See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317802621

Comparative study of thermal conductivity in crystalline and amorphous

nanocomposite

Article  in  Applied Physics Letters · June 2017

DOI: 10.1063/1.4986920

CITATIONS READS

11 280

5 authors, including:

Firman Bagja Juangsa Meguya Ryu

Bandung Institute of Technology National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
37 PUBLICATIONS   376 CITATIONS    85 PUBLICATIONS   611 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Junko Morikawa Tomohiro Nozaki

Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo Institute of Technology
188 PUBLICATIONS   2,288 CITATIONS    151 PUBLICATIONS   3,461 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovative Hydrogen Production, Storage, and Utilization View project

IR imaging Thermospectroscopy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Firman Bagja Juangsa on 06 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparative study of thermal conductivity in crystalline and amorphous
nanocomposite
Firman Bagja Juangsa, Yoshiki Muroya, Meguya Ryu, Junko Morikawa, and Tomohiro Nozaki

Citation: Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 253105 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4986920

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4986920
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apl/110/25
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 110, 253105 (2017)

Comparative study of thermal conductivity in crystalline and amorphous

nanocomposite
Firman Bagja Juangsa,1,a) Yoshiki Muroya,1 Meguya Ryu,2 Junko Morikawa,2
and Tomohiro Nozaki1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku,
Tokyo 152-8550 Japan
2
Department of Material Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama,
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550 Japan
(Received 4 March 2017; accepted 6 June 2017; published online 22 June 2017)
Silicon nanocrystals (SiNCs)/polystyrene (PS) nanocomposite has been observed to have a
significant decrease in thermal conductivity in terms of the SiNC fraction with unspecified factors
remained unclear. In this paper, amorphous silicon nanoparticles (a-SiNPs) with a mean diameter of
6 nm and PS nanocomposites were synthesized, and their thermal conductivity, including the
density and specific heat, was compared with our previous work which investigated well-crystalized
SiNPs (6 nm) and PS nanocomposite. The difference between amorphous and crystalline structure is
insignificant, but phonon scattering at SiNPs and PS boundary is the key influencing factor of ther-
mal conductivity reduction. The effective thermal conductivity models for nanocomposite revealed
that the thermal boundary resistance, explained by Kapitza principle, is estimated to be 4  107
m2K/W, showing the significant effect of nanostructured heterogenic surface resistance on overall
heat transfer behavior. Preservation of unique properties nanoscale materials and low-cost fabrica-
tion by silicon inks process at room temperature give the promising potential of SiNPs based heat
transfer management. Published by AIP Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4986920]

