This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis (1985) 5, 201-214

**Implicit Finite-difference Solutions of the Enthalpy Formulation of Stefan Problems
**

V. R. VOLLER

Centre for Numerical Modelling and Process Analysis, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computing, Thames Polytechnic, Wellington Street, London SE\i 6PF [Received 29 February 1984 and in revised form 26 September 1984] When related to a phase-change problem, an implicitfinite-differencediscretization of the enthalpy formulation results in a system of non-linear equations at each time step. In this paper, various numerical enthalpy methods based on such discretizations are outlined and examined. An alternative discretization for an enthalpy formulation is developed on separating the sensible and latent heat terms. This approach also results in a non-linear system of equations but with the nonlinearity isolated as a source term of nodal latent heat. This offers an advantage over the previous techniques in that only one variable (i.e. temperature) is solved for in the resulting iterative scheme. Comparison with simple one- and two-dimensional test problems indicate that the computing requirements, with the alternative discretization, are reduced by between 20 and 50%. 1. Introduction

Downloaded from imajna.oxfordjournals.org at kingstonuni on July 8, 2011

a common choice in the numerical solution of moving phase-change problems (Stefan problems). An important reason for this is the fact that the continuously moving phase front does not have to be tracked over a discrete numerical grid. Investigations have shown, however (Bonacina, Comini, Fasano & Primicerio, 1973; Voller, Cross & Walton, 1979), that the accuracy of enthalpy solutions is influenced by the position of the phase front Stemming from these investigations methods have been developed which overcome the problems of inaccuracy (Voller & Cross, 1981, 1983a, b; Voller, 1983). Another problem with enthalpy solutions arises when an implicit finite difference discretization is used. Such an approach results in a set of non-linear equations to be solved at each time step. Not only are these equations relatively difficult to solve (especially in comparison with explicit enthalpy methods) but they are also computationally demanding. A number of schemes for solution of implicit finite difference enthalpy methods have been proposed (Meyer, 1973; Shamsundar & Sparrow, 1975; Longworth, 1975; Furzeland, 1980, White, 1983). The aim of the current work is to investigate these methods using simple one and two dimensional Stefan problems. In addition an alternative implicit scheme will be developed and tested against the existing schemes. 2. Test Problems The enthalpy H is defined as the sum of sensible and latent heats. The standard formulation for a multidimensional melting/freezing phase change problem takes the 201

. 0272-4929/85/020201 + 14J03.00/0 _ _ © .1985 Academic Pros Inc. (London) Limited.

THE SO-CALLED ENTHALPY METHODS are

The thermal.(K(VT)).oxfordjournals.e. VOLLER form p ^ = V. (2) a two-dimensional problem of freezing in a square duct (side 1 m) with fixed surface temperature T < 0. Such considerations in the current work. -Cs>H. conductivity etc. 3.org at kingstonuni on July 8. R. (2a) (H-L)/C. e(H . phase change and e > 0 (2b) is a T>e. The enthalpy and temperature may be related via { or alternatively by H/C. temperature half range over which the phase change occurs. K conductivity and p density. boundary and initial conditions for these problems are given in Table 1.) are constant throughout By suitable modification of the discretization equations [see equation (4a)]. 1980) the following TABLE 1 Conditions for test problems (SI units) One dimension Two dimensions Downloaded from imajna. -e>7\ where C is the specific heat. It may be noted that in both these problems the thermal conditions (i. all the methods examined in this paper can be applied to problems with varying thermal conditions. 2011 K C L Tm ^Inittal 2 2-5 x 106 2 2-5 x 106 10' 0 -10 2 0-125 10» 0 -10 2 0-1 (=<5y = h) 5x . Solution Methods On discretizing the area of interest and using Taylor Series approximations (Smith.L/2)/(Ce+L/2\ -Ce^H^Ce + L. were thought to introduce unnecessary complications. however. (1) where T is temperature. L is the latent heat of the-e^T^e. CT. 1965) or "control volume" conservation (Patankar. H>Ce + L.202 V. Note that equations (2a) and (2b) have been derived assuming that the phase change occurs about temperature Tm = 0 and that the thermal conditions are constant throughout Two test problems are introduced: (1) a one-dimensional problem of freezing in the semi-infinite half space with fixed surface temperature T < 0 at the surface x = 0.

