Oregon State University

Addendum I: Analytical Solutions

to Selected Problems in the Laser
Flash Method

Nuclear Science and Engineering Senior Design Project

Advisor: Wade Marcum

June 13, 2017

Contents Contents

Contents

1 Background 3
1.1 Measuring thermal diffusivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Survey of Methods 6
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Cowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Cape and Lehman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Rectangular Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Axial Radiative Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.2 Non-radiative limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Elliptic Cylindrical Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 General Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Shape factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Peters 2
 1 BACKGROUND

1 Background

The goal of this appendix is to centralize analytical results for prior and current models
of heat transfer in the Laser Flash Method, while providing extra details about the
limiting cases and application of these models.

This appendix is organized as follows: Previous solutions for the cylindrical geometry by
Parker, Cowan, and Cape and Lehman are reviewed in Sections 2.1. A novel solution for a
pulse in rectangular geometry is presented in Section 2.2, followed by an overview of other
incomplete descriptions for elliptic cylindrical geometry (Section 2.3) and application of
Shape Factors (Section 2.4.1).

1.1 Measuring thermal diffusivity

The Laser Flash Method (LFM) for measuring thermal diffusivity begins with a solution
to the temperature profile T (x, y, z, t), or T (r, z, t), in a solid following a pulse of energy
to the face z = 0 (Figure 1):

dT
ρcp = ∇2 T (1)
dt

By determining the transient temperature behavior of the pulsed sample, the rear face
temperature response may be recorded in an experimental setting and then compared
to the analytical prediction to determine α in some way. In a typical experiment this
involves recording the half rise time t 1 , then applying an algebraic relation to recover α:
2

L2
α = 1.37 (2)
π2t

More advanced methods that account for radiative boundary conditions and different
sample geometries must either modify Equation 2 with corrections or provide an inde-
pendent solution for α that uses experimental data.

Peters 3
1.2 Notation 1 BACKGROUND

Figure 1: The disc sample with radiative boundary conditions receives a heat pulse at
t, z = 0 and loses heat through faces according to linearized radiative boundary
conditions

1.2 Notation

Table 1 lists the physical constants and sample properties relevant to analytical solutions
in the following sections. Additionally, the following are definitions of some important
physical constants:

k
α≡
ρcp
Q
T∞ ≡
ρcp V
 2
1 L
tc ≡
α π

Where V is the volume of the sample, the formula for which depends on the sample
geometry.

Peters 4
1.2 Notation 1 BACKGROUND

Table 1: Sample characteristics and physical quantities relevant to the solution of LFM
heat transfer
Symbol Property
T0 Initial Temperature
Q Heat flux depositition
L Sample Thickness
k Thermal Conductivity
rho Density
cp Specific Heat
z1 Emmisivity, front face
z2 Emmisivity, rear face
tc Characteristic time
T∞ Limiting Temperature
α Thermal Diffusivity
Cylindrical geometry
R Sample Radius
r Emmisivity, axial face
Rectangular geometry
2a Sample width
2b Sample length
x Emmisivity, x-face
y Emmisivity, y-face
Constants
σ Stephan-Boltzmann constant

Peters 5
 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

2 Survey of Methods

The methods presented here all assume the following properties of the experiment and
sample:

• Constant k

• Uniform pulse over face at z = 0

• Instantaneous pulse

Not all of these assumptions are necessary; many of the models can account for a time-
dependent pulse profile W (t) and inhomogeneities in the beam by accounting for an
initial temperature distribution

2.1 Cylindrical Geometry

2.1.1 Parker

Temperature distribution by the Parker model [8] uses completely adiabatic boundaries
(which is equivalent to a solution for a slab that is infinite in the radial direction):

dT 
=0 (3)
dz (0,r,t)

dT 
=0 (4)
dz (L,r,t)

dT 
=0 (5)
dz (z,R,t)

The temperature distribution is sinusoidal in the axial direction. Equation 3 in [8]

provides the temperature profile at the rear face (z = L):

∞
!
Q X
−n2 π 2 αt / L2
u(L, t) = 1+2 (−1)n e (6)
ρcp L n=1

This is the equation from which standards for half-rise time calculations of thermal
diffusivity are derived ([5], [6]).

