Thermoelectric Effect - Adding the physics

Hello,

I'm working in a project on thermoelectric generator. As 'Thermoelectric' physics interface,is not in the physics area/physics list, I was trying to add the physics using the steps given in the COMSOL Help. But, I'm getting an error in the weak equation in feature1, 'Syntax of Expression is wrong'. The expression is K.del(T).Test(del T), (where del is the symbol Capital Delta). Could anyone please help me in finding out the solution.

Thank you
Pheba Cherian

57 Replies Last Post Aug 23, 2017, 7:04 PM EDT
Posted: 5 years ago Oct 17, 2012, 2:12 PM EDT
Hi

I believe you have that pysics in the model builder section, check your doc.
Also use lower case test() for the test function

In the model builder you have access to the del grad ... these have special caracters see the doc

--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi I believe you have that pysics in the model builder section, check your doc. Also use lower case test() for the test function In the model builder you have access to the del grad ... these have special caracters see the doc -- Good luck Ivar

Posted: 5 years ago Oct 18, 2012, 9:59 AM EDT
Thank you Ivar, But its still not working. Do any1 hav any other suggestions. Anyone who worked in thermoelectric Effect please help....
Thank you Ivar, But its still not working. Do any1 hav any other suggestions. Anyone who worked in thermoelectric Effect please help....

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Apr 20, 2013, 4:16 AM EDT
Hi,

I solved the TE problem using the PDE coefficient approach.

If someone still needs halp, I'll be happy to provide it!

bye
Hi, I solved the TE problem using the PDE coefficient approach. If someone still needs halp, I'll be happy to provide it! bye

Posted: 4 years ago May 12, 2013, 1:35 PM EDT
Hi Dario,
I am trying to simulate thermocouple by following the physics builder user guide example.But I am getting an error like failed to evaluate a variable sigma,S...etc.Can you help to solve this problem or please send an example(using PDE) so that I can do it much easier......

Regards
karunakar
Hi Dario, I am trying to simulate thermocouple by following the physics builder user guide example.But I am getting an error like failed to evaluate a variable sigma,S...etc.Can you help to solve this problem or please send an example(using PDE) so that I can do it much easier...... Regards karunakar

Posted: 4 years ago Jun 13, 2013, 2:42 PM EDT
Hello Dario,

I am having difficulties with the Thermoelectric effect model. Are you still available for help?


Thanks in Advanced,

Gaston Piller



Hi,

I solved the TE problem using the PDE coefficient approach.

If someone still needs halp, I'll be happy to provide it!

bye


Hello Dario, I am having difficulties with the Thermoelectric effect model. Are you still available for help? Thanks in Advanced, Gaston Piller [QUOTE] Hi, I solved the TE problem using the PDE coefficient approach. If someone still needs halp, I'll be happy to provide it! bye [/QUOTE]

Posted: 4 years ago Aug 30, 2013, 4:00 PM EDT
Hi,

I am trying to model transient effect in TEC. Comsol physics builder has a steady state version. Need help in incorporating time dependency.
Hi, I am trying to model transient effect in TEC. Comsol physics builder has a steady state version. Need help in incorporating time dependency.

Posted: 4 years ago Aug 30, 2013, 6:24 PM EDT
I would incorporate the equations for the Seebeck and Peltier Effect as weak contributions instead of using the model provided by COMSOL.
I would incorporate the equations for the Seebeck and Peltier Effect as weak contributions instead of using the model provided by COMSOL.

Posted: 4 years ago Aug 30, 2013, 7:39 PM EDT
Hi,

Thanks for your response. The weak contribution is not domain specific. How can I identify which component can be assigned seebek coeff? Is there a way to add seebek coeff in material specification?

Regards,
Susant
Hi, Thanks for your response. The weak contribution is not domain specific. How can I identify which component can be assigned seebek coeff? Is there a way to add seebek coeff in material specification? Regards, Susant

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 13, 2013, 8:21 AM EDT
Hi everyone,

I'm back.

Someone still needs help?

I have developed the TE model using the PDEs approach, someone succeed in solving the problem using the approach described here:
www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~lewisl2/Engineering%20Project/Other/References/COMSOL%20TE%20Setup.pdf

?

