4.8 Article

Five Orders of Magnitude Reduction in Energy Coupling across Corrugated Graphene/Substrate Interfaces

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 2809-2818

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/am405388a

关键词

unconstrained graphene interface; energy coupling; thermal conductance; nanoscale thermal probing; corrugation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1200397, CBET-1235852]
  2. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1200397] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A normal full-contact graphene/substrate interface has been reported to have a thermal conductance in the order of 10(8) Wm(-2)K(-1). The reported work used a sandwiched structure to probe the interface energy coupling, and the phonon behavior in graphene was significantly altered in an undesirable way. Here, we report an intriguing study of energy coupling across unconstrained graphene/substrate interfaces. Using novel Raman-based dual thermal probing, we directly measured the temperature drop across the few nm gap interface that is subjected to a local heat flow induced by a second laser beam heating. The thermal conductance (G(t)) for graphene/Si and graphene/SiO2 interfaces is determined as 183 +/- 10 and 266 +/- 10 Wm(-2)K(-1). At the graphene/Si interface, G(t), is 5 orders of magnitude smaller than that of full interface contact. It reveals the remarkable effect of graphene corrugation on interface energy coupling. The measurement result is elucidated by atomistic modeling of local corrugation and energy exchange. By decoupling of graphene's thermal and mechanical behavior, we obtained the stress-induced Raman shift of graphene at around 0.1 cm(-1) or less, suggesting extremely loose interface mechanical coupling. The interface gap variation is evaluated quantitatively on the basis of corrugation-induced Raman enhancement. The interface gap could change as much as 1.8 nm when the local thermal equilibrium is destroyed.

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

4.8
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