The Enthalpy-Transforming-

Based Lattice Boltzmann Model

Yutao Huo
School of Electrical and Power Engineering,
China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou 221116, China
Zhonghao Rao1
School of Electrical and Power Engineering,
China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou 221116, China
e-mail: raozhonghao@cumt.edu.cn
for Solid–Liquid Phase Change
A new lattice Boltzmann (LB) model to solve the phase change problem, which is based
on the enthalpy-transforming model has been developed in this paper. The problems of
two-region phase change, natural convection of air, and phase change by convection are
solved to verify the present LB model. In two-region phase change, the results of the pres-
ent LB model agree well with that of analytical solution. The benchmark solutions are
applied to evaluate the present LB model in natural convection of air and phase change
material (PCM) as well. The results show that the present LB model is able to simulate
the temperature distribution and capture the location of solid–liquid interface in the cav-
ity accurately. Moreover, the present LB model is effective in computing owing to the fact
that no iterations are necessary during the simulations. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4040345]

Keywords: enthalpy-transforming, lattice Boltzmann, phase change, natural convection

1 Introduction Eshraghi and Felicelli [28] constructed an implicit scheme for

phase change, where the evolution equation of PCM during phase
The phase change material (PCM) has been widely used in ther-
change was modified. Furthermore, Feng et al. [29] applied the
mal energy storage [1], waste heat recovery [2], battery thermal
implicit phase change LB model to reveal the heat and mass trans-
management [3], and so on, with the large latent heat and little
fer behaviors of nanoparticle-enhanced phase change material.
temperature variation during solid–liquid phase change [4]. How-
Huang et al. [30] proposed a thermal LB model derived from the
ever, the heat, mass, and momentum transfer mechanisms at the
conservation equation of total enthalpy. Furthermore, Huang and
solid–liquid interface are extremely complicated, with which the
Wu [31,32] remove the phase interface effects using the multiply
analytical solution is hard to capture the location of solid–liquid
relaxation-time model and adaptive mesh refinement. In our previ-
interface. Consequently, some numerical methods have been pro-
ous work, the total enthalpy-based model has been used to investi-
posed to solve the phase change problem, including computational
gate the problems of phase change under constant heat flux and
fluid dynamics method [5], molecular dynamics method [6], dissi-
battery thermal management [33,34].
pative particle dynamics method [7,8], and lattice Boltzmann
In this paper, a new LB model for phase change is proposed,
(LB) method [9].
which is based on the enthalpy-transforming model proposed by
With the easy implements of nonslip boundary condition and
Cao et al. [35]. The rest of this paper is constructed as follows. In
parallel computing, the LB method has been applied to reveal the
Sec. 2, the enthalpy-transforming-based LB model for solid–liquid
flow and heat transfer phenomena successfully [10,11]. Unlike the
phase change is developed. The problems of phase change by con-
conventional computational fluid dynamic method, LB method is
duction and by natural convection are solved to verify the present
derived from the Boltzmann equation. There are three categories
LB model in Sec. 3. The summary is presented in Sec. 4.
of LB for solid–liquid phase change: the phase-field method [12],
the enthalpy-based method [9], and the immersed boundary
method [13].
Based on the reaction model proposed by De Fabritiis et al. 2 Numerical model
[14], Miller [12] constructed a LB model to solve the solid–liquid 2.1 Conservation Equations. The solid–liquid phase change
phase change problem, where the phase-field method was applied problem for the Newtonian, laminar, and incompressible flow is
to capture the location of solid–liquid interface. Furthermore, this governed by the following equations [35,36]:
LB model has been used to solve the problems of anisotropic
liquid–solid phase change, anisotropic crystal growth, dendritic
@q
growth by convection, and flows with binary-alloy solidification þ $  ðquÞ ¼ 0 (1)
[15–18]. @t
Jiaung et al. [9] established a LB model for solid–liquid phase
@ ðquÞ
change, derived from the enthalpy-based method. At each time- þ $  ðquuÞ ¼ $p þ $  ðl$uÞ þ F (2)
step, a large amount of iterations were necessary to compute the @t
temperature and liquid fraction for all the nodes. A simpler
iterative scheme proposed by Brent et al. [19] was applied by @ ðqhÞ
þ $  ðquhÞ ¼ $  ðkrT Þ (3)
Chatterjee [20,21] to decrease the computing time. Another @t
enthalpy-based LB method was proposed by Semma et al.
[22,23], which treated the two-phase zone as porous media. Huber where q, k, and l are density, thermal conductivity, and dynamic
et al. [24] extended Jiaung’s model to the problem of solid–liquid viscosity of PCM, respectively. T, u, p, and t represent tempera-
phase change by natural convection, which has also been used to ture, velocity, pressure, and time, respectively. The third term on
solve the problems of phase change in porous media at the repre- the right-hand side of Eq. (2) denotes the body force term, which
sentative elementary volume scale [25] and pore scale [26,27]. can be derived from

