Abstract
Heat transfer at interfaces plays a critical role in material design and device performance. Higher interfacial thermal resistances (ITRs) affect the device efficiency and increase the energy consumption. Conversely, higher ITRs can enhance the figure of merit of thermoelectric materials by achieving ultra-low thermal conductivity via nanostructuring. This study proposes a dataset of descriptors for predicting the ITRs. The dataset includes two parts: one part consists of ITRs data collected from 87 experimental papers and the other part consists of the descriptors of 289 materials, which can construct over 80,000 pair-material systems for ITRs prediction. The former part is composed of over 1300 data points of metal/nonmetal, nonmetal/nonmetal, and metal/metal interfaces. The latter part consists of physical and chemical properties that are highly correlated to the ITRs. The synthesis method of the materials and the thermal measurement technique are also recorded in the dataset for further analyses. These datasets can be applied not only to ITRs predictions but also to thermal-property predictions or heat transfer on various material systems.
Measurement(s) | material entity • interface • Material Description |
Technology Type(s) | machine learning • digital curation |
Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11618253
Similar content being viewed by others
Background & Summary
The interfacial thermal resistance (ITR) has become the dominant factor controlling the nano/micro device performance. A high thermal resistance at interfaces decreases heat dissipation and electron injection, resulting in lower efficiency and larger energy consumption. Conversely, thermal insulating thin films can be achieved via nanostructuring design and high-ITR material system selection. Commonly used prediction methods of ITR, the acoustic mismatch model (AMM) and the diffuse mismatch model (DMM), show large mismatches between experimental and predictive results with a low prediction performance of 60%1,2. This low predictive performance implies that there are additional properties that affect the ITR and need to be included.
Machine learning has become a potential powerful means to accelerate the development of interfaces for thermal management from the hundreds of thousands of possible candidates. Yang et al. predicted the ITR between graphene and hexagonal boron nitride for high-performance thermal interface materials using different machine-learning algorithms, in which the and deep neural networks showed the best predictive results3. Sosso et al. efficiently built interatomic potentials for the thermal properties of amorphous materials using machine learning while retaining the accuracy of first-principle calculations4. Gaultois et al. demonstrated promising new thermoelectric compounds via the pre-screening of 25,000 known materials and then confirmed their thermoelectric properties experimentally5. In a previous study, we proposed electrically conductive thermally insulating Bi/Si composite thin films6, which was a high-ITR material system selected by a machine-learning prediction model1. This ITR prediction model showed a higher predictive performance (93%) than AMM and DMM models. The nanostructure of the Bi/Si thin films was optimized via combinatorial sputtering, and the high surface/volume ratio of the Bi particles in the Si matrix and high ITR of the Bi/Si interfaces contributed to the ultra-low thermal conductivity (0.16 W/mK) of the material, which is as low as that of polymers6. Both the predictive performance and the experimental results proved the potential practical use of ITR prediction models for interface designs for thermal management.
The above ITR prediction model was trained using experimental ITR data from 87 published papers including not only thermal physical descriptors, such as the unit cell volume and the density used in AMM and DMM, but also chemical descriptors (e.g., binding energy, electronegativity, and ion potential) and process descriptors (e.g., film thicknesses and interlayers). The collected descriptors have a high data-consistency between the references and a high data-availability, and the details of the descriptor selection can be found in our previous papers1,2. Here, we present the details of the two datasets we used for the ITR model training and prediction, as shown in Fig. 1; one is the collected ITR dataset and the other is the descriptor dataset of various materials. The former dataset shows the ITR values of various interfaces including the temperature, synthesis method, thermal measurement method, sample pretreatment, and its original references. This dataset can be further categorized by the material systems based on the analysis purpose, for example, comparing the ITR range between metal/metal and metal/nonmetal interfaces. The latter dataset shows the physical, chemical, and process descriptors of 298 different materials, which are single element or binary compounds. These materials can be used to construct over 80,000 pair-material systems (e.g., Bi/Si) for ITR prediction.
The datasets have multiple uses: (1) the ITR prediction model can be constructed according to the ITR and descriptor datasets for interface designs of thermoelectric materials or highly efficient electronic devices, (2) the descriptor dataset of the 298 materials can be re-used for other predictions with different targets (e.g., thermal conductivity), and (3) the correlation between the target and descriptors or the similarities between materials can be visualized via linear/nonlinear analyses. The collected datasets can therefore accelerate the development of material designs to improve interfacial thermal management.
