Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review

Bas van Wijngaarden; Junchun Yang; Jurriaan Schmitz

doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909

Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review

Bas van Wijngaarden, Junchun Yang, Jurriaan Schmitz^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

438 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recently, the Cox–Strack method for contact resistivity determination is increasingly used in the context of photovoltaic cell engineering. This document reviews the literature published in the period 2017–2021 containing Cox–Strack measurement results. As the Cox–Strack method is error-prone, we analyze this literature on the possible inaccuracies that may arise due to (1) approximations by Cox and Strack, (2) the choice of contact diameters, and (3) resistive coatings. On the basis of our findings, more than half of the 93 reviewed articles may need additional analysis for an accurate quantification of the lower reported contact resistance values. The article concludes with recommendations for an improved Cox–Strack methodology.

Original language	English
Article number	111909
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Number of pages	8
Journal	Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
Volume	246
Early online date	18 Aug 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909
Publication status	Published - 1 Oct 2022

Keywords

UT-Hybrid-D

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909Licence: CC BY

ArticleFinal published version, 1.29 MBLicence: CC BY
vanWijngaarden_solmat_corrigendaOther version, 591 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{d2f0e05dd4694918841da5ad079e289f,

title = "Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review",

abstract = "Recently, the Cox–Strack method for contact resistivity determination is increasingly used in the context of photovoltaic cell engineering. This document reviews the literature published in the period 2017–2021 containing Cox–Strack measurement results. As the Cox–Strack method is error-prone, we analyze this literature on the possible inaccuracies that may arise due to (1) approximations by Cox and Strack, (2) the choice of contact diameters, and (3) resistive coatings. On the basis of our findings, more than half of the 93 reviewed articles may need additional analysis for an accurate quantification of the lower reported contact resistance values. The article concludes with recommendations for an improved Cox–Strack methodology.",

keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D",

author = "{van Wijngaarden}, Bas and Junchun Yang and Jurriaan Schmitz",

year = "2022",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909",

language = "English",

volume = "246",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells",

issn = "0927-0248",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method

T2 - A review

AU - van Wijngaarden, Bas

AU - Yang, Junchun

AU - Schmitz, Jurriaan

PY - 2022/10/1

Y1 - 2022/10/1

N2 - Recently, the Cox–Strack method for contact resistivity determination is increasingly used in the context of photovoltaic cell engineering. This document reviews the literature published in the period 2017–2021 containing Cox–Strack measurement results. As the Cox–Strack method is error-prone, we analyze this literature on the possible inaccuracies that may arise due to (1) approximations by Cox and Strack, (2) the choice of contact diameters, and (3) resistive coatings. On the basis of our findings, more than half of the 93 reviewed articles may need additional analysis for an accurate quantification of the lower reported contact resistance values. The article concludes with recommendations for an improved Cox–Strack methodology.

AB - Recently, the Cox–Strack method for contact resistivity determination is increasingly used in the context of photovoltaic cell engineering. This document reviews the literature published in the period 2017–2021 containing Cox–Strack measurement results. As the Cox–Strack method is error-prone, we analyze this literature on the possible inaccuracies that may arise due to (1) approximations by Cox and Strack, (2) the choice of contact diameters, and (3) resistive coatings. On the basis of our findings, more than half of the 93 reviewed articles may need additional analysis for an accurate quantification of the lower reported contact resistance values. The article concludes with recommendations for an improved Cox–Strack methodology.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

U2 - 10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909

DO - 10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111909

M3 - Review article

SN - 0927-0248

VL - 246

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

JF - Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

M1 - 111909

ER -

Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Corrigendum to “Inaccuracies in contact resistivity from the Cox–Strack method: A review” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 246 (2022) 111909]

Cite this