通过对一个利用强迫对流散热片的孤立一维热阻模型变量的分析,比较结温预测方法

N. Klitzke, S. Polzer, W. Wilkins, B. Gilbert, C. Haider
{"title":"通过对一个利用强迫对流散热片的孤立一维热阻模型变量的分析,比较结温预测方法","authors":"N. Klitzke, S. Polzer, W. Wilkins, B. Gilbert, C. Haider","doi":"10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discrepancies between estimated and actual thermal solution performance may negatively bias early system design decisions and ultimately result in costly redesigns. In particular, an overreliance on manufacturer-provided performance data and insufficiently accurate prediction methods are two potential causes of large discrepancies. To demonstrate deviations between predicted and end-thermal-performance, three methods of predicting thermal performance were investigated. The reference design was a forced convection air-cooled computer chassis, consisting of four printed circuit boards (PCBs), each populated with four processors that utilize heat sinks. The three predictive methods used were rudimentary analytical calculations, spreadsheet based modeling, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. The results from these methods were compared to measured results taken from the physical hardware test bed. A thermal resistance network model was used to describe the problem, and the comparison between the measured and calculated results for each element of the model was reported as a percent error. Note that in cases in which physical measurements could not be obtained, the comparison was made between the CFD results and the other calculations. All predictive methods using manufacturer-supplied thermal interface material (TIM) data indicated adequate thermal margin. When corrected TIM values were used, both the hand calculation method and the spreadsheet modeling method indicated adequate thermal margin; however, the CFD analysis predicted significant thermal issues, which were observed in the thermal test bed measured results.","PeriodicalId":277758,"journal":{"name":"2018 34th Thermal Measurement, Modeling & Management Symposium (SEMI-THERM)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of junction temperature prediction methods through analysis of isolated 1-D thermal resistance model variables of an application utilizing forced convection of heat sinks\",\"authors\":\"N. Klitzke, S. Polzer, W. Wilkins, B. Gilbert, C. Haider\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discrepancies between estimated and actual thermal solution performance may negatively bias early system design decisions and ultimately result in costly redesigns. In particular, an overreliance on manufacturer-provided performance data and insufficiently accurate prediction methods are two potential causes of large discrepancies. To demonstrate deviations between predicted and end-thermal-performance, three methods of predicting thermal performance were investigated. The reference design was a forced convection air-cooled computer chassis, consisting of four printed circuit boards (PCBs), each populated with four processors that utilize heat sinks. The three predictive methods used were rudimentary analytical calculations, spreadsheet based modeling, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. The results from these methods were compared to measured results taken from the physical hardware test bed. A thermal resistance network model was used to describe the problem, and the comparison between the measured and calculated results for each element of the model was reported as a percent error. Note that in cases in which physical measurements could not be obtained, the comparison was made between the CFD results and the other calculations. All predictive methods using manufacturer-supplied thermal interface material (TIM) data indicated adequate thermal margin. When corrected TIM values were used, both the hand calculation method and the spreadsheet modeling method indicated adequate thermal margin; however, the CFD analysis predicted significant thermal issues, which were observed in the thermal test bed measured results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":277758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 34th Thermal Measurement, Modeling & Management Symposium (SEMI-THERM)\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 34th Thermal Measurement, Modeling & Management Symposium (SEMI-THERM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 34th Thermal Measurement, Modeling & Management Symposium (SEMI-THERM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

估计和实际热溶液性能之间的差异可能会对早期系统设计决策产生负面影响,并最终导致昂贵的重新设计。特别是,过度依赖制造商提供的性能数据和不够准确的预测方法是造成巨大差异的两个潜在原因。为了证明预测和最终热性能之间的偏差,研究了三种预测热性能的方法。参考设计是一个强制对流气冷计算机机箱,由四个印刷电路板(pcb)组成,每个电路板都有四个利用散热器的处理器。使用的三种预测方法是基本的分析计算、基于电子表格的建模和计算流体动力学(CFD)模拟。将这些方法的结果与物理硬件试验台的测量结果进行了比较。采用热阻网络模型来描述该问题,并将模型中每个元素的测量结果与计算结果的比较报告为一个百分比误差。请注意,在无法获得物理测量的情况下,将CFD结果与其他计算结果进行比较。所有使用制造商提供的热界面材料(TIM)数据的预测方法都表明有足够的热裕度。当使用修正后的TIM值时,手工计算方法和电子表格建模方法均显示有足够的热裕度;然而,CFD分析预测了显著的热问题,这在热试验台的测量结果中得到了观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of junction temperature prediction methods through analysis of isolated 1-D thermal resistance model variables of an application utilizing forced convection of heat sinks
Discrepancies between estimated and actual thermal solution performance may negatively bias early system design decisions and ultimately result in costly redesigns. In particular, an overreliance on manufacturer-provided performance data and insufficiently accurate prediction methods are two potential causes of large discrepancies. To demonstrate deviations between predicted and end-thermal-performance, three methods of predicting thermal performance were investigated. The reference design was a forced convection air-cooled computer chassis, consisting of four printed circuit boards (PCBs), each populated with four processors that utilize heat sinks. The three predictive methods used were rudimentary analytical calculations, spreadsheet based modeling, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. The results from these methods were compared to measured results taken from the physical hardware test bed. A thermal resistance network model was used to describe the problem, and the comparison between the measured and calculated results for each element of the model was reported as a percent error. Note that in cases in which physical measurements could not be obtained, the comparison was made between the CFD results and the other calculations. All predictive methods using manufacturer-supplied thermal interface material (TIM) data indicated adequate thermal margin. When corrected TIM values were used, both the hand calculation method and the spreadsheet modeling method indicated adequate thermal margin; however, the CFD analysis predicted significant thermal issues, which were observed in the thermal test bed measured results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信