Peters 6
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

2.1.2 Cowan

Pulse requirement: ∆t << tc

Cowan applies radiative boundary conditions to the uniform-deposition cylindrical case.

To make these boundary condition tractable a Taylor series expansion approximation is
used for radiative heat loss at temperatures very close to the initial temperature:

dq
q(T ) = q(T0 ) + (T − T0 ) + ...
dT
≈ σz T04 + (T − T0 ) 4σz T03

= 4σz T03 T

The boundary conditions (adiabatic on the radial face, radiative on the axial faces) can
then be stated as:

dT 
= c0 T (7)
dz z=0

dT 
= cL T (8)
dz z=L

dT 
=0 (9)
dz r=R

The factors defining Cowan’s boundary conditions at z = 0 and z = L become:

4σz1 T03
c0 = (10)
k
4σz2 T03
cL = (11)
k

Citing Equation 16 from [3], the solution for axial temperature distribution becomes:
   
∞ yn (L−z) a yn (L−z)
Q X cos L
+ yn (1+r)
sin L
u(z, t) = 2 yn2  2  (12)
cp ρL n=0 D exp αyn t
n L2

Evaluated at the rear face z = L this reduces to:

∞
 
2t
Q X yn2 − αyn
L2
u(z, t) = 2 e (13)
cp ρL n=0 Dn

Peters 7
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

(Noting that the coordinate system has been inverted from Cowan’s definition of z). This
is simplified by generalizing for any pulse shape, setting specific a, b, and Dn (defined
in [3]. For small heat losses a << 1, the result becomes

∞
Q X (a2 + yn2 ) cos(yn )
u(x, t) = 2   (14)
cp ρL n=0 (a + a2 + y 2 ) exp αyn2 t
n l2

which is said to be identical with Equation 7 in [8]. Experiments might apply Equa-
tion 13, for which one must approximate the parameter r and then use Θ(5t 1 )/Θ(t 1 ) to
2 2
determine α without knowledge of L.

2.1.3 Cape and Lehman

For a separable heat deposition q(z, r, t) = q0 U (z)V (r)W (t), and radiation boundary
conditions that are first order in T (found using the Taylor series expansion, as in
Section 2.1.2):


dT  Yz
k  = T (0, r, t) (15)
dz (0,r,t) L

dT  Yz
k  = T (L, r, t) (16)
dz (L,r,t) L

dT  Yr
k  = T (z, R, t) (17)
dz (z,R,t) R

Where Yz,r are Biot numbers for radiation versus conduction at the boundaries:

4σr T03 r0
Yr ≡
k
4σz T03 L
Yz ≡
k

The solution is approached using two techniques for harmonic analysis

1. Hankel transform - This is a Bessel function analogue for Fourier a representa-

tion of u(r) ([10], pg 84):
Z r0  
zi r
V̄ (zi ) = rJ0 (18)
0 r0

Peters 8
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

This strategy is also presented in Section 14.1 of Carslaw and Jaeger ([7] pg. 357 -
arrived at through the use of Green functions!). To satisfy the radiative boundary
conditions the following coefficient is introduced:
ζr


2Yr J0 Ri
Di (r, Yr ) = 2 (19)
Yr + ζi2 J02 (ζi )

2. Harmonic expression for U (z), W (t).

∞ Z
X a Z t
F̄ (zi , t) = U (x0 )W (t0 )× (20)
0 0
 m=0
X m x0 X m x0
   
ωim (t−t0 )
Cm Xm cos + Yx sin e tc dx0 dt0 (21)
a a

Coefficients Xm and Yx are employed to satisfy the axial radiative boundary condi-
tions in a similar vein as Carslaw and Jaeger Section 14.3 ([7] pg. 359). Otherwise
this is essentially a separable, axial solution for the temperature distribution.