F ¼ qgbðT  Tref Þ (4)

1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL
OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received July 11, 2016; final manuscript received May where g and b denote the acceleration due to gravity and thermal
9, 2018; published online June 11, 2018. Editor: Portonovo S. Ayyaswamy. expansion. The subscript “ref” represents the reference term.

Journal of Heat Transfer Copyright V

C 2018 by ASME OCTOBER 2018, Vol. 140 / 102301-1

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The enthalpy h in Eq. (3) is determined by

8
>
> C ðT  Tm Þ þ Cps DT T < Tm  DT
> ps
> 
<
hsl hsl
h¼ Cpm þ ðT  Tm Þ þ Cpm DT þ Tm  DT < T < Tm þ DT (5)
>
> 2DT 2
>
>
: C ðT  T Þ þ C DT þ h T > Tm þ DT
pl m ps sl

where Cp denotes the heat capacity. The subscripts s and l repre- where c ¼ ðDx=DtÞ is the lattice speed and c2s ¼ 1=3c2 . The dis-
sent solid phase and liquid phase. hsl and Tm are the latent heat crete force term in Eq. (8) is computed from
and the phase change temperature. When the liquidus temperature
  
Tl is equal to solidus temperature Ts (Tl ¼ Ts ¼ Tm ), the 1 ei  u ei  u
solid–liquid phase change is assumed to occur over a temperature Fi ¼ xi 1  2
þ 4 ei  F
2sf cs cs
range (Tm  DT, Tm þ DT). For the case that the liquidus tempera-    (12)
ture is different from solidus temperature (multiple-component 1 ei  u ei  u
¼ xi 1  þ e i  qgbðT ref  T Þ
PCM), the phase change temperature Tm is equal to ðTs þ Tl Þ=2, 2sf c2s c4s
and DT is equal to ðTl  Ts Þ=2. Cpm is the heat capacity in the
mushy zone, which is defined as Then, the macroscopic quantities are given by
Cps þ Cpl
Cpm ¼ (6) X
8
2 q¼ fi
0
Furthermore, the thermal conductivity in Eq. (3) is a function (13)
of temperature as well, which can be computed from X
8
Dt
qu ¼ ei f i þ F
8 0
2
>
> ks T  Tm  DT
>
<
ks þ kl The thermal LB evolution equation is proposed in this paper to
k ¼ ks þ ðT  Tm þ DT Þ Tm  DT < T < Tm þ DT (7)
>
> 2DT update enthalpy, as follows:
>
:k
l T  T þ DT m
1 
gi ðx þ ei Dt; t þ DtÞ ¼ gi ðx; tÞ  gi ðx; tÞ  geq
i ðx; tÞ (14)
sg
2.2 Lattice Boltzmann Model. The momentum and mass are
solved with the density distribution, where the evolution equation where gi is the distribution function for enthalpy in direction i, sg
with BGK collision term is described as follows [37]: is the dimensionless relaxation time for enthalpy, geqi is the equi-
librium distribution function for enthalpy, as follows:
1  " !#
fi ðx þ ei Dt; t þ DtÞ ¼ fi ðx; tÞ  fi ðx; tÞ  fieq ðx; tÞ þ DtFi (8) ei  u ðei  uÞ2 u2
sf eq
gi ¼ xi h þ Cpl T þ  2 þ -i ðCpl T  hÞ
c2s 2c4s 2cs
where fi is the distribution for density in direction i. sf and Dt are
the dimensionless relaxation time and time-step. fieq is the equilib- (15)
rium distribution function for the density which is defined as
where -i is the additional weighting coefficient
" #
ei  u ðei  uÞ2 u2 8
eq
fi ¼ xi q 1 þ 2 þ  2 (9) >
> X8
cs 2c4s 2cs < x i¼0
i
-i ¼ i¼1 (16)
>
>
where cs is the lattice sound speed. ei and xi are the discrete : x i 6¼ 0
i
velocity and weighting coefficient in direction i, which are deter-
mined by (D2Q9) With the definitions mentioned above, the relations between LB
8 quantities and macroscopic quantities are
>
> 4
>
> i¼0 X eq
>
> 9 gi ¼ h (17)
<
1 i
xi ¼ i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 (10)
>
> 9 X
>
> ei geq
> 1
> i ¼ Cpl Tu (18)
: i ¼ 5; 6; 7; 8 i
36
8 X
> ð0; 0Þ i¼0 ei ei geq 2
i ¼ Cpl Tuu þ Cpl Tcs I (19)
>
>
>
>      i
> p
< c cos ði  1Þ ; sin ði  1Þp
i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
ei ¼ 2 2 where I is the unit second-order tensor. The enthalpy is computed
>
>       from
>
> pffiffiffi p p
>
>
: 2c cos ð2i  1Þ ; sin ð2i  1Þ i ¼ 5; 6; 7; 8 X
4 4 h¼ gi (20)
(11) i

