I am trying to solve the steady-state solution of the 1D heat equation with a known source/sink term and non-homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, however I am not sure if an analytical solution does exist.
To summarize the equation is: $\kappa T_{zz} + f(z)=0$
and the boundary condition (BC) at the surface is: $\kappa T_z(z=0)=q_0$
For coherence, as the objective is to find the steady state solution, I assumed that the heat flux at the bottom ($q_h$) should balance the heat flux at the surface ($q_0$) plus the source term ($f(z)$) (i.e., equilibrium conditions), so that:
$\int_0^h \kappa T_{zz}\, dz= q_h - q_0 = - \int_0^h f(z)dz\,,$
the bottom boundary condition is then taken as: $\kappa T_z(z=h)=q_h=q_0- \int_0^h f(z)dz$
So, the first question is if this approach is correct.
Then, with these Neumann boundary conditions, integrating the equation one time one obtains:
$\kappa T_z = - \int f(z)dz + c_1$
from which $c_1$ can be calculated e.g., applying the boundary condition at the surface as $c_1= q_0 + \int f(z)dz\bigg|_{z=0}$.
Now, I do not know how to proceed as integrating the equation one more time will introduce the second constant $c_2$ that I do not know how to determine. So the second question is: is there an analytical solution for this problem? According to this previous question I would say that a solution exists but "the solution is not unique without imposing additional constraints". Here the constraints that (I think) one should use is the definition of $q_h$, but I am not sure if this is correct and in case how to use it.
So, if I correctly understand, the answer to the first question is: yes, the approach is correct and $q_h$ is correctly calculated.
As for the second question: no, the second constant cannot be determined. Also, using the condition on $T\prime(0)$ or $T\prime(h)$ gives the same value of $c_1$ (which can be easily verified).
Is this correct? Thanks!
(I just edited the original post adding the missing $\kappa$, thanks for point it out)
– farronait Apr 13 '21 at 16:50