The form that F takes depends on the geometry and conditions of the problem in question. ) and 1* = (7* 7}. implicit solutions). with node numbering from bottom left to top right. i.org at kingstonuni on July 8. an ith component of F is _ K Note that both (4) and (5) give components of F at internal nodes. .. For nodes on or adjacent to boundaries the form of a component of F will need modification. Since the three possible forms of this relationship are not known a priori. „ # .e.e. Meyer (1973) uses equation (2b) writing (3) in terms of T If at time t = j 5t the vector of nodal temperatures T1 is known the corresponding vector at time t = (j+l) 5t. H' + 1 = HJ+(5£(1— 9)F(T*) + 8t 0F(T'+1) where H* = (tf 5. The vector function F results from the space discretization of the right hand side of equation (1). . The relationship between the respective nodal enthalpies and temperature in equation (3) is given by equation (2). A common approach to solving such equations is to use a modified Gauss-Seidel iterative scheme as suggested by Ortega & Rheinbolt (1970). in cases when B > 0 (i. Downloaded from imajna.fl»2l# $ . 1*) are vectors of nodal enthalpies and temperatures respectively at time t = k 5t.. (7) . The components of an initial estimate TJ0+ i are calculated from tF{]. For a one-dimensional problem with constant thermal properties an ith component of F is _ K p 5x2 ~1 (3) If there is a step change in the conductivity at the phase change interface then equation (4) is modified as L — 73]. 2011 (4a) where K — K — K if T <r T f v 1 — "-2 — -^liquid U if T > » T l i •> J »r In a two dimensional problem in a square region nh x nh covered with a square mesh of side h. The parameter 9 is a weighting factor and can take values between 0 and 1. + 1 may be calculated from (6). T . equation (3) becomes a non-linear set of equations.oxfordjournals.ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS 203 weightedfinite-differencereplacement for equation (1) may be derived. .

In this manner equation (3) becomes X where (11) . and Tt>e -e>T. R*m = <C+L/2e+X6. -e^T. This step will involve employing the function <I>(H). The major drawback in using equation (2b) is that as e -> 0 the iterative scheme defined by equation (8) will not converge due to the rapid change in H(T\ reducing to a jump discontinuity when £ = 0. the explicit scheme (6 = 0) is used to approximate H J + 1 and the initial estimate for T J + 1 follows from equation (2a).* associated with the node which is centred on the control volume undergoing the phase change. -e>Th l-L. T.^e. 2011 The value of the parameter X and the form of the vector function G depends on the problem geometry and conditions. In practice as E becomes small the value of a. In a one-dimensional problem with F defined by equation (4) (9) For a two-dimensional problem with F defined by equation (5) and G£T) = -^iJi_l + Ti-n + Ti+a+Ti+l). (10) In all cases the most current iterative values of temperature are used to calculate Equation (8) is applied until a convergence criterion is satisfied with the values of a* and p* calculated at the beginning of each iteration. One way of overcoming the above problem is to use equation (2a) and write equation (3) in terms of the enthalpy H. R.oxfordjournals. The initial estimate for TJ+1 is improved upon via the Gauss-Seidel iteration in which the k+ lth estimate is given by where f 0.org at kingstonuni on July 8. This function is piecewise continuous for all values of e (in particular £ = 0).e. rc+xe. VOLLER i. {C + X8. near T = 0..>e Downloaded from imajna. On convergence the procedure is repeated to find T1+1 and so on. jumps between values close to 0 and — L in successive iterations making the convergence of equation (8) impossible.204 V.

(13) and (15).. (12) These initial approximations are improved upon via the Gauss-Seidel iterations defined by where F and G are now functions of O and 0. 2011 -C —.and two-dimensional examples. are defined above. b). equations (9) and (10). 1 — C' XB H.org at kingstonuni on July 8. equations (8).>Ce + L. for solving the implicit discretization of the enthalpy method. Such a method has been presented by Longworth (1975). at . a method that has been numerically investigated by White (1983a. With known nodal enthalpies HJ at time t = j 5t initial approximations are obtained from the explicit scheme. With the nodal enthalpy field known at time t = j dt an initial approximation for the nodal enthalpies at time t = (J+l)5t is made via equation (12).ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS 205 Shamsundar & Sparrow (1975) have solved equation (11) via a Gauss-Seidel-type iterative scheme. -C >H ^ The value of X and X form of G.oxfordjournals. X8EL Downloaded from imajna. where the ith component of Cm is CC(] (14) -" l- and In the three methods outlined above. This is improved upon by a sequence of corrections Htti = H£+1+ t C. for simple one. An alternative way of solving equation (11) is to use a Newton method. the form of the iterative scheme.