The product solution for the full temperature behavior at z = L then becomes:

∞
J0 ζRi r


2Q X ζi
u(L, r, t) = T0 + V̄ (ζi )F̄ (ζi , t) (22)
Rk i=0 Yr2 + ζi2 J02 (ζi )

This solution completely describes an experimental setup with a radial pulse intensity
dependence of V (r) and time dependence W (t). For U (z) = δ(z) (thin deposition layer)
and V (r) = 1 (homogeneous pulse), W (t) = δ(t) (instantaneous pulse) this becomes:

∞ ∞
q0 X X
u(L, r, t) = T0 + Cm X M Di (r, Yr )e−ωim αt (23)
k m=0 i=0
∞
k X ωim t
≈ u(a, r, t) = D0 Cm Xm e tc (24)
qo m=0

Where the approximate solution requires Yr < 1, and will fall within 4% of the ex-
act solution [2]. Without assuming an instantaneous pulse (but still assuming a thin
deposition layer) the solution takes the form:
∞ Z t
k X ωim (t−t0 )
u(a, r, t) = D0 Cm X m W (t0 )e tc dt0 (25)
qo m=0 0

Peters 9
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

This allows full consideration of the time-dependence (e.g. Gaussian) of a laser pulse in
an experimental setting.

The proper coefficient to satisfy the radiative boundary condition is discussed extensively
in Carslaw and Jaeger Sections 3.9-3.10 ([7] pg. 114-120) and is quoted here:
2α Xm
Cm = (−1)m 2 (26)
L Xm + 2Yz + Yz2

Two interesting details about Equation 26:

1. Cm corresponds to the coefficient for the solution derived by Carslaw and Jaeger
([7] Section 3.9 Equation 12) for temperature distribution on 0 < z < L, namely:
∞ Z L
2t
X
−αβn
T ∝ Fn e fz (z 0 )(βn cos(βn z 0 ) + h sin(βn z 0 ))dz 0 (27)
n=1 0

βn cos(βn z) + h sin(βn z)
Fn = 2 (28)
(βn2 + h2 )L + 2h

Making the substitutions Xn → βn L, Yz → Lh , assuming a thin deposition layer

fz (z 0 ) = δ(z 0 ), and evaluating at the rear of the sample z = L gives Fn a familiar
form:  
2 Yz Xn
Fn → cos(Xn ) + sin(Xn ) (29)
L Xn Xn + 2Yz + Yz2
2

This is equivalent (ignoring the factor of α included elsewhere) to Equation 26

only if Xn = nπ, i.e. adiabatic surfaces. Therefore, the mth term of Cape and
Lehman (Equation 13, [2]) differs from the solutions of Watt, Cowan, and Carslaw
and Jaeger by a factor of
(−1)m
m =   (30)
Yz
cos(Xn ) + Xn
sin(Xn )

2Yx 4Yx2
 ≈ 1 since Xm ≈ mπ + mπ
− (mπ)2
+ ..., but the difference grows with increasing
temperature.

2. Equation 25 sums from m = 0 to m = ∞. Applying the limit for C0 X0 from the

footnote 7 of Cape and Lehman ([2]) reveals that the m = 0 term in Cape and
Lehman corresponds to the added factor of Equation 49, or correspondingly the
footnote in Section 3.9 of Carslaw and Jaeger ([7] pg. 118)

ζi is the root of the equation (Sneddon, [10] pg 83):

Yr J0 (ζi ) = ζi J1 (ζi )

Peters 10
2.1 Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

This reveals important limiting behavior that will be necessary for the non-radiation
limiting case, Yr → 0 (taking r = 0 for simplicity). Solving the relation for Yr = ζJi J01(ζ(ζi )i )
gives:

ζi J1 (ζi )
J0 (ζi ) J0 (0) J1 (ζi ) J0 (ζi )−1
lim Di (0, Yr ) = 2 ζi2 J12 (ζi )
=2
Yr →0
+ ζi2 J02 (ζi ) ζi J12 (ζi ) + J02 (ζi )
J02 (ζi )

It is apparent that ζi → 0 as Yr → 0, and by the limit,

J1 (x) 1
lim =
x→0 x 2

This results in limYr →0 D0 (0, Yr ) = 1, or else for i > 0 the limit is limYr →0 Di (0, Yr ) = 0

Carslaw and Jaeger Section 14.3, Equation 6 ([7] pg. 359) outlines the requirements for
Xm to satisfy radiative boundary conditions in a slab. Xm is the root of the equation:
2
(Xm − Yz2 ) tan (Xm ) = 2Xm Yz (31)
n2 π 2
ωim is the exponent in the time-dependent term analogous to L2
in Parker’s ideal
solution.  2
ζi2

Xm
ωim = + 2
L2 R

Note: I have modified

 2 2the notation used by Cape and Lehman. They define a charac-
L L2
teristic time tc = π2 α and include a corresponding factor of π2 in ωim

Peters 11
2.2 Rectangular Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

2.2 Rectangular Geometry

Figure 2: The rectangular prism (“parallelpiped”) sample with radiative boundary con-
ditions receives a heat pulse at t, z = 0. Radiation is equal through the x- and
y- faces, but not necessarily through both axial faces.

