Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
10.04.2013, 08:58 GMT-4
Sounds to me like what you're trying to model is a case of "Joule heating" with a temperature-dependent resistivity. See the model library, in particular "thermal_actuator_jh", for an example.
Sounds to me like what you're trying to model is a case of "Joule heating" with a temperature-dependent resistivity. See the model library, in particular "thermal_actuator_jh", for an example.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
10.04.2013, 09:37 GMT-4
Isn't enough to exspress the heat source in function of the temperature?
Isn't enough to exspress the heat source in function of the temperature?
Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
10.04.2013, 12:31 GMT-4
Hi
probably not fully, as with Joule heating you might get runaways, that I would not expect are so simple to get correct with only a heat source dependending on T.
On the other side, when you set a fixed T to a boundary, COMSOL is in fact calulating a fictuous heat source field (=depending on (x,y,z,t)) such that the boundary temperature fits your desired value. The results are a heat flux field exiting/entering the boundary (wich is mostly quite different from a scalar average value)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
probably not fully, as with Joule heating you might get runaways, that I would not expect are so simple to get correct with only a heat source dependending on T.
On the other side, when you set a fixed T to a boundary, COMSOL is in fact calulating a fictuous heat source field (=depending on (x,y,z,t)) such that the boundary temperature fits your desired value. The results are a heat flux field exiting/entering the boundary (wich is mostly quite different from a scalar average value)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
11.04.2013, 06:13 GMT-4
Hi,
and thank your very much for your swift responses and I apologize for my slow respons.
I have looked at the Joule heating, but the thing is, that I'm interested in the air flow. And there is no option to add a volume force in Joule heating. The interest in air flow is due to the intent to apply the best cooling of the cable.
Should I combine the two physics or is there another "easier" way to simulate the change in resistivity?
With the heat source dependent on T, how would one go about doing this and could it be done in Conjugated heat transfer?
Your help is much appreciated.
Hi,
and thank your very much for your swift responses and I apologize for my slow respons.
I have looked at the Joule heating, but the thing is, that I'm interested in the air flow. And there is no option to add a volume force in Joule heating. The interest in air flow is due to the intent to apply the best cooling of the cable.
Should I combine the two physics or is there another "easier" way to simulate the change in resistivity?
With the heat source dependent on T, how would one go about doing this and could it be done in Conjugated heat transfer?
Your help is much appreciated.
Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
11.04.2013, 08:07 GMT-4
Hi
I would say use NITF and add simple joule heating by equations (because if you Add NITF and JH you end up with 2*T and you need to knit them together).
Another way is that you have the joule heating and the NITF on different domains, then by calling T=T for both physics or simply putting identity for T flux over the common boundary you should be able to use both physics without wrong couplings
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
I would say use NITF and add simple joule heating by equations (because if you Add NITF and JH you end up with 2*T and you need to knit them together).
Another way is that you have the joule heating and the NITF on different domains, then by calling T=T for both physics or simply putting identity for T flux over the common boundary you should be able to use both physics without wrong couplings
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
11.04.2013, 10:15 GMT-4
Hi
Thank you very much for swift respons, I will give your suggestion a try and let you know how it goes.
And once again thank you very much for your help.
Hi
Thank you very much for swift respons, I will give your suggestion a try and let you know how it goes.
And once again thank you very much for your help.