Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Comparative study on natural convection melting in square cavity using T

lattice Boltzmann method
⁎
Ziliang Ruia, Juan Lib, Jie Maa, Han Caia, Binjian Niec, Hao Penga,
a
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Process Enhancement and New Energy Equipment Technology, School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, No. 30
Pu Zhu South Road, Nanjing 211816, PR China
b
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, No. 159 Long Pan Road, Nanjing 210037, PR China
c
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The phase change process is of significant importance in the application of phase change material (PCM). In this
Natural convection paper, the natural convection melting in a square cavity was investigated and the enthalpy-based lattice
Phase change material Boltzmann model (TLBM) combined with the pseudo-potential LB model was developed to trace the solid–liquid
Lattice Boltzmann interface. Four cases with different boundary conditions were calculated and the corresponding temperature
Liquid fraction
contours, velocity vectors and average liquid fraction at various time were compared.
Melting behavior
Results show that TLBM has good accuracy in simulating the solid-liquid phase transition process. Variation
in boundary conditions has appreciable impact on the natural convection process and melting behavior.
Comparing model.1 (single heating wall) with model.2 (double adjacent heating walls with cold wall), the
maximum liquid fraction is increased 16.7% in model.2 and the additional top heating wall acts to accelerate the
average melting rate by 16.7%. The comparison between model.3 (double opposite heating walls) and model.4
(double adjacent heating walls without cold wall) shows that the natural convection heat transfer is intensive in
model.3 and resulting in a 280% faster melting rate than that in model.4. Comparing the melting rate between
the model.5 (all heating walls) and model.3, the increase of 54% due to the more heating walls in model.5 is
observed.

Introduction [14] and the complicated heat transfer mechanisms of multiphase is

The phase change materials (PCM) are receiving significant atten-
tion for thermal energy storage in recent years [1]. A small volume of
PCMs can store massive energy during solid–liquid phase-change pro-
cess [2]. With the ability to absorb and release latent heat when un-
dergoing solid–liquid phase change process, PCM have been re-
commended to apply in waste heat recovery [3], liquid–air energy
storage system(microchannel [4], tank [5], packed bed units [6]),
thermochemical energy storage system [7], cryogenic thermal energy
storage system [8] and other thermal management systems [9]. Fur-
thermore, Microencapsulated Phase Change Material (MPCM) based
thermal energy storage technology has the potential to reduce the en-
ergy consumption of the buildings [10], by improving the indoor
thermal comfort, when integrated directly into the building materials
[11]. The solid–liquid phase transition is the key issue in analyzing
PCM thermal energy storage system [12] especially the latent heat
thermal system [13]. The moving boundary of solid–liquid interface
one of the main obstacles to solving the problem [15]. Consequently,
many numerical models are established to investigate phase transition
process and obtain accurate results. Among a series of 2D and 3D
models such as T-shaped enclosure [16], triangular chamber [17], and
porous enclosure [18] or chamber [19], the 2D square cavity is one of
the most used classic models. Due to its high computing efficiency and
intuitive results, the model has been applied to solve many complicated
thermal systems.
The Lattice Boltzmann method, as a relatively new numerical
model, is reliable in solving solid–liquid phase change problem.
Compared with traditional numerical models, its obvious advantages
such as the mesoscopic kinetic background, easy boundary treatment
and inherently parallelizable computation property make it an efficient
way for solving the energy equations.
Three types of models have been applied in phase transition simu-
lation: phase field LB method, interfacial tracking method and enthalpy
based LB method. In the phase field LB model, a governing equation for

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: phsight1@hotmail.com (H. Peng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103274
Received 24 April 2020; Received in revised form 16 July 2020; Accepted 24 July 2020
Available online 31 July 2020
2211-3797/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Rui, et al. Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274