Carslaw and Jaeger Section 3.10 ([7], p. 119) give the solution for the temperature
profile w(x, t) in a slab of length 2a with the linearized radiative boundary conditions

dw
|x=−a = hx w(−a, t)
dx
dw
|x=a = −hx w(a, t)
dx

The radiative coefficients hi at any of the faces (i → x, y, z1, z2) and the corresponding
radiation Biot numbers Yx , Yy are defined as follows:

4σi To3
hi ≡ (32)
k
Yx ≡ ahx (33)
Yy ≡ bhy (34)

For an initial temperature distribution f (x) that is an even function of x. Choosing

f (x) = 1 to represent homogeneous initial temperature distribution in the x-direction,
the solution for wx (x, t) becomes:

Peters 12
2.2 Rectangular Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

∞ Z a
X h2x + gl2 2
wx (x, t) = 2 2
cos(gl x0 )dx0 cos(gl x)e−gl αt (35)
l=1
(hx + gl )a + hx 0
X∞  γ x  γl2
l
= Cl cos e− a2 αt (36)
l=1
a
2(Yx2 + γl2 ) sin(γl )
Cl = (37)
(Yx2 + γl2 + Yx ) γl

Where γl are solutions of the equation:

γ tan(γ) = Yx (38)

For the non-radiative limit, the following term must be added to Equation 35 ([7], Section
3.11 Equation 24):

Z a
1
fx (x0 )dx0 (39)
2a 0

The previous discussion has an obvious extension for the temperature profile in a slab
of length 2b with radiative boundary coefficient hy :

∞
X  γ y  γm 2
m
wy (y, t) = Cm cos e− b2 αt (40)
m=1
b
2(Yy2 + γm
2
) sin(γm )
Cm = 2 2
(41)
(Yy + γm + Yy ) γm

Where γm are the solutions of Equation 38, with hx → hy , Yx → Yy , a → b, and

corresponding limiting-case factor like Equation 39.

For a face receiving the pulse, the solution for the temperature profile h(Z, t) is summa-
rized by Watt [11] (or Section 14.3 in Carslaw and Jaeger, [7] pg. 360). The solution
is quoted for the case of a pulse delivered at Z = L (where z = L − Z will retrieve the
desired z-coordinate for which z = 0 receives the pulse). The boundary conditions in
the axial direction are:

Peters 13
2.2 Rectangular Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

dw
|Z=0 = hz1 w(0, t) (42)
dZ
dw
|Z=L = −hz2 w(L, t) (43)
dZ
Yz1 ≡ Lhz1 (44)
Yz2 ≡ Lhz2 (45)

Such that hz2 corresponds to the the radiation loss at the “front” face receiving the pulse.
Assuming a thin deposition layer for the heat pulse at the front face (fZ (L, 0) = δ(Z −L))
to Equation 23 of [11] (Or equivalently, [7] Equation 21 of Section 3.11), the solution for
h(Z, t) becomes:

∞      2
X βn Z βn Z βn
h(Z, t) = 2 Dn βn cos + Yz1 sin e− L2 αt (46)
n=1
L L
(βn2 + Yz22 )(βn cos(βn ) + Yz1 sin(βn ))
Dn = 2 (47)
(βn + Yz12 )(βn2 + Yz22 + Yz2 ) + Yz1 (βn2 + Yz22 )

Where βn are solutions to the equation

β(Yz1 + Yz2 )
tan(β) = (48)
β 2 − Yz1 Yz2

Similarly to Equation 39, for the non-radiative case Yz1 = Yz2 = 0, the following term
must be added to Equation 46 for the axial solution:

Z L
1
fz (z 0 )dz 0 (49)
L 0

This solution is identical to the axial temperature distribution for which Watt [11] pro-
vides thorough analysis. Most importantly this axial solution is shown to agree Cowan’s
(Section 2.1.2. Therefore, the parallelpiped solution is subject to identical limiting tem-
perature behavior in the case of adiabatic x-faces and y-faces.