Thanks
Hi everyone, I'm back. Someone still needs help? I have developed the TE model using the PDEs approach, someone succeed in solving the problem using the approach described here: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~lewisl2/Engineering%20Project/Other/References/COMSOL%20TE%20Setup.pdf ? Thanks

Posted: 4 years ago Sep 13, 2013, 12:08 PM EDT
Hi,

I tried to add theromelectric effect in weak form. But the weak form formulation is not domain specific. So how can I provide different seebek coeff associated with different domain?

Regards,
Susant
Hi, I tried to add theromelectric effect in weak form. But the weak form formulation is not domain specific. So how can I provide different seebek coeff associated with different domain? Regards, Susant

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 14, 2013, 3:51 AM EDT
Hi,

I can't help you with the weak form, but can I ask you to send me the your file? I want to practice with this approach.

I can give you my .mph file with the PDEs form + thermomechanical module, there you can change S coefficient, conductivity (both thermal and electric) and also introduce their temperature dependence

Thanks
Hi, I can't help you with the weak form, but can I ask you to send me the your file? I want to practice with this approach. I can give you my .mph file with the PDEs form + thermomechanical module, there you can change S coefficient, conductivity (both thermal and electric) and also introduce their temperature dependence Thanks

Posted: 4 years ago Sep 15, 2013, 11:13 PM EDT
Hi,

I am not sure why you would say the 'weak contribution' is not domain specific. Here is what I would do: add the conditions and equations as weak form for the phenomenons for the domains needed. Then,
define your coefficients for each domain, Seebeck and Peltier. Note that these can be temperature dependent or simply functions of temperature. This is what I have done to create P-N pairs.

I also created the "Thermoelectric Physics" as Dario suggested, but decided not to use it because it can be quite primitive when creating larger models. Also, why not take advantage of predefined physics interphases already available. As that same PDF suggests, it is not the best way to simulate the Thermoelectric Effect.

Hope this helps,

Gaston


Hi,

I tried to add theromelectric effect in weak form. But the weak form formulation is not domain specific. So how can I provide different seebek coeff associated with different domain?

Regards,
Susant

Hi, I am not sure why you would say the 'weak contribution' is not domain specific. Here is what I would do: add the conditions and equations as weak form for the phenomenons for the domains needed. Then, define your coefficients for each domain, Seebeck and Peltier. Note that these can be temperature dependent or simply functions of temperature. This is what I have done to create P-N pairs. I also created the "Thermoelectric Physics" as Dario suggested, but decided not to use it because it can be quite primitive when creating larger models. Also, why not take advantage of predefined physics interphases already available. As that same PDF suggests, it is not the best way to simulate the Thermoelectric Effect. Hope this helps, Gaston [QUOTE] Hi, I tried to add theromelectric effect in weak form. But the weak form formulation is not domain specific. So how can I provide different seebek coeff associated with different domain? Regards, Susant [/QUOTE]

Posted: 4 years ago Sep 16, 2013, 12:32 PM EDT
Hi,

I am trying to duplicate the form shown in the attached paper. I am not sure how to add the conditions and equations for the specific domains? I would appreciate if you can provide a screen shot of the comsol steps to do it.

Regards,
Susant
Hi, I am trying to duplicate the form shown in the attached paper. I am not sure how to add the conditions and equations for the specific domains? I would appreciate if you can provide a screen shot of the comsol steps to do it. Regards, Susant


Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 16, 2013, 2:52 PM EDT
Susant,

Attached is example with implementation of the referenced presentation.

Regards,
Sergei
Susant, Attached is example with implementation of the referenced presentation. Regards, Sergei


Posted: 4 years ago Sep 16, 2013, 3:05 PM EDT
Hi Sergei,

Thank you very much for the example. It is very helpful.

Regards,
Susant
Hi Sergei, Thank you very much for the example. It is very helpful. Regards, Susant

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 20, 2013, 5:28 AM EDT

Susant,

Attached is example with implementation of the referenced presentation.

Regards,
Sergei


Dear Sergei, please can you give me the same file compatible with comsol 3.5a?

Thanks
[QUOTE] Susant, Attached is example with implementation of the referenced presentation. Regards, Sergei [/QUOTE] Dear Sergei, please can you give me the same file compatible with comsol 3.5a? Thanks

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 20, 2013, 12:19 PM EDT
Dario,

Sorry, I don't have files compatible with 3.5a.

