, the effective thermal
−10

(kconductivity
eff ) of the packing
(keff) unit was
of the calculated
packing unitsimilar to Equation
was calculated (9). Astoshown
similar Equationin Figure
9. As5b, the unstructured
shown in Figure 5b,
meshes with tetrahedral
the unstructured mesheselements were adopted
with tetrahedral for the simulations,
elements were adopted andforthethe
meshes were intensified
simulations, and the
on the particle surfaces. Three different computational meshes with total element
meshes were intensified on the particle surfaces. Three different computational meshes with total numbers of 1,808,692,
2,171,376 and 2,605,716
element numbers were tested.
of 1,808,692, It wasand
2,171,376 found that the
2,605,716 testtested.
were mesh with
It was a total
foundelement
that the number of
test mesh
2,171,376
with a total would be suitable
element numberfor of
the2,171,376
simulations,
would where the deviation
be suitable for the keff between the
of simulations, casethe
where of 2,171,376
deviation
and
of k2,605,716
eff between isthe
lesscase
than
of 0.5% for the
2,171,376 andSC2,605,716
packingisunit. Therefore,
less than a similar
0.5% for the SC mesh setting
packing unit.to the test
Therefore,
case with total
a similar meshelement
settingnumber of 2,171,376
to the test case withwas finally
total adopted
element numberfor the followingwas
of 2,171,376 CFDfinally
simulations.
adopted
for the following CFD simulations.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Effective Thermal Conductivity of Ordered Packings
4.1. In
Effective Thermal
this part, Conductivity
the effective of Ordered
thermal Packings
conductivities (keff ) of ordered piackings, including SC, BCC and
FCC packings, were investigated with the thermal resistance network method and CFD simulations.
In this part, the effective thermal conductivities (keff) of ordered piackings, including SC, BCC
The effective thermal conductivities of SC packing calculated with the thermal resistance network
and FCC packings, were investigated with the thermal resistance network method and CFD
of Ohm’s law model are shown in Figure 6, where the results calculated with the same method by
simulations. The effective thermal conductivities of SC packing calculated with the thermal
Zhao et al. [9] are also presented. It is found that, the present calculation results can fit well with
resistance network of Ohm’s law model are shown in Figure 6, where the results calculated with the
those calculated by Zhao et al. [9], where the maximum deviation is less than 1.0% and the average
same method by Zhao et al. [9] are also presented. It is found that, the present calculation results
can fit well with those calculated by Zhao et al. [9], where the maximum deviation is less than 1.0%
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Energies2019,
Energies 2019,12,
12,1666
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99of
of14
14
and the average deviation is less than 0.3%. This would indicate that, the present calculation
method based on the thermal resistance network of Ohm’s law model should be reliable.
and the average deviation is less than 0.3%. This would indicate that, the present calculation
deviation is lessonthan
method based 0.3%. This
the thermal would indicate
resistance network that, the present
of Ohm’s calculation
law model method
should be based on the
reliable.
thermal resistance network1.0of Ohm’s law model should be reliable.
Predicted in literature [9]
1.0
Present calculations
0.9 Predicted
(Ohlm's in literature
law model [9]
for SC packing)

k)] k)]
Present calculations

keff [W/(m·
0.9 (Ohlm's law model for SC packing)
keff [W/(m· 0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0.6 T [K]
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