Heterogeneous materials have been extensively studied
for promising application in optical, electronics, and thermal
management fields, as well as potential to provide low cost
and bulk scale device fabrication.1–3 Nanoscale heteroge-
neous structured material or nanostructured material intro-
duced additional advantages of nanoscale material that
improved device performance, such as reported for photovol-
taic (PV)4 and thermoelectric.5–7 Of particular, there has
been growing interest in thermal transport in nanostructured
materials as the basic principle of thermoelectric materials
for refrigeration and energy harvesting.
Silicon nanocrystal (SiNC) as one of the well-known
nanoscale materials has been researched for its size depen-
dent thermal properties, where the experimental result has
been reported with a significant decrease of thermal conduc-
tivity as silicon particles size is reduced.8–11 In this work, we
produced hybrid nanostructured materials of silicon nanopar-
ticles (inorganic) and organic polymers. The process is car-
ried out at room temperature that preserves the nanometer
particle mean diameter and narrow size distribution. The sili-
con nanocrystals (SiNCs)/polystyrene nanocomposite ther-
mal conductivity has been previously measured, and the
result showed a significant decrease of effective thermal con-
ductivity with the presence of SiNCs despite the higher ther-
mal conductivity compared with that of the polymer matrix.6
This unique controllable thermal property of SiNCs and its
effect on nanocomposite thermal transport mechanism give
the promising potential for thermal management, especially
for electronic devices that have silicon as main material.
We have previously analyzed that the phonon transport
decrease can be caused by significant increase in phonon
a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: juangsa.f.aa@
m.titech.ac.jp and tnozaki@mech.titech.ac.jp.
scattering at boundaries, nanostructured polymer networks,
and phonon transport suppression due to nano size character-
istic length.6 In order to distinguish one factor from another,
additional analysis is required for further observation.
In this study, amorphous silicon is employed as a nano-
particle in nanocomposite and measured for thermal conduc-
tivity by thermal wave analysis (TWA), based on the phase
shift of temperature wave between two surfaces of the sam-
ple.12 The details of measurement methods are described in
supplementary material. Among amorphous materials, amor-
phous silicon is one of the most widely used semiconductor
materials due to its excellent electronic and optical proper-
ties and low-cost potential.13–15 Regarding thermal transport,
lattice vibration plays a major role in the amorphous semi-
conductor material, such as a-SiNPs.14,15 Due to the lack of
translational symmetry and periodicity over a long distance,
the term “phonon” in amorphous material refers to lattice
vibration that cannot be quantized. Consequently, phonon
waves concept, group velocity, and mean free path (MFP)
are not fully applicable. However, those concepts can be
partly used to simplify the thermal transport in amorphous
silicon. By comparing the thermal conductivity of a-SiNPs
and SiNCs in nanocomposite material, the major cause of
thermal transport suppression was analyzed.
Furthermore, as nanocomposite structures have a signifi-
cantly high ratio of interfaces to volume, modeling the ther-
mal transport is also challenging topic. Previously, thermal
conductivity models for two-phase material were used for
modeling, and it was observed that the experimental result did
not agree with the model because conventional macroscopic
models do not consider the effect of thermal boundary resis-
tance. In this work, several modified thermal conductivity
models for nanocomposite were reviewed and applied with

0003-6951/2017/110(25)/253105/5/$30.00 110, 253105-1 Published by AIP Publishing.

