“…[55] for a graphene/SiO2 interface, but lower than others [56,58,59]. Values similar to ours have also been reported for the carbon nanotube (CNT)/SiO2 interface [60] and for the graphene/oil interface [61]. The thermal boundary resistance values for other carbon compounds like diamond [63], metallic single-wall CNTs [64] and graphite [10,65] are close to the upper bound of thermal resistances found for graphene, i.e.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Results For The Monolayer Supported By Diffe...supporting
confidence: 88%
“…Nevertheless, we can notice that the order of magnitude of r eff is in the realistic range for the thermal boundary resistances 57 and that the obtained value is very close to the range reported by ref 55 for a graphene/SiO 2 interface, but lower than others. 56,58,59 Values similar to ours have also been reported for the carbon nanotube (CNT)/SiO 2 interface 60 and for the graphene/oil interface. 61 The thermal boundary resistance values for other carbon compounds like diamond, 63 metallic single-wall CNTs, 64 and graphite 10,65 are close to the upper bound of thermal resistances found for graphene, that is, of the order of 10 –8 K m 2 /W.…”
We
performed scanning thermal microscopy measurements on single
layers of chemical-vapor-deposited (CVD) graphene supported by different
substrates, namely, SiO2, Al2O3,
and PET using a double-scan technique to remove the contribution to
the heat flux through the air and the cantilever. Then, by adopting
a simple lumped-elements model, we developed a new method that allows
determining, through a multistep numerical analysis, the equivalent
thermal properties of thermally conductive coatings of nanometric
thickness. In this specific case we found that our CVD graphene is
“thermally equivalent”, for heat injection perpendicular
to the graphene planes, to a coating material of conductivity keff = 2.5 ± 0.3 W/m K and thickness teff = 3.5 ± 0.3 nm in perfect contact with
the substrate. For the SiO2 substrate, we also measured
stacks made of 2- and 4-CVD monolayers, and we found that the effective
thermal conductivity increases with increasing number of layers and,
with a technologically achievable number of layers, is expected to
be comparable to that of 1 order of magnitude-thicker metallic thin
films. This study provides a powerful method for characterizing the
thermal properties of graphene in view of several thermal management
applications.
“…[55] for a graphene/SiO2 interface, but lower than others [56,58,59]. Values similar to ours have also been reported for the carbon nanotube (CNT)/SiO2 interface [60] and for the graphene/oil interface [61]. The thermal boundary resistance values for other carbon compounds like diamond [63], metallic single-wall CNTs [64] and graphite [10,65] are close to the upper bound of thermal resistances found for graphene, i.e.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Results For The Monolayer Supported By Diffe...supporting
confidence: 88%
“…Nevertheless, we can notice that the order of magnitude of r eff is in the realistic range for the thermal boundary resistances 57 and that the obtained value is very close to the range reported by ref 55 for a graphene/SiO 2 interface, but lower than others. 56,58,59 Values similar to ours have also been reported for the carbon nanotube (CNT)/SiO 2 interface 60 and for the graphene/oil interface. 61 The thermal boundary resistance values for other carbon compounds like diamond, 63 metallic single-wall CNTs, 64 and graphite 10,65 are close to the upper bound of thermal resistances found for graphene, that is, of the order of 10 –8 K m 2 /W.…”
We
performed scanning thermal microscopy measurements on single
layers of chemical-vapor-deposited (CVD) graphene supported by different
substrates, namely, SiO2, Al2O3,
and PET using a double-scan technique to remove the contribution to
the heat flux through the air and the cantilever. Then, by adopting
a simple lumped-elements model, we developed a new method that allows
determining, through a multistep numerical analysis, the equivalent
thermal properties of thermally conductive coatings of nanometric
thickness. In this specific case we found that our CVD graphene is
“thermally equivalent”, for heat injection perpendicular
to the graphene planes, to a coating material of conductivity keff = 2.5 ± 0.3 W/m K and thickness teff = 3.5 ± 0.3 nm in perfect contact with
the substrate. For the SiO2 substrate, we also measured
stacks made of 2- and 4-CVD monolayers, and we found that the effective
thermal conductivity increases with increasing number of layers and,
with a technologically achievable number of layers, is expected to
be comparable to that of 1 order of magnitude-thicker metallic thin
films. This study provides a powerful method for characterizing the
thermal properties of graphene in view of several thermal management
applications.
“…In composites, the poor rectification can be ascribed to the thermal resistance at the interfaces. For instance, the calculated resistance at the interface between octane and single-layer graphene sheets (GS, which shows extremely high values of thermal conductivity, i.e., 3000–5000 Wm −1 k −1 [ 63 ]), has been reported to be 10 times smaller when the alkane chains are covalently bonded at the edges of these GSs [ 64 ]. Pal and Puri found higher rectification using a single-wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) covalently bonded near one end to polyacetylene (PA) chains [ 65 ].…”
Section: Effect Of Thermal Properties Of Polymer Composites On Crystallization and Meltingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the presence of particles or fibers with thermal conductivity much higher than polymers and, usually, lower thermal capacities, affects considerably the solidification of composites. For instance, carbon nanotubes (CNT) even at low concentration can enhance the thermal conductivity of a polymer matrix at least of an order of magnitude [ 64 ]. As a result, composites usually show a finer spherulitic structure than the corresponding matrices, especially at high undercooling [ 66 ].…”
Section: Effect Of Thermal Properties Of Polymer Composites On Crystallization and Meltingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… a [ 1 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 57 ], b [ 67 , 71 ], c [ 81 , 83 , 92 ], d [ 93 ], e [ 66 , 93 , 94 ], f [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. …”
Morphological analysis at different levels is fundamental to understand properties of materials, as these latter are dictated not only by the chemical composition but also by the shape. Solid structures arise from a balance between thermodynamic and kinetic factors, which, especially for polymer composites, depend also on interactions amongst components. In particular, morphology is strongly affected by the heat transfer pattern during crystallization and by the difference in thermal behavior between polymer matrix and filler. Polymers show a spherulitic structure, arising from the start of crystallization in several points of the liquid phase. Within a general rounded shape, spherulites show variability in growth patterns, morphology, and geometry of boundaries. The appearance and the number of spherulites, as well as their growth mechanism, may vary not only in dependence of the chemical composition and the crystalline structures but also, for a same polymer, in consequence of experimental conditions and incorporation of fillers. This article reviews the crystallization process of polymer matrices in the framework of crystal growth and heat transport theories, and explains microstructural differences between composites and neat matrices on the basis of the differences in thermal capacity and conductivity between polymers and additives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.