Methods
The ITR data were collected from the experimental data in 87 published papers1,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92; some of them were extracted from plots via WebPlotDigitizer (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer)93. The interfacial thermal resistance (10−9 m2 K/W), thermal boundary conductance (MW/m2K), material system of the interfaces in chemical formula (e.g., Bi/Si), temperature (K), and film thickness were compiled. Moreover, the associated preparation methods for the materials, such as sputtering and evaporation, measurement methods of ITR, pretreatment of substrates, and other details concerning the interfaces, were collected if they were mentioned in the references.
The descriptor dataset includes the specific heat capacity, melting point, density, unit cell volume, electronegativity (EN), ionic potential (IP), atomic ratio (R), mass, atomic coordinate (AC), and binding energy (Eb) of 298 materials. The atomic ratios of the compounds for the first and second elements were defined as R1 and R2, respectively. For example, for SiO2, R1 and R2 are 1 and 2, respectively. AC represents the atomic coordinates defined in the periodic table, with the group as the x-coordinate and the period as the y-coordinate, e.g., (ACix, ACiy), where i represents the order of the elements of the compound. For example, for GaN, the coordinates of (AC1x, AC1y) and (AC2x, AC2y) are (13, 4) and (15, 2), respectively.
The specific heat capacity was collected from the TPRC data series94; the melting point, density, and unit cell volume were collected from AtomWork-Adv by the National Institute for materials Science (NIMS) (https://atomwork-adv.nims.go.jp/)95; EA, IP, and the mass were collected from the periodic table via the Pauling scale and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)96,97; and Eb was calculated from the total energy of relaxed crystal structure of compound, which was collected in the Computational Electronic Structure Database (CompES-X)98. CompES-X is a database of electronic structures predicted by the first-principle calculations for mono-element and multi-element crystalline inorganic compounds based on experimental data of crystal structures. The total energies of constituent atoms can be found in the atom_energy_vasp sheet at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.356417399, in which the isolated atom was simulated by putting one atom in a cubic supercell with a length of 15 Å and was calculated using the same computational method as the one for compounds in CompES-X. For example, the binding energy of TiO2, Eb[TiO2], is calculated according to Eq. (1).
where Etot[TiO2(bulk)] is the total energy of bulk TiO2 and Etot[Ti(atom)] and Etot[O(atom)] are the total energies of isolated Ti and O atoms, respectively.
Data Records
ITR dataset
The ITR dataset contains 1318 data (id) composed of 457 interface (interface id) samples and 54 materials, including metals, insulators, and semiconductors. The 457 interfaces are defined by their films, interlayers, substrate materials, and experimental conditions. Take the Au/SiO2/Si interfaces in Table 1 for example: all the Au/SiO2/Si data from ids 1 to 5 used the same sample measured at different temperatures from 100 K to 296 K; therefore, the interface ids are all defined as being the same. Each interface is depicted by its chemical formula or name separated by a slash, for example, Al/Si, as shown in Table 1. To input the data for machine learning, there are six materials that use abbreviations in the “Film 1” and “Film 2” columns; C for diamond, gp-C for graphene, g-C for graphite, a-SiO2 for glass, SiO2 for quartz, and Al2O3 for sapphire. Note that most of the Film 2 entries are substrates based directly on the commonly used measurement methods, such as time domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) or frequency domain thermoreflectance (FDTR)55,83. For some of the others, the Film 2 entry is not the substrate itself and the ITR values at the Film 2/substrate have been extracted or eliminated from the total resistance. Accordingly, the materials in the “Film 2” and “substrate details” columns of some interfaces are not consistent, such as those of Au/TiO2 and Au/a-SiO2 in Table 1. The interlayer column reflects whether an interlayer is present between the materials (Film 1/Film 2) at the interface; this value is either 1 or 0 (the former if an interlayer is present, and the latter if interlayers are absent) For example, the interlayers of Cr/Si and Cr/a-Si/Si in Table 1 are defined as 0 and 1, respectively. The interlayer includes the adhesion layer, a naturally or thermally formed oxidation layer (e.g., Au/SiO2/Si in Table 1)55, and the surface plasma treatment (e.g., the Bi/H-diamond in Table 1), which forms interlayers or a mixed region between the materials instead of a clear interface. The information concerning the experimental and interfacial conditions can be found in the substrate pretreatment columns, and other interfacial properties can be found in the file of “ITR dataset” at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.356417399. Further details can be found in the “ITR Reference” sheet using the reference-tracking id (id-R).