Regards,
Sergei
Dario, Sorry, I don't have files compatible with 3.5a. Regards, Sergei

Posted: 4 years ago Sep 24, 2013, 8:33 AM EDT
Dear Sergei,

I saw in your paper 'Multiphysics Analysis of Thermoelectric Phenomena' that you used COMSOL V4.2 for your simulations. Do you, by any chance, still have the V4.2 of the multiphysics file you sent to Susant?

It would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Regards,
Ying
Dear Sergei, I saw in your paper 'Multiphysics Analysis of Thermoelectric Phenomena' that you used COMSOL V4.2 for your simulations. Do you, by any chance, still have the V4.2 of the multiphysics file you sent to Susant? It would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Ying

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Sep 25, 2013, 7:32 AM EDT
Ying,

Attached is 4.2 version of the file.

Regards,
Sergei
Ying, Attached is 4.2 version of the file. Regards, Sergei


Posted: 4 years ago Sep 25, 2013, 8:15 AM EDT
Thank you very much, Sergei!
Thank you very much, Sergei!

Jonatan Persson
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 2, 2013, 1:42 PM EDT
Dear Sergei, have you tried plotting the current distribution? I think you will find the results interesting. I have attached a figure of the current distribution of the Jaegel/comsol guide thermoleg simulated with your physics.

I'm interested in how one should choose testfunctions for the weak equations in one physics interface with dependent variables. Using the method with weak contributions the one in the heat transfer interface tests for its own variable T and in electric currents use V. But in the physics guide I cant find any reason for that one variable should test one and not the other weak equation.

q·test(∇T)+Q·test(T)
-J·test(∇V)

Why not:
q·test(∇V)+Q·test(V)
-J·test(∇T)

The same goes for boundary conditions
qin*test(T)
Jin*test(V)
Dear Sergei, have you tried plotting the current distribution? I think you will find the results interesting. I have attached a figure of the current distribution of the Jaegel/comsol guide thermoleg simulated with your physics. I'm interested in how one should choose testfunctions for the weak equations in one physics interface with dependent variables. Using the method with weak contributions the one in the heat transfer interface tests for its own variable T and in electric currents use V. But in the physics guide I cant find any reason for that one variable should test one and not the other weak equation. q·test(∇T)+Q·test(T) -J·test(∇V) Why not: q·test(∇V)+Q·test(V) -J·test(∇T) The same goes for boundary conditions qin*test(T) Jin*test(V)


Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 2, 2013, 2:30 PM EDT
Jonatan,

Attached contains derivation of the thermoelectric weak contributions. Hopefully, this will answer your question.

Regards,
Sergei
Jonatan, Attached contains derivation of the thermoelectric weak contributions. Hopefully, this will answer your question. Regards, Sergei


Jonatan Persson
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 4, 2013, 10:57 AM EDT
"Multiply energy balance equation by test function Ttest and integrate over
computational domain :"
and
"Multiply current balance equation by test function Vtest and integrate over
computational domain :"

This is like the guide more of a statement rather than an explanation. Both equations depends on both variables to a simmilar degree, so I still dont see why this is the obvious way to do this. I might have to go with the coefficient form where I dont have to account for this step.
"Multiply energy balance equation by test function Ttest and integrate over computational domain :" and "Multiply current balance equation by test function Vtest and integrate over computational domain :" This is like the guide more of a statement rather than an explanation. Both equations depends on both variables to a simmilar degree, so I still dont see why this is the obvious way to do this. I might have to go with the coefficient form where I dont have to account for this step.

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 8, 2013, 7:42 AM EDT

Jonatan,

Attached contains derivation of the thermoelectric weak contributions. Hopefully, this will answer your question.

Regards,
Sergei


Dear Sergei,

can you help me in implementing this in comsol 3.5a?

It is impossible to modify the weak term in the heat transfer mode. How this can be done?

Thanks,

Dario
[QUOTE] Jonatan, Attached contains derivation of the thermoelectric weak contributions. Hopefully, this will answer your question. Regards, Sergei [/QUOTE] Dear Sergei, can you help me in implementing this in comsol 3.5a? It is impossible to modify the weak term in the heat transfer mode. How this can be done? Thanks, Dario

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 8, 2013, 1:19 PM EDT
Dario,

Attached example shows Peltier weak contribution implementation in Comsol 3.5a.

