A mechanical and geometrical approach to thermal contact resistance

A predictive model for the thermal contact resistance at liquid–solid interfaces: Analytical developments and validation

“…While the above model for TCR has been largely accepted by authors in the field, there are several different analytical relationships that have been proposed in order to determine the density (n s ) and the equivalent radius (a s ) of microcontact points. The divergence is usually related to the use of different assumptions concerning the topography and the mechanisms of contact by assuming conical shapes for surface asperities of equal base angle [55,56], hemispherical and spherical shapes [33,41,52], cylindrical with plane contact surfaces [42], etc. in addition to the plastic, elastic and elastoplastic nature of the mechanisms of contact.…”

A study on the correlation between the thermal contact conductance and effective factors in fin–tube heat exchangers with 9.52 mm tube

“…Stubblefield et al (1996) investigated the heat loss by thermal contact resistance using the insulated pipe and presented a simple method to predict the effect of contact resistance. Salgon et al (1997) theoretically predicted the thermal contact conductance which was presented as a function of contact pressure and compared to experimental data. But, the previous studies were insufficient to identify factors affecting the thermal contact conductance because several factors were not considered, and many assumptions were used in the mathematical models.…”

Modeling of Transient Thermal Contact Resistance out of Conjugate Gradient Method

“…Nearly the other combinations show a linear trend in the whole investigated domain. The different behaviours are attributed to the relative microhardness of each material with Molykote coat [2,3,8,10,11]. The first combination has a relative hardness difference as Nimonic 80A strength is almost 60 % of PL33MV400, while other material combinations have close mechanical properties.…”