102301-2 / Vol. 140, OCTOBER 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 With the Chapman–Enskog expansion, Eq. (3) can be derived Combining Eqs. (29) and (34), the following equation can be
from Eq. (14). Using the Taylor expansion, Eq. (14) becomes derived:
   2   
@ Dt2 @ 1  @ ðhÞ 1
Dt þ e i  $ gi þ þ ei  $ ¼  gi  geq (21) þ $ðCpl TuÞ ¼ $  sg  Dtc2s $Cpl T (35)
@t 2 @t sg i @t 2

By introducing a small expansion parameter K, the following with

equations can be obtained:  
k 1
a¼ ¼ sg  Dtc2s (36)
@ @ @ qCpl 2
¼K þ K2 (22)
@t @t1 @t2
where a is the thermal diffusivity of PCM.
$ ¼ K$1 (23) Similarly, Eqs. (1) and (2) can be derived from Eq. (8) by
Chapman–Enskog with the definition of
ð0Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ ðnÞ
gi ¼ gi þ Kgi þ K 2 gi þ    þ K n gi þ    (24)  
l 1
 ¼ ¼ sf  Dtc2s (37)
Substituting Eqs. (22) to (24) into Eq. (21) and rewriting Eq. q 2
(21) in the consecutive orders of parameter K, one obtains
where  denotes the kinetic viscosity.
ð0Þ
K 0 : gi ¼ geq
i (25) Obviously, Eq. (35) is not the same as Eq. (3). As shown in Eq.
  (5), the enthalpy is the function of temperature. Equation (5) can
@ ð Þ 1 ð1Þ be rewritten as follows:
K1 : þ ei  $1 gi 0 ¼  g (26)
@t1 sg Dt i
h ¼ Cp ðTÞðT  Tm Þ þ bðTÞ (38)
ð Þ   
@g 0 1 @ ð Þ 1 ð2Þ
K2 : i þ 1  þ ei  $1 gi 1 ¼  g (27) with
@t2 2sg @t1 sg Dt i
8
>
> Cps T  Tm  DT
From Eqs. (17), (20), and (25), it indicates that >
<
X ðnÞ h
Cp ðT Þ ¼ Cpm  sl Tm  DT < T < Tm þ DT
gi ¼ 0 n > 0 (28) >
> 2DT
>
:
i Cpl T  Tm þ DT
Taking summation of Eqs. (26) and (27), one gets 8
>
> Cps DT T  Tm  DT
>
<
@ ðhÞ h
þ $1 ðCpl TuÞ ¼ 0 (29) bðT Þ ¼ Cpm DT þ sl Tm  DT < T < Tm þ DT (39)
@t1 >
> 2
>
:
  X ð1Þ Cps DT þ hsl T  Tm þ DT
@ ðhÞ 1
þ 1 $1  ei gi ¼ 0 (30)
@t2 2sg i Substituting Eq. (38) into Eq. (3), we get
   