T [K]
Figure 6. The effective thermal conductivities of SC packing calculated with the thermal resistance
network
Figure 6. ofThe
theeffective
Ohm’s law model.
thermal conductivities of SC packing calculated with the thermal resistance
Figure 6. The effective thermal conductivities of SC packing calculated with the thermal resistance
network of the Ohm’s law model.
network of the Ohm’s law model.
The effective thermal conductivities (keff) of different ordered packings calculated with thermal
resistance networks
The effective of Ohm’s
thermal law model(kand) of
conductivities Kirchhoff’s law model
different ordered are shown
packings in Figure
calculated with7,thermal
where
The effective thermal conductivities (keff eff) of different ordered packings calculated with thermal
the CFD simulation
resistance networks ofresults
Ohm’sare lawalso
modelpresented. It is found
and Kirchhoff’s lawthat,
model theareresults
showncalculated
in Figure with the
7, where
resistance networks of Ohm’s law model and Kirchhoff’s law model are shown in Figure 7, where
thermal
the CFD resistance
simulation network
results are ofalso
Kirchhoff’s
presented. law model
It is foundcan fitthe
that, well withcalculated
results the simulation
with theresults
thermalfor
the CFD simulation results are also presented. It is found that, the results calculated with the
different ordered
resistance networkpackings, and law
of Kirchhoff’s thismodel
wouldcan indicate
fit wellthat,
with the present calculation
the simulation results formethod
differentbased
orderedon
thermal resistance network of Kirchhoff’s law model can fit well with the simulation results for
the thermal
packings, and resistance
this would network
indicateofthat,
Kirchhoff’s
the present lawcalculation
model should be reliable.
method based onMeanwhile,
the thermalitresistance
is noted
different ordered packings, and this would indicate that, the present calculation method based on
that the results
network calculated
of Kirchhoff’s with the
law model thermal
should resistance
be reliable. network it
Meanwhile, ofisthe Ohm’s
noted that law model calculated
the results are much
the thermal resistance network of Kirchhoff’s law model should be reliable. Meanwhile, it is noted
lowerthe
with than the simulation
thermal results. As
resistance network forOhm’s
of the the Ohm’s law model
law model are much (seelower
Figurethan4a),
thethe thermal
simulation
that the results calculated with the thermal resistance network of the Ohm’s law model are much
resistances
results. were
As for theonly
Ohm’s connected
law model with(seeeach
Figure other
4a),along the main
the thermal heat transfer
resistances were onlydirection and
connected
lower than the simulation results. As for the Ohm’s law model (see Figure 4a), the thermal
separated
with alongalong
each other otherthedirections,
main heatwhich would
transfer lead and
direction to underestimations
separated along other of total heat flux
directions, and
which
resistances were only connected with each other along the main heat transfer direction and
effective
would thermal
lead conductivity inofthe
to underestimations packing
total heat flux units.
andFor the Kirchhoff’s
effective law model (see
thermal conductivity Figure
in the 4b),
packing
separated along other directions, which would lead to underestimations of total heat flux and
the heat
units. Fortransfer normal law
the Kirchhoff’s to the main
model heat
(see transfer
Figure direction
4b), the was also
heat transfer considered,
normal and heat
to the main the thermal
transfer
effective thermal conductivity in the packing units. For the Kirchhoff’s law model (see Figure 4b),
resistances
direction waswere connected with
also considered, and the each otherresistances
thermal along the werex, connected
y and z with directions. Therefore,
each other along the thex,
the heat transfer normal to the main heat transfer direction was also considered, and the thermal
calculation
y results Therefore,
and z directions. based onthe thecalculation
Kirchhoff’s law based
results modelonwould agree well
the Kirchhoff’s lawwith
model those
would of agree
CFD
resistances were connected with each other along the x, y and z directions. Therefore, the
simulations.
well with those of CFD simulations.
calculation results based on the Kirchhoff’s law model would agree well with those of CFD
simulations.
1.1

Ohm's law model Ohm's law model

1.4
1.1 Kirchhoff's law model Kirchhoff's law model
1.0
CFD simulations
Ohm's law model
CFD simulations
Ohm's law model
1.4
k)] k)]

(SC packing)law model (BCC packing)

Kirchhoff's law model
k)] k)]