Descriptor dataset
The descriptor dataset is composed of the physical and chemical descriptors of 298 materials. The former includes the specific heat capacity, melting point, density, unit cell volume, and mass, and the latter includes the electronegativity (EN), IP, atomic ratio (R), atomic coordinate (AC), and binding energy (Eb). The materials are single element or binary compounds and are assigned a material id (id-M), as shown in Table 2. The units for the specific heat capacity, melting point, density, unit cell volume, mass, IP, and Eb are J/gK, K, g/cm3, 10−29 m3/formula unit (f.u.), u, eV, and eV/f.u., respectively; while the other quantities are dimensionless.
Technical Validation
In this section, we present the statistical analyses and experimental variations of the ITR dataset and use the data selection of the ITR prediction as an example. First, the experimental data distribution is demonstrated in Fig. 2. Most of the material systems show small standard deviations, and Al/Si has the largest amount of data at 106 points. Al and Au have high percentages as film materials in the dataset because these materials are commonly used as heat transducer layers to absorb laser heat via TDTR and FDTR measurements55,83. Of the material systems, Au/Si has the largest standard deviation, which can be attributed to its unique experimental conditions including heavy ion bombardment or plasma treatment62,74. For machine learning, too sparse data sometimes can lead to a big challenge on the data training. Except for data with special treatments, the heat transport modes and main carriers of the metal/metal interface or two-dimensional (2D) materials are different compared to the metal/nonmetal interface materials. Therefore, the material systems composed of 2D materials, such as graphene and metal/metal, or materials that have no exact composition ratio, were removed from the dataset for the ITR prediction model. However, the data selection criteria change depending on the purpose. If one focuses on thermal transport at metal/diamond, Si, or sapphire interfaces, then surface treatments such as H-plasma or bombardment would be helpful for broader considerations and comparisons.
To further verify the ITR data for other specific thermal analysis, the ITR data distribution with and without an interlayer are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The ITR data without an interlayer are categorized into three groups of metal/metal, metal/nonmetal, and nonmetal/nonmetal in Fig. 3. ITR decreases for the most part with increasing temperature in Fig. 3(a), and the ITR values of metal/metal are two to four orders lower than those of metal/nonmetal and nonmetal/nonmetal. In Fig. 3(b), a thickness dependence is not obvious for the different groups and a thickness near 100 nm is most commonly used due to laser absorption depth considerations. The ITR data organized into seven different interlayer groups versus the temperature are shown in Fig. 4. Even though the ITR values depend on the different material systems, the interlayer materials affect the ITR values as well: the 2D material group (including graphene) has relatively higher ITR values while the metal group tends to have lower ITR values.
Usage Notes
A description of the two datasets, the ITR and descriptor datasets, as well as the calculated total energy of isolated atoms via first-principle calculations (atom_energy_vasp), are provided. Further, the training data for the ITR machine-learning model are furnished under the file name “training dataset for ITR prediction” and can be directly used as training data for ITR predictions. Accordingly, the archive contains of four files with their depicted content, units, and sheets is shown in Online-only Table 1. This table can assist in searching for the data locations for broad thermal management; in addition, each ITR data point can be tracked via its reference id (id-R) in the “ITR References” sheet for further information. All the datasets can be found in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.356417399.
The datasets can be applied for flexible research purposes as mentioned above in the section of Background & Summary, here we take predicting ITR as an example. The construction steps are simply described in the following:
-
(1)
The target of ITR and the descriptors which are related to ITR should be input for training the machine learning model. Taking the interface of Al/Si as one example, the experimental ITR at different temperature (if available in papers) and the chemical, physical descriptors of both Al and Si should be collected.
-
(2)
The file “training dataset for ITR prediction” in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.356417399, which includes the experimental ITR data and materials’ descriptors, can be used as training dataset directly.
-
(3)
And then training the model by tuning the hyper parameters via cross validation. The machine learning model is usually evaluated by the mean square error and R2.
-
(4)
Once you achieve good predictive performance, you can input various material systems such as Si/Ge with specific temperature, film thickness and their properties for prediction.
-
(5)
The potential candidates from the prediction could be further analyzed via experiments or simulation.
