Review of Models for Thermal Contact Conductance of Metals

Characterisation of conduction phenomena in soils at the particle-scale: Finite element analyses in conjunction with synthetic 3D imaging

“…Therefore, the surface roughness and the presence of gaps between particles defines a poor contact condition (see a summary of empirical correlations in [31]; and overestimation of thermal conductivity by a factor 2 with other models proposed in [32]). The analytical and numerical studies that take into consideration the surface roughness effect are limited to the single contact between two spheres [33][34][35].…”

The electrical/thermal conductance of rough surfaces––the Weierstrass–Archard multiscale model

“…Most of them use statistical surface parameters largely dependent on resolution (Tien, 1968;Cooper et al, 1969;Mikic, 1974;Yovanovich, 1987), and therefore should be used with great care when the original assumptions are not satisfied (particularly in the use of microscopic constitutive laws which depend strongly on the determination of asperity contacts size). For a quite extensive review (although dedicated to thermal contact conductance instead of electrical conductance), see Lambert and Fletcher (1997), and the references therein. One original model using fractal geometry for the surface characterization, was introduced also for electrical contact (Majumdar and Tien, 1991), but using a network of resistances in series and parallel, where the assumed patterns are based on properties of the surface profiles independently of the contact process.…”

An investigation of thermal contact conductance using the lumped parameter method

“…In another experimental study, Veziroglu [4] found statistically that contact conductance had a AE60% variation. Research on contact spot distributions has also been investigated using pressure gel, which changes color under different pressures [5].…”