253105-2 Juangsa et al.
the consideration of thermal boundary resistance that plays a
major role in nanocomposite thermal transport.
In this work, amorphous SiNPs were synthesized by
the same reactor employed for SiNCs, by decreasing the
input power to 30 W. As shown in Fig. 1(d) with details in
supplementary material, Raman spectra show fully amor-
phous silicon, which is indicated by the nearly negligible
peak of crystalline silicon. As for the characterization of the
composite material, mass density and specific heat were deter-
mined experimentally by DSC and hydrostatic method. As
shown in Fig. S2 in supplementary material, the measurement
results indicate that density and specific heat have good agree-
ment with the calculation result of the reference value.
According to the equation j ¼ ad qcp , thermal conductiv-
ity j is determined based on thermal diffusivity ad , specific
heat cp , and mass density q. Figure 1(a) shows the thermal con-
ductivity of a-SiNPs/PS nanocomposite compared with the pre-
viously reported SiNCs/PS nanocomposite.6 The result shows
that the thermal conductivity of a-SiNPs/PS nanocomposite
decrease with the increasing value of SiNPs’ fraction with
insignificant difference with its crystalline counterpart. The
decrease of a-SiNPs/PS nanocomposite thermal conductivity
indicates a significant increase of overall phonon scattering rate
in nanocomposite, as was also observed in SiNCs/PS nanocom-
posites. The identical thermal conductivity result of amorphous
and crystalline fraction in nanocomposite confirms that phonon
scattering at interface boundary between filler and matrix plays
a major role in thermal transport at nanocomposite, compared
Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 253105 (2017)
FIG. 1. SiNPs/PS nanocomposite: (a)
Thermal conductivity measurement
results of a-SiNPs/PS and SiNCs/PS
nanocomposites determined based on
specific heat, mass density, and ther-
mal diffusivity measurements, as
compared with thermal conductivity
models that include the effect of ther-
mal boundary resistance; TEM images
of SiNCs/PS nanocomposite with (b)
low and (c) high volume fraction, and
a single particle of SiNC with diameter
approx. 6 nm (inset), and (d) Raman
spectra depicting comparison of SiNCs
and a-SiNPs. (e) Simplified phonon
transport pathway in nanocomposite,
mainly through the (i) PS network, and
partially through (ii) SiNPs’ aggregates
due to the thermal boundary resistance
created by surface hydrogen and PS
complex thin layer as shown in (f)
detailed schematic and (g) equivalent
thermal circuit of phonon transport
pathways.
with the phonon confinement effect at the inside of crystalline
structure of silicon.
Furthermore, the decrease of thermal conductivity can
be analyzed based on the phonon transport pathway. Figures
1(b) and 1(c) show the TEM images of SiNCs/PS nanocom-
posite with different fractions, presenting the aggregations of
SiNCs separated by PS matrix. Phonon scattering at interface
boundary induces the phonons to transport mainly through
the PS matrix, as shown schematically in Fig. 1(e). Large
thermal resistance due to scattering at boundary allows only
small part of phonon going through the aggregated SiNPs,
which include the PS networks among the SiNPs, as shown
in Fig. 1(f), creating longer phonon pathway and resulting in
decreasing thermal conductivity. The equivalent thermal cir-
cuit was employed to provide the semi-quantitative analysis,
based on the thermal resistance of each component, as shown
in Fig. 1(g). As the SiNPs’ fraction increases higher than
10%, there are more SiNPs that create complex networks of
PS matrix, leading to a negative slope of thermal conductiv-
ity with respect to the SiNPs’ fraction. As for lower fraction
(3.7%), thermal conductivity is lower than theoretical mod-
els’ prediction, which may be caused by many factors, such
as large size of SiNPs’ aggregates compared with that of
high fraction, PS layers’ thickness among the nanoparticles
in aggregates, and also nanoparticle’s surface interaction
with matrix molecules. However, these factors will require
further observation and analysis at low fraction nanocompo-
site, and beyond the scope of this work.
253105-3 Juangsa et al.
The phonon confinement effect, commonly referred as
band folding effect, interference effect, or phonon disper-