The details of descriptor selection, algorithm selection, and prediction analysis for the ITR machine-learning model and its applications can be found in our previous studies1,6. Before applying the training dataset, “training dataset for ITR prediction,” we provided, there are some prerequisite restrictions you should consider corresponding to your research: (1) The training data excluded the metal/metal interface, two-dimensional (2D) materials, materials that have no exact composition ratio, and the interfaces with special treatments such as heavy ion bombardment from the original file “ITR dataset”. (2) The chemical and physical descriptors were collected from data platform (AtomWork-Adv)95 or handbooks (TPRC data series)94 due to the limited information from the original papers. Therefore, there may be some mismatch between the materials and their descriptors, such as density and unit cell volume. (3) The data distribution is different corresponding to various material system or samples. For example, the data number of Al/Si is much more than other material systems. Besides, the ITR dataset contains 1318 data composed of only 457 interface samples because some samples have many ITR data points corresponding to different temperatures. For the prediction purpose, the temperature could be calibrated to prevent the data distortion.
Change history
16 February 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0405-y
17 February 2020
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0405-y
References
Wu, Y. J., Fang, L. & Xu, Y. B. Predicting interfacial thermal resistance by machine learning. Npj Computational Mater. 5, 56, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0193-0 (2019).
Zhan, T., Fang, L. & Xu, Y. Prediction of thermal boundary resistance by the machine learning method. Sci. Rep. 7, 7109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07150-7 (2017).
Yang, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, J. & Zeng, X. C. Machine learning and artificial neural network prediction of interfacial thermal resistance between graphene and hexagonal boron nitride. Nanoscale 10, 19092–19099, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8nr05703f (2018).
Sosso, G. C., Deringer, V. L., Elliott, S. R. & Csanyi, G. Understanding the thermal properties of amorphous solids using machine-learning-based interatomic potentials. Mol. Simul. 44, 866–880, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927022.2018.1447107 (2018).
Gaultois, M. W. et al. Perspective: Web-based machine learning models for real-time screening of thermoelectric materials properties. Apl. Mater. 4, 053213, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4952607 (2016).
Wu, Y.-J., Sasaki, M., Goto, M., Fang, L. & Xu, Y. Electrically Conductive Thermally Insulating Bi–Si Nanocomposites by Interface Design for Thermal Management. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 1, 3355–3363, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.8b00575 (2018).
Cai, W. et al. Thermal transport in suspended and supported monolayer graphene grown by chemical vapor deposition. Nano Lett. 10, 1645–1651, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl9041966 (2010).
Cheaito, R. et al. Thermal boundary conductance accumulation and interfacial phonon transmission: Measurements and theory. Phys. Rev. B 91, 035432, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.035432 (2015).
Chen, Z., Jang, W., Bao, W., Lau, C. N. & Dames, C. Thermal contact resistance between graphene and silicon dioxide. Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 161910, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3245315 (2009).
Chien, H. C., Yao, D. J., Huang, M. J. & Chang, T. Y. Thermal conductivity measurement and interface thermal resistance estimation using SiO2 thin film. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79, 054902, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2927253 (2008).
Cho, J. et al. Phonon scattering in strained transition layers for GaN heteroepitaxy. Phys. Rev. B 89, 115301, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.115301 (2014).
Chow, P. K. et al. Gold-titania interface toughening and thermal conductance enhancement using an organophosphonate nanolayer. Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 201605, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4807436 (2013).
Clark, S. P. R. et al. Growth and thermal conductivity analysis of polycrystalline GaAs on chemical vapor deposition diamond for use in thermal management of high-power semiconductor lasers. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 29, 03C130, https://doi.org/10.1116/1.3565054 (2011).
Clemens, B. M., Eesley, G. L. & Paddock, C. A. Time-resolved thermal transport in compositionally modulated metal films. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 37, 1085–1096, https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.37.1085 (1988).
Collins, K. C., Chen, S. & Chen, G. Effects of surface chemistry on thermal conductance at aluminum–diamond interfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 083102, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3480413 (2010).
Costescu, R. M., Cahill, D. G., Fabreguette, F. H., Sechrist, Z. A. & George, S. M. Ultra-low thermal conductivity in W/Al2O3 nanolaminates. Sci. 303, 989–990, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093711 (2004).
Costescu, R. M., Wall, M. A. & Cahill, D. G. Thermal conductance of epitaxial interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 67, 054302, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.054302 (2003).
Donovan, B. F. et al. Thermal boundary conductance across metal-gallium nitride interfaces from 80 to 450 K. Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 203502, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4902233 (2014).
Duda, J. C. & Hopkins, P. E. Systematically controlling Kapitza conductance via chemical etching. Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 111602, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3695058 (2012).
Duda, J. C. et al. Influence of interfacial properties on thermal transport at gold:silicon contacts. Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 081902, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4793431 (2013).
Foley, B. M. et al. Modifying Surface Energy of Graphene via Plasma-Based Chemical Functionalization to Tune Thermal and Electrical Transport at Metal Interfaces. Nano Lett. 15, 4876–4882, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00381 (2015).
