4.4 Review

Mean Free Path Effects on the Experimentally Measured Thermal Conductivity of Single-Crystal Silicon Microbridges

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4024357

关键词

phonon mean free path; short pulsed laser heating; phonon spectroscopy; thermal conductivity

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]
  2. United States Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate thermal conductivity values are essential for the successful modeling, design, and thermal management of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and devices. However, the experimental technique best suited to measure the thermal conductivity of these systems, as well as the thermal conductivity itself, varies with the device materials, fabrication processes, geometry, and operating conditions. In this study, the thermal conductivities of boron doped single-crystal silicon microbridges fabricated using silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers are measured over the temperature range from 80 to 350K. The microbridges are 4.6mm long, 125 mu m tall, and either 50 or 85 mu m wide. Measurements on the 85 mu m wide microbridges are made using both steady-state electrical resistance thermometry (SSERT) and optical time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR). A thermal conductivity of 77 Wm(-1) K-1 is measured for both microbridge widths at room temperature, where the results of both experimental techniques agree. However, increasing discrepancies between the thermal conductivities measured by each technique are found with decreasing temperatures below 300K. The reduction in thermal conductivity measured by TDTR is primarily attributed to a ballistic thermal resistance contributed by phonons with mean free paths larger than the TDTR pump beam diameter. Boltzmann transport equation (BTE) modeling under the relaxation time approximation (RTA) is used to investigate the discrepancies and emphasizes the role of different interaction volumes in explaining the underprediction of TDTR measurements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据