1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thermal Ckt Parallel Configuration & 1-D HeatFlow Contradictory?

  1. Apr 30, 2015 #1

    My Conceptual Questions (5) is at 3.


    Case 1: two dissimilar slabs of material (say slab 1 and slab 2) connected in series (bonded at their interface). There is a temperature difference: T1 @ slab1 and T2 @ slab2.

    Case 2: two dissimilar slabs of material bonded together, i.e. parallel configuration. There is a temperature difference: T1 @ the midpoint of the entering interfaces configuration and likewise T2 @ end.

    -1-Dimensional Heat Flow (x-direction)
    -thin yet long materials
    -steady state

    2. None. There isn't really any equations other than parallel and series addition for thermal conductivity and resistivity for materials arranged longitunditally or traverse-ly relative to direction of heat flow.

    3. My own conceptual questions posed try to use reason to determine/understand. So, I considered it an attempt.

    Question 1) Despite that I say that I have constrained Case 2 to be a 1-Dimensional Heat Flow the heat will still move in a direction other than 'x', say 'y', even if just infinitesimally small because of the parallel configuration thereby violating the 1-Dimensional Heat Flow. Is this true? If so can you show this approximation mathematically?
    Question 2) Also, would this necessitate for something like a '2-Dimensional Heat Flow'?
    Question 3) Source 1 (below) talks about non-planar geometry (axisymmetric configurations?), however they constrain heat conduction along the single coordinate 'r', thus there is not a variation of heat flow in any other direction; could I not just constrain the heat to flow through series connected materials and drop the Quasi? Because would the Quasi part imply there is a slight variation in another dimension? -Also, the MIT source calls this Quasi-One-Dimensional-Heat-Flow-in-Non-Planar-Geometry.
    Question 4) If this is just an assumption for non-planar geometry fine. But why? Empirically accurate?
    Question 5) Wouldn't Case 2 be considered planar geometry? If so, how does that situation not contradict the 1-Dimensional Heat Flow Constraint? Or this just another assumption?

    -Thank you.

    MISC. Similar Question Asked by student in the MIT course questioning the accuracy of the 1-Dimensional Heat Flow:

    MP 16..2How specific do we need to be about when the one-dimensional assumption is valid? Is it enough to say that dA/dx is small?

    The answer really is ``be specific enough to enable one to have confidence in the analysis or at least some idea of how good the answer is.'' This is a challenge that comes up a great deal. For now, if we say that A is an area defined per unit depth normal to the blackboard then saying dA/dx is small, which is a statement involving a non-dimensional parameter, is a reasonable criterion.

    1) http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node119.html
    2) http://www.me.umn.edu/courses/old_me_course_pages/me3333/essays/essay 5.pdf
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2015 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Q1: No. ##{dT\over dy}=0## so no heat flow.

    Q2: see Q1 :smile:

    Q3: Quasi means you can move in 2 out of 3 dimensions (a thin cylindrical shell in this case) and not experience a change in heat flow: ##\dot Q(r, \theta, z) = \dot Q(r)##. By the way, this only works if ##{ dT\over dz }= 0##.

    Q4: mathematically it's perfectly Ok to assume ##{ dT\over dz} = 0## and ## {dT\over d\theta} = 0##, and assuming ## {dT\over d\theta} = 0## is physically completely acceptable too.

    Q5: see Q1. No, it's 1-D. They tell you that it is. Mathematically. Physically: wide slabs, so to speak -- either that, or perfectly isolated at the edges (##\vec {\dot Q}_y = 0##).
  4. May 1, 2015 #3
    Wow that makes a lot of sense! Though I still have some questions and responses to your answers.

    Answer 1&2: dT/dy = 0; no temperature difference between top and bottom! It's the temperature difference that drives the heat flow.

    Answer 3: Although the heat can still move in that additional dimension θ, there is not a change in heat flow in θ; because of the mathematical assumption Quasi-1-Dimensional Heat Flow Assumption? Doesn't this mathematical assumption also imply that dT/dθ = 0 too(as in Answer 4)? How does just setting dT/dz = 0 allow for this and not both dT/dθ and dT/dz?

    So as opposed to a 1-Dimensional and/or Quasi-1-Dimensional Heat Flows, a 2-Dimensional Heat Flow would indicate heat flow in two dimensions and with changes in those dimensions, e.g. dT/dr ≠ 0, dT/dθ ≠ 0? I am sure this would extend to the third dimension z too.....?

    Answer 4: Ok mathematically (theoretically) this makes sense. But experimentally this would be an approximation right?

    Answer 5: Aww yes I did forget to write the constraint insulated at top and bottom.

    Lastly, a parallel configuration would imply a quasi- 1-dimensional heat flow right? if dT/dy, and dT/dz are set equal to zero.

    -edit1: added the dT/dy and dT/dz part ==0
    -edit2: fixed everything that said quasi-static to just quasi.....sorry brain is used to doing mechanics.
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  5. May 1, 2015 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Correct. ##dT/dy = 0## so no heat flow in the y direction. In contrast ##dT/dx \ne 0## so plenty heat flow in the x direction. I thought I had picked up on your notation and choice of coordinates. Clarify if you think I am mistaken.

    It's not a mathematical assumption, it's a physical assumption that arises from seeing the symmetry (no physical difference if ##\theta \rightarrow \theta + \Delta \theta##). That translates into a mathematical condition ##{dT\over d\theta}=0##. Similarly translation symmetry (changing ##z\rightarrow z+ \Delta z##) leads to ##{dT\over dz}=0##. So a three dimensional problem is reduced to a 1 dimensional one. It's still a three dimensional configuration, so that's why it is called quasi-1d.

    Note that not only there is no change in heat flow in the ##\theta## direction: there is no heat flow in that direction.

    As I tried to indicate carefully ("By the way, this only works if ## { dT\over dz }= 0 ##".) the outward radial heat flow in source 1 -- where they mention "situations where fluids are pumped and heat is transferred" -- results in a temperature decrease (##dQ = c_pdT##), making the problem quasi 2-d !
    Yes. See above. It works for calculations on short or well-insulated pipes where the heat 'loss' doesn't lower the temperature too much.
    You can call it that, yes. Or you can call it two quasi- 1-dimensional heat flows ::smile:: because the heat flow in the slab that conducts better is not equal to the heat flow in the other slab. But within each of the slabs ##{d\dot Q\over dz} = 0##
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Thermal Ckt Parallel Configuration & 1-D HeatFlow Contradictory?
  1. Phase shifting ckt (Replies: 26)