4.7 Article

Theoretical accuracy of anisotropic thermal conductivity determined by transient plane source method

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 1634-1644

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.01.025

Keywords

Transient plane source; Anisotropic thermal conductivity; Theoretical accuracy; Numerical study

Funding

  1. Young Scientist Fund and Major International (Regional) Joint Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [51606143, 51320105004]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M602814]
  3. Shaanxi Province Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016BSHEDZZ133]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The transient plane source (TPS) method could measure the in-plane thermal conductivity and through plane thermal conductivity of anisotropic materials through one single test once the volumetric heat capacity is known. The practical thicknesses of the heating element and the insulation layer deviate from the plane source assumption and have an influence on the accuracy of the isotropic thermal conductivity of bulk specimen and film specimen determined experimentally. The theoretical accuracy of measured anisotropic thermal conductivities will also be affected by the practical sensor thickness. A numerical study is conducted to investigate the deviation of anisotropic thermal conductivity due to the noncompliance of the theoretical assumption of TPS method. The influence of the practical sensor thickness on the theoretical accuracy of different thermal conductivities and different anisotropic ratios is discussed. The simulation studies show that the deviation brought by the plane source assumption, i.e., with zero thickness, becomes significant for materials with high thermal conductivity (thermal diffusivity) and can be improved by employing sensor with larger radius. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available