Abstract

A common method to measure the thermal conductivity of low-conductive materials is to impose a known temperature difference across the thickness of the specimen, and to measure the resulting heat flow once steady-state conditions are reached. In particular, international standards, i.e. ASTM C518 and ISO 8301, define the characteristics of the guarded Heat Flow Meter apparatus and its measurement procedure. However, the actual measured quantity is the overall thermal resistance, which is given by the series of the contact resistance between the specimen and the temperature-controlled clamps, and the resistance of the specimen itself. Thus, the contact resistance must be correctly quantified in order to retrieve an accurate measurement. To this end, common practices are either to rely on a database of known contact resistances for material classes, or to use the “double thickness” method, which allows to eliminate the contribution of the contact resistance by carrying out the measurement on two specimens of the same material, but different thickness. While the first method is rather useless for accurate and reliable measurements, especially of unknown or innovative materials, the latter works only if the contact resistances, and therefore the surface finish, are the same for every surface of the specimen set. This paper presents an analysis of the uncertainties associated with the evaluation of the contact resistance carried out on several samples, and proposes a method to reduce such uncertainties, i.e. by inserting elastic thermal pads of known thermal conductivity between the specimen and the instrument. The results of the validation of the method are also shown, with an analysis on the improvement of the measurement accuracy for specimens with high roughness and irregular surfaces, or with conductivities beyond the instrument declared range.

Highlights

  • The advancement of material sciences has led to an increased understanding of structures at micro- and nanoscales which, coupled with the development of a plethora of new production technologies, is giving birth to many innovative materials

  • The goals of this work are to verify the uncertainty value associated with thermal conductivity measurements with the Heat Flow Meter (HFM) technique and to illustrate the issues associated with the contact resistance for different materials, i.e. PMMA, enhanced rubber and AISI 308 steel, which represent, respectively, a reference material, a material with non-homogeneous surface finish, and a high-conductivity material for the method under investigation, with the final aim to gain knowledge and understanding of the HFM method for measuring more complex materials

  • 4 Conclusions This study shows the results of thermal conductivity measurements with the HFM technique of three sets of samples of different materials with various thicknesses, with and without the use of a 1 mm silicone thermal pad applied to the upper and lower surface of the sample as buffer, to analyze if

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The advancement of material sciences has led to an increased understanding of structures at micro- and nanoscales which, coupled with the development of a plethora of new production technologies, is giving birth to many innovative materials. A non-exhaustive list of macro categories includes phase-change materials, metallic foams, polymer composites, high-temperature insulation materials, as well as recycled-content building materials. An adequate characterization of their thermophysical properties, and, among them, thermal conductivity, is needed by engineers to adopt them in new designs, and research should be carried out to establish whether traditional measurement techniques can be applied to new materials. Focusing on materials with low to medium thermal conductivity, i.e. from 0.1 W·(m·K)-1 to 10 W·(m·K)-1, Yüksel [1] and Hammerschmidt et al [2] provide good reviews of standard measurement techniques, the former focusing on building materials and the latter on high-temperature insulation.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call