This restriction introduces an element of inefficiency into the various schemes. 1981). The Furzeland/Elliott approach is a very neat method in which the main iteration formulas are independent of the iterated values. j) or Jm as appropriate.org at kingstonuni on July 8. This makes it necessary to check the nodal enthalpy or temperature fields at the end of each iterative sweep and modify the vectors a* and P* or at. R. e(C + X8)+L . VOLLER each time step depend on the nodal temperature or enthalpy field at that time step. equations (7) and (12)) for these values at the start of an iterative loop the form of the scheme may be expected to change during the iterations. bt is considered to be a constant (i. (19) where the subscript p indicates the position of the inner iteration.oxfordjournals. Furzeland (1980) suggests that SOR in the outer iterations may be beneficial. lies outside this range then an estimate for [70i+i is provided on performing the inner iteration defined in equation (19) where for the simple test problems outlined above the iteration was performed only once.206 V. independent of [7IK+1) a Newton linearization leads to an "inner" iterative scheme for [73^ +1 which on dropping the k subscript is b ' [ ^ ^ ^ [ 7 J i + 1 . The enthalpyfinite-differencc-schemeequation (3) is written as H{+1+WT<>+1 =b. The optimum choice of SOR is also an area which requires exploration (Elliott. where bi = H{+5t(l-0)F{+5t6Gl+i. An approach proposed by Furzeland and Elliott (see Furzeland. when calculating thefcthiterative values. 2011 (17) Equation (17) may be written in a point iterative form. what is the required number of inner iterations (p) on equation (19) to optimize the convergence of the outer iterations (fc). Although this technique is relatively simple to implement in its "raw state" to make it work at maximum efficiency is more difficult. (18) Downloaded from imajna. Initial estimates [T]£ +1 are generated from equation (7). From equations (2) if -e(C + X6) <bt< then [TUtti = (bi-L/2)/(C + X9 + L/2e). For example the question should be asked.e. The Furzeland/Elliott iterative scheme may be implemented as follows. how should the termination of the inner iteration be governed? Essentially. If at each node point i. 1980) results in an iterative scheme which does not require a detailed check of the solution fields. Since only approximations exist (viz. During the k + lth iteration at each node point in turn bt is calculated using the most current available values. If b.

oxfordjournals. The basic principle in the new implicit enthalpy method is to separate out the latent and sensible heat components. A New Implicit Solution Method The aim of this section is to present a new implicit solution method.org at kingstonuni on July 8. . First equation (1) is written as ! ( C r + A#) V. (25) . (21) Downloaded from imajna.e. In a freezing problem over each time step there is a net heat loss from each control volume.(KVT). \J 5t. (j+1) <5r]) this heat loss may be estimated as Q>+1 = 5t(l-ff)F(TJ)+5t8F(JJ+l). The physical significance of S can be understood on considering a freezing problem.ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS 207 4. On seeking an implicit finitedifference solution this fact ensures that the non-linearity associated with the latent heat may be isolated and dealt with efficiently. In addition the method performs efficiently in its raw state without the need of additional enhancements. -e<T<e. Like the Furzeland/Elliott scheme the form of the iterative equations derived are independent of the nodal solution fields. On defining AH to be the vector of nodal latent heats given by equation (21) a general finite-difference scheme for equation (22) is CT>+1 = CTi + 5t(l-ff)F(J') + 5teF(TJ+1) + S'+\ where (24) The vector S in equation (24) can be regarded as a vector of heat sources. AH = <L/2£(T+e).e ^ T. On re-arrangement equation (20) becomes pC — = V.(KVT) + S at where S is a latent heat source given by (22) The essential feature of equation (22) is that the latent heat contribution has been included into the formulation via a source term. (20) or where on assuming the relationship between enthalpy and temperature as given by equation (2b) CO. 2011 U T>e is the latent heat component of the enthalpy. For the control volumes in the (/+ l)th time interval (i. each component representing the change in the latent heat content of the control volumes surrounding the nodes.