Regards,
Sergei
Dario, Attached example shows Peltier weak contribution implementation in Comsol 3.5a. Regards, Sergei


Jonatan Persson
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 7:38 AM EDT
I figured the reason to be the coefficient values (low S high sigma ) which makes the proposed use of testfunctions to make good aproximations.
I figured the reason to be the coefficient values (low S high sigma ) which makes the proposed use of testfunctions to make good aproximations.

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 9:54 AM EDT
Jonatan,

Thermoelectricity is now available in 4.4 version.

Regards,
Sergei
Jonatan, Thermoelectricity is now available in 4.4 version. Regards, Sergei

Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 10:23 AM EDT
Dear Sergei,

A couple of weeks ago you sent me a copy of the Seebeck effect file for comsol v4.2a, and I am trying to make it work in a 3D environment.

may I know how did you add the 'weak equation' under the Electric Current tab or how should I add a 'weak equation' under that tab? Because right clicking the tab, I couldn't find 'weak equation' under the list.

Thank you in advance!

Ying
Dear Sergei, A couple of weeks ago you sent me a copy of the Seebeck effect file for comsol v4.2a, and I am trying to make it work in a 3D environment. may I know how did you add the 'weak equation' under the Electric Current tab or how should I add a 'weak equation' under that tab? Because right clicking the tab, I couldn't find 'weak equation' under the list. Thank you in advance! Ying

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 10:23 AM EDT
Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model.
Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model.

Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 10:41 AM EDT

Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model.


Dear Jonathan,

Could you tell me how did you add the weak equation to your 3D model? or How did you make it work in a 3D model?
Thank you!

Ying
[QUOTE] Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model. [/QUOTE] Dear Jonathan, Could you tell me how did you add the weak equation to your 3D model? or How did you make it work in a 3D model? Thank you! Ying

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 11:18 AM EDT
Ying,

To add ‘weak equation’ under the Electric Current node:

Right-click Electric Currents (ec) node and select More>Weak Contribution under domain features list (top section above the line)

Regards,
Sergei
Ying, To add ‘weak equation’ under the Electric Current node: Right-click Electric Currents (ec) node and select More>Weak Contribution under domain features list (top section above the line) Regards, Sergei

Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 2:38 PM EDT
Dear Sergei,

It seems that there is no 'more' option when a 3D domain is used. Is there any other way to add the weak equations?
Thank you!

Ying
Dear Sergei, It seems that there is no 'more' option when a 3D domain is used. Is there any other way to add the weak equations? Thank you! Ying

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 4:19 PM EDT
Ying,

To see "More/Weak Contribution" you have to activate “Advanced Physics Options” under “Show” button – see attached images.

Regards,
Sergei
Ying, To see "More/Weak Contribution" you have to activate “Advanced Physics Options” under “Show” button – see attached images. Regards, Sergei


Posted: 4 years ago Oct 9, 2013, 4:28 PM EDT
Dear Sergei,

Thank you very much! It's working now :D

Ying
Dear Sergei, Thank you very much! It's working now :D Ying

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 10, 2013, 6:33 AM EDT
Dear Sergei,

I'd like to ask you some questions:

1)why in the 2D model you gave me you write:
(-k_ht*Tx+P*Jx_dc)*test(Tx)+(-k_ht*Ty+P*Jy_dc)*test(Ty) without volume integration?

2)where you have declared "P" ?

Attached you find my 2D axial symmetric model, there I can find only a heat release at one junction but no heat absorption at the other. Can you explain me where I am wrong and why?

Note that my file is more than 10 MB so I was forced to split it in 3 parts with winrar. Also i was forced to rename *.rar files as *.mph files so you have to rename the files in *.rar (otherwise the forum does not allow me to attach)

Hope this is not too boring for you...

