Review of Thermal Joint Resistance Models for Nonconforming Rough Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thermal contact resistance (TCR) in a vacuum is studied. The TCR problem is divided into three different parts: geometrical, mechanical, and thermal. Each problem includes a macro- and microscale subproblem; existing theories and models for each part are reviewed. Empirical correlations for microhardness, and the equivalent (sum) rough surface approximation, are discussed. Suggested correlations for estimating the mean absolute surface slope are summarized and compared with experimental data. The most common assumptions of existing thermal analyses are summarized. As basic elements of thermal analyses, spreading resistance of a circular heat source on a half-space and flux tube are reviewed; also existing flux tube correlations are compared. More than 400 TCR data points collected by different researchers during the last 40years are grouped into two limiting cases: conforming rough and elastoconstriction. Existing TCR models are reviewed and compared with the experimental data at these two limits. It is shown that the existing theoretical models do not cover both of the above-mentioned limiting cases. This review article cites 58 references.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".