Cited by 63Thermal properties of materialsThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesThermal Radiation and Cooling Technologies

Thermal conductivity measurements of non-metals via combined time- and frequency-domain thermoreflectance without a metal film transducer

Wang, L., Cheaito, R., Braun, J. L., Giri, A., Hopkins, P. E.·2016·Review of Scientific Instruments

Abstract

The thermoreflectance-based techniques time- and frequency-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR and FDTR, respectively) have emerged as robust platforms to measure the thermophysical properties of a wide array of systems on varying length scales. Routine in the implementation of these techniques is the application of a thin metal film on the surface of the sample of interest to serve as an opto-thermal transducer ensuring the measured modulated reflectivity is dominated by the change in thermoreflectance of the sample. Here, we outline a method to directly measure the thermal conductivities of bulk materials without using a metal transducer layer using a standard TDTR/FDTR experiment. A major key in this approach is the use of a thermal model with z-dependent heat source when the optical penetration depth is comparable to the beam sizes and measuring the FDTR response at a long delay time to minimize non-thermoreflectivity contributions to the modulated reflectance signals (such as free carrier excitations). Using this approach, we demonstrate the ability to measure the thermal conductivity on three semiconductors, intrinsic Si (100), GaAs (100), and InSb (100), the results of which are validated with FDTR measurements on the same wafers with aluminum transducers. We outline the major sources of uncertainty in this approach, including frequency dependent heating and precise knowledge of the pump and probe spot sizes. As a result, we discuss appropriate pump-frequency ranges in which to implement this TDTR/FDTR approach and present a procedure to measure the effective spot sizes by fitting the FDTR data of an 80 nm Al/SiO2 sample at a time delay in which the spot size sensitivity dominates an FDTR measurement over the substrate thermal properties. Our method provides a more convenient way to directly measure the thermal conductivities of semiconductors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.4962711

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, L., Cheaito, R., Braun, J. L., Giri, A., & Hopkins, P. E.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Venue
Review of Scientific Instruments
Published
2016-09-01
Volume
87
Issue
9
Pages
094902-094902
ISSN
  • 0034-6748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7623
OpenAlex
W2523563190
Cited by
63
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Review of Scientific Instruments (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-15-12769)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-15-1-0079)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Thermal properties of materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Thermal Radiation and Cooling Technologies
Keywords
thermal conductivity, time-domain thermoreflectance, frequency-domain thermoreflectance, silicon, GaAs, indium antimonide, optical penetration depth, measurement uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review