Kirchhoff's
keff [W/(m·

1.0 1.2
keff [W/(m·

0.9 CFD simulations CFD simulations

(SC packing) (BCC packing)
keff [W/(m·

1.2
keff [W/(m·

0.9 1.0
0.8

1.0
0.8
0.7 0.8

0.7 0.8
0.6
0.6
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0.6 T [K] 0.6 T [K]
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
(a) T [K] (b)
T [K]
(a) Figure 7. Cont. (b)
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 10 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

Ohm's Law Model

1.6 Kirchhoff's Law Model
CFD simulations
(FCC packing)

keff [W/(m·k)]
1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

T [K]
(c)
Figure 7.7.The
Theeffective
effective thermal
thermal conductivities
conductivities of ordered
of ordered packings
packings calculated
calculated withresistance
with thermal thermal
resistance networkand
network method method and computational
computational fluid dynamics
fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations:
(CFD) simulations: (a) SC packing;
(a) SC packing; (b)
(b) BCC
BCC packing;
packing; and
and (c) (c) packing.
FCC FCC packing.

4.2. Effective
4.2. Effective Thermal
Thermal Conductivity
Conductivity of
of Random
Random Packings
Packings
In the
In the present
present study,
study, the
the effective
effectivethermal
thermalconductivity
conductivity(k(keff ) of Li SiO 4 randomly
eff) of Li44SiO4
randomly packedpacked bed bed is
is
obtained from
obtained from10 10 random
randompacking units (see
packing units Figure
(see 2).Figure
Typical2). packing
Typicalparameters
packingand corresponding
parameters and
values of k for different packing units are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
corresponding values of keff for different packing units are listed in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
eff These show that
when
These theshow mean thattemperature
when the mean of packed bed is fixed
temperature at 1123.15
of packed bed is K,fixed
the averaged
at 1123.15 value
K, theof kaveraged
eff in the
packing
value of units
keff inisthe
1.001 W/(m·K),
packing unitstheismaximal
1.001 W/(m· deviation keff is −15.26%
K), theofmaximal andof
deviation thekeff
standard
is –15.26%deviation
and the is
8.83%. The variations of effective thermal conductivities for random packing
standard deviation is 8.83%. The variations of effective thermal conductivities for random packing calculated with thermal
resistance network
calculated with thermal of Ohm’s law model
resistance network andof Kirchhoff’s
Ohm’s law law model
model andareKirchhoff’s
shown in Figure law model8, whereare
the experimental results as reported by Donne et al. [1] and Reimann
shown in Figure 8, where the experimental results as reported by Donne et al. [1] and Reimann et al.et al. [19] are also presented.
It shows
[19] that, presented.
are also the results calculated
It shows that, with the
thermal resistance
results calculated network
with of Kirchhoff’s
thermal law model
resistance network can fit
of
well with the
Kirchhoff’s law experimental
model can fit results
well forwithrandom packing. Asresults
the experimental the mean for temperature
random packing. of Li4AsSiOthe
4 packed
mean
bed changes of
temperature from 323.15
Li4SiO K to 1123.15 K, the maximal deviation of k the
4 packed bed changes from 323.15 K to 1123.15 K,eff
between
maximal present
deviationcalculate
of keff
between present calculate calculations (Kirchhoff’s law model) and experiments [19] is lessnoted
calculations (Kirchhoff’s law model) and experiments [19] is less than 12%. Meanwhile, it is also than
that, the results calculated with the thermal resistance network of the
12%. Meanwhile, it is also noted that, the results calculated with the thermal resistance network of Ohm’s law model are much
lower
the than law
Ohm’s the experimental
model are much results.
lower This
thanis the
similar to the results
experimental obtained
results. This isfrom ordered
similar to thepackings.
results
Therefore,
obtained from it is proved
orderedthat, the thermal
packings. resistanceit network
Therefore, is proved method
that, based on the Kirchhoff’s
the thermal resistance law mode
network
and selected packing units prosed in the present study would be reliable
method based on the Kirchhoff’s law mode and selected packing units prosed in the present study and accurate for prediction of
effective thermal conductivities in
would be reliable and accurate for 4prediction a Li SiO 4 randomly packed bed.
of effective thermal conductivities in a Li4SiO4
randomly packed bed.
Table 3. Effective thermal conductivities for random packing units (T = 1123.15 K).
Table 3. Packing
Packing Unit EffectiveFactor
thermal
(%)conductivities for randomDeviation
keff (W/(m·K)) packing units
(keff ) (T = 1123.15 K).
(%) Unit Size
Unit-1
Packing Unit 62.67
Packing Factor 1.085 8.42 (keff) (%)
Deviation
Unit-2 65.32 keff (W/(m·
1.139 K)) 13.77 Unit Size
(%) 1dp × 1dp × 1dp
Unit-3 68.73 1.055 5.39
Unit-1
Unit-4 62.67
63.11 1.085
0.964 8.42
−3.72
Unit-2
Unit-5 65.32
65.82 1.139
0.981 13.77
−2.02
Unit-3
Unit-6 68.73
63.99 1.055
0.897 5.39
−10.39 1dp × 1dp × 1dp
Unit-7 68.88 0.873 −12.77 2dp × 2dp × 2dp
Unit-4 63.11 0.964 −3.72
Unit-8 65.56 1.142 14.04
Unit-5 65.82 0.981 −2.02
Unit-9 64.17 1.026 2.54
Unit-6 63.99 0.897 −10.39 3dp × 3dp × 3dp
Unit-10 65.05 0.848 −15.26
Unit-7 68.88 0.873 −12.77 2dp × 2dp × 2dp
Average value 65.33 1.001 8.83 /
Unit-8 65.56 1.142 14.04
Unit-9 64.17 1.026 2.54
3dp × 3dp × 3dp
Unit-10 65.05 0.848 −15.26
Average value 65.33 1.001 8.83 /
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 11 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

