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

N. A. Klitzke, S. C. Polzer, W. L. Wilkins, Barry Kent Gilbert, Clifton R Haider

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publication34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings
PublisherInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Pages119-126
Number of pages8
ISBN (Electronic)9781538644027
DOIs
StatePublished - May 9 2018
Event34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - San Jose, United States
Duration: Mar 19 2018Mar 23 2018

Other

Other34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018
CountryUnited States
CitySan Jose
Period3/19/183/23/18

Fingerprint

Forced convection
Heat sinks
Heat resistance
Temperature
Computational fluid dynamics
Spreadsheets
Hot Temperature
Chassis
Printed circuit boards
Dynamic analysis
Systems analysis
Hardware
Computer simulation
Air

Keywords

  • error
  • thermal interface material
  • Thermal resistance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hardware and Architecture
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering
  • Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
  • Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes

Cite this

Klitzke, N. A., Polzer, S. C., Wilkins, W. L., Gilbert, B. K., & Haider, C. R. (2018). 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. In 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings (pp. 119-126). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362

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. / Klitzke, N. A.; Polzer, S. C.; Wilkins, W. L.; Gilbert, Barry Kent; Haider, Clifton R.

34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2018. p. 119-126.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Klitzke, NA, Polzer, SC, Wilkins, WL, Gilbert, BK & Haider, CR 2018, 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. in 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 119-126, 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018, San Jose, United States, 3/19/18. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362
Klitzke NA, Polzer SC, Wilkins WL, Gilbert BK, Haider CR. 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. In 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 2018. p. 119-126 https://doi.org/10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362
Klitzke, N. A. ; Polzer, S. C. ; Wilkins, W. L. ; Gilbert, Barry Kent ; Haider, Clifton R. / 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. 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2018. pp. 119-126
@inproceedings{d82492527aef4eebad324acb35af6509,
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",
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.",
keywords = "error, thermal interface material, Thermal resistance",
author = "Klitzke, {N. A.} and Polzer, {S. C.} and Wilkins, {W. L.} and Gilbert, {Barry Kent} and Haider, {Clifton R}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "119--126",
booktitle = "34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings",
publisher = "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - 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

AU - Klitzke, N. A.

AU - Polzer, S. C.

AU - Wilkins, W. L.

AU - Gilbert, Barry Kent

AU - Haider, Clifton R

PY - 2018/5/9

Y1 - 2018/5/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - error

KW - thermal interface material

KW - Thermal resistance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048520277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048520277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362

DO - 10.1109/SEMI-THERM.2018.8357362

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:85048520277

SP - 119

EP - 126

BT - 34th Annual Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM 2018 - Proceedings

PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

ER -