4.5 Article

Investigation into accuracy of turn-to-turn contact resistance measurement in low-frequency AC method by 3D numerical simulation

Journal

SUPERCONDUCTOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6668/aca5b9

Keywords

contact resistance measurement; low-frequency AC method; no-insulation winding technique; REBCO pancake coil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we discuss the accuracy of contact resistance measurement using the low-frequency AC (LFAC) method and the relation between contact resistance and contact resistivity. Through experiments and simulations, we have proven the validity of the LFAC method and also identified the possibility of improving the measurement accuracy. Additionally, we found inconsistencies in the well-known relation between contact resistance and contact resistivity, which led us to investigate the relation through LFAC and sudden-discharging test simulations.
In this paper, we discuss two points: (a) the accuracy of contact resistance measurement using the low-frequency AC (LFAC) method and (b) the relation between the contact resistance and the contact resistivity. The LFAC method is used to measure the turn-to-turn contact resistance of a no-insulation (NI) rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) pancake coil. We have previously shown the validity of the LFAC method by experiment. In this paper, the current distribution of aNI REBCO pancake coil on the applyication of the LFAC method is investigated using numerical simulation. The simulation results show the possibility of improving the measurement accuracy. Hence, a correction method is also proposed using the phase difference of the coil voltage and current. The LFAC simulation results also indicate the inconsistency of the well-known relation between contact resistance and contact resistivity. Therefore, we investigated the relation through the LFAC and sudden-discharging test simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available