What Is the Governing Equation for Heat Transfer in a Composting Pile?

edge333
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



One dimensional system in vertical direction
2 meter high composting pile @ 65 \circC
Top of pile has wind @ 40 \circC and h = 50 W/m2*K
Bottom of pile at ground temperature of 20 \circC
Only conductive heat transfer WITHIN pile; no convection
Volumetric biochemical heat generation, Q = 7 W/m3
Compost has k = 0.1 W/m*K

a.) Setup the governing equation and boundary conditions
b.) Determine the temperature as a function of height from the ground
c.) Calculate the maximum temperature in the pile
d.) Calculate the top surface temperature of the pile

Homework Equations



General equation:​
\rho c_{p}\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} + \rho c_{p}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} ( uT ) = k ( \frac{\partial^{2}T}{\partial x^{2}} ) + Q​

Fourier's Law​
q_{x} = -k \frac{dT}{dx}​

Newton's Law of Cooling​
q_{x} = h ( T_{s} - T_{\infty} )​

The Attempt at a Solution



a.)
There is no storage and no convection within the pile, so the general equation reduces to:

\frac{d^{2}T}{dx^{2}} = -\frac{Q}{k}​

Boundary conditions:​
At x = 0, T = 20 \circC​
At \ x = L, -k \frac{dT}{dx} = h( T_{s} - T_{\infty} )​
Heat flux at the top surface due to conduction is equal to heat flux at the top surface due to wind convection​

b.)
Integrating once and using the second boundary condition gives:

\frac{dT}{dx} = - \frac{Q}{k} ( x + C_{1} )

C_{1}=\frac{h( T_{s} - T_{\infty})}{Q}-L​

C_{1}=\frac{(50 \ W/m^{2} \cdot K)(40^{\circ} C - 65^{\circ} C)}{(7 \ W/m^{3})}-(2 \ m)​

C_{1}=-177 \ m​

From what my professor said, this value for C(1) is incorrect (even the units). Haven't gotten to parts c.) and d.) yet. So I just need some using the boundary condition to find the first constant of integration.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is it possible your professor has defined C_1 as

\frac{dT}{dx}=-\frac{Q}{k}x+C_1

I would that's the more typical way to do the integration, though your way is fine too.
 
Yeah, that is the way some of my peers have done it (edit: tried to do it). However, the answer he gave us was 80.06 W/K which I can't figure out. Our my temperatures correct?
 
Last edited:
edge333 said:
Yeah, that is the way some of my peers have done it. However, the answer he gave us was 80.06 W/K which I can't figure out. Our my temperatures correct?

Sorry, the answer for what? C_1? C_1 can be defined multiple ways, so a number alone doesn't have any meaning without the definition.
 
I realize that C1 can be defined multiple ways but the units are in W/k. I have a feeling he made a typo on the units though because the value for C1 works numerically for the following equation in order to determine the maximum temperature in part c.), however, the units don't make sense:

T=-\frac{Q}{k}\frac{x^{2}}{2}+C_{1}x+C_{2}

where C2 = 20 degrees C found by using the first boundary condition.

Max Temperature:​
T_{max}, \ \frac{dT}{dx}=0​

0=-\frac{Q}{k}x+80.06​

x=1.14 \ m​

This answer, x, for Tmaxis another answer he gave us as being correct.

It seems to me that C1 should be in Kelvin per meter not watts per Kelvin[/INDENT][/INDENT] Then again that could just be a typo although I still cannot figure out how to solve for C1 regardless of method to find the correct solution.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top