Nomenclature Ste Stefan number

Ra Rayleigh number
c lattice speed [m·s−1]
ci discrete velocity in direction i [m·s−1] Greek symbols
cp specific heat [kJ·kg−1·°C−1]
fi density distribution function in direction i [kg·m−3] α thermal diffusivity [m2·s−1]
fieq equilibrium density distribution function [kg·m−3] β coefficient thermal expansion [°C−1]
Fi natural convection force [N] λ thermal conductivity [W·m−1·°C−1]
fl liquid fraction u Velocity [m·s−1]
G gravity acceleration [m·s−2] ν kinematic viscosity [m2·s−1]
gi temperature distribution function in direction i [kJ·kg−1] ωi weight coefficient in direction i
gieq equilibrium temperature distribution function in direction ρ density [kg·m−3]
i [kJ·kg−1] τf dimensionless relaxation time for density distribution
H total enthalpy [kJ·kg−1] function
Hl total enthalpy corresponding to the liquid temperature τg dimensionless relaxation time for temperature distribution
[kJ·kg−1] function
Hs total enthalpy corresponding to the solid temperature
[kJ·kg−1] Acronyms
L latent heat of the phase change [kJ·kg−1]
t time [s] LB Lattice Boltzmann
T temperature [°C] PCM Phase change material
Tc temperature of cold wall [°C]
Th temperature of heating wall [°C] Subscripts
Tl temperature of liquid phase [°C]
Tm melting temperature [°C] i direction
Ts temperature of solid phase [°C] l liquid
Fo Fourier number s solid
Pr Prandtl number

the order parameter is introduced to capture the phase interface. Based

on the phase field lattice Boltzmann, Abadi and Rahimian [20] applied
a hybrid lattice Boltzmann finite difference model to simulate the phase
transition in a ternary system. The model was validated against avail-
able results. In the interfacial tracking model, the movement of phase
interface was explicitly tracked by the Stefan condition. Huang and Wu
[21] proposed an Immersed Boundary-LBM for the simulation of so-
lid–liquid phase change problem. The momentum force term and en-
ergy force term were introduced to treat the solid–liquid interface. The
simulation results were satisfactorily consistent with analytical solu-
tions. Li and Wu [22] established the LBM with interfacial tracking
method to investigate the melting and solidification of thin gold film
and compared the results with those of Two-Temperature Model (TTM).
The results of the two models agreed well with the experimental data.
The phase field model and interfacial tracking model can basically solve Fig. 1. Model of phase transition in square cavity.
the phase transition problem, however, the treatments of velocity and
temperature boundary conditions on the phase interface were quite numerical error than other LBE in a large range of relaxation time. Ren
complex in these two models. et al. [26] used the enthalpy-based multiple-relaxation-time LBM to
The enthalpy-based LB model was introduced to simplify the phase study the phase change process of PCM in a latent heat thermal energy
interface treatment. Jiaung et al. [23] proposed the first enthalpy-based storage system and found that replacing rectangle fins with triangle fins
LB model for the phase transition problem with heat conduction. In this improved the charging rate of PCM. Eshraghi and Felicelli [27] pro-
model, the total enthalpy was divided into two different variables: la- posed an implicit LB model in order to simplify the calculating proce-
tent heat and sensible enthalpy. The latent heat term was calculated as dure. They employed their model to simulate two-dimensional solidi-
a heat source term in temperature field governing equation and an fication of a binary alloy and compared computational performance
iteration procedure was introduced to solve the implicit lattice Boltz- with FEM. The results of implicit LBM agreed well with those of FEM.
mann equation. The phase interface and total enthalpy were updated Huang and Wu [28] proposed the total enthalpy-based LB model, and
simultaneously. Several phase change simulations of different dimen- the latent heat term was combined with the time derivative term in this
sions were established to validate this model and the results were model in order to improve the stability and computational efficiency.
convincing. Xu et al. [24] extended the two-dimensional enthalpy- The temperature field equilibrium distribution function was modified to
based lattice Boltzmann model to treat the axisymmetric solid–liquid recover the correct governing equation. Hu et al. [29] incorporated this
phase change problems and obtained highly accurate results. Based on model with D3Q19 lattice and simulated several three-dimensional
the enthalpy-based LBM, Lu et al. [25] proposed an optimal two-re- solid–liquid phase change problems. The model was validated under
laxation-time (OTRT) Lattice Boltzmann Equation (LBE) and studied the condition that the solid phase is unfixed. Huang and Wu [30] in-
five cases including one-dimensional to three-dimensional solid–liquid vestigated the phase interface effects for this LB model and then im-
phase change process. Results showed that the OTRT LBE has a smaller proved the total enthalpy-based model by introducing the multiple-