1.4

1.2

keff [W/(m·K)]
1.0

0.8

0.6
Ohm's law model
0.4 Kirchhoff's law mode
Experiments [1]
0.2 Experimental fitting [19]

0.0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

T [K]

Figure 8.8.The
Figure effective
The thermal
effective conductivities
thermal of random
conductivities packings
of random calculated
packings with thermal
calculated withresistance
thermal
network
resistanceofnetwork
Ohm’s law modellaw
of Ohm’s andmodel
Kirchhoff’s law model.law model.
and Kirchhoff’s
4.3. Effect of Packing Factor
4.3. Effect of Packing Factor
The variations of effective thermal conductivity and packing factor for ordered and random
The variations of effective thermal conductivity and packing factor for ordered and random
packings are present Figure 9. It shows that, the effective thermal conductivity (keff ) increases as packing
packings are present Figure 9. It shows that, the effective thermal conductivity (keff) increases as
factor increases. Furthermore, it also shows that, the deviations of keff between the Ohm’s law model
packing factor increases. Furthermore, it also shows that, the deviations of keff between the Ohm’s
and the Kirchhoff’s law model is large when the packing factor is high (such as in BCC, FCC and
law model and the Kirchhoff’s law model is large when the packing factor is high (such as in BCC,
random packing units). Since the thermal conductivity of a Li4 SiO4 particle is much higher than that
FCC and random packing units). Since the thermal conductivity of a Li4SiO4 particle is much higher
of helium gas (see Figure 3), as the packing factor increases the volume ratio of Li4 SiO4 particles in
than that of helium gas (see Figure 3), as the packing factor increases the volume ratio of Li4SiO4
the packing unit increases, and the effective thermal conductivity (keff ) increases too. Due to the same
particles in the packing unit increases, and the effective thermal conductivity (keff) increases too.
reason, the conduction heat flux should be higher in the packing units with higher packing factors,
Due to the same reason, the conduction heat flux should be higher in the packing units with higher
which would also lead to larger deviations of keff between the Ohm’s law model and the Kirchhoff’s law
packing factors, which would also lead to larger deviations of keff between the Ohm’s law model
model. In addition, it is noted that, although the packing factors of BCC packing (66.00%) and random
and the Kirchhoff’s law model. In addition, it is noted that, although the packing factors of BCC
packing (65.33%) are quite close to each other, the effective thermal conductivity of random packing
packing (66.00%) and random packing (65.33%) are quite close to each other, the effective thermal
(0.991 W/(m·K)) is much lower than that of BCC packing (1.148 W/(m·K)), and the deviation is more
conductivity of random packing (0.991 W/(m·K)) is much lower than that of BCC packing (1.148
than 15%. In BCC packing, each particle is in contact with eight neighbor particles and the coordinate
W/(m·K)), and the deviation is more than 15%. In BCC packing, each particle is in contact with eight
number is relatively high, while for the random packing, the particles are contacting randomly and
neighbor particles and the coordinate number is relatively high, while for the random packing, the
coordinate number might be lower under similar packing factor, which may lead to lower effective
particles are contacting randomly and coordinate number might be lower under similar packing
thermal conductivity for random packing. This may indicate that, compared with random packing
factor, which may lead to lower effective thermal conductivity for random packing. This may
under a similar packing factor, the effective thermal conductivity might be further improved with
indicate that, compared with random packing under a similar packing factor, the effective thermal
ordered packing methods due to its higher coordinate number inside.
conductivity might be further improved with ordered packing methods due to its higher coordinate
number inside.
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 12 of 14
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 14