sion modification is phenomena of significant phonon trans-
port decrease due to comparable or smaller size of material
characteristic length than phonon wavelength.5,16–18 When
it comes to this region, phonon cannot be treated as a parti-
cle and hence would be considered as wave nature. It was
reported that critical phonon wavelength for thermal trans-
port in silicon material at room temperature is around
1–10 nm,18–20 and the SiNPs’ characteristic length (diame-
ter) is around 6 nm.6,21 Although the SiNPs’ size is much
smaller than phonon mean free path (MFP), which reduced
the thermal conductivity of bulk silicon for two orders, it is
not small enough to develop the phonon confinement effect
due to the comparable ratio of phonon wavelength and sur-
face roughness.18,20 In order to observe the phonon confine-
ment effect, phonon wavelength shall be much longer than
characteristic length, which can be achieved in the low-
temperature region.
Furthermore, the measurement results of nanocomposites
were compared with those of thermal conductivity models
that consider the thermal boundary resistance (TBR). After
early investigation on the effective thermal conductivity of
macroscopic heterogeneous materials by Maxwell,22 there are
numerous research and models that proposed to include TBR,
which is particularly essential for thermal transport in nano-
scale materials. Maxwell’s theory was modified by Hasselman
and Johnson and by Benveniste to include the TBR and was
called Maxwell-Garnet type Effective Medium Analysis (MG-
EMA), which could be understood by the following formula,23
jc 1 þ 2f ð1  aÞ=ð1 þ 2aÞ
¼ ; (1)
jm 1  f ð1  aÞ=ð1 þ 2aÞ
jp ðdÞð1 þ 2aðU; dÞÞ þ 2jm ðUÞ þ 2
1 1
jc ðU; d Þ ¼ Cm tm     
3 1 U Ud 
þ jp ðdÞð1 þ 2aðU; dÞÞ þ 2jm ðUÞ 
Km 4 6
where Cm , tm , and Km are volumetric specific heat, phonon
group velocity, and phonon MFP for matrix, respectively. In
this work, PS is used as matrix and reference value of volu-
metric specific heat was used for calculation. Sound velocity
in PS was used for phonon group velocity, while phonon
MFP was estimated by inverse calculation from the reference
value of thermal conductivity, density, specific heat and
sound velocity.27,28
All of these models have common parameters of a, which
is a dimensionless parameter depending on the TBR between
filler and matrix. It is defined as a ¼ rTBR =ðd=2Þ, where
d ¼ 6 nm, which is SiNPs’ size and rTBR is Kapitza radius rep-
resenting the thermal resistance at the boundary of filler and
matrix. Kapitza radius is defined as rTBR ¼ RTBR jm , where
RTBR is a thermal resistance at material interface, formed by
the interaction between hydrogen and PS molecules, as shown
schematically in Fig. 2. The minimum value of TBR (a ¼ 0Þ
and maximum value of TBR were calculated for each model.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 253105 (2017)
where jc is thermal conductivity of composite, jm is thermal
conductivity of matrix, f is volume fraction of filler particles,
and a is the dimensionless parameter representing the TBR.
It is important to not that Equation (1) has been derived for
composite where the intrinsic thermal conductivity of filler
particle is much greater than that of the matrix.
Based on MG-EMA, Every et al. also reported a model
based on Bruggeman’s theory, which is known as the most
accurate model for higher volume fractions, while Maxwell’s
theory is rather suitable for low volume fraction.23–25 The
modified Bruggeman model with spherical filler is expressed
through the following formula,23
 ðð1þ2aÞÞ ( )ð 3 Þ
3 jm 1a jc  jp ð1  aÞ 1a
ð1  f Þ ¼ ; (2)
jc jm  jp ð1  aÞ
where jp is taken into account which is the thermal conduc-
tivity of filler particles.
In the later development, Minnich et al. further modified
the EMA model to make it particularly suitable for nanocom-
posite by introducing interface density that will enhance the
effect of TBR in determining the effective thermal conductiv-
ity.26 Interface density (U) was determined based on the filler
particles’ volume fraction (f ) and its diameter ðd) via the fol-
lowing formula,
6f
U¼ : (3)
d
Interface density value was included in the calculation of
effective thermal conductivity for both filler particles and
matrix, so that the thermal conductivity of composite is func-
tion of interface density and the particles’ diameter as
expressed in the following formula,
 