Thank you soo much!
Dear Sergei, I'd like to ask you some questions: 1)why in the 2D model you gave me you write: (-k_ht*Tx+P*Jx_dc)*test(Tx)+(-k_ht*Ty+P*Jy_dc)*test(Ty) without volume integration? 2)where you have declared "P" ? Attached you find my 2D axial symmetric model, there I can find only a heat release at one junction but no heat absorption at the other. Can you explain me where I am wrong and why? Note that my file is more than 10 MB so I was forced to split it in 3 parts with winrar. Also i was forced to rename *.rar files as *.mph files so you have to rename the files in *.rar (otherwise the forum does not allow me to attach) Hope this is not too boring for you... Thank you soo much!


Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 10, 2013, 6:36 AM EDT


Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model.


Dear Jonathan,

Could you tell me how did you add the weak equation to your 3D model? or How did you make it work in a 3D model?
Thank you!

Ying


I'm Dario not Jonathan :D

This is the equation I put in my 3D model:

dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh))

please wait for Sergei validation


[QUOTE] [QUOTE] Thank you so much Sergei, yesterday I managed to do it by myself in 2D axyal symmetric and 3D thanks to the pdf file you have attached. With the 3D model I make a comparison with my previous model in PDE form obtaining exactly the same result. Now I can also check if i did it correctly the 2D model. [/QUOTE] Dear Jonathan, Could you tell me how did you add the weak equation to your 3D model? or How did you make it work in a 3D model? Thank you! Ying [/QUOTE] I'm Dario not Jonathan :D This is the equation I put in my 3D model: dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh)) please wait for Sergei validation

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 10, 2013, 3:59 PM EDT

Dear Sergei,

I'd like to ask you some questions:

1)why in the 2D model you gave me you write:
(-k_ht*Tx+P*Jx_dc)*test(Tx)+(-k_ht*Ty+P*Jy_dc)*test(Ty) without volume integration?

2)where you have declared "P" ?

Attached you find my 2D axial symmetric model, there I can find only a heat release at one junction but no heat absorption at the other. Can you explain me where I am wrong and why?

Note that my file is more than 10 MB so I was forced to split it in 3 parts with winrar. Also i was forced to rename *.rar files as *.mph files so you have to rename the files in *.rar (otherwise the forum does not allow me to attach)

Hope this is not too boring for you...

Thank you soo much!


Dario,

1. I didn’t include volume integration because out-of-plane thickness was assumed to be one in that particular 2D example.

2. Peltier coefficient “P” is defined under Model Variables on the domains level.

3. I was not able to open your *.rar files.

Regards,
Sergei
[QUOTE] Dear Sergei, I'd like to ask you some questions: 1)why in the 2D model you gave me you write: (-k_ht*Tx+P*Jx_dc)*test(Tx)+(-k_ht*Ty+P*Jy_dc)*test(Ty) without volume integration? 2)where you have declared "P" ? Attached you find my 2D axial symmetric model, there I can find only a heat release at one junction but no heat absorption at the other. Can you explain me where I am wrong and why? Note that my file is more than 10 MB so I was forced to split it in 3 parts with winrar. Also i was forced to rename *.rar files as *.mph files so you have to rename the files in *.rar (otherwise the forum does not allow me to attach) Hope this is not too boring for you... Thank you soo much! [/QUOTE] Dario, 1. I didn’t include volume integration because out-of-plane thickness was assumed to be one in that particular 2D example. 2. Peltier coefficient “P” is defined under Model Variables on the domains level. 3. I was not able to open your *.rar files. Regards, Sergei

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 11, 2013, 4:51 AM EDT
ok thank you so much!
Therefore also in 2D axial symmetry I don't need to do so?

You believe that this equation is good as weak term for a 3D model?
dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh))
0

ok thank you so much! Therefore also in 2D axial symmetry I don't need to do so? You believe that this equation is good as weak term for a 3D model? dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh)) 0

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 11, 2013, 8:13 AM EDT

ok thank you so much!
Therefore also in 2D axial symmetry I don't need to do so?

You believe that this equation is good as weak term for a 3D model?
dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh))
0


Dario,

1. No, 2D plane and 2D axial symmetry are different. Multiplier dVol is Jacobian of coordinate transformation. In 2D plane geometry it reduces to 1 and in 2D axial symmetry case it reduces to 2*pi*r.

I think, confusion here is due to different notations in 3.5 and 4.3. As far as I remember, in 3.5 multiplier dVol is always present in weak form notation (it was a while ago I use 3.5, though).