2.0 100%
Ohm's law model
Kirchhoff's law model
1.6
CFD simulations (SC, BCC & FCC) 80%

Packing factor [-]

& Experiments [19] (Random)

keff [W/(m·k)] 1.2 60%

0.8 40%

0.4 20%

0.0 0%
SC BCC FCC Random
Packing structures
Figure
Figure 9. Effectivethermal
9. Effective thermalconductivity
conductivity and
and packing
packing factor
factor of ordered
of ordered andand random
random packings
packings (T =
(T = 723.15
723.15 K). K).

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In the present paper, the effective thermal conductivities of Li4 SiO4 -packed beds with both ordered
In the present paper, the effective thermal conductivities of Li 4SiO4-packed beds with both
and random packing structures were investigated using both thermal resistance network methods:
ordered and random packing structures were investigated using both thermal resistance network
Ohm’s law and the Kirchhoff’s law. For ordered packings, including SC, BCC and FCC packings,
methods: Ohm’s law and the Kirchhoff’s law. For ordered packings, including SC, BCC and FCC
the CFD simulations were also performed for comparisons. For random packing, 10 typical random
packings, the CFD simulations were also performed for comparisons. For random packing, 10
packing units were selected for the investigations and the experimental results as reported in the open
typical random packing units were selected for the investigations and the experimental results as
literature were adopted for comparisons. The main findings are as follows:
reported in the open literature were adopted for comparisons. The main findings are as follows:
(1) For ordered
(1) For ordered packings,
packings, the the effective
effective thermal
thermal conductivities
conductivities calculated
calculated withwith thermal
thermal resistance
resistance
network of Kirchhoff’s law model fit well with CFD simulation
network of Kirchhoff’s law model fit well with CFD simulation results. While results. While the resultsthe
calculated
results
with the Ohm’s law model are significantly underestimated.
calculated with the Ohm’s law model are significantly underestimated. Therefore, when Therefore, when establishing a
thermal resistance
establishing a thermal network, the thermal
resistance network, resistances
the thermal should be connected
resistances shouldalong the mainalong
be connected heat
transfer direction and other heat transfer directions as well in the packing
the main heat transfer direction and other heat transfer directions as well in the packing unit. unit.
(2) For random
(2) For random packings,
packings, it it is
is proved
proved that,that, the
the thermal
thermal resistance
resistance network
network method
method based
based onon the
the
Kirchhoff’s law mode and selected random packing units proposed
Kirchhoff’s law mode and selected random packing units proposed in the present study would in the present study would
be reliable
be reliableand andaccurate
accuratefor theforprediction of effective
the prediction ofthermal conductivities
effective in a Li4 SiO4 -packed
thermal conductivities in a
bed, while the results calculated with the Ohm’s law model
Li4SiO4-packed bed, while the results calculated with the Ohm’s law model are also are also significantly underestimated
for random packings.
significantly underestimated for random packings.
(3)
(3) The effect of packing
The effect of packing factorfactor is is remarkable.
remarkable. As As packing
packing factor
factor increases,
increases, thethe effective
effective thermal
thermal
conductivity
conductivity (keff (k ) of a packed bed increases, and the deviation
eff) of a packed bed increases, and the deviation of keff of k eff between the
between the Ohm’s
Ohm’s law law
model and
model and Kirchhoff’s
Kirchhoff’s law law model
model alsoalso increases. Furthermore, compared
increases. Furthermore, compared with with random
random packing
packing
at aa similar
at similar packing
packing factor,
factor, thethe effective
effective thermal
thermal conductivity
conductivity of of aa packed
packed bedbed might
might be
be further
further
improved with an ordered packing method due to its higher
improved with an ordered packing method due to its higher coordinate number inside. coordinate number inside.

