CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 559Thermal properties of materialsHeat Transfer and Numerical MethodsThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 133 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 106 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Measurement Techniques for Thermal Conductivity and Interfacial Thermal Conductance of Bulk and Thin Film Materials

Open access
Zhao, Dongliang, Qian, Xin, Gu, Xiaokun, Jajja, Saad Ayub, Yang, Ronggui·2016·Journal of Electronic Packaging
DOI 10.1115/1.4034605
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance play crucial roles in the design of engineering systems where temperature and thermal stress are of concerns. To date, a variety of measurement techniques are available for both bulk and thin film solid-state materials with a broad temperature range. For thermal characterization of bulk material, the steady-state method, transient hot-wire method, laser flash diffusivity method, and transient plane source (TPS) method are most used. For thin film measurement, the 3ω method and the transient thermoreflectance technique including both time-domain and frequency-domain analysis are widely employed. This work reviews several most commonly used measurement techniques. In general, it is a very challenging task to determine thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance with less than 5% error. Selecting a specific measurement technique to characterize thermal properties needs to be based on: (1) knowledge on the sample whose thermophysical properties are to be determined, including the sample geometry and size, and the material preparation method; (2) understanding of fundamentals and procedures of the testing technique, for example, some techniques are limited to samples with specific geometries and some are limited to a specific range of thermophysical properties; and (3) understanding of the potential error sources which might affect the final results, for example, the convection and radiation heat losses.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review surveys commonly used techniques for measuring thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance of bulk and thin-film solid-state materials. It compares steady-state and transient methods, their sample requirements, data-reduction models, and error sources, noting that determining these properties with less than 5% error is generally very challenging.

Key findings

  • For bulk materials, the most-used techniques reviewed are steady-state methods (absolute, comparative, radial heat flow, parallel thermal conductance), transient hot-wire, laser flash diffusivity, and transient plane source (TPS); for thin films, the 3ω method and transient thermoreflectance in time-domain (TDTR) and frequency-domain (FDTR) are widely employed.
  • Reported performance numbers include: hot-wire uncertainties below 1% for gases, liquids, and solids and below 2% for nanofluids; laser flash uncertainty less than 3% over -120 °C to 2800 °C and for samples 5–12 mm in diameter; pulsed power uncertainty less than 3% over 1.9–390 K and capable of measuring 0.004 W/m·K for ZrW2O8 at 2 K; TPS for 0.005–500 W/m·K from cryogenic temperatures to 500 K; and 3ω radiation error less than 2% even at 1000 K.
  • Thermal conductivity of solids spans about 0.015 W/m·K for aerogels to about 2000 W/m·K for diamond and about 3000 W/m·K for single-layer graphene at room temperature.
  • The paper emphasizes that technique selection depends on sample geometry/size and preparation, the fundamentals and limits of the testing method, and potential error sources such as convection and radiation heat losses.

Methods

  • Design: a review article, not a primary experimental study; it describes principles, schematics, governing equations, and data-reduction approaches for bulk and thin-film thermal characterization techniques.
  • Data or sample: the paper draws on published literature and standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO, EN) rather than reporting a new sample set or original measurements.
  • Main analysis: qualitative and analytical comparison of steady-state and transient methods, including equations for Fourier’s law, hot-wire, TPS, laser flash, 3ω, and thermoreflectance models, plus discussion of measurement uncertainty and sensitivity.

Limitations

  • The paper states that determining thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance with less than 5% error is very challenging, and that parasitic heat losses, sample geometry, contact resistance, and other error sources can affect results.
  • Technique-specific limitations stated include: absolute steady-state methods require relatively large samples and long waiting times; TPS requires planar sample sides and suffers from contact resistance, sensor thermal inertia, and electrical resistance changes; laser flash requires separate density and heat capacity measurements and can suffer from sample-holder heating; 3ω requires microfabrication and an insulating layer for electrically conducting or semiconducting samples; thermoreflectance requires a metal transducer and model fitting with sensitivity limitations.
  • Evident from the text: the review covers selected commonly used techniques rather than all possible methods, and several quantitative uncertainty values are cited from prior literature rather than newly validated in this work.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1115/1.4034605

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

4 of 106 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 58
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
77 of 77

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the absolute technique for thermal contact resistance, the temperature distribution on each side of the mating samples is linear.

    “Temperatures at both interfaces (i.e.𝑇 ℎ and 𝑇 𝑐 , denoted by hollow circles) can be deduced assuming the temperature distribution on each side is linear.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the pulsed power technique, using C(Tc), R(Tc) and K(Tc) in place of C(Th), R(Th) and K((Th+Tc)/2) is valid because the temperature difference between Tc and Th is very small.