Freedman, J. P., Yu, X. X., Davis, R. F., Gellman, A. J. & Malen, J. A. Thermal interface conductance across metal alloy-dielectric interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 93, 035309, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.035309 (2016).
Gaskins, J. T. et al. Thermal Conductance across Phosphonic Acid Molecules and Interfaces: Ballistic versus Diffusive Vibrational Transport in Molecular Monolayers. J. Phys. Chem. C. 119, 20931–20939, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b05462 (2015).
Ge, Z., Cahill, D. G. & Braun, P. V. Thermal conductance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 186101, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.186101 (2006).
Gengler, J. J. et al. Limited thermal conductance of metal-carbon interfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 112, 094904, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4764006 (2012).
Gorham, C. S. et al. Ion irradiation of the native oxide/silicon surface increases the thermal boundary conductance across aluminum/silicon interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 90, 024301, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.024301 (2014).
Gundrum, B. C., Cahill, D. G. & Averback, R. S. Thermal conductance of metal-metal interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 72, 245426, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.245426 (2005).
Hanisch, A., Krenzer, B., Pelka, T., Mollenbeck, S. & Horn-von Hoegen, M. Thermal response of epitaxial thin Bi films on Si(001) upon femtosecond laser excitation studied by ultrafast electron diffraction. Phys. Rev. B 77, 125410, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.125410 (2008).
Hopkins, P. E. Thermal Transport across Solid Interfaces with Nanoscale Imperfections: Effects of Roughness, Disorder, Dislocations, and Bonding on Thermal Boundary Conductance. ISRN Mech. Eng. 2013, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/682586 (2013).
Hopkins, P. E. et al. Manipulating thermal conductance at metal-graphene contacts via chemical functionalization. Nano Lett. 12, 590–595, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl203060j (2012).
Hopkins, P. E. et al. Influence of anisotropy on thermal boundary conductance at solid interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 84, 125408, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.125408 (2011).
Hopkins, P. E. et al. Effect of dislocation density on thermal boundary conductance across GaSb/GaAs interfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 161913, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3581041 (2011).
Hopkins, P. E., Duda, J. C., Petz, C. W. & Floro, J. A. Controlling thermal conductance through quantum dot roughening at interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 84, 035438, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.035438 (2011).
Hopkins, P. E. et al. Reduction in thermal boundary conductance due to proton implantation in silicon and sapphire. Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 231901, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3592822 (2011).
Hopkins, P. E. & Norris, P. M. Thermal boundary conductance response to a change in Cr∕Si interfacial properties. Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 131909, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2357585 (2006).
Hopkins, P. E., Norris, P. M. & Stevens, R. J. Influence of inelastic scattering at metal-dielectric interfaces. J. Heat. Trans-T Asme 130, 022401–022409, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2787025 (2008).
Hopkins, P. E., Norris, P. M., Stevens, R. J., Beechem, T. E. & Graham, S. Influence of interfacial mixing on thermal boundary conductance across a chromium/silicon interface. J. Heat. Trans-T Asme 130, 062402–062410, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2897344 (2008).
Hopkins, P. E., Phinney, L. M., Serrano, J. R. & Beechem, T. E. Effects of surface roughness and oxide layer on the thermal boundary conductance at aluminum/silicon interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 82, 085307 (2010).
Hsieh, W. P., Lyons, A. S., Pop, E., Keblinski, P. & Cahill, D. G. Pressure tuning of the thermal conductance of weak interfaces. Phys. Rev. B 84, 184107, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.184107 (2011).
Hu, C., Kiene, M. & Ho, P. S. Thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal resistance of polymeric low k films. Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 4121–4123, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1419239 (2001).
Huxtable, S. T. et al. Interfacial heat flow in carbon nanotube suspensions. Nat. Mater. 2, 731–734, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat996 (2003).
Jeong, M. Y. et al. Enhancement of Thermal Conductance at Metal-Dielectric Interfaces Using Subnanometer Metal Adhesion Layers. Phys. Rev. Appl. 5, 014009, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.5.014009 (2016).
Jin, Y. S., Shao, C., Kieffer, J., Pipe, K. P. & Shtein, M. Origins of thermal boundary conductance of interfaces involving organic semiconductors. J. Appl. Phys. 112, 093503, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4759286 (2012).
Kato, R. & Hatta, I. Thermal Conductivity and Interfacial Thermal Resistance: Measurements of Thermally Oxidized SiO2 Films on a Silicon Wafer Using