Ud  
jp ðdÞð1  aðU; dÞÞ  jm ðUÞ
 6 ; (4)

jp ðdÞð1  aðU; dÞÞ  jm ðUÞ
Devpura et al. utilized the Biot number in order to determine
the value of interface thermal resistant, with the maximum
Biot number 10.24,29 The Biot number for a particle of spheri-
cal shape is written as,
rTBR 1
Bi ¼ ¼ a: (5)
d 2
The thermal conductivities of well-defined bulk crystalline
silicon (148 W m1 K1),30 porous nanocrystalline silicon
(3 nm, porosity 55%, 1.08 W m1 K1),9 and PS (0.1549 W
m1 K1)27 were used for each model calculations, and they
were compared with the measurement result as shown in
Fig. 1(a). It is important to note that the lowest limit of sili-
con would be 12.5 W m1 K1 in the case of amorphous
silicon.31,32 The thermal conductivity of nanocrystalline sili-
con was used for MG-EMA and Bruggeman models, while
modified EMA used bulk crystalline silicon due to phonon
MFP calculation included within the model.
253105-4 Juangsa et al.
Figure 1(c) shows that, without TBR (a ¼ 0Þ, the effec-
tive thermal conductivities of all models increase with the
increasing value of SiNPs’ fraction simply because of the
higher value of filler’s thermal conductivity. On the other
hand, models with maximum TBR (a ¼ 20Þ shows decreas-
ing value of the effective thermal conductivity, and our mea-
surement results of both a-SiNPs and SiNCs show values
matching well with the thermal conductivity models.
We have previously analyzed the material characteriza-
tion of nanocomposite by FT-IR spectroscopy.6 A slight shift
of IR peaks was observed after nanocomposite fabrication,
which indicates a physical interaction between PS and SiNPs
in molecular level,6 particularly on PS benzene ring and Si-H
peaks. Physical interaction of polymer and its surrounding has
been observed to have an effect on phonon transport.33 This
interaction produces the physical mismatch between the char-
acteristic frequencies of thermal vibration and intermolecular
collision of two different materials,33 which supports our
measurement result of decreasing thermal conductivity due to
the interaction at the interfacial boundary of SiNPs and PS.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between thermal conduc-
tivity and the dimensionless parameter a, represented with
SiNPs’ fraction of 0, 50, and 74% (maximum hexagonal close
packing filling factor34). Thermal conductivity decreases
sharply from a ¼ 0 to a ¼ 5 and less than 0.1% decrease at
t ¼ 20. In this study, we assume that a ¼ 20 is the sufficiently
large value describing significant thermal boundary resistance
that represents the experimental data semi-quantitatively. Based
on the Kapitza radius formula, with a ¼ 20, thermal resistance
was enhanced at least approximately to 4  107 m2K/W. As
shown in Fig. 2, further increase in thermal resistance does not
have a significant effect on the effective thermal conductivity.
The thermal resistance of silicon and PS nanocomposite is
greater than that of both silicon and PS composite with other
materials, such as Si/SiO2 (0.20.9  109 m2K/W)35,36 and
sapphire/PS (0.41.4  107 m2K/W).37
Based on the above TBR estimation, the thermal circuit
shown in Fig. 1(g) can be calculated. The above mentioned
thermal conductivities of PS and nanocrystal silicon were used
to calculate the thermal resistance, based on the equal length (l)
of 6 nm. Thermal conductivity of bulk polymer was used, since
phonon MFP of amorphous polymer is only few angstroms.38
Simple calculation confirmed phonon main pathway through
PS network, as thermal resistance of SiNC is 8.05  107
m2K/W, 20 times greater than that of PS (4  108 m2K/W).
Also, it is noted from the literature that all the models
were developed for well-quantized phonon transport in
FIG. 2. Calculation result of thermal conductivity models as the effect of
dimensionless parameter a.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 253105 (2017)
crystalline materials based on phonon wave concept;23,24,26
nevertheless, the measurement result shows that amorphous