@ qTCp ðT Þ   @ qbðT Þ
From Eq. (26), the following equation can be determined þ $  quTCp ðT Þ ¼ $  ðkrT Þ 
  @t   @t
X ð1Þ @ ðCpl TuÞ  $  qubðT Þ (40)
ei gi ¼ sg Dt þ $1  Cpl Tuu þ Cpl Tc2s I (31)
i
@t1
For the energy conservation equation for liquid phase of PCM, the
second and third terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (40) must be
Applying the dimensionless forms of quantities, one gets kept as zero. Clearly, for the pure liquid phase or solid phase,
U0 Cpl T0 @ ðT  u Þ U02 Cpl T0     c2s T0   bðTÞ is a constant which does not vary with time. Namely, the sec-
þ $1 T u u þ $ T ond term in the right-hand side is equal to zero. However, the third
t0 @t1 L L 1
! term cannot be omitted since bðTÞ depends on space. Besides, $ 
c2 Cpl T0 U0 L @ ðT  u Þ U02     ½qubðTÞ leads to physically unrealistic oscillatory results unless
¼ s þ 2 $1 T u u þ $1 T  the discrete space is small enough [36]. In the case that the mushy
L t0 c2s @t1 cs
! zone is narrow, the effect of the last convection term is little [38].
c2 Cpl T0 L @ ðT  u Þ Consequently, in order to get more accurate simulation, the third
¼ s Ma þ Ma2 $1 T  u u þ $1 T  term in the right-hand side have been ignored in this paper.
L t0 cs @t1
The evolution equation of the present LB model is the same as
(32) the one of Huang’s model, reported in Ref. [30]. However, unlike
where Ma is the Mach number, and L is the characteristic length. Huang’s model, the update of enthalpy in present LB model is
Obviously, keeping L=t0 cs  1 and Ma  1, the first and second based on Eq. (5), and the phase change is assumed to occur in the
terms in the bracket are able to be omitted. Namely, Eq. (32) range of (Tm  DT, Tm þ DT) for pure PCM. The thermal conduc-
becomes tivity and heat capacity are the functions of temperature and the
macroscopic conservation equation (Eq. (40)) in this paper is not
X ð1Þ the same as that of Huang’s model (Eq. (1c) in Ref. [30]). Further-
ei gi  sg Dt$1 Cpl Tc2s (33) more, no iterations are necessary in the present LB mode. The
i
enthalpy and temperature can be updated directly.
Furthermore, substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (30), one obtains
   3 Results and Discussion
@ ðhÞ 1
þ $1   sg Dtc2s $1 Cpl T ¼ 0 (34) 3.1 Two-Region Phase Change Problem. In this section, the
@t2 2 problem of two-region phase change by conduction is solved by

Journal of Heat Transfer OCTOBER 2018, Vol. 140 / 102301-3

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 Schematic of two-region phase change by conduction

the present LB model. As shown in Fig. 1, the PCM is at the cold

temperature Tc initially, and the cold temperature is lower than
the melting temperature Tm . When t > 0, the temperature of left
wall suddenly rises to hot temperature Th , which is greater than
the melting temperature. Based on what are mentioned above, the
temperature field can be got analytically as follows [39]
8  
>
> Th  Tm x
>
> Th  erf pffiffiffiffiffi 0xr
>
< erf ðkÞ 2 al t Fig. 2 The comparison between analytical method and present
T¼   (41) LB model for two-region phase change problem
> Tm  Tc x
>
> Tc þ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi erfc pffiffiffiffiffiffi x>r
>
> 2 as t
: erfc k as =al sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi
ðTLB  Texact Þ2
E¼ (45)
where al ¼ kl =ðqCpl Þ and as ¼ ks =ðqCps Þ are thermal diffusivities n
of liquidus phase and solidus phase; r denotes the location of
solid–liquid interface; k is a constant which can be derived from where n denotes the number of lattice.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The temperature distributions from present LB model and ana-
Cpl ðTh  Tm Þ Cps ðTm  Tc Þ as =al pffiffiffi lytical method have been shown in Fig. 2. The Stefan number is
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼k p (42) fixed at 0.02, and the discrete space Dx is set as 0.7. The time-step
ek2 erf ðkÞhsl 2
ek al =as erfc k= a =a h
s l sl Dt is kept as 0.5, and 200 lattices are applied in the simulations. h
is set as 0.001. As presented in Fig. 2, the results of present LB
Furthermore, the location of solid–liquid interface is computed model agree well with that of analytical method. When the ratio
from of thermal diffusivity is 0.1 and the dimensionless time is 0.25,
the error is only 0.0018. The results show that the present LB
r model is able to reveal heat transfer behavior of phase change by
k ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi (43)
2 af t conduction.

