0
$\begingroup$

According to the textbook I am reading (Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer by Incropera), Fourier's law of thermal conduction, $q_x=-kA\frac{dT}{dx}$, is a law based on experimental evidence, not one that's derived from first principles. The book goes on to describe the experiment that the law is based on. A rod has length $\Delta x$, cross-sectional area $A$, and its end faces have a temperature difference of $\Delta T$. Holding $\Delta T$ and $\Delta x$ constant, we find that the heat conduction rate $q_x$ is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area $A$. Holding $\Delta T$ and $A$ constant, we find that $q_x$ is inversely proportional to the rod length $\Delta x$. Finally, holding $\Delta x$ and $A$ constant, we find that $q_x$ is directly proportional to the temperature difference between the rod's end faces, $\Delta T$. All of these results can be packed into the proportionality $q_x\propto A\frac{\Delta T}{\Delta x}$.

The problem I have with this is that the textbook only specifies that there is a temperature difference $\Delta T$ between the ends of the rod. It doesn't specify how the temperature varies between the ends of the rod is. Is it linear? If so, does the relation $q_x\propto A\frac{\Delta T}{\Delta x}$ only hold for a rod that has a linear temperature variation along its length?

This is just a guess but, maybe the text is implying that, since the temperature will vary linearly over infinitesimal lengths as you take the limit as $\Delta x$ goes to zero, we can just apply Fourier's law for every infinitesimal length along the rod and integrate?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your assessment is correct. The temperature variation does not have to be linear, and the equation applies over each differential element of the rod. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the confirmation. If you don't mind me asking an additional question: when we say that, for example, 500 W of heat is being conducted through a point in the rod, are we basically saying that 500 J of energy is passing through that point every second and this rate depends on the slope of the temperature centered around that point, dT/dx? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, q in this equation is the (local) rate of heat flow. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:54

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

If you've chosen to move from $q_x=-kA\frac{dT}{dx}$ for an infinitesimal element to $q_x\propto A\frac{\Delta T}{\Delta x}$ everywhere for a finite region (in other words, if you've chosen to replace a derivative with a finite difference), then yes, you've implicitly assumed that the slope is constant throughout the rod.

This replacement wouldn't work if the material or conditions were notably heterogeneous or if another heat transfer mode pertained (i.e., if the rod were made of two materials joined at their ends or if an internal heat source existed or if lateral convection or radiation were nonnegligible from the sides of the rod).

In turn, we must avoid any of these complications if we wish to measure the material property $k$ based on applying a temperature difference to a rod and measuring the resulting heat flux. Does this make sense?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the reply. Yes, that makes sense. But to specify what I was trying to ask, what I wanted to know was if this experiment that Fourier's law is based on was conducted with a rod that had a linear temperature distribution or not. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Otherwise, the thermal conductivity $k$ that one extracts is an effective value only—one that depends on the exact experimental details and isn't necessarily a true material property. For example, even if I use a uniform and perfectly insulated homogenous rod and measure the flux when the ends are held at 10°C and 20°C, I can only obtain the smeared-out effective average of the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature between 10°C and 20°C. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Makes sense. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 18:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.