organic polymer has a similar trend with the crystalline model.
This result provides intuitive understanding that phonon wave
concept can be analogously applied also on the amorphous
materials, such as PS. With thermal conductivity and volumet-
ric specific heat being known and phonon group velocity
being represented by sound velocity (vc ), quasi-MFP for
amorphous material (K0 ) can be simply determined according
to the following formula:39
3j
K0 ¼ : (6)
Cvc
The above quasi-MFP calculation was applied on modified
EMA model in Eq. (4), which requires the phonon MFP of the
matrix material. The modified EMA model calculation result
shows good agreement with other models and also with our
measurement results, indicating that the above quasi-MFP is
acceptable. This result enables the extended application of
nanostructured materials by improving the dispersion of SiNPs
in the organic polymer matrix towards the periodic nanostruc-
tured, which has been reported well on superlattice and
phononic crystal.40,41 SiNPs’ surface functionalization by
hydrosilylation is currently in progress to improve the particles’
dispersion in the organic polymer matrix.42,43 Phonon interfer-
ence effect has been reported to occur also in amorphous sili-
con, especially for low-frequency phonon, where quasi-MFP is
much longer than the structural characteristic length,44 consis-
tent with applicable quasi-MFP we employed in this study.
However, one should note that, in high frequency, the
MFP of the phonon in amorphous material reduces to a few
nanometers, inducing the diffusive interfacial scattering, which
makes the phonon interference effects negligible. Due to the
fact that the lattice vibration (phonon) transport in amorphous
and crystalline materials are fundamentally different mecha-
nisms, the relevancy of quasi-MFP application in amorphous
material is to be verified furthermore. Cryogenic measure-
ments at very low temperature (4 K) on both the nanocompo-
sites of a-SiNPs and SiNCs are expected to give deeper
understanding regarding the nanostructured material’s phonon
transport. This subject is currently being investigated, and the
further discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.
In summary, we have produced a-SiNPs/PS nanocompo-
site and measured the density, specific heat and thermal diffu-
sivity to determine thermal conductivity. The measurement
results were compared with SiNCs/PS nanocomposite and
showed insignificant discrepancy due to the lattice structure,
revealing the phonon scattering as the main factor of thermal
conductivity decrease.
Compared with the thermal conductivity models for
nanocomposite which include the effect of thermal boundary
resistance, our measurement results show the good agreement
of thermal conductivity. Phonon confinement effect may be
neglected, and phonon scattering at SiNPs/PS boundary plays
a major role in determining thermal transport at room temper-
ature. In addition, thermal conductivity models give good pre-
diction on SiNCs/PS nanocomposite with filler’s volume
fraction above 10%. Low thermal conductivity at low fraction
(< 10%) requires further observation related to SiNPs’ disper-
sion in PS matrix, which is currently being investigated.
253105-5 Juangsa et al.
Moreover, nanocomposite fabrication utilizing silicon
inks enables room temperature processing, preserving initial
crystal size less than 10 nm and narrow size distribution that
opens a broad range of inexpensive applications while main-
taining unique properties brought by single-nano silicon
nanoparticles. For future work, low-temperature measure-
ment equipped with cryogenic cycles and periodic dispersion
of SiNPs is expected to provide more details for understand-
ing phonon transport mechanism in nanocomposite structure.
See supplementary material for the complete description
of sample fabrication and details of measurement methods.
This project is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (26289045). F.B.J. acknowledges Indonesia
Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) for their support of
this study.
1
A. Miura, S. Zhou, T. Nozaki, and J. Shiomi, “Crystalline-amorphous sili-
con nanocomposites with reduced thermal conductivity for bulk thermo-
electrics,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7(24), 13484–13489 (2015).
2
Y. Ding, R. Gresback, R. Yamada, K. Okazaki, and T. Nozaki, “Hybrid sili-
con nanocrystal/poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl) solar cells from a chlori-
nated silicon precursor,” Jpn. J Appl Phys., Part 1 52(11), 11NM04 (2013).
3
T. Nozaki, Y. Ding, and R. Gresback, “Plasma synthesis of silicon nano-
crystals: Application to organic/inorganic photovoltaics through solution
processing,” Mater. Sci. Forum 783–786, 2002–2004 (2014).
4
Y. Ding, S. Zhou, F. B. Juangsa, M. Sugaya, X. Zhang, Y. Zhao, and T.
Nozaki, “Double-parallel-junction hybrid solar cells based on silicon nano-
crystals,” Org. Electron. 30, 99–104 (2016).
5 32
S. Volz, J. Shiomi, M. Nomura, and K. Miyazaki, “Heat conduction in
nanostructured materials,” J. Therm. Sci. Technol. 11(1), 15-00529 (2016).
6 33
F. B. Juangsa, Y. Muroya, M. Ryu, J. Morikawa, and T. Nozaki, “Thermal
conductivity of silicon nanocrystals and polystyrene nanocomposite thin
films,” J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 49(36), 365303 (2016).
7 34
Y. Nakamura, M. Isogawa, T. Ueda, S. Yamasaka, H. Matsui, J. Kikkawa,
S. Ikeuchi, T. Oyake, T. Hori, J. Shiomi, and A. Sakai, “Anomalous reduc-
tion of thermal conductivity in coherent nanocrystal architecture for sili-
con thermoelectric material,” Nano Energy 12, 845–851 (2015).
8 36
Z. Wang, J. E. Alaniz, W. Jang, J. E. Garay, and C. Dames, “Thermal con-
ductivity of nanocrystalline silicon: Importance of grain size and frequency-
dependent mean free paths,” Nano Lett. 11(6), 2206–2213 (2011).
9 37
T. Kihara, T. Harada, and N. Koshida, “Precise Thermal Characterization
of Confined Nanocrystalline Silicon by a 3x Method,” Jpn J. Appl. Phys.,
Part 1 44(6A), 4084–4087 (2005).
10
M. C. Wingert, S. Kwon, M. Hu, D. Poulikakos, J. Xiang, and R. Chen,
“Sub-amorphous Thermal conductivity in ultrathin crystalline silicon
nanotubes,” Nano Lett. 15(4), 2605–2611 (2015).
11
L. Yang, Y. Yang, Q. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y. Jiang, Z. Guan, M. Gerboth, J.
Yang, Y. Chen, D. G. Walker, T. T. Xu, and D. Li, “Thermal conductivity
of individual silicon nanoribbons,” Nanoscale 8(41), 17895–17901 (2016).
12
T. Kurihara, J. Morikawa, and T. Hashimoto, “Measurement of the thermal
diffusivity of thin films by an AC joule-heating method,” Int. J.
Thermophys. 18(2), 505–513 (1997).
13
J. Kalowekamo and E. Baker, “Estimating the manufacturing cost of
purely organic solar cells,” Sol. Energy 83(8), 1224–1231 (2009).
14
S. Moon, M. Hatano, M. Lee, and C. P. Grigoropoulos, “Thermal conduc-
tivity of amorphous silicon thin films,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 45(12),
2439–2447 (2002).
15
M. C. Wingert, J. Zheng, S. Kwon, and R. Chen, “Thermal transport in
amorphous materials: A review,” Semicond. Sci. Technol. 31(11), 113003
(2016).
16
A. A. Balandin, “Nanoscale thermal management,” in IEEE Potentials,
March (2002), pp. 11–15.
17
A. A. Balandin and D. L. Nika, “Phononics in low-dimensional materials,”
Mater. Today. 15(6), 266–275 (2012).
View publication stats
Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 253105 (2017)
18
M. Maldovan, “Phonon wave interference and thermal bandgap materials,”
Nat. Mater. 14(7), 667–674 (2015).
19
K. Esfarjani, G. Chen, and H. T. Stokes, “Heat transport in silicon from
first-principles calculations,” Phys. Rev. B. 84(8), 85204 (2011).
20
R. Anufriev and M. Nomura, “Reduction of thermal conductance by
coherent phonon scattering in two-dimensional phononic crystals of differ-
ent lattice types,” Phys. Rev. B 93(4), 045410 (2016).
21
Y. Ding, R. Yamada, R. Gresback, S. Zhou, X. Pi, and T. Nozaki, “A