For convenience, the following dimensionless properties are 3.2 Natural Convection Without Phase Change. In this sec-
defined: tion, the problem of natural convection without phase change has
been solved to evaluate the present LB model. The schematic of
T  Tm x al t Cpl ðTh  Tm Þ natural convection is presented in Fig. 3(a). The square cavity is
T ¼ ; x ¼ ; t ¼ ; Ste ¼ ;
Th  Tm L L2 hsl full of air, whose Prandtl number is set as 0.71. The left wall and
DT right wall are kept at the temperature of Th and Tc with Th > Tc .
h¼ (44) The upper and bottom walls are adiabatic. Some additional dimen-
Th  Tc
sionless quantities are defined as
where Ste represents the Stefan number. Furthermore, the error
between LB model and analytical method is determined as y gbðT  Tref ÞL3 
y ¼ ; Ra ¼ ; Pr ¼ (46)
follows: L a a

Fig. 3 Schematics of natural convection (a) without phase change and (b) with phase change

102301-4 / Vol. 140, OCTOBER 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Comparison between present LB model and bench- Table 2 The dimensionless quantities of two cases
mark solution
Pr Ste Ra
Ra Model Numax yNumax Nuave
Case 1 0.02 0.01 2.5 104
4
10 a 3.56224 0.8672 2.2591 Case 2 0.02 0.01 2.5 105
b 3.5309 0.8531 2.2442
5
10 a 7.8438 0.9297 4.5619
b 7.7201 0.9180 4.5216
106 a 17.912 0.9648 8.9142
b 17.536 0.9608 8.8251

a, Present LB model; b, benchmark solution [40].

where Ra is the Rayleigh number. Besides, the average Nusselt

number at the left wall is determined by
ð  
1 1 @T 
Nuave ¼ dy (47)
L 0 @x x ¼0

and the following criteria is to ensure the accuracy:

X
jCtþDt  Ct j
X < 109 (48)
Ct

where C denotes the temperature or velocity.

Three Rayleigh numbers have been considered in this paper,
104, 105, and 106. For all the simulations, the mesh system of
128 128 is applied. The comparisons of average Nusselt num-
ber, maximum Nusselt number, and its location between the pres-
ent LB model and the benchmark solution resulted from
Hortmann et al. [40] are shown in Table 1. The results of the pres-
ent LB model are close to that of the benchmark solution. Conse-
quently, the present LB model is able to reveal the behavior of
natural convection.
The isotherms of the natural convection flow with different
Rayleigh numbers are presented in Fig. 4. Increasing the Rayleigh
number enhances the natural convection in the cavity. In the
meanwhile, the isotherm tends to be parallel to the x-direction.

3.3 Natural Convection With Phase Change. In this sec-

tion, the problem of phase change by convection is solved by
enthalpy-transforming based LB model. The schematic of natural
convection with phase change is shown in Fig. 3(b). The cavity is
filled with PCM, whose liquidus temperature is the same as soli-
dus temperature, namely Tl ¼ Ts ¼ Tm . At t ¼ 0, the PCM is at Fig. 5 The comparisons of (a) average Nusselt number and (b)
melting temperature. However, in enthalpy-transforming model, total liquid fraction between present LB model and Mencinger’s
results for case 1
the initial temperature is set as Tm  DT. When t > 0, the

Fig. 4 Isotherms of the natural convection flow

Journal of Heat Transfer OCTOBER 2018, Vol. 140 / 102301-5

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 6 The comparisons of (a) average Nusselt number and (b)
total liquid fraction between present LB model and Mencinger’s
results for case 2
Fig. 7 The temperature contours and solid–liquid interface locations at: (a) t* 5 4.0, (b)
t* 5 10.0, (c) t* 5 20.0, and (d) t* 5 30.0
102301-6 / Vol. 140, OCTOBER 2018
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
temperature at left wall suddenly rises to Th , which is higher than
the melting temperature. The temperature at right wall is kept as
Tm  DT in the simulation. From then on, the PCM absorbs
energy from left wall and transforms from solid to liquid.
Two cases have been considered, which have been solved by Men-
cinger [41], as presented in Table 2. The mesh system of 128 128 is
employed, and h is set as 0.001. The liquid fraction is defined as
8
>
> 0 T  Tm  DT
<
T  Tm þ DT
fl ¼ Tm  DT < T < Tm þ DT (49)
>
> 2DT
:
1 T  Tm þ DT
and the total liquid fraction is determined by
ð
fl dV
fsuml ¼ ðV (50)
dV
V
where V denotes the volume of the cavity.
The comparisons of average Nusselt number and total liquid
fraction between present LB model and Mencinger’s results for
case 1 have been shown in Fig. 5. Obviously, the difference
between the present LB model and Mencinger’s work is nearly
invisible, including the Nusselt number and total liquid fraction.
With the time goes on, the melting rate gets more slowly. At the
same moment, the average Nusselt number decreases first and
then increases, resulting from the competition between conduction
and natural convection, as presented in Fig. 5(b). The comparisons
for case 2 are shown in Fig. 6. Once again, an excellent agreement
between two methods is achieved. Furthermore, the melting pro-
cess revealed by present LB model is slightly slower than that
revealed by Mencinger’s model [41]. It might be resulted from the
error in the Chapman–Enskog expansion, as shown in Eq. (32).
The average Nusselt number shows a violent oscillation since the
large Rayleigh number.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 8 The temperature contours and solid–liquid interface locations at: (a) t* 5 0.4, (b)
t* 5 1.0, (c) t*54.0, and (d) t*510.0

