CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Thermal properties of materialsThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesMechanical and Thermal Properties Analysis

Time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) measurements of anisotropic thermal conductivity using a variable spot size approach

Open access
Jiang, Puqing, Qian, Xin, Yang, Ronggui·2017·Review of Scientific Instruments
DOI 10.1063/1.4991715
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is challenging to characterize thermal conductivity of materials with strong anisotropy. In this work, we extend the time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) method with a variable spot size approach to simultaneously measure the in-plane (Kr) and the through-plane (Kz) thermal conductivity of materials with strong anisotropy. We first determine Kz from the measurement using a larger spot size, when the heat flow is mainly one-dimensional along the through-plane direction, and the measured signals are only sensitive to Kz. We then extract the in-plane thermal conductivity Kr from a second measurement using the same modulation frequency but with a smaller spot size, when the heat flow becomes three-dimensional, and the signal is sensitive to both Kr and Kz. By choosing the same modulation frequency for the two sets of measurements, we can avoid potential artifacts introduced by the frequency-dependent Kz, which we have found to be non-negligible, especially for some two-dimensional layered materials like MoS2. After careful evaluation of the sensitivity of a series of hypothetical samples, we provided guidelines on choosing the most appropriate laser spot size and modulation frequency that yield the smallest uncertainty, and established a criterion for the range of thermal conductivity that can be measured reliably using our proposed variable spot size TDTR approach. We have demonstrated this variable spot size TDTR approach on samples with a wide range of in-plane thermal conductivity, including fused silica, rutile titania (TiO2 [001]), zinc oxide (ZnO [0001]), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), and highly ordered pyrolytic graphite.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.4991715

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • TDTR has been applied to measure materials with thermal conductivity values ranging from about 2000 W m−1 K−1 (e.g., diamond and graphite) to as low as 0.03 W m−1 K−1 (e.g., disordered WSe2 films).

    “In particular, time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) technique has been applied for measuring materials with thermal conductivity values ranging from a high end at ~2000 W m -1 K -1 (like diamond 36 and graphite 24, 37 ) to as low as 0.03 W m -1 K -1 (e.g., disordered WSe2 films 26 ).”

    From Tutorial: Time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) for thermal property characterization of bulk and thin film materials (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    Results and Discussions (p. 19) says TDTR has been applied to measure through-plane conductivity from about 2000 W m−1 K−1 in diamond to about 0.03 W m−1 K−1 in disordered layered crystals and fullerene derivatives. The paper also reports an in-plane measurement near 2000 W m−1 K−1 for highly ordered pyrolytic graphite (table, p. 22). Our copy does not identify the low-conductivity material as disordered WSe2 films. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Variable spot size TDTR can measure both in-plane and through-plane thermal conductivities by changing the relative size of the laser spot compared to the thermal penetration depth.

    “By changing the relative size of laser spot as compared to the thermal penetration depth, as illustrated in Figure 18(a), TDTR can measure both the in-plane and the through-plane thermal conductivities.”

    From Tutorial: Time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) for thermal property characterization of bulk and thin film materials (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

  • The Kc of ZnO determined from the elliptical-beam method (56 W m-1 K-1) is slightly lower than a first-principles calculation in literature (62 W m-1 K-1) but is consistent with another TDTR measurement of Kz of ZnO [0001] (55 W m-1 K-1).

    “The Kc of ZnO determined from the elliptical-beam method (56 W m -1 K -1 ) is slightly lower than a first-principles calculation in literature (62 W m -1 K -1 ) 195 but is consistent with another TDTR measurement of Kz of ZnO [0001] (55 W m -1 K -1 ) 37 , which has its c -axis along the through-plane direction.”

