Heat Transfer Through a Two Material System due to a Light Source

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around modeling heat transfer from a light source into a system comprising two connected solid materials. The focus is on determining the temperature change in the bottom surface of the system, considering factors such as heat conduction, convection, and radiation. Participants explore various modeling approaches and assumptions related to the thermal behavior of the materials involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using the lumped capacitance approach, assuming negligible heat loss due to convection and radiation, to model the heat transfer.
  • Another participant questions whether all the heat from the light source is released at the top surface and suggests using the transient 1D heat conduction equation for each layer, emphasizing the need for continuity of heat flux at the junction.
  • Concerns are raised about the simplicity of the initial approach, with suggestions to consider convective heat loss and the potential impact of radiative heat loss if temperature increases are significant.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about applying the transient heat conduction equation to determine the temperature change in the bottom layer and discusses the implications of thermal mass on the sensor's response time.
  • There is a discussion about the materials being solids, clarifying earlier confusion regarding the mention of convection.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of incorporating thermal mass and environmental heat exchange in the modeling to accurately reflect the sensor's cooling behavior after laser pulses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the initial modeling approach may be overly simplistic and that a more detailed analysis involving transient heat conduction is necessary. However, there is no consensus on the specific methods to be used or the assumptions that should be made regarding heat loss mechanisms.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the initial assumptions, particularly regarding heat loss mechanisms and the treatment of thermal mass, which may affect the accuracy of the model. The discussion remains open to various interpretations and approaches to the problem.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals involved in thermal modeling, heat transfer analysis, and the design of sensors, particularly in contexts where light-induced heating and material properties are relevant.

ryanferg
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Heat Transfer Through Two Material System due to Light Source with Known Power
I have been given the task of modeling the heat transfer from a light source of known power into a system consisting of two connected materials. I must find the temperature change in the bottom surface. The two materials are initially in thermal equilibrium with the surroundings.

My first thought was to uses the lumped capacitance approach, thinking the resistance to convection will be much higher than that of conduction. I also assumed that heat lost throughout to the surroundings due to radiation or convection was negligible.

The percentage of light absorbed by the top material will be determined experimentally, so the heat flux into the top surface would be the power of the light (watt/cm^2) * % of light absorbed. Multiplying this flux by the area it is applied on and the time the light is on gives the total heat applied in joules, and setting that equal to rho*V*c(Tf-Ti) to get Tf, the new temperature of the top layer.

I was then thinking to use the new temperature difference between the top layer and bottom layer to get the heat flow due to conduction into the bottom layer, and then essentially repeating the same process to get the new final temp of the bottom layer (when integrating the conduction heat flow, I am unsure if I would use the same time as before, the amount of time the light was on).

However, this feels too simple to me and like I must be overlooking something. Is there a more accurate way to go about this? Are my assumptions valid?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Is this for schoolwork? If for regular work, what is the application?
 
Thanks. I am a college student; this is for summer internship. I am modeling part of a pyroelectric sensor. It consists of a top layer material that is high in absorptivity to absorb as much light as possible from a given power source and convert it to heat. This heat will then be transferred through conduction to the second layer underneath, a pyroelectric material, which is a material that induces voltage/current when exposed to a temperature change. I will be writing a script where material properties, geometries, power of light source, etc. can be input, and the output will be the temperature change of the pyroelectric and as a result induced current or voltage.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Congrats on the internship! We normally would move schoolwork-type questions to the schoolwork forums, but since this is for an internship it's probably okay here for now.

Is this purely a hand-calculation modeling, or will you also be running simulations in some software package? If you will be doing simulations, what software package/suite will you be using? Will you also be building an experimental setup to validate your calculations and modeling?
 
Thanks! I am first planning to write out the math by hand and make sure my theory is right, then transfer it into a MatLab script to easily change materials, powers, or geometries and see the effect on the temperature change. I will also generate plots on matlab.
Eventually, the sensor will be manufactured and experiments will be run to test the actual results. However, the purpose of my program is to determine which top material and geometry optimizes the sensor before it is built and resources are wasted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
In my judgment, your approach is overly simplified. Is all the laser heat released at the top surface?

You should be using the transient 1D heat conduction equation for each layer, with continuity of the heat flux at the junction between the layers. You may also need to include convective heat loss to the surroundings at the top and bottom surfaces (and, if the temperature increase is high, radiative heat loss as well).

This may have to be done numerically.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and ryanferg
I agree, it definitely was too simple. Can you explain more about the 1-d transient conduction? I have the equation written out, but I am unsure how to apply it in this situation to eventually get a delta t of the bottom layer pyroelectric. The temperature change will be small, so I am assuming radiation will be ignored. For convection heat loss, the biot number is extremely low, meaning conduction is dominant, so I was also thinking that this could be negligible. Thanks.
 
At first, I thought the two materials were solids but you mentioned convection. If they are gases, what prevents mixing?
 
Sorry for the confusion, they are both solids.
 
  • #10
ryanferg said:
I agree, it definitely was too simple. Can you explain more about the 1-d transient conduction? I have the equation written out, but I am unsure how to apply it in this situation to eventually get a delta t of the bottom layer pyroelectric. The temperature change will be small, so I am assuming radiation will be ignored. For convection heat loss, the biot number is extremely low, meaning conduction is dominant, so I was also thinking that this could be negligible. Thanks.
Are you saying that you do not know how to solve the transient heat conduction equation for a 2 layer laminate with constant heat flux at the upper surface?
 
  • #11
ryanferg said:
I agree, it definitely was too simple. Can you explain more about the 1-d transient conduction? I have the equation written out, but I am unsure how to apply it in this situation to eventually get a delta t of the bottom layer pyroelectric. The temperature change will be small, so I am assuming radiation will be ignored. For convection heat loss, the biot number is extremely low, meaning conduction is dominant, so I was also thinking that this could be negligible. Thanks.
What is it that you are actually trying to determine for your sensor?
The pyroelectric material acts according to change in its temperature.
Thus a small thermal mass would be appropriate.
Adding a covering material adds to the thermal mass of the unit with a resulting decrease in frequency response ( pulse period of the laser input ). Adding a covering unit with low conductivity ( or ie not thermally thin ) would result in a lagged response time due to the temperature gradient within the covering material.

Once the sensor reaches steady state temperature, either in active move with the laser input, or in relaxation mode with the laser off, the signal decays.

Somehow the thermal mass has to be incorporated into the modelling, as well as the exchange of the heat with the environment so that the unit can cool off after each laser pulse.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K