Abstract
In the aluminum smelting industry, electrical contact resistance at the stub–carbon (steel–carbon) interface has been recurrently reported to be of magnitudes that legitimately necessitate concern. Mitigating this via finite element modeling has been the focus of a number of investigations, with the pressure- and temperature-dependent contact resistance relation frequently cited as a factor that limits the accuracy of such models. In this study, pressure- and temperature-dependent relations are derived from the most extensively cited works that have experimentally characterized the electrical contact resistance at these contacts. These relations are applied in a validated thermo-electro-mechanical finite element model used to estimate the voltage drop across a steel–carbon laboratory setup. By comparing the models’ estimate of the contact electrical resistance with experimental measurements, we deduce the applicability of the different relations over a range of temperatures. The ultimate goal of this study is to apply mathematical modeling in providing pressure- and temperature-dependent relations that best describe the steel–carbon electrical contact resistance and identify the best fit relation at specific thermodynamic conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. Wilkening and J. Cote, Light Met. 4, 534 (2007).
D.G. Brooks and V.L. Bullough, Light Met. 4, 516 (1984).
D. Molenaar and B.A. Sadler, Light Met. 2, 1263 (2014).
P.J. Rhedey and L. Castonguay, Light Met. 4, 1089 (1985).
M. Dupuis, Light Met. 2010 (2010).
DOE, “Electric Monthly Power-US Department of Energy,” 25 August 2014, http://www.eia.gov/.
M. Braunovic, in Electrical Contacts, edited by P. Slade and M. Dekker (IIT, Boston, 1999), p. 155.
R. Holm, Electric Contacts; Theory and Applications (New York: Springer, 1967), p. 7.
D. Richard, M. Fafard, R. Lacroix, P. CleHry, and Y. Maltais, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 37, 287 (2001).
D. Molenaar, T. Kilpatrick, and A. Montalto, Light Met. 2013, 1359 (2013).
H. Fortin, N. Kandev, and M. Fafard, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 52, 71 (2012).
M. Bastaki, A. Zarouni, B. Jonqua, N. Ahli, L. Mishra, A.A. Jasmi, A.A. Zarouni, M. Reverdy, and V. Potocnik, Light Met. 143, 451 (2014).
D. Richard, P. Goulet, O. Trempe, M. Dupuis, and M. Fafard, Proceedings of the TMS Light Metals, p. 1067 (2009).
T.X. Hou, Q. Jiao, E. Chin, W. Crowell, and C. Celik, Light Met. 1995, 755 (1995).
M. Dupuis, Light Met. (Warrendale: TMS, 1998), p. 409.
R. Peterson, Light Met. 4, 510 (1978).
W. Peterson, Light Met. 4, 500 (1976).
H. Fortin, M. Fafard, N. Kandev, and P. Goulet, Light Met. 1, 1055 (2009).
D. Molenaar, K. Ding, and A. Kapoor, Light Met. 2011, 985 (2011).
M. Sørlie and H. Gran, Light Met. 1992, 779 (1992).
D. Richard, M. Fafard, R. Lacroix, P. CleHry, and Y. Maltais, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 132, 119 (2003).
L.D. Landau, J.S. Bell, M.J. Kearsley, L.P. Pitaevskii, E.M. Lifshitz, and J.B. Sykes, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, chap. 1, vol. 8 (New York: Elsevier, 1984), pp. 1–33.
E.E. Antonova and D.C. Looman (Paper presented at the IEEE 24th International Conference on Thermoelectrics, Canonsburg, PA, 2005).
B. Cockburn and C.W. Shu, Math. Comput. 52, 411 (1989).
W.H. Reed and T.R. Hill, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1973, unpublished research.
J.F. Nye, Physical Properties of Crystals: Their Representation by Tensors and Matrices (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957).
ANSYS Inc., ANSYS Mechanical Theory Guide (ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA, 2009).
J.C. Simo and T.A. Laursen, Comput. Struct. 42, 97 (1992).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brimmo, A.T., Hassan, M.I. Modeling the Electrical Contact Resistance at Steel–Carbon Interfaces. JOM 68, 49–58 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1665-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1665-4