One notable discrepancy is an apparent disagreement between this axial solution and
that of Cape and Lehman. The coefficient Cm of Section 2.1.3 corresponds to the
coefficient Dn

Peters 14
2.2 Rectangular Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

The temperature solution for the complete parallelpiped with dimensions 2a × 2b × L

(shown in Figure 2) is given by product solution, similar to the method of Watt. At the
rear face (Z = 0):
T (x, y, z, t) = q0 h(z, t)wx (x, t)wy (y, t) (50)

Substituting the results from this section results in:

∞
2Q X 2
T (x, y, z, t) = Cl cos(γl x)Cm cos(γm y)Dn βn e−ωlmn αt (51)
ρcp L l,m,n

2 γl2 γm2
βn2
ωlmn = + + (52)
a2 b2 L2
Where the sum represents a triple sum starting with l, m, n = 1, and coefficients are
determined earlier in the section.

2.2.1 Axial Radiative Limit

For the case where there is no radiation from the x- and y-faces, both sums over m and
n are replaced with the proper form of Equation 39, each equal to 21 for homogeneous
pulse deposition. By Equation 38, γ → 0 and the coefficients Cm approach the limit

2(Yx2 + γl2 ) sin(γl ) sin(γl )

Cl = 2 2
→2 →2 (53)
(Yx + γl + Yx ) γl γl

This completely eliminates m- and n- dependence from Equation 51 and reduces it to

the z-dependent form of Equation 46. This is the axial solution presented by Watt
[11] (Equation 23) and Cowan [3] and therefore takes on previously developed limiting
behaviors at high- and low- temperatures.

2.2.2 Non-radiative limit

The non-radiative case must be treated separately for each component due to the special
factors of Equation 39 and Equation 49. For hx → 0, the equation for γl becomes:

lπ
γ tan(γa) = 0 → γl = (54)
a

Peters 15
2.3 Elliptic Cylindrical Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

Substituting γl and adding the limiting term of Equation 39, Equation 35 becomes:

∞ Z a
X sin(γl a) −γl2 αt 1
wx (x, t) → cos(γl x)e + fx (x0 )dx0 (55)
aγl 2a −a
"l=1 ∞
#
X sin(lπ) lπx −γl2 αt
= 1+ cos( )e (56)
l=1
alπ a
=1 (57)

The x-dependence of the solution vanishes, as expected for a homogeneous beam depo-
sition with no heat transfer at the boundaries; the y-dependence vanishes similarly. For
the z-component of the solution, Yz1 , Yz2 → 0 so the βn terms are described by

tan(β) = 0 → β = nπ (58)

Substituting into hz (z, t) and adding the non-radiative term of Equation 49 as before,
the z-dependence becomes:

cos(βn )
Dn → (59)
βn
∞ 2
1 2X βn
h(Z, t) = + cos(βn )e− L2 αt (60)
L L n=1
" ∞
#
1 X n2 π 2
= 1+2 (−1)n e− L2 αt (61)
L n=1

By product solution with wx = wy = 1, this recovers Parker’s solution [8].

2.3 Elliptic Cylindrical Geometry

Through use of the elliptic cylindrical coordinate system and Mathieu functions [9],
the spatial component of transient heat conduction (Equation 1) could be solved for a
cylinder with an elliptical cross-section. The “radial” solution would need satisfy first-
order radiation boundary conditions on a confocal ellipse representing the edge of the
elliptic cylindrical sample, and the full spatial solution could be achieved by product
solution with the axial solution of Cape and Lehman (Section 2.1.3, [2]) or Cowan
(Section 2.1.2, [4]) in the same vein as Section 2.2.

Peters 16
2.4 General Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

This method was not pursued, in part due to a lack of literature on solutions to heat
transfer problems in elliptical geometry.

2.4 General Geometry

2.4.1 Shape factors

Bart [1] proposes the use of a shape factor in calculating long-term temperature decay of
solids with constant temperature boundaries. Clearly this is not the boundary condition
applied for LFM analysis, and Bart’s method is not applicable in general. However, this
section attempts some investigation of the use of shape factors for solving transient heat
conduction, especially using a PDE to derive results similar to Bart’s.

