I am dealing with carbon fibers which were coated with copper by a galvanic process. From these I made a composite with epoxy resin (see my publications).
Now I try to simulate the behaviour of the thermal conductivity with Abaqus. I was suggested not to take the thermal conductivity of neat copper (396 W/mK) into accout, but that of calvanic processed copper.
However, I could not find a value for this. I do not see a reason why there should be any difference as copper does not corrodate during galvanisation, as mentioned here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_galvanic_corrosion_does_not_occur_in_copper_clad_aluminium_conductors
Does someone have further suggestions here?
Dear Dr. Simon Bard,
I suggest you to have a look at the following note, where you can find an interesting table…
-Thermal Conductivity of Metals, Metallic Elements and Alloys by The Engineering ToolBox
Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
Even if I premise that I am not an Abaqus software expert, I would insert in the software the value that seems most appropriate to your system, as if it were considered ideal.
For the moment I would not face particular situations (such as corrosive phenomena or particular production details) because the situation would become very, very complex and the data extremely variable depending on the processes used and the "real" conditions of the system implemented.
Good work and best regards, Pierluigi Traverso
Hello Simon Bard ,
Electrolytic (galvanic) copper can have different mechanical and/or thermophysical properties than coalesced (fused/cast) copper due to such things as grain size and structure. With regard to the thermal conductivity of different types of coppers, Volume 1 of "Thermophysical Properties of Matter" edited by Touloukian et al. does not appear to show significantly different values, see p. A30 (p. 1208 in the PDF file), see URL: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0649947/page/n1207/mode/2up . Of course, the lack of any significant difference might also be due to the limits of the measurement technique(s) employed. p. A30 in Appendix A is only a summary. For more detailed explanations, see the actual data pages earlier in this volume.
Regards,
Tom Cuff