With these possibilities in mind A{+1 can be calculated as -i?[ei+1-C(^-£)]. CT). Gauss-Seidel iteration is defined as (28) where F and G are functions of T as defined above and If the ith control volume is identified as changing state (i. 0 < [Aff jj( + 1 < L) then the nodal temperature is set as via equation (2). RQ{+\ T/>e.e and TtJ+1 > e implies that no phase change occurs in the ith control value during the (J+ l)th time interval.fi -|_4+l. and T>" > e otherwise (26) where the condition T / < .VOLLER In control volumes in which no phase change occurs in the (j+ l)th time interval all the heat loss is accounted for by a change in the sensible heat (i.org at kingstonuni on July 8. (27) Downloaded from imajna.R. The value of A{+1 in equation (26) will depend on the fraction of the time interval in question over which the phase change occurs in the ith control volume. An efficient solution methodology for equation (24) is as follows. 2011 The value R represents the fraction of heat loss accounted for by the latent heat change during the phase change. On the completion of each iterative sweep the values of [S])(ti and . If the temperature enthalpy relationship is of the form given in equation (2) then For a melting problem similar equations may be employed for calculating S{+1 with appropriate sign changes in the conditions. (2) occurs over the entire interval or (3) is completed at a point in the time interval.e. The value of Sj*1 will give this latent heat change in the ith control volume. There are three possibilities.208 v .oxfordjournals. If a phase change occurs within a control volume in the time interval then only a fraction of the heat loss is accounted for by a change in the sensible heat The remainder of the heat loss is accounted for by a latent heat change. In each time step a.e.^<. The phase change in control volume i (1) commences at a point in the time interval. Hence in each control volume during the (J+ l)th time interval the latent heat loss can be calculated as S{ _r0.

ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS Initial values T£ + ' Generated from explicit scheme equation (30) 209 Initial values S£ + ' Generated from equation (26) fcth estimate [TJi + ' Generated from equation (28) Downloaded from imajna. values [T]o+1 a r e generated via the use of a fully explicit scheme with S^+ * set to zero. To initialize the procedure on each new time step. This procedure is continued to convergence. i. 2011 kth estimate [S]i + I Generated from equation (26) Convergence check If convergence go to next time step FIG. 1. hence [AtfJ^+i are updated via a suitable iterative form of equation (26).org at kingstonuni on July 8. Major steps in solution over one time itep.oxfordjournals. (30) Initial values [Syo+ i are then estimated via equation (26) with (31) In the control volumes where [SJ 0 + 1 ^ 0 0 e tne control volumes changing phase) .e.

(33. White and New methods are in agreement up to the fifth decimal place. The method based on equation (13) will be called "White". Hence in the comparison runs relaxation was not employed In comparing the results four methods will be examined. 2011 Run no 1 2 3 4 5 Dimensions One One One One Two 5t (hours) 4 12 4 12 4 Range e 0 0 0-5 0-5 0 Convergence y 10" 2 10"2 lO' 2 10"2 10"* . These results are typical of all runs in that predictions from each of the methods are in agreement up to the third decimal place. TABLE 2 Specification of runs Downloaded from imajna.and twodimensional test problems. where possible. 9 was fixed at i. In all five runs were carried out on both the one. White and New methods were identical at all time steps in all runs. is to test the relative performance of the available techniques in their basic form. 5. i. the method based on equation (19) will be referred to as "Furzeland" and the method described by equations ((26) and (28)) will be referred to as "New". the method based on equation (15) will be referred to as "Longworth".e. These results clearly indicate that each of the above methods is solving the same discrete problem. The specifications for each of these runs are recorded in Table 2.oxfordjournals.VOLLER the initial estimates for temperature are modified as .R.org at kingstonuni on July 8. (32) Figure 1 is a flowsheet which illustrates the major steps in the solution for one time step. the basic structure of the software for each technique was similar. In fact. In addition the convergence criterion . Comparison of Methods In comparing the techniques outlined in this paper for computational efficiency care has to be taken that none of the methods is biased by the chosen implementation. The major aim of the current work. the Furzeland. where y is a prescribed tolerance. Table 3 shows numerically predicted nodal enthalpies at x = 05 m in day intervals up to 12 days for Run 1. The performance of all the techniques presented in the paper may be enhanced by relaxation techniques.210 v . To safeguard against this. however. Each of these methods was applied in a "Crank-Nicolson" mode. In addition the number of iterations per time step required in the Furzeland. was used in all techniques.