2
Z. Rui, et al.
Fig. 2. Schematic of the four models.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the average fl between present LB model and previous
work.
relaxation-time (MRT) collision term to solve the velocity equation
[31]. Luo et al. [32] used the total enthalpy-based LB model to in-
vestigate the influence of various numbers and arrangements of tubes
on the melting dynamics of shell and tube models under different
Rayleigh and Stefan numbers. The improved model was demonstrated
to be accurate and efficient by studying a few melting cases.
Although the above LB models have been used widely for phase
change problem, it can be found that those simulation cases for the 2D
phase transition in square cavity were based on simple boundary con-
dition which includes top adiabatic wall, bottom adiabatic wall and
3
Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274
heating wall with opposite cold wall. The influences of the number and
position of heating wall on melting behavior were still insufficient and
the physical principles that led to those effects were not specifically
explained. In addition, the effect of cold wall was usually ignored,
further investigations were needed. Therefore, in present work, the
cases of natural convection melting process in a square cavity with four
different numbers and positions of heating walls were studied. The
difference in the numbers and positions of cold walls was also con-
sidered in these models. The enthalpy-based TLBM model combined
with the pseudo-potential LB model was developed to trace the so-
lid–liquid interface and the BGK approximation with D2Q9 Lattice was
applied to simulate the temperature and the velocity fields. The tem-
perature contours, velocity vectors and average liquid fraction at var-
ious times in these different cases were discussed and analyzed. The
physical principles behind the effect of different boundary conditions
were clearly revealed.
Lattice Boltzmann model
Basic thermal model
A computational domain of a square cavity was constructed in this
work.
The basic model (model.1) is shown in Fig. 1, the cavity is filled by
solid pure substance. The melting temperature of the pure substance is
Tm. The initial temperature of the cavity is Tc, the temperature of left
boundary is Th, and the top and the bottom walls are adiabatic.
The basic assumptions are:
(1) the liquid phase of the pure substance is incompressible.
(2) physical properties such as density, specific heat and thermal
Z. Rui, et al. Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274

(a)

Fig. 4. (a) Temperature contours and velocity vector graphs of model.1. (b) Average fl in model.1: single heating wall melting process.

conductivity of both liquid and solid phase are constant and equal. Conservation equations
(3) the liquid viscosity is constant.
(4) the solid phase is fixed to the boundary Enthalpy-based heat equation can be written as [32]:

For the comparative study, four models(model.2–5) with different ∂ (ρcp T ) ∂ (ρLfl )
+ ∇ ·(ρcp Tu) = ∇ ·(λ∇T ) − − ∇ ·(ρLfl u)
boundary conditions were established, as shown in Fig. 2 ∂t ∂t (1)

For a pure substance, the third term on the right side of Eq (1) is
usually ignored, Eq (1) can be simplified to:

4
Z. Rui, et al. Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274

Fig. 5. Temperature contours and velocity vector graphs of model.2.

∂ (ρH ) gi (x + ci Δt , t + Δt ) − gi (x , t )
+ ∇ ·(ρcp Tu) = ∇ ·(λ∇T )
∂t (2) 1 L
= − [gi (x , t ) − gieq (x , t )] − Δtwi (fl (x , t ) − fl (x , t − Δt ))
τg cp (6)
The total enthalpy is calculated as [32]:

H = cp T + Lfl the relaxation time τg is calculated by [28]:

(3)
3ν 1
τg = +
c 2Δt 2 (7)

Lattice Boltzmann equation for the thermal field Equilibrium distribution function for temperature field can be ex-
pressed as [28]:
In present study, 2D Lattice Boltzmann model with 9 velocity vec-
tors was used(D2Q9). The corresponding discrete velocities are [30]: ci · u (c ·u)2 u2
gieq = wi Tρ (1 + + i 4 − 2)
c2 2c 2c (8)
⎧ (0, 0) i =0
⎪ (cos( kπ − π ), sin ( kπ − π ) i =1-4 and temperature T can be evaluated from [28]:
ci = 2 2 2 2
⎨ kπ 9π kπ π 9
⎪ 2 (cos ( 2 − 4 ), sin ( 2 − 4 )) i = 5 - 9 1
⎩ (4) T= ∑ gi
ρcp i=0 (9)
and the weight factors are [30]:
The local enthalpy is obtained by the liquid fraction [28]:
⎧ 4/9 i=0
ωi = 1/9 i = 1 - 4 H = cp T + fl (t − Δt ) L (10)
⎨
⎩1/36 i = 5 - 9 (5)
The liquid fraction is obtained by the linearly interpolating of en-
The Enthalpy-based lattice Boltzmann methods ‘TLBM’ is used for thalpy [28]
solid–liquid phase transitions. TLBM uses temperature T as basic evo-
lution variable in the LB equation, and the phase transition term is ⎧ 0 H < Hs = cp Tc
⎪ H − Hs
considered as the sink term in collision step. fl (x , t ) = H − H Hs ⩽ H ⩽ Hl = Hs + L
⎨ l s
For the TLBM, the evolution equation for the temperature dis- ⎪
⎩ 1 H > Hl (11)
tribution function is expressed as [28]:

5
Z. Rui, et al. Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274

Fig. 6. Temperature contours and velocity vector graphs of model.3.

Lattice Boltzmann equation for the velocity field Pr = υ / α (16)

Natural convection is considered and the Lattice Boltzmann equa- Ra = Gβ (Th − Tc ) l3/ α (17)
tion for the natural convection source term can be expressed as [28]:
Ste = cp (Th − Tc )/ L (18)
1
fi (x + ci Δt , t + Δt ) − fi (x , t ) = (fieq (x , t ) − fi (x , t )) + ΔtFi ci
τf (12) Fo = αt / l 2 (19)

the relaxation time for the velocity field is [28]: To be noticed, in TLBM, the temperature can locally decrease below
the initial solid temperature when the sink term dominates at low
3ν 1
τf = + Stefan number (St), which is in contradiction with the phase change
c 2Δt 2 (13)
associated with pure substance melting. To avoid this situation, the
The equilibrium density distribution function fieq is calculated by value of St needs to be controlled at suitable level. Furthermore, the
[28]: pseudo-potential LB model was combined with TLBM model so the
boundary treatment on the phase interface was not required. To vali-
ci · u (c ·u)2 u2
fieq (x , t ) = wi ρ (1 + + i 4 − 2) date the present LB model, the results obtained in the present work was
c2 2c 2c (14)
compared with that in Mencinger’s work [34]. In his work, the Ra, Pr,
The natural convection source term Fi in vertical direction is com- and Ste number were 25000, 0.02, and 0.01 respectively, and the di-
puted by [28]: mensionless parameters in present model were set to the same values.
Comparison of the average liquid fraction (fl) between present LB model
Th Tc
Fi = 3wi ρGβ (T − − ) and Mencinger’s results is shown in Fig. 3. The maximum error of fl is
2 2 (15)
1.96% and the average error is around 1.54% which proves that the
present LB model is acceptable.
Results and discussions For all the following models, the dimensionless parameters were set
to be Ra = 25000, Pr = 0.02 and Ste = 0.5. All the results are obtained
Melting behaviors for single heating wall model on the 50 × 50 square grid. The Fourier number (Fo) is used to re-
present the time step. The LBM codes of this paper were solved in Visual
The Prandtl number (Pr), Rayleigh number (Ra) Stefan number (Ste) Basic. Fig. 4(a) shows the temperature contours and velocity vector
and Fourier number (Fo) are the four key dimensionless parameters to graphs (the black lines) of model.1. As shown in this figure, at Fo = 0.4,
characterize the melting behavior in the present work, as listed below the phase interface is nearly vertical and the distribution of the velocity
[33]: vector is generally regular. The reason may be attributed to the