In order to further verify the enthalpy-transforming based LB fi ¼ distribution function for density in direction i (kgm3)
model, the temperature contours and locations of solid–liquid fl ¼ volume fraction of liquid
interface at different moment have been shown in Figs. 7 and 8 fsuml ¼ total liquid fraction
for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Apparently, the locations of Fi ¼ discrete force in direction i (N)
solid–liquid interface captured by enthalpy-transforming-based Fi ¼ discrete force in direction i (kgm3s1)
LB model are close to that by Mencinger’s model [41]. However, fieq ¼ equilibrium distribution function for density in direction i
as mentioned before, the melting front of present LB model is (kgm3)
behind the result of Mencinger, as shown in Fig. 8(d). g ¼ acceleration due to gravity (ms2)
gi ¼ distribution function for enthalpy in direction i (Jkg1)
4 Conclusions geq
i ¼ equilibrium distribution function for enthalpy in direction
i (Jkg1)
In this paper, the enthalpy-transforming based lattice Boltz- h ¼ total enthalpy (Jkg1)
mann model for solid–liquid phase change has been constructed. hsl ¼ latent heat (Jkg1)
The problems of two-region phase change, natural convection L ¼ characteristic length (m)
without phase change, and natural convection with phase change Ma ¼ Mach number
are solved to evaluate the present LB model. The difference of Nu ¼ Nusselt number
temperature distribution between present LB model and analytical p ¼ pressure (Pa)
solution is almost invisible. The natural convection behaviors of Pr ¼ Prandtl number
flow and heat transfer are able to be revealed by enthalpy- Ra ¼ Rayleigh number
transforming-based LB model, and the results agree well with that Ste ¼ Stefan number
of Hortmann et al. [40] and Mencinger [41]. Furthermore, the t ¼ time (s)
higher computational efficiency can be achieved by using present T ¼ temperature (K)
LB model, since no iterations are necessary at each time-step in Tc ¼ cold temperature (K)
the simulation. Th ¼ hot temperature (K)
t ¼ dimensionless time
Funding Data T  ¼ dimensionless temperature
u ¼ velocity (ms1)
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research V ¼ volume (m3)
Funds for the Central Universities (2017XKZD05). x, y ¼ coordinates (m)
x , y ¼ dimensionless coordinates
k ¼ thermal conductivity (Wm1K1)
Nomenclature
c¼ lattice speed (ms1)
cs ¼ lattice sound speed (ms1) Greek Symbols
Cp ¼ specific heat at constant pressure (kJkg1K1) a ¼ thermal diffusivity (m2s1)
ei ¼ discrete velocity in direction i (ms1) b ¼ thermal expansion coefficient (1K1)
F¼ force (N) l ¼ dynamic viscosity (kgm1s1)