e. Hence the procedure for updating the latent heat source term has to be used more than once in each iterative sweep. 2011 Enthalpy Predictions at x =• 0-5 m. Run 1 Time (days) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Longworth 1035 x 10» 1021 1017 1O09 1O07 1006 0-921 0-685 0-435 0182 -0O30 -0O47 White 1035 x 109 1022 1017 1009 1007 1O06 0922 0687 0437 0184 -0O33 -0047 Furzeland 1035 x 10» 1022 1017 1009 1007 1O06 0922 0687 0437 0184 -O033 -O047 New 1035 x 109 1022 1017 1O09 1O07 1O06 0922 0687 0437 0184 -0033 -0047 TABLE 4 CPU usage Relative CPU requirement Run no 1 2 3 4 5 White 1 1 1 1 1 Furzeland 0726 0728 0762 0783 0738 New 0538 0521 0423 0386 0606 Longworth 1-340 1-754 1-348 1-760 No run .org at kingstonuni on July 8.oxfordjournals. In addition to the above conclusion the following points are made. The major conclusion that may be drawn from these results is that the New method only requires between 049 and 0-81 the CPU time of the next best method. (1) Introduction of a mushy zone range e favours the new method. complete phase change in the two-dimensional problem). In this way the CPU requirement for the White method is given the value 1 in each run with the CPU requirements of the other methods normalized appropriately.ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS 211 In presenting results associated with the efficiency of the methods the White method is chosen as a benchmark for CPU comparisons. 12 days in the one-dimensional problem. (2) The improvement in CPU usage for the new method when applied to a twodimensional problem is not as marked. This is due to the fact that in multidimensional problems more than one control volume is changing state at the same time. This fact suggests that in complex problems in which many control volumes are changing state TABLE 3 Downloaded from imajna. Table 4 shows a run-by-run comparison for the CPU usage on a Dec PDP 11/34 for each method to reach the termination point (i.

In application to simple one. 6. The basic principle in the development of the new implicit method is the separation of sensible and latent heat terms in a discretized enthalpy formulation. Investigations suggest that due to the small number of iterations per time step (on average 23) in the one dimensional runs.R. Having an efficient means of solving the enthalpy formulation does not create a "magical" means of solving all phase-change problems. such schemes may be applied more effectively (Voller & Cross. If SOR is to improve the efficiency then it appears that sophisticated methods for choice of an optimum co will need to be developed.org at kingstonuni on July 8. SOR would have no noticeable benefit. The inherent drawbacks found in use of the enthalpy method. Conclusions The aim of this paper has been to investigate and develop implicit numerical solution methods for the enthalpy formulation of phase change problems. 1980) is where co is varied automatically according to the relative sizes of the two-phase regions. 1983b). In addition. should be possible. SOR techniques may enhance the results given in Table 4. In two dimensions. 1983a. does reduce the iterations.g. e. however. 1981). 2011 . (3) The programming requirements for the Furzeland method are less.212 v . employing the simple SOR strategy of a global value of 2 > a> > 1 for control volumes not changing state and a value of co = 1 for regions which are changing state (Elliott. geometric complex regions or variations in thermal properties. (1973). Application of the methods developed in this work to more complex problems. One such candidate. in one dimension the Furzeland method required about 60 lines and the new method about 80 lines. The approach adopted has been pragmatic in nature and the major interest has been in the development of an implicit enthalpy method which is computationally more general and efficient than existing methods. With an efficient implicit enthalpy solution. proposed by Elliott (as reported in Furzeland. thereby introducing a latent heat source in the equations which acts as a linearization term in subsequent iterative solutions. only one variable (i.e. b). however. although "messy". Bonacina et al.VOLLER simultaneously the CPU usage of the White or Furzeland and New methods might be compatable. will still make themselves noticed.and two-dimensional solidification test problems the New method is 20-50% faster than previous methods. e. (4) As noted above. Voller et al. A rigorous analysis of the numerical techniques presented is left to another time. (1979).g.oxfordjournals. This represents an advantage over previous schemes in that the form of the iterative scheme does not depend on the iterated values. The additional complexity in the programming. Hence there is still a need for remedial schemes such as those proposed by Voller & Cross (1981. offsets any improvement in efficiency. temperature) is explicitly solved for at each time step. The reason for this is that the development of the method is compatible with the control volume conservation numerical technique Downloaded from imajna.