parametric study of non-thermal plasma synthesis of silicon nanoparticles
from a chlorinated precursor,” J. Phys. D.: Appl. Phys. 47(48), 485202
(2014).
22
J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (Clarendon Press.
1873), Vol. 1, p. 1.
23
A. G. Every, Y. Tzou, D. P. H. Hasselman, and R. Raj, “The effect of par-
ticle size on the thermal conductivity of ZnS/diamond composites,” Acta
Metall. Mater. 40(1), 123–129 (1992).
24
K. Pietrak and T. S. Winiewski, “A review of models for effective thermal
conductivity of composite materials,” Open Access J. J. Power Technol.
95(1), 14–24 (2015).
25
C.-W. Nan, R. Birringer, D. R. Clarke, and H. Gleiter, “Effective thermal
conductivity of particulate composites with interfacial thermal resistance,”
J. Appl. Phys. 81(10), 6692 (1997).
26
A. Minnich and G. Chen, “Modified effective medium formulation for the
thermal conductivity of nanocomposites,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91(7), 073105
(2007).
27
B. Ellis and R. Smith, Polymers: A Property Database, 2nd ed. (CRC
Press, 1989), Vol. 53.
28
D. R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (CRC Press, 2009).
29
A. Devpura, P. E. Phelan, and S. Ravi, “Size effects on the thermal con-
ductivity of polymers laden with highly conductive filler particles,”
Microscale Thermophys. Eng. 5(3), 177–189 (2001).
30
T. L. Bergman, A. S. Lavine, and F. P. Incropera DPD, Introduction to
Heat Transfer (John WIiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), Vol XXXIII.
31
D. G. Cahill, S. K. Watson, and R. O. Pohl, “Lower limit to the thermal con-
ductivity of disordered crystals,” Phys. Rev. B. 46(10), 6131–6140 (1992).
D. G. Cahill, M. Katiyar, and J. R. Abelson, “Thermal conductivity of a-
Si:H thin films,” Phys. Rev. B. 50(9), 6077–6081 (1994).
S. Pal, G. Balasubramanian, and I. K. Puri, “Modifying thermal transport
in electrically conducting polymers: Effects of stretching and combining
polymer chains,” J. Chem. Phys. 136(4), 44901 (2012).
T. C. Hales, “The status of the kepler conjecture,” Math. Intell. 16(3),
47–58 (1994).
35
J. Chen, G. Zhang, and B. Li, “Thermal contact resistance across nanoscale
silicon dioxide and silicon interface,” J. Appl. Phys. 112(6), 64319 (2012).
E. Lampin, Q.-H. Nguyen, P. A. Francioso, and F. Cleri, “Thermal bound-
ary resistance at silicon-silica interfaces by molecular dynamics simu-
lations,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 100(13), 131906 (2012).
K. Zheng, F. Sun, X. Tian, J. Zhu, Y. Ma, D. Tang, and F. Wang, “Tuning
the interfacial thermal conductance between polystyrene and sapphire by
controlling the interfacial adhesion,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7(42),
23644–23649 (2015).
38
Y. Agari, A. Ueda, Y. Omura, and S. Nagai, “Thermal diffusivity and con-
ductivity of PMMA–PC blends,” Polymer 38, 801–807 (1997).
39
R. Sultan, A. D. Avery, J. M. Underwood, S. J. Mason, D. Bassett, and B. L.
Zink, “Heat transport by long mean free path vibrations in amorphous sili-
con nitride near room temperature,” Phys. Rev. B. 87(21), 214305 (2013).
40
W. Kim, “Strategies for engineering phonon transport in thermoelectrics,”
J. Mater. Chem. C 3, 10336–10348 (2015).
41
R. Anufriev, J. Maire, and M. Nomura, “Reduction of thermal conductivity
by surface scattering of phonons in periodic silicon nanostructures,” Phys.
Rev. B. 93(4), 45411 (2016).
42
Y. Muroya, F. B. Juangsa, H. Matsumoto, M. Ashizawa, J. Morikawa, and
T. Nozaki, “Thermal conductivity of SiNCs/polymer nanohybrid thin
films,” in 26th Annual Meeting of MRS-J, December 2016.
43
Y. Muroya, F. B. Juangsa, Y. Tanabe, H. Matsumoto, M. Ashizawa, J.
Morikawa, and T. Nozaki, “Thermal conductivity of SiNCs/polystyrene
nanohybrid thin films,” in 34th Symposium on Plasma Science for
Materials, January 2017.
44
Z. Liang, T. E. Wilson, and P. Keblinski, “Phonon interference in crystal-
line and amorphous confined nanoscopic films,” J. Appl. Phys. 121(7),
075303 (2017).