Author Contributions: J.Y. supervised the work and wrote the paper; Y.H. performed the calculations; Q.W.
Author Contributions:
contributed J.Y.paper.
to revising the supervised the work
All authors and wrote
contributed the paper;
to this work. Y.H. performed the calculations; Q.W.
contributed to revising the paper. All authors contributed to this work.
Funding: The financial supporting was provided by National Basic Research Program of China (No.
Funding: The financial supporting was provided by National Basic Research Program of China
2017YFB0603500) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51536007).
(No. 2017YFB0603500) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51536007).
Acknowledgments: We
Acknowledgments: would like
We would like to
to acknowledge
acknowledge financial
financial supports
supports for
for this
this work
work provided
provided by
by National
National
Basic Research
Basic Research Program
Program ofof China
China (No.
(No. 2017YFB0603500) and National Natural Science Foundation of China
China
(No.
(No. 51536007).
51536007).
Conflicts
Conflictsof Interest: The
ofInterest: The authors
authors declare
declareno
noconflict
conflictof
ofinterest.
interest.
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 13 of 14

Nomenclature
A area (m2 )
dp particle diameter (m)
i index in x direction
I maximum index in x direction
j index in y direction
J maximum index in y direction
k index in z direction; thermal conductivity (W/(m·K))
K maximum index in z direction
R thermal resistance (K/W)
T temperature (K)
x location at x coordinate (m)
y location at y coordinate (m)
z location at z coordinate (m)
Greek letters
δ thickness (m)
ε porosity of pebble
φ heat flux (W/m2 )
Subscripts
b bottom surface
eff effective value
element thermal resistance element
f fluid phase
m mean value
s solid phase
t top surface
total total value
unit packing unit
x component in x direction
y component in y direction
z component in z direction
Abbreviations
BCC body center cubic
CFD computational fluid dynamics
DEM discrete element method
FCC face center cubic
FEM finite element method
FVM finite volume method
SC simple cubic

References
1. Donne, M.D.; Goraieb, A.; Piazza, G.; Sordon, G. Measurements of the effective thermal conductivity of a
Li4 SiO4 pebble bed. Fusion Eng. Des. 2000, 49–50, 513–519. [CrossRef]
2. Mandal, D.; Sathiyamoorthy, D.; Vinjamur, M. Experimental measurement of effective thermal conductivity
of packed lithium-titanate pebble bed. Fusion Eng. Des. 2012, 87, 67–76. [CrossRef]
3. Hatano, T.; Enoeda, M.; Suzuki, S.; Kosaku, Y.; Akiba, M.; Hatano, T. Effective thermal conductivity of a
Li2 TiO3 pebble bed for a DEMO blanket. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2003, 44, 94–98. [CrossRef]
4. Earnshaw, J.W.; Londry, F.A.; Gierszewski, P.J. The effective thermal conductivity of a bed of 1.2-mm-diam
lithium zirconate spheres in helium. Fusion Technol. 1998, 33, 31–37. [CrossRef]
5. Panchal, M.; Chaudhuri, P.; Lew, J.T.V.; Ying, A. Numerical modelling for the effective thermal conductivity
of lithium meta titanate pebble bed with different packing structures. Fusion Eng. Des. 2016, 112, 303–310.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1666 14 of 14