    “Therefore, 𝐶(𝑇 𝑐 ) , 𝑅(𝑇 𝑐 ) and 𝐾(𝑇 𝑐 ) are usually used in Eq. ( 5) to replace 𝐶(𝑇 ℎ ) , 𝑅(𝑇 ℎ ) and 𝐾((𝑇 ℎ + 𝑇 𝑐 )/2) to linearize the equation.This assumption holds because temperature difference between 𝑇 𝑐 and 𝑇 ℎ (i.e.∆𝑇) is very small (Figure 4b).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the pulsed power technique, Tc is considered constant because it drifts very slowly compared to the periodic current.

    “Also, 𝑇 𝑐 is considered to be constant since it is drifted very slowly compared to the periodic current.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the TPS method, the metal disk can be considered in contact with infinite size samples throughout the transient signal recording process because the time period is generally only a few seconds.

    “This time period is generally only a few seconds so that the metal disk can be considered in contact with infinite size samples throughout the transient signal recording process.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the laser flash method, heat conduction is assumed to be one-dimensional, with no lateral heat loss.

    “Heat conduction is assumed to be one-dimensional (i.e.no lateral heat loss).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The temperature at the top of the film is the same as the average heater temperature.

    “The temperature at the top of the film 𝑇 𝑓,1 is generally assumed to be the same as the average heater temperature 𝑇 ℎ .”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The temperature at the upper side of the film can be taken to be equal to the heater/sensor temperature because contact resistances are very small.

    “The temperature at the upper side of the film is usually taken to be equal to the heater/sensor temperature because the contact resistances are typically very small, 10 -8 -10 -7 m 2 K/W [83].”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Heat conduction across the thin film is one-dimensional.

    “Assuming one-dimensional heat conduction across the thin film (Figure 10a), the thermal conductivity of the thin film can be easily determined from:”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The boundary condition is approximately adiabatic under experimental conditions.

    “The boundary condition is approximately adiabatic in experimental condition, hence 𝐹 𝑏 = 𝐶𝜃 𝑡 + 𝐷𝐹 𝑡 = 0”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The material is isotropic when determining thermal conductivity with a small beam spot at low frequency and heat capacity with a large beam spot at high frequency.

    “If we assume the material isotropic, we can first determine thermal conductivity using a small beam spot at low frequency, and then measure heat capacity using a large beam spot at high frequency.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The in-plane thermal conductivity has cylindrical symmetry when using a small spot size to measure in-plane thermal conductivity.

    “This method of measuring in-plane thermal conductivity using a small spot size, however, assumes cylindrical symmetry of thermal conductivity in the in-plane direction [94].”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The heat flow is one-dimensional with no lateral heat loss.

    “The heat flow is assumed to be one-dimensional with no lateral heat loss.”
12 of 12

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Heater resistance is identified as thermal resistance

    Minor

    In the pulsed-power derivation, the heater resistance is introduced as electrical resistance, while the explanation of the resulting expression calls R thermal resistance. The R multiplied by current squared in that expression must be the electrical heater resistance described earlier.

  • Interfacial conductance and contact resistance use different heat quantities

    Minor

    The paper defines interfacial conductance using heat flux, but defines thermal contact resistance using total heat flow and says the two are inverses. The reciprocal of the stated resistance uses total heat flow, not heat flux; the definitions differ by interface area.

  • Reference [32] identifies a different source

    Minor

    The text cites [32] for the ASTM E1530 standard, but reference 32 is a work by Flynn. The ASTM E1530 entry is numbered 31 in the reference list.

  • Equation 27 is described as normalized although it gives a temperature drop

    Minor

    The text first presents Eq. (27) as the thin-film temperature drop ΔTf, then says the equation gives that drop normalized to a one-dimensional value. The displayed equation has no normalization by that value.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 133 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2006, Materials Science in Microelectronics: The Relationships Between Thin Film Processing and Structure
  2. 1931, New Method for Determining the Coefficients of Thermal Conductivity, Tek. Tidskr., 61, 389

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 559

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, D., Qian, X., Gu, X., Jajja, S. A., & Yang, R.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Electronic Packaging
Publisher
ASME International
Published
2016-10-06
Volume
138
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1043-7398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-9044
DOI
10.1115/1.4034605
OpenAlex
W2399632194
Cited by
559
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 2
FWCI
15.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Electronic Packaging (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Thermal properties of materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Heat Transfer and Numerical Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Keywords
thermal conductivity measurement, interfacial thermal conductance, thin films, bulk materials, steady-state method, transient hot-wire method, transient plane source, 3ω method, transient thermoreflectance, measurement error sources

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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