    From Tutorial: Time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) for thermal property characterization of bulk and thin film materials (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 3 Duck-Young Chung, Tim Hogan, Paul Brazis, Melissa Rocci-Lane, Carl Kannewurf, Marina Bastea, Ctirad Uher, and Mercouri G. Kanatzidis, Science 287 (5455), 1024 (2000).
  2. 2 Xudong Wang, Christopher J. Summers, and Zhong Lin Wang, Nano Lett. 4 (3), 423 (2004).
  3. 4 B. Yang, W. L. Liu, J. L. Liu, K. L. Wang, and G. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81 (19), 3588 (2002).
  4. 6 B. Wicklein, A. Kocjan, G. Salazar-Alvarez, F. Carosio, G. Camino, M. Antonietti, and L. Bergstrom, Nat Nanotechnol 10 (3), 277 (2015).
  5. 5 L. D. Zhao, S. H. Lo, Y. Zhang, H. Sun, G. Tan, C. Uher, C. Wolverton, V. P. Dravid, and M. G. Kanatzidis, Nature 508 (7496), 373 (2014).
  6. 9 A. J. Minnich, Nanoscale and Microscale Thermophysical Engineering 20 (1), 1 (2016).
  7. 8 Dongliang Zhao, Xin Qian, Xiaokun Gu, Saad Ayub Jajja, and Ronggui Yang, J. Electron. Packaging 138 (4), 040802 (2016).
  8. 12 A. T. Ramu and J. E. Bowers, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 (12), 124903 (2012).
  9. 11 C. N. Hooker, A. R. Ubbelohde, and D. A. Young, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 284 (1396), 17 (1965).
  10. 13 Vivek Mishra, Corey L. Hardin, Javier E. Garay, and Chris Dames, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86 (5), 054902 (2015).
  11. 15 J. P. Feser, J. Liu, and D. G. Cahill, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (10), 104903 (2014).
  12. 14 J. P. Feser and D. G. Cahill, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 (10), 104901 (2012).
  13. 16 David Rodin and Shannon K. Yee, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88 (1), 014902 (2017).
  14. 19 Puqing Jiang, Xin Qian, Xiaokun Gu, and Ronggui Yang, Adv. Mater. (In press).
  15. 21 C. Wei, X. Zheng, D. G. Cahill, and J. C. Zhao, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84 (7), 071301 (2013).
  16. 20 J. Liu, J. Zhu, M. Tian, X. Gu, A. Schmidt, and R. Yang, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84 (3), 034902 (2013).
  17. 22 Puqing Jiang, Bin Huang, and Yee Kan Koh, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87 (7), 075101 (2016).
  18. 24 David G. Cahill, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75 (12), 5119 (2004).
  19. 23 David G. Cahill, Paul V. Braun, Gang Chen, David R. Clarke, Shanhui Fan, Kenneth E. Goodson, Pawel Keblinski, William P. King, Gerald D. Mahan, Arun Majumdar, Humphrey J. Maris, Simon R. Phillpot, Eric Pop, and Li Shi, Appl. Phys. Rev. 1 (1), 011305 (2014).
  20. 25 A. J. Schmidt, X. Chen, and G. Chen, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79 (11), 114902 (2008).
  21. 27 A. J. Schmidt, R. Cheaito, and M. Chiesa, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80 (9), 094901 (2009).
  22. 26 K. Kang, Y. K. Koh, C. Chiritescu, X. Zheng, and D. G. Cahill, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79 (11), 114901 (2008).
  23. 28 Jie Zhu, Dawei Tang, Wei Wang, Jun Liu, Kristopher W. Holub, and Ronggui Yang, J. Appl. Phys. 108 (9), 094315 (2010).
  24. 29 Yee Kan Koh and David G. Cahill, Phys. Rev. B 76 (7), 075207 (2007).
  25. 31 Fan Yang and Chris Dames, Phys. Rev. B 91 (16), 165311 (2015).
  26. 33 Aaron Jerome Schmidt, PhD thesis, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 2008.
  27. 32 DM Hamby, Environ. Monit. Assess. 32 (2), 135 (1994).
  28. 34 Yee Kan Koh, Suzanne L. Singer, Woochul Kim, Joshua M. O. Zide, Hong Lu, David G. Cahill, Arun Majumdar, and Arthur C. Gossard, J. Appl. Phys. 105 (5), 054303 (2009).
  29. 35 Jia Yang, Elbara Ziade, and Aaron J. Schmidt, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87 (1), 014901 (2016).
  30. 36 Thomas L. Bougher, Luke Yates, Chien-Fong Lo, Wayne Johnson, Samuel Graham, and Baratunde A. Cola, Nanoscale and Microscale Thermophysical Engineering 20 (1), 22 (2016).
  31. 38 R. Brückner, J. Non·Cryst. Solids 5 (2), 123 (1970).
  32. 39 Akira Sugawara, J. Appl. Phys. 39 (13), 5994 (1968).
  33. 41 Russell W. Millar, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 50 (10), 2653 (1928).
  34. 40 C. Howard Shomate, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 69 (2), 218 (1947).
  35. 43 LS Volovik, VV Fesenko, AS Bolgar, SV Drozdova, LA Klochkov, and VF Primachenko, Soviet Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics 17 (9), 697 (1978).
  36. 45 A. S. Dworkin, D. J. Sasmor, and E. R. Van Artsdalen, The Journal of Chemical Physics 22 (5), 837 (1954).
  37. 47 W. DeSorbo and W. W. Tyler, The Journal of Chemical Physics 21 (10), 1660 (1953).
  38. 46 E. K. Sichel, R. E. Miller, M. S. Abrahams, and C. J. Buiocchi, Phys. Rev. B 13 (10), 4607 (1976).
  39. 48 M. G. Holland, C. A. Klein, and W. D. Straub, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 27 (5), 903 (1966).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jiang, P., Qian, X., & Yang, R.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
ORCID
Venue
Review of Scientific Instruments
Publisher
AIP Publishing
Published
2017-07-01
Volume
88
Issue
7
Pages
074901-074901
ISSN
  • 0034-6748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7623
DOI
10.1063/1.4991715
OpenAlex
W2605963437
Cited by
175
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Scientific Instruments (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1511195)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8650-15-1-7524)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Thermal properties of materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Mechanical and Thermal Properties Analysis
Keywords
time-domain thermoreflectance, anisotropic thermal conductivity, in-plane thermal conductivity, through-plane thermal conductivity, MoS2, hexagonal boron nitride, pyrolytic graphite, rutile TiO2, zinc oxide, fused silica, 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