6
Z. Rui, et al.
Fig. 7. Temperature contours and velocity vector graphs of model.4.
Fig. 8. Average fl comparison of model.1: single heating wall melting, model.2:
double adjacent heating walls melting (with cold wall), model.3: double op-
posite heating walls melting and model.4: double adjacent heating walls
melting (no cold wall).
following. The conduction effect plays the main role and the natural
convection term can be neglected at the initial stage of the melting
process. While Fo = 1, the phase interface is crooked and the solid
material in the upper part of the cavity melts faster than that in the
lower part. It can also be noticed that a whirlpool caused by the natural
7
Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274
convection appears in the upper part of the flow field. While Fo in-
creases to 2 and 4, the difference of the melting rate in the upper and
the lower part becomes pyramidally obvious, and the whirlpool in the
flow field increases sharply. It can be concluded that as the melting
process goes on, the effect of natural convection becomes significant.
Fig. 4(b) shows the average liquid fraction in single heating wall
melting process. It can be found that the melting rate slows down with
the increase of the distance between solid–liquid interface and heating
wall. Moreover, since the temperature of cold wall is lower than the
melting temperature, the solid materials in the cavity cannot melt
completely and the maximum value of average liquid fraction is about
0.6.
Melting behaviors for double heating walls models
In this section, the effect of double heating walls (model.2, model.3
and model.4) on the melting behaviors (temperature contour, velocity
vector and average liquid fraction) was investigated. The corresponding
boundary conditions were shown in Fig. 2(a), Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 2(c),
respectively.
In Fig. 2(a), the top and the left wall were both heating walls
(model.2). Fig. 5 shows the simulation results of the temperature and
velocity distribution. When Fo = 0.4, the melting process in the upper
area of the cavity is significantly accelerated compared with Fig. 4(a).
The natural convection phenomenon in the velocity field is clearly
observed at Fo = 1. As illustrated in figures of Fo = 1, 2 and 4, the
temperature contours and velocity vectors in the lower region are al-
most the same with those in Fig. 4(a), which indicates that the melting
behavior in the lower area in model.2 is similar with that in model.1. It
Z. Rui, et al.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. (a) Temperature contours and velocity vector graphs of model.5. (b) Comparison of average fl between model.3: double opposite heating walls melting and
model.5: all heating walls melting.
can be concluded that the top heating wall accelerates the melting rate
of the upper solid phase but it has little influence on the phase transi-
tion in the lower area.
In Fig. 2(b), the right cold wall was replaced by a heating wall. As
seen from the simulation results in Fig. 6, the temperature contours and
velocity vector graph are vertically symmetrical. While Fo = 0.4, the
temperature contour and velocity vector in the left half region of
8
Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274
model.3 are almost the same as those of model.1. Isotherms in central
area are in shapes of peak curve when Fo = 0.6. Two whirlpools can be
seen at this moment too, which means the convection term acts on both
left and right sides. While Fo = 0.8, the left and right liquid phase of the
upper region gets in contact with each other and the solid–liquid in-
terface is in shape of peak curve. While Fo = 1 the cavity is nearly filled
with liquid which means the phase changing process is almost
Z. Rui, et al.
complete.
In Fig. 2(c), the right cold wall is replaced by an adiabatic wall. The
top and right walls are heating walls. From the results in Fig. 7, while
Fo ≤ 2, the temperature contour, velocity vector and phase interface
are diagonally symmetric and the shapes of both phase interface and
isotherms are getting closer to quarter circle. However, the symmetry
does not exist anymore at Fo = 3, and the cavity is almost filled with
liquid. This is because that the gravity force only has little effect on
liquid phase while the solid phase exists. With the melting process
pushing on, the area of solid phase decreases and the effect of gravity
increases. Furthermore, the whirlpool in this model is obviously larger
than other models due to the influence of top heating wall and right
adiabatic wall.
In order to quantitatively analyze the melting behaviors, the com-
parison of average liquid fraction fl for models 1 ~ 4 is depicted in
Fig. 8.
The comparison between mode.1 and model.2 proves that the top
heating wall has little effect on the variation rate of the melting speed.
It can also be noticed that the maximum fl of model.2 increases to 0.7
which means the action of top heating wall increases the average
melting rate by 16.7%. Comparing model.4 to model.2, when Fo = 3.1,
the fl of model.4 and model.2 are 1 and 0.68 respectively. In other
words, the average melting rate of model.4 increases by 84.33% com-
pared with that of model.2. That is because the cold wall seriously
hinders the melting behavior. According to the comparison between
model.3 and model.4, the melting end time of model.3 and model.4 are
Fo = 3.1 and Fo = 1.1 respectively. It can be observed that the average
melting rate of opposite heating walls melting is 280% faster than that
of adjacent heating walls melting. The explanation can be given for this
phenomenon. The difference in temperature caused by left or right
heating wall induce an extra driving force in upward direction. The
upward driving force accelerates the movement of liquid phase in the
cavity and enhance the natural convection heat transfer. However, the
driving force arisen from the top heating wall only acts on the liquid
phase near the top wall because of gravity force. The conclusion can be
drawn that the natural convection heat transfer is intensive under the
action of right heating wall. Moreover, the trends of average liquid
fraction show that the melting rate in model.3 accelerates during
Fo = 0.6 to 0.8 which is obviously different from those of the other
three models. The reason can be attributed to the natural convection
phenomenon caused by left and right heating wall becomes especially
obvious when the left and right phase interface get in contact with each
other.
Melting behaviors for all heating walls model
As can be seen in Fig. 2(d), the cavity is heating from all directions.
Observing from the results in Fig. 9(a), while Fo = 0.4, the isotherms
near the center point and the solid–liquid interface are almost circular.
As the Fo increases to 0.6, the circular phase interface becomes elliptic
because of the faster melting rate in the upper area and the gravity
force. In addition, from the comparison of average liquid fraction in
Fig. 9(b), the sudden change in melting rate does not exist in all heating
walls melting process. The finish time of model.5 and model.3 are 0.68
and 1.05 respectively which means the additional heating walls in
model.5 increase the melting rate by 54%.
Conclusion
In this paper, the enthalpy-based TLBM model has been developed
to simulate the 2D natural convection melting process in square cavity.
For all examples with mixed boundary conditions, good accuracy is
demonstrated. The key findings are shown below:
(1) In model.2 (double adjacent heating walls with cold wall), the top
heating wall accelerates the melting rate of the upper solid phase
9
Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274
but has little influence on the phase transition in the lower area.
The maximum liquid fraction in model.2 has a 16.7% augment and
the additional top heating wall expedites the average melting rate
by 16.7%.
(2) The comparison between model.3 (double opposite heating walls)
and model.4 (double adjacent heating walls without cold wall)
shows that the difference in diving forces arisen form different
heating walls causes the enhancement in natural convection heat
transfer and a 280% faster melting rate in model.3. Moreover, when
the left and right phase interface get in contact with each other, the
enhancement in heat transfer caused by left and right heating wall
becomes especially obvious.
(3) Comparing model.2 with model.4, the average melting rate of
model.4 is 84.33% faster than that of model.2 because the cold wall
seriously hinders the melting behavior.
(4) The comparison between model.5 (all heating walls) and model.3
demonstrates that the additional heating walls increase the melting
rate by 54%.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ziliang Rui: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data
curation, Writing - original draft. Juan Li: Data curation, Formal ana-
lysis. Jie Ma: Writing - review & editing. Han Cai: Writing - review &
editing. Binjian Nie: Writing - review & editing, Supervision,
Validation. Hao Peng: Writing - review & editing, Resources, Project
administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51776095)
and Young Science Leaders Project of Jiangsu Province.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103274.
References
[1] Huo Y, Rao Z. Lattice Boltzmann simulation for solid–liquid phase change phe-
nomenon of phase change material under constant heat flux. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2015;86:197–206.
[2] Sheikholeslami M. Numerical simulation for solidification in a LHTESS by means of
nano-enhanced PCM. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2018;86:25–41.
[3] Salih SM, Jalil JM, Najim SE. Experimental and numerical analysis of double-pass
solar air heater utilizing multiple capsules PCM. Renewable Energy
2019;143:1053–66.
[4] Ding M, Liu C, Rao Z. Experimental investigation on heat transfer characteristic of
TiO2-H2O nanofluid in microchannel for thermal energy storage. Appl Therm Eng
2019;160:114024.
[5] Peng H, et al. n-Alkanes phase change materials and their microencapsulation for
thermal energy storage: a critical review. Energy Fuels 2018;32(7):7262–93.
[6] Peng H, Shan XK, Yang Y, Ling X. A study on performance of a liquid air energy
storage system with packed bed units. Appl Energy 2018;211:126–35.
[7] Chen XY, et al. State of the art on the high-temperature thermochemical energy
storage systems. Energy Convers Manage 2018;177:792–851.
[8] Shen T, Peng H, Ling X. Experimental measurements and thermodynamic modeling
of melting temperature of the binary systems n-C11H24–n-C14H30, n-C12H26–n-
C13H28, n-C12H26–n-C14H30, and n-C13H28–n-C15H32 for cryogenic thermal
energy storage. Ind Eng Chem Res 2019;58(32):15026–35.
[9] Shen T, et al. Experimental study and thermodynamic modeling of solid-liquid
equilibrium of binary systems: dodecane-tetradedcane and tridecane-pentadecane
for cryogenic thermal energy storage. Fluid Phase Equilib 2019;493:109–19.
Z. Rui, et al.
[10] Sheikholeslami M, et al. Acceleration of discharge process of clean energy storage
unit with insertion of porous foam considering nanoparticle enhanced paraffin. J
Cleaner Prod 2020;261:121206.
[11] Pushpendra KSR, Shailendra KS, Naveen KG. Potential of microencapsulated PCM
for energy savings in buildings: a critical review. Sustainable Cities Soc 2020;53.
[12] Chekmyshev KE, Ovcharenko PG. Numerical simulation of bimetallic casting
cooling during the process of lost foam casting. J Cryst Growth 2019;527:125243.
[13] Rathore PKS, Shukla SK. Potential of macroencapsulated PCM for thermal energy
storage in buildings: a comprehensive review. Constr Build Mater
2019;225:723–44.
[14] Fu W, et al. Preparation and properties of phase change temperature-tuned com-
posite phase change material based on sodium acetate trihydrate–urea/fumed silica
for radiant floor heating system. Appl Therm Eng 2019;162:114253.
[15] Charvát P, et al. Solar air collector with the solar absorber plate containing a PCM –
Environmental chamber experiments and computer simulations. Renewable Energy
2019;143:731–40.
[16] Izadi M, et al. Coupled FHD–MHD free convection of a hybrid nanoliquid in an
inversed T-shaped enclosure occupied by partitioned porous media. Numerical Heat
Transfer 2019;76(6):479–98.
[17] Izadi M. Effects of porous material on transient natural convection heat transfer of
nano-fluids inside a triangular chamber. Chin J Chem Eng 2020;28:1203–13.
[18] Izadi M, et al. LTNE modeling of Magneto-Ferro natural convection inside a porous
enclosure exposed to nonuniform magnetic field. Phys A 2019;535:122394.
[19] Izadi M, et al. MHD thermogravitational convection and thermal radiation of a
micropolar nanoliquid in a porous chamber. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
2020;110:104409.
[20] Haghani Hassan Abadi R, Rahimian MH. Hybrid lattice Boltzmann finite difference
model for simulation of phase change in a ternary fluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2018;127:704–16.
[21] Huang R, Wu H. An immersed boundary-thermal lattice Boltzmann method for
solid–liquid phase change. J Comput Phys 2014;277:305–19.
10
Results in Physics 18 (2020) 103274
[22] Li L, Wu M, Zhou L. Lattice boltzmann simulations for melting and resolidification
of ultrashort laser interaction with thin gold film. Int J Thermophys 2018;39(7).
[23] Jiaung WS, Ho JR, Kuo CP. Lattice Boltzmann method for the heat conduction
problem with phase change. Numer Heat Transf Part B-Fundamentals
2001;39(2):167–87.
[24] Xu X, et al. Axisymmetric lattice Boltzmann simulation of the heat-exchanger
method-based sapphire crystal growth. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2019;129:299–309.
[25] Lu JH, Lei HY, Dai CS. An optimal two-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann equation
for solid-liquid phase change: the elimination of unphysical numerical diffusion. Int
J Therm Sci 2019;135:17–29.
[26] Ren Q, Xu H, Luo Z. PCM charging process accelerated with combination of opti-
mized triangle fins and nanoparticles. Int J Therm Sci 2019;140:466–79.
[27] Eshraghi M, Felicelli SD. An implicit lattice Boltzmann model for heat conduction
with phase change. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55(9):2420–8.
[28] Huang R, Wu H, Cheng P. A new lattice Boltzmann model for solid–liquid phase
change. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2013;59:295–301.
[29] Hu Y, et al. Lattice Boltzmann simulation for three-dimensional natural convection
with solid-liquid phase change. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2017;113:1168–78.
[30] Huang R, Wu H. Phase interface effects in the total enthalpy-based lattice
Boltzmann model for solid–liquid phase change. J Comput Phys 2015;294:346–62.
[31] Huang R, Wu H. Total enthalpy-based lattice Boltzmann method with adaptive
mesh refinement for solid-liquid phase change. J Comput Phys 2016;315:65–83.
[32] Luo K, et al. Lattice Boltzmann simulation of convection melting in complex heat
storage systems filled with phase change materials. Appl Therm Eng
2015;86:238–50.
[33] Izadi M, Ghalambaz M, Mehryan SAM. Location impact of a pair of magnetic
sources on melting of a magneto-Ferro phase change substance. Chin J Phys
2020;65:377–88.
[34] Mencinger J, Wu H. Numerical simulation of melting in two-dimensional cavity
using adaptive grid. J Comput Phys 2004;198:243–64.