Journal of Heat Transfer OCTOBER 2018, Vol. 140 / 102301-7

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

  ¼ kinetic viscosity (m2s1)
q ¼ density (kgm3)
sf ¼ dimensionless relaxation time for density distribution
function
sg ¼ dimensionless relaxation time for enthalpy distribution
function
xi ¼ weight coefficient in direction i
-i ¼ additional weight coefficient in direction i
Subscripts
ave ¼ average
l ¼ liquid
ref ¼ reference
s ¼ solid
0 ¼ characteristic
References
[1] Shon, J., Kim, H., and Lee, K., 2014, “Improved Heat Storage Rate for an Auto-
mobile Coolant Waste Heat Recovery System Using Phase-Change Material in
a Fin–Tube Heat Exchanger,” Appl. Energy, 113, pp. 680–689.
[2] Mathur, A., Kasetty, R., Oxley, J., Mendez, J., and Nithyanandam, K., 2014,
“Using Encapsulated Phase Change Salts for Concentrated Solar Power Plant,”
Energy Procedia, 49, pp. 908–915.
[3] Rao, Z., Wang, S., and Zhang, G., 2011, “Simulation and Experiment of Ther-
mal Energy Management With Phase Change Material for Ageing LiFePO4
Power Battery,” Energy Convers. Manage., 52(12), pp. 3408–3414.
[4] Liu, C., Rao, Z., Zhao, J., Huo, Y., and Li, Y., 2015, “Review on Nanoencapsu-
lated Phase Change Materials: Preparation, Characterization and Heat Transfer
Enhancement,” Nano Energy, 13, pp. 814–826.
[5] Yang, J., Yang, L., Xu, C., and Du, X., 2015, “Numerical Analysis on Thermal
Behavior of Solid–Liquid Phase Change Within Copper Foam With Varying
Porosity,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 84, pp. 1008–1018.
[6] Rao, Z., Wang, S., and Peng, F., 2013, “Molecular Dynamics Simulations of
Nano-Encapsulated and Nanoparticle-Enhanced Thermal Energy Storage Phase
Change Materials,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 66, pp. 575–584.
[7] Rao, Z., Huo, Y., and Liu, X., 2014, “Dissipative Particle Dynamics and Exper-
imental Study of Alkane-Based Nanoencapsulated Phase Change Material for
Thermal Energy Storage,” RSC Adv., 4(40), pp. 20797–20803.
[8] Rao, Z., You, X., Huo, Y., and Liu, X., 2014, “Dissipative Particle Dynamics
Study of Nano-Encapsulated Thermal Energy Storage Phase Change Material,”
RSC Adv., 4(74), pp. 39552–39557.
[9] Jiaung, W.-S., Ho, J.-R., and Kuo, C.-P., 2001, “Lattice Boltzmann Method for
the Heat Conduction Problem With Phase Change,” Numer. Heat Transfer: Part
B: Fundamentals, 39(2), pp. 167–187.
[10] Guo, Z., Shi, B., and Wang, N., 2000, “Lattice BGK Model for Incompressible
Navier–Stokes Equation,” J. Comput. Phys., 165(1), pp. 288–306.
[11] Peng, Y., Shu, C., and Chew, Y. T., 2003, “Simplified Thermal Lattice Boltz-
mann Model for Incompressible Thermal Flows,” Phys. Rev. E, 68(2).
[12] Miller, W., 2001, “The Lattice Boltzmann Method: A New Tool for Numerical
Simulation of the Interaction of Growth Kinetics and Melt Flow,” J. Crystal
Growth, 230(1–2), pp. 263–269.
[13] Huang, R., and Wu, H., 2014, “An Immersed Boundary-Thermal Lattice Boltz-
mann Method for Solid–Liquid Phase Change,” J. Comput. Phys., 277(0), pp.
305–319.
[14] De Fabritiis, G., Mancini, A., Mansutti, D., and Succi, S., 1998, “Mesoscopic
Models of Liquid/Solid Phase Transitions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. C, 9(08), pp.
1405–1415.
[15] Miller, W., Succi, S., and Mansutti, D., 2001, “Lattice Boltzmann Model for
Anisotropic Liquid-Solid Phase Transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 86(16), pp.
3578–3581.
[16] Miller, W., and Succi, S., 2002, “A Lattice Boltzmann Model for Anisotropic
Crystal Growth From Melt,” J. Stat. Phys., 107(1/2), pp. 173–186.
[17] Miller, W., Rasin, I., and Pimentel, F., 2004, “Growth Kinetics and Melt Con-
vection,” J. Crystal Growth, 266(1–3), pp. 283–288.
102301-8 / Vol. 140, OCTOBER 2018
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/29/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[18] Miller, W., Rasin, I., and Succi, S., 2006, “Lattice Boltzmann Phase-Field Mod-
elling of Binary-Alloy Solidification,” Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl., 362(1), pp.
78–83.
[19] Brent, A., Voller, V., and Reid, K. J., 1988, “Enthalpy-Porosity Technique for
Modeling Convection-Diffusion Phase Change: Application to the Melting of a
Pure Metal,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A Appl., 13(3), pp. 297–318.
[20] Chatterjee, D., 2010, “Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Incompressible Trans-
