CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Big difference in temps between real and computed

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 5, 2014, 15:16
Default Big difference in temps between real and computed
  #1
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Hi guys,

i'm a new to CFD so i started with an experiment covering thermal management but i cant get that done properly in CFD tool (I'm using Autodesk CFD'14 software).

So i'm having a real selfmade device and it's exact 3D model. I think everybody know its a LEDs mounted on a alluminium heatsink: 15 Cree XB-Ds soldered on alluminum star-like heatsinks wich are mounted on a big alluminium heatsink. The temperature under the bottom-left "star" is 69 degrees in real.


So i export that model into the CFD software. Assign proper materials:
  • Alluminium to Big heatsink and 15 star-like heatsinks
  • Silicon to LED
  • Contact resistance of 6K/mm2*W to surfaces between big and star-like heatsinks, and LED between star-like heatsinks
  • Air to air, of course

As the boundary conditions i choose Pressure of 0 Pa on top and bottom surfaces of Air volume, and temperature of 25 C at the bottom of the same volume.

Also i choose a Total heat generation of 1,5W to each of the LED, because Cree XB-D has a 75% of heat generation of its power, and i run them at 2W each.

So when i push solve (gravity goes along Z and having 50 itterations) i get frustrating results of 265 C.


I also tried applying Thermal Compact model to LED (JB: 6.5C/W, JC: 1000C/W) but the temp raised up for 50% so i removed it.
So maybe anyone could what i'm doing wrong?
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2014, 17:03
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
lore
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 463
Rep Power: 9
lovecraft22 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lovecraft22
Don't know anything about the software you are using but… did you make sure your case has converged?
lovecraft22 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2014, 19:11
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Thank for a reply.

No, i dont, but i do not know if its necessary, because it's having a temp of 250 C and i dont think that it would fall to 60-70 C. But i should try giving it some 300 itterations to make it converged. Will see
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 6, 2014, 07:15
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Ran it to convergence and it gave me a result of 179 C which is not suitable yet
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 6, 2014, 17:07
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
lore
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 463
Rep Power: 9
lovecraft22 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lovecraft22
Yes, but it is already 100deg lower than before. Are you sure this time it is fully converged?
It takes time for a simulation to converge, usually it is not a matter of short periods…
lovecraft22 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 6, 2014, 18:18
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Yeap, the programm says that it fully converged. Maybe there is not enough place for heat dissipation, I mean I need to make the air volume more larger?
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 6, 2014, 19:46
Default
  #7
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 77
Rep Power: 4
beer is on a distinguished road
Hi

Just a short thought of mine: It seems you have considered the cooling due to convection, have you also used the Boltzmann radiation? I can make a difference sometimes.

Regards
beer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 7, 2014, 09:07
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Thank you,

have checked the Radiation to include and now i have the converged results of 85 degress, however i thought it might be less than 69 due to the programm has the "ideal" conditions for running the simulation
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 11, 2014, 07:00
Default
  #9
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 77
Rep Power: 4
beer is on a distinguished road
Well at least it`s getting better
Other possible errors: mesh resolution near the cooling body: if you can't resolve the (temperature) boundary layer with the mesh, the heat flow may be calculated incorrectly.

Another approach is to check for the turbulence. Especially at high temperature gradients the buoyancy causes a small turbulence which increases the effective heat conductivity. In trubulence modells this effect is already considered. So even if the main flow is not turbulent at all, local turbulence can occur and affect your heat flow. So think about including a simple k-epsilon modell maybe to see if it helps.

I would be interested if it helps, too. If it does, please let me know.

Cheers

Last edited by beer; January 11, 2014 at 08:22.
beer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 11, 2014, 17:52
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Thank you Beer, will try

But there's another problem - i have mistaken the models due to my stupidity. So the temparature for the above model is only 58 C in real life. So i gone digging
evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 26, 2014, 07:18
Default
  #11
New Member
 
Stan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 3
evidence is on a distinguished road
Hi there,

so i went with ANSYS steady-state thermal and the results are very impressive.

My real life model had a temp near the heating element near 52 C with the ambient air of 19. And ANSYS calculated that my temp will have nearly 46 C (i have made a minimum set of settings, only including standard radiation-into-air 19 C with default settings and heat generation of 0,265 W/mm3 due to element has area of 3,9 mm3 and thermal dissipation of 1,4W).

I have made couple of other real-life experiments and put them into ANSYS and the results were nearly the same as the real ones, having the difference of 7-9% due to not-ideal real conditions.

One more - i have choosen 200 itterations but the temperature was the same as in the first step, so i've had a table of 200 rows showing me the same temp values - is it okay? Thank you

evidence is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FLUENT received fatal signal (ACCESS_VIOLATION) samy FLUENT 0 November 10, 2007 14:09


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:19.