2. I believe, your weak term is OK for 3D model in version 3.5a.

Regards,
Sergei
[QUOTE] ok thank you so much! Therefore also in 2D axial symmetry I don't need to do so? You believe that this equation is good as weak term for a 3D model? dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(-Jx_emdc*test(TSx_htgh)-Jy_emdc*test(TSy_htgh)-Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh)) 0 [/QUOTE] Dario, 1. No, 2D plane and 2D axial symmetry are different. Multiplier dVol is Jacobian of coordinate transformation. In 2D plane geometry it reduces to 1 and in 2D axial symmetry case it reduces to 2*pi*r. I think, confusion here is due to different notations in 3.5 and 4.3. As far as I remember, in 3.5 multiplier dVol is always present in weak form notation (it was a while ago I use 3.5, though). 2. I believe, your weak term is OK for 3D model in version 3.5a. Regards, Sergei

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 14, 2013, 6:02 AM EDT
Thank you again Sergei, can you tell me if this equation is good for a 2d axial symmetry domain?

dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(Jr_emdc*test(TSr_htgh)+Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh))


dario
Thank you again Sergei, can you tell me if this equation is good for a 2d axial symmetry domain? dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(Jr_emdc*test(TSr_htgh)+Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh)) dario

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 14, 2013, 12:58 PM EDT

Thank you again Sergei, can you tell me if this equation is good for a 2d axial symmetry domain?

dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(Jr_emdc*test(TSr_htgh)+Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh))


dario


Dario,

Equation seems OK for 2D axial symmetry.

Regards,
Sergei
[QUOTE] Thank you again Sergei, can you tell me if this equation is good for a 2d axial symmetry domain? dVol_htgh*(S*T)*(Jr_emdc*test(TSr_htgh)+Jz_emdc*test(TSz_htgh)) dario [/QUOTE] Dario, Equation seems OK for 2D axial symmetry. Regards, Sergei

Posted: 4 years ago Oct 18, 2013, 2:12 PM EDT
Hi Sergei,

This is with reference to your model, Is there any modification to be done to the model if I want to do time dependent analysis instead of steady state?

Regards,
Susant
Hi Sergei, This is with reference to your model, Is there any modification to be done to the model if I want to do time dependent analysis instead of steady state? Regards, Susant

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 18, 2013, 2:47 PM EDT
Susant,

It should work without any modifications in the weak contribution node. Just replace Stationary Step by Time Dependent Step. Then click Heat Transfer (ht) root node and make sure that Equation form is selected as “Time dependent”. Then click Electric Currents (ht) root node and make sure that Equation form is selected as “Stationary” (assuming that you are solving AC case).

Regards,
Sergei
Susant, It should work without any modifications in the weak contribution node. Just replace Stationary Step by Time Dependent Step. Then click Heat Transfer (ht) root node and make sure that Equation form is selected as “Time dependent”. Then click Electric Currents (ht) root node and make sure that Equation form is selected as “Stationary” (assuming that you are solving AC case). Regards, Sergei

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 24, 2013, 10:21 AM EDT
Thank you sergei.

Now i'll try to introduce also the generation effect in the 3D model
Thank you sergei. Now i'll try to introduce also the generation effect in the 3D model

Posted: 4 years ago Oct 24, 2013, 12:08 PM EDT
Hi Sergei,

Thanks. In my application, I want to run heat transfer model in steady state and TEC model in transient mode to see change in temperature field after TEC is activated.

Regards,
Susant
Hi Sergei, Thanks. In my application, I want to run heat transfer model in steady state and TEC model in transient mode to see change in temperature field after TEC is activated. Regards, Susant

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 10:45 AM EDT
Dear Sergei I'm afraid that I need again your help.
I'm trying to introduce the the Seebeck effect in the 3D model, my equation is the following one:
dVol_emdc*(S*sigma)*((TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ex_emdc)+ (TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ey_emdc)+(TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ez_emdc))

this equation is accepted by Comsol (not in red)

I put at 273 K one end of the leg and at 473 the other end, one end is grounded, the other is at a floating potential V.

When solving there is no voltage generation and all the leg is at 0V

for the Peltier effect the model works if I put the respective equation in the field "dweack"

where It is wrong?
where is better to put the equation for the Seebeck?