6. Wang, X.L.; Zheng, J.; Chen, H.L. A prediction model for the effective thermal conductivity of mono-sized
pebble beds. Fusion Eng. Des. 2016, 103, 136–151. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, L.; Chen, Y.H.; Huang, K.; Liu, S.L. Effective thermal property estimation of unitary pebble beds based
on a CFD-DEM coupled method for a fusion blanket. Plasma Sci. Technol. 2015, 17, 1083–1087. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, L.; Chen, Y.H.; Huang, K.; Liu, S.L. Investigation of effective thermal conductivity for packed beds by
one-way coupled CFD-DEM method for CFETR-WCCB. Fusion Eng. Des. 2016, 106, 1–8. [CrossRef]
9. Zhao, Z.; Feng, K.M.; Feng, Y.J. Theoretical calculation and analysis modeling for the effective thermal
conductivity of Li4 SiO4 pebble bed. Fusion Eng. Des. 2010, 85, 1975–1980. [CrossRef]
10. Mandal, D.; Gupta, S. Effective thermal conductivity of unary particulate bed. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2016, 94,
1918–1923. [CrossRef]
11. Antwerpen, W.V.; Rousseau, P.G.; Toit, C.G.D. Multi-sphere unit cell model to calculate the effective thermal
conductivity in packed pebble beds of mono-sized spheres. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2012, 247, 183–201. [CrossRef]
12. Zhou, F.; Cheng, G.X. Lattice Boltzmann model for predicting effective thermal conductivity of composite
with randomly distributed particles: Considering effect of interactions between particles and matrix.
Comput. Mater. Sci. 2014, 92, 157–165. [CrossRef]
13. Cheng, G.J.; Yu, A.B. Particle scale evaluation of the effective thermal conductivity from the structure of a
packed bed: Radiation heat transfer. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 12202–12211. [CrossRef]
14. Antwerpen, W.V.; Toit, C.G.D.; Rousseau, P.G. A review of correlations to model the packing structure and
effective thermal conductivity in packed beds of mono-sized spherical particles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2010, 240,
1803–1818. [CrossRef]
15. Cundall, P.A.; Strack, O.D.L. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 1979, 29,
47–65. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, S.C.; Xu, C.Y.; Liu, W.; Liu, Z.C. Numerical study on heat transfer performance in packed bed. Energies
2019, 12, 414. [CrossRef]
17. Feng, Y.; Li, G.; Meng, Y.F.; Guo, B.Y. A novel approach to investigating transport of lost circulation materials
in rough fracture. Energies 2018, 11, 2572. [CrossRef]
18. Abou-Sena, A.; Ying, A.; Abdou, M. Effective thermal conductivity of lithium ceramic packed beds for fusion
blankets: A review. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2005, 47, 1094–1100. [CrossRef]
19. Reimann, J.; Piazza, G.; Xu, Z.; Goraieb, A.; Harschet, H. Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity of
Compressed Beryllium Pebble Beds. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aniceto_Go
raieb/publication/239277707_Measurements_of_the_Thermal_Conductivity_of_Compressed_Beryllium
_Pebble_Beds_EFDA_reference_TW2-TTBB-007a_D4/links/543bc2e90cf24a6ddb979b85.pdf (accessed on
6 January 2017).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).