port Phenomena in Macroscopic Solidification Processes,” Numer. Heat Trans-
fer, Part B: Fundam., 58(1), pp. 55–72.
[21] Chatterjee, D., 2009, “An Enthalpy-Based Thermal Lattice Boltzmann Model
for Non-Isothermal Systems,” EPL (Europhys. Lett.), 86(1), p. 14004.
[22] Semma, E. A., El Ganaoui, M., and Bennacer, R., 2007, “Lattice Boltzmann
Method for Melting/Solidification Problems,” C. R. Mec., 335(5–6), pp.
295–303.
[23] Semma, E., El Ganaoui, M., Bennacer, R., and Mohamad, A. A., 2008,
“Investigation of Flows in Solidification by Using the Lattice Boltzmann Meth-
od,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 47(3), pp. 201–208.
[24] Huber, C., Parmigiani, A., Chopard, B., Manga, M., and Bachmann, O., 2008,
“Lattice Boltzmann Model for Melting With Natural Convection,” Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow, 29(5), pp. 1469–1480.
[25] Gao, D., and Chen, Z., 2011, “Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Natural Con-
vection Dominated Melting in a Rectangular Cavity Filled With Porous
Media,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 50(4), pp. 493–501.
[26] Chen, Z., Gao, D., and Shi, J., 2014, “Experimental and Numerical Study on
Melting of Phase Change Materials in Metal Foams at Pore Scale,” Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, 72, pp. 646–655.
[27] Song, W., Zhang, Y., Li, B., and Fan, X., 2016, “A Lattice Boltzmann Model
for Heat and Mass Transfer Phenomena With Phase Transformations in
Unsaturated Soil During Freezing Process,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 94, pp.
29–38.
[28] Eshraghi, M., and Felicelli, S. D., 2012, “An Implicit Lattice Boltzmann Model
for Heat Conduction With Phase Change,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
55(9–10), pp. 2420–2428.
[29] Feng, Y., Li, H., Li, L., Bu, L., and Wang, T., 2015, “Numerical Investigation
on the Melting of Nanoparticle-Enhanced Phase Change Materials (NEPCM) in
a Bottom-Heated Rectangular Cavity Using Lattice Boltzmann Method,” Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, 81, pp. 415–425.
[30] Huang, R., Wu, H., and Cheng, P., 2013, “A New Lattice Boltzmann Model for
Solid–Liquid Phase Change,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 59, pp. 295–301.
[31] Huang, R., and Wu, H., 2015, “Phase Interface Effects in the Total Enthalpy-
Based Lattice Boltzmann Model for Solid–Liquid Phase Change,” J. Comput.
Phys., 294, pp. 346–362.
[32] Huang, R., and Wu, H., 2016, “Total Enthalpy-Based Lattice Boltzmann
Method With Adaptive Mesh Refinement for Solid-Liquid Phase Change,”
J. Comput. Phys., 315, pp. 65–83.
[33] Huo, Y., and Rao, Z., 2015, “Lattice Boltzmann Simulation for Solid–Liquid
Phase Change Phenomenon of Phase Change Material Under Constant Heat
Flux,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 86, pp. 197–206.
[34] Huo, Y., and Rao, Z., 2017, “Investigation of Phase Change Material Based
Battery Thermal Management at Cold Temperature Using Lattice Boltzmann
Method,” Energy Convers. Manage., 133, pp. 204–215.
[35] Cao, Y., Faghri, A., and Chang, W. S., 1989, “A Numerical Analysis of Stefan
Problems for Generalized Multi-Dimensional Phase-Change Structures Using
the Enthalpy Transforming Model,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 32(7), pp.
1289–1298.
[36] Cao, Y., and Faghri, A., 1990, “A Numerical Analysis of Phase-Change Prob-
lems Including Natural Convection,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 112(3), pp.
812–816.
[37] Guo, Z., Zheng, C., and Shi, B., 2002, “Discrete Lattice Effects on the Forcing
Term in the Lattice Boltzmann Method,” Phys. Rev. E, 65(4), p. 046308.
[38] Danaila, I., Moglan, R., Hecht, F., and Le Masson, S., 2014, “A Newton
Method With Adaptive Finite Elements for Solving Phase-Change Problems
With Natural Convection,” J. Comput. Phys., 274, pp. 826–840.
[39] Hu, H., and Argyropoulos, S. A., 1996, “Mathematical Modelling of Solidifica-
tion and Melting: A Review,” Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 4(4), p. 371.
[40] Hortmann, M., Perić, M., and Scheuerer, G., 1990, “Finite Volume Multigrid
Prediction of Laminar Natural Convection: Bench-Mark Solutions,” Int. J.
Numer. Methods Fluids, 11(2), pp. 189–207.
[41] Mencinger, J., 2004, “Numerical Simulation of Melting in Two-Dimensional
Cavity Using Adaptive Grid,” J. Comput. Phys., 198(1), pp. 243–264.
Transactions of the ASME