Thank you

Dario
Dear Sergei I'm afraid that I need again your help. I'm trying to introduce the the Seebeck effect in the 3D model, my equation is the following one: dVol_emdc*(S*sigma)*((TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ex_emdc)+ (TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ey_emdc)+(TSx_htgh+TSy_htgh+TSz_htgh)*test(Ez_emdc)) this equation is accepted by Comsol (not in red) I put at 273 K one end of the leg and at 473 the other end, one end is grounded, the other is at a floating potential V. When solving there is no voltage generation and all the leg is at 0V for the Peltier effect the model works if I put the respective equation in the field "dweack" where It is wrong? where is better to put the equation for the Seebeck? Thank you Dario

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 12:14 PM EDT
Dario,

Seebeck weak contribution is placed for current balance, "emdc" interface, in your case.
This term is shown in the attached image.

There are couple issues with your weak contribution expression:
1. According to Comsol sign convention, Seebeck weak term should be with “minus” sign.
2. Seems you are modeling material with isotropic electric conductivity: sigma_xx=sigma_yy=sigma_zz=sigma. Then, all off-diagonal terms for electric conductivity should be zero. Yet, those terms (containing sigma_xy, sigma_xz, etc.) are non-zero in your expression.

Regards,
Sergei
Dario, Seebeck weak contribution is placed for current balance, "emdc" interface, in your case. This term is shown in the attached image. There are couple issues with your weak contribution expression: 1. According to Comsol sign convention, Seebeck weak term should be with “minus” sign. 2. Seems you are modeling material with isotropic electric conductivity: sigma_xx=sigma_yy=sigma_zz=sigma. Then, all off-diagonal terms for electric conductivity should be zero. Yet, those terms (containing sigma_xy, sigma_xz, etc.) are non-zero in your expression. Regards, Sergei


Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 1:27 PM EDT
Thank you,

Yes I'm making the assumption that it is isotropic. So the right equation should simply be the one in the attached file?

Thank you, Yes I'm making the assumption that it is isotropic. So the right equation should simply be the one in the attached file?


Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 1:40 PM EDT
ok it works perfectly now

forgive me for my ingenuity
ok it works perfectly now forgive me for my ingenuity

Sergei Yushanov Certified Consultant
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 1:44 PM EDT
Dario,

Yes, this is the right equation. (Please correct my typo for the very last factor d(Vtest)/dy->d(Vtest/dz).

Regards,
Sergei
Dario, Yes, this is the right equation. (Please correct my typo for the very last factor d(Vtest)/dy->d(Vtest/dz). Regards, Sergei

Dario Mastrolillo
Posted: 4 years ago Oct 28, 2013, 2:08 PM EDT
Yes, thank you

Can I ask you what sw you use to write down equation in a fast way?
Yes, thank you Can I ask you what sw you use to write down equation in a fast way?

Posted: 4 years ago Apr 17, 2014, 3:55 PM EDT
Dear Sergei,
I have a question for the peltier test model: So you will get T and V for the result. How can I get the current (I) in the p and n legs to calculate the power?
Thanks a lot!
Junce
Dear Sergei, I have a question for the peltier test model: So you will get T and V for the result. How can I get the current (I) in the p and n legs to calculate the power? Thanks a lot! Junce

Posted: 4 years ago Apr 17, 2014, 4:03 PM EDT
Dear Jonatan,
How did you get the current density? Now what I have is voltage but I need current density to calculate the power generation.
Thanks!
Junce
Dear Jonatan, How did you get the current density? Now what I have is voltage but I need current density to calculate the power generation. Thanks! Junce

Jonatan Persson
Posted: 3 years ago Apr 18, 2014, 10:40 AM EDT
Are you using the physics builder guide method?

To meassure at boundrary, create a boundrary probe and use the insert or replace button in the expression section and find your identifier.Jx Jy or Jz from the drop down tree, choose your used physics then current density. To get current, change the type in the probe setting section to Integral. I write the expressions in variables with aproriate names then export the results to tables through global variable probes to get tables with nice headers.
Are you using the physics builder guide method? To meassure at boundrary, create a boundrary probe and use the insert or replace button in the expression section and find your identifier.Jx Jy or Jz from the drop down tree, choose your used physics then current density. To get current, change the type in the probe setting section to Integral. I write the expressions in variables with aproriate names then export the results to tables through global variable probes to get tables with nice headers.