The temperature behavior of an object based on its shape factor is give as:

−fs π 2 F o
[θ] ∝ 1 − e 4 (62)

where [θ] is the mean dimensionless temperature. fshape describes a correction factor for
the conduction heat loss of some geometry compared to that of an infinite slab. F o is the
dimensionless time, which depends on the physical characteristics of the slab. F o can
be determined by comparison to the first term in Parker’s series solution (Section 2.1.1):

ρcp L −π 2 αt
1− ∝ e L2 (63)
Q
4αt
By comparison to the form of Equation 62, this behavior implies F o ≈ L2
. Bart gives
the shape factor fs,c for a cylinder as:

4 4J0 (ν0 )2
L2
+ (πR)2
fs,cyl =
1 2 2


L
+ R

Where J0 (ν0 ) is the first root of the Bessel function of the first kind. Thus, for T0 = 0
the predicted mean temperature behavior is:

  2 
Q −π αt
T̄ (t) = 1 − exp fs,cyl (64)
ρcp L L2

Figure ?? compares the approximation of Equation 64 to a Parker solution with ten

terms. The Bart solution under-predicts heat loss (as the surface-volume ratio of a

Peters 17
2.4 General Geometry 2 SURVEY OF METHODS

cylinder is less than that of an infinite slab) and does not capture the detailed behavior
near tc = .0017.

Figure 3: The Bart solution for long-term heating using a shape factor does not capture
the region of the temperature rise necessary for computing half-rise time

The Bart model is obviously not suitable for application to the LFM in its current form.
In order to account for radiative boundary conditions and more than one term in the
approximation, it might be useful to apply the system of equations used for modeling
an equivalent one-dimensional object ([1], Section 5). Bart does so by distorting the
transient heat conduction equation for a slab, cylinder, or sphere to account for the
boundary shape of a new object:

−1
d2 T

dT Z ν − 1 dT
= 2
− 1− (65)
dτ dZ ν ν dZ

with Z ≡ z VS . Let T (ρ, τ ) = F (ρ)e− (βi2 τ ). Taking ρ ≡ ν − Z, the spatial part of this
equation involving F (ρ) transforms into:

d2 F dF
ρ2 2
+ (ν − 1)ρ + βi2 ρ2 F = 0
dρ dρ

With a general solution of:

Peters 18
References References

F = ρ1−ν/2 J ν2 −1 (βi ρ)

Bart uses boundary conditions of the first kind dρ T = 0 for ρ = 0 to simplify this
(eliminating all but J0 terms). The challenge is to adopt this procedure of producing
a one-dimensional equivalent geometry to account for boundary conditions linear in T
(since this set of equations does not appear to be restricted to constant-temperature
boundary conditions).

This method was not pursued further but may present opportunities for advanced ap-
proximations of transient heat conduction in complex geometries.

References

[1] G.C. Bart and K Hanjalić. Estimation of shape factor for transient conduction.
International journal of refrigeration, 26(3):360–367, 2003.

[2] J. A. Cape and G. W. Lehman. Temperature and finite pulse-time effects in the flash
method for measuring thermal diffusivity. Journal of Applied Physics, 34(7):1909–
1913, 1963.

[3] R. D. Cowan. Proposed method of measuring thermal diffusivity at high tempera-

tures. Journal of Applied Physics, 32, 1961.

[4] Robert D. Cowan. Pulse method of measuring thermal diffusivity at high temper-
atures. Journal of Applied Physics, 34(4):926–927, 1963.

[5] E1461. E1461. Standard test method for thermal diffusivity by the flash method.
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, i:1–11, 2001.

[6] E2585. Standard Practice for Thermal Diffusivity by the Flash Method. ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 05:1–10, 2009.

[7] J.C. Jaeger H.S. Carslaw. Conduction of Heat in Solids. Oxford Press, second
edition, 1959.

[8] W. J. Parker, R. J. Jenkins, C. P. Butler, and G. L. Abbott. Flash method of

determining thermal diffusivity, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity. Journal
of Applied Physics, 32(9):1679–1684, 1961.

[9] Lawrence Ruby. Applications of the Mathieu equation. 39(1996), 2003.

[10] Ian Naismith Sneddon. Fourier transforms. Courier Corporation, 1951.

Peters 19
References References

[11] D.A. Watt. Theory of thermal diffusivity by pulse technique. British Journal of
Applied Physics, 17, 1966.

Peters 20