Int.org at kingstonuni on July 8. 2011 SCHNEIDER. 1975. accurate. M. C. ASME Annual Meeting. & CROSS. 1981 Accurate solutions of moving boundary problems using the enthalpy method. & PRIMICERIO. Int. Schneider. 1983 Interpretation of the enthalpy in a discretized multi-dimensional region undergoing a phase change. 411-429. J. Heat Mass Transfer 26. 1975 A numerical method to determine the temperature distribution around' a Moving Weld Pool. W. New York: Academic Press. M. VOLLER. Eds). M. 33-340. J. R.. R. R. London: Pentech. FURZELAND. Swansea: Pineridge Press. IMA J. W. 1973 Multi-dimensional Stefan problems. VOLLER. 1981. COMINI. G. On thefiniteelement approximation of an elliptic variational inequality arising from an implicit time discretization of the Stefan problem. VOLLER. & SPARROW. Elliott of Imperial College. R. Mech. 3 (Lewis. K. Analysis 10. This approach in the development of a numerical scheme copes well with such situations. In Computer Methods in Fluids (Morgan. V. C. . VOLLER.g. Vol. Strong & Yaranovich. Heat Mass Transfer 16. In Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems. Swansea: Pineridge Press. W. & Smith. Maths Applies 26. 1970 Iterative Solutions of Non-linear Equations in Several Variables. Analysis 1. Heat Mass Transfer 24. Inst. Current interest. MEYER. Essentially all that is required is the correct formulation of the discrete equations describing heat flow in and out of control volume [e. however. R. A. MORGAN. efficient. J. E. A. M. K. A. & YARANOVICH. Gartling. convective/conduction phase change (Morgan. Int. Eds).. Enthalpy methods have proved a useful means of solving relatively simple phasechange problems. M. A. & Morgan. G. ORTEGA. is directed towards applications of enthalpy formulations in more complex problems. 323-328. Equation (4a)].. 522-538. num. J. V. 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow.. & CROSS. Dr M. e. & WALTON. H. M. R.. FASANO. D. D. Eds).ENTHALPY FORMULATION OF STEFAN PROBLEMS 213 (Patanker. PATANKAR. REFERENCES C . & GROSS. 1975 Analysis of multi-dimensional conduction phase change via the enthalpy model. num. & Hodgkins. Comput. C. LONGWORTH. Heat Transfer ASME 97. 1980 A comparative study of numerical methods for moving boundary problems. STRONG. J. 1975 A physical approach to the finite difference solution of the conduction equation in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. 115-125. Texas. & Brebbia.... R. flexible and robust enthalpy schemes are required. Commun. SIAM J. M. Heat Mass Transfer 10. K. In Moving Boundary Problems in Heat Flow and Diffusion (Ockendon. London. R. & RHEINBOLT. W. M. W. V. 545-556. M. it is hoped. Oxford: OUP. 275-284. Downloaded from imajna. K. 1983a An explicit numerical mediod to track a moving phase change front. Engng 28. M. J.g. CROSS. Meth. J. 19836 Use of the enthalpy method in the solution of Stefan problems. 147-150. /. V. The author would like to thank Dr C.. 1981 Numerical analysis of freezing and melting with convection. 1980 Finite element analysis of convective heat transfer problems with change of phase. R. New York: Hemisphere. app. B. S. Taylor. Johnson. V. The enthalpy scheme presented in this paper. Houston. M. To move into such areas. goes some way towards meeting these requirements. 1981. Cross of Thames Polytechnic and the referees of the IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis for many helpful comments. Eds). GARTLING. 1975). 1980. 1979 Assessment of the weak solution technique for solving Stefan problems. BONACINA. N. E. 1825-1832. P.oxfordjournals. 1973 Numerical solutions of phase change problems. 1980). V. R. VOLLER. ELLIOTT. SHAMSUNDAR. New York: ASME publications. Int. R. G. In Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems (Lewis.

v . 1158-1172. E.214 WHITE.oxfordjournals.VOLLER R. 1129-1157. WHITE. num. E. Analysis 19. 1982a An enthalpy formulation of the Stefan Problem. R. 1982* A numerical solution of the enthalpy formulation of the Stefan Problem.R. Downloaded from imajna. 2011 . SIAM J.org at kingstonuni on July 8. num. SIAM J. Analysis 19.