Project brief
Decisions and iterations
Build the analytical case
A one-dimensional extended-surface model estimated fin performance with convection to surrounding air.
Build the numerical case
The HS 5030 geometry was solved in ANSYS steady-state thermal with corresponding boundary conditions and mesh refinement.
Compare on the same basis
Thermal resistance differed by approximately 3.12% between the analytical and numerical models. The exact heat-flow values are retained in the report and workbook.
Results and context
Thermal resistance agreed within approximately 3.12% under the chosen conditions. This is agreement between two models; a hardware temperature test would be the next validation step.
Figure sources: geometry · page 6, temperature field · page 7, and model comparison · page 10.
Technical details
Analytical assumptions
The analytical calculation treats fins as one-dimensional extended surfaces with convection to surrounding air. The workbook holds the geometry and inputs.
ANSYS boundary conditions and mesh
ANSYS steady-state thermal used the stated boundary conditions and mesh refinement. The report and contour preserve the numerical setup and temperature field.
Comparison basis
Analytical R = 1.249 °C/W and Q = 44.04 W; ANSYS R = 1.210 °C/W and Q = 45.459 W. The approximately 3.12% resistance difference compares the two models under the stated conditions.
Project values and components
| Heat sink | HS 5030 aluminum 6063-T5 |
|---|---|
| Material | Aluminum 6063-T5 |
| Analytical R | 1.249 °C/W |
| Analytical Q | 44.04 W |
| ANSYS R | 1.210 °C/W |
| ANSYS Q | 45.459 W |
| R-difference | ~3.12% |