Posted: 3 years ago Apr 25, 2014, 8:22 PM EDT
Hi Jonatan,
Thanks for answering the question. I was using the example model, just combined T and V. But now I'm trying to build up the physics builder. But the guide is for 4.3 and I'm using 4.3b. There are several difference and it's not working. Could you share your physics builder file?
Thanks a lot.
Junce



Are you using the physics builder guide method?

To meassure at boundrary, create a boundrary probe and use the insert or replace button in the expression section and find your identifier.Jx Jy or Jz from the drop down tree, choose your used physics then current density. To get current, change the type in the probe setting section to Integral. I write the expressions in variables with aproriate names then export the results to tables through global variable probes to get tables with nice headers.

Hi Jonatan, Thanks for answering the question. I was using the example model, just combined T and V. But now I'm trying to build up the physics builder. But the guide is for 4.3 and I'm using 4.3b. There are several difference and it's not working. Could you share your physics builder file? Thanks a lot. Junce [QUOTE] Are you using the physics builder guide method? To meassure at boundrary, create a boundrary probe and use the insert or replace button in the expression section and find your identifier.Jx Jy or Jz from the drop down tree, choose your used physics then current density. To get current, change the type in the probe setting section to Integral. I write the expressions in variables with aproriate names then export the results to tables through global variable probes to get tables with nice headers. [/QUOTE]

Jonatan Persson
Posted: 3 years ago Apr 26, 2014, 6:38 PM EDT
I think the only difference is that in 3.3b we use the features called generic feature, domain conidtion or boundrary condition instead of just feature as in the 3.3guide.
I used domain condition for the domain contition but genereic feature for the other condtions, where i choosed boundary in the supported geometric entity levels but you could use boundrary condtition directly, it should be the same thing.

Since the seebeck effect does not readily exist as a material parameter I have the material parameters deactivated and use user input instead as in the guide. Do not use material parameters in model mode but instead variables and for selected domains.

The deactivated weak form equations 3 and 4 is never used since for real materials the seebeck effeckt is always much lower then the conductivity.

I think the attached file will work in your version. It can be tricky to successfully get the interface to the physics area but i think its good to locate the physics builder manager from the view dropdown and press the register development files button in the upper right corner of the manager.
I think the only difference is that in 3.3b we use the features called generic feature, domain conidtion or boundrary condition instead of just feature as in the 3.3guide. I used domain condition for the domain contition but genereic feature for the other condtions, where i choosed boundary in the supported geometric entity levels but you could use boundrary condtition directly, it should be the same thing. Since the seebeck effect does not readily exist as a material parameter I have the material parameters deactivated and use user input instead as in the guide. Do not use material parameters in model mode but instead variables and for selected domains. The deactivated weak form equations 3 and 4 is never used since for real materials the seebeck effeckt is always much lower then the conductivity. I think the attached file will work in your version. It can be tricky to successfully get the interface to the physics area but i think its good to locate the physics builder manager from the view dropdown and press the register development files button in the upper right corner of the manager.


Posted: 2 months ago Aug 23, 2017, 7:04 PM EDT
Hi,

I know it is an old post but I was hoping you could help me out.
I'm new with Comsol and I'm trying to test the Seebeck coefficient in Copper. I simulated a of copper wire on a FR4 and set one side of the wire to 10 K and the other end of the wire at 400 K, one end is grounded, the other is not connected anywhere as I want to measure the open circuit voltage. I added the Seebeck coefficient of the copper to its list of the coefficient and put the right number for it. The problem is that I can't see any voltage. I wonder if you could help me with that.

Thanks!
Hi, I know it is an old post but I was hoping you could help me out. I'm new with Comsol and I'm trying to test the Seebeck coefficient in Copper. I simulated a of copper wire on a FR4 and set one side of the wire to 10 K and the other end of the wire at 400 K, one end is grounded, the other is not connected anywhere as I want to measure the open circuit voltage. I added the Seebeck coefficient of the copper to its list of the coefficient and put the right number for it. The problem is that I can't see any voltage. I wonder if you could help me with that. Thanks!

Reply

Please read the discussion forum rules before posting.

Please log in to post a reply.

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.