Register to reply

Derivation of Heat Conduction in Spherical Co-Ordinates

by Tsunoyukami
Tags: conduction, coordinates, derivation, heat, spherical
Share this thread:
Tsunoyukami
#1
Feb20-12, 08:56 PM
P: 207
I have two questions. I believe I have solved the first question and would like confirmation of this answer; the second question I'm a little bit lost on so any help there would be greatly appreciated!

I am working on a problem set in which I must derive the equation for heat conduction in spherical co-ordinates. I have completed part a, in which I derived the heat flux equation:

[itex]\frac{dq_{r}}{dr} + \frac{2}{r}q_{r} - \rho H = 0[/itex]

I have used Fourier's Law (to rewrite this equation for teperature), which states

[itex]\textbf{q}[/itex] = -k[itex]\nabla T[/itex], where [itex]\textbf{q}[/itex] is the heat flux and it is a vector (I couldn't find a vector symbol, so it is simply bolded) and [itex]\nabla [/itex] is the gradient.

Using the gradiant for speherical co-ordinates, and considering only changes in the radial direction (so that [itex] \frac{\delta T}{\delta \phi}[/itex] and [itex]\frac{\delta T}{\delta \theta}[/itex] are 0) we can write:

[itex]\nabla T = \frac{dT}{dr} \widehat{r}[/itex]

So we can write:

[itex]\textbf{q} = q_{r} = -k \nabla T = -k \frac{dT}{dr} \widehat{r}[/itex]

[itex]\frac{dq_{r}}{dr} + \frac{2}{r}q_{r} - \rho H = 0[/itex]

[itex]\frac{d}{dr} ( -k \frac{dT}{dr}) - \frac{2k}{r} \frac{dT}{dr} - \rho H = 0[/itex]

Assuming k is a constant:

[itex]-k \frac{d^{2}T}{dr^{2}} - \frac{2k}{r} \frac{dT}{dr} - \rho H = 0[/itex]

[itex] (\frac{d^{2}T}{dr^{2}} + \frac{2}{r} \frac{dT}{dr}) + \frac{\rho H}{k} = 0[/itex]

So I have written this as an equation for temperature instead of heat flux. Is this correct?

_______________________________________________________________________ _____

Next I am asked to solve the above equation for T(r) subject to the boundary conditions T(R) = [itex]T_{s}[/itex] (where R is the radius of the planet) and T(0) must be finite.

[itex] (\frac{d^{2}T}{dr^{2}} + \frac{2}{r} \frac{dT}{dr}) + \frac{\rho H}{k} = 0[/itex]

Using a hint that is provided I can write:

[itex] \frac{1}{r^{2}} \frac{d}{dr} (r^{2} \frac{dT}{dr}) = - \frac{\rho H}{k} [/itex]


Now, I'm not too sure how to simplify this. My E&M textbook says that the radial component of the Laplacian in spherical co-ordinates is equal to what I have on the left side of that equation so I could write (because we are assuming, as above that [itex] \frac{\delta T}{\delta \phi}[/itex] and [itex]\frac{\delta T}{\delta \theta}[/itex] are 0):

[itex] \nabla^{2}T + \frac{\rho H}{k} = 0 [/itex]

What should I do next? Is there any way for me to simplify this further? Should I have not written it in terms of the Laplacian? How can I solve for an expression T(r)?

Thanks in advance! I appreciate any insight you can give me as to what the next step might be! :)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
NASA team lays plans to observe new worlds
IHEP in China has ambitions for Higgs factory
Spinach could lead to alternative energy more powerful than Popeye
Tsunoyukami
#2
Feb21-12, 11:29 AM
P: 207
So I've been thinking about this a bit more and I know that this expression must be correct because it agrees with the expression derived in class using Cartesian co-ordinates.

However, I need an expression for T in terms of r and this is where I get stuck.

[itex] \nabla^{2}T + \frac{\rho H}{k} = 0 [/itex]

[itex] \frac{1}{r^{2}} \frac{d}{dr} (r^{2} \frac{dT}{dr}) = - \frac{\rho H}{k} [/itex]

[itex] \frac{d}{dr} (r^{2} \frac{dT}{dr}) = - \frac{\rho Hr^{2}}{k} [/itex]

We can then integrate both sides with respect to r:

[itex] r^{2} \frac{dT}{dr} = - \frac{\rho Hr^{3}}{3k} + c_{1}[/itex]

[itex] \frac{dT}{dr} = - \frac{\rho Hr}{3k} + c_{1}[/itex]

Integrating again we can write:

[itex] T = - \frac{\rho Hr^{2}}{6k} + c_{1}r + c_{2}[/itex]

Is this correct? I'm concerned that I did something incorrect while integrating the first time; I feel like the 6 shouldn't be in the denominator. In Cartesian co-ordinates we have a 2 in the denominator. Where am I going wrong?

I believe there must be a 2 and not a 6 because if r is solely in the y direction (x and z = 0) the equation should reduce to what we found in the Cartesian case.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Surface area in spherical co-ordinates Calculus 1
Plotting a 3-d surface in spherical co-ordinates Precalculus Mathematics Homework 2
Gaussian Co-ordinates-background and derivation Special & General Relativity 2
Spherical co-ordinates General Math 0
Integrating in Spherical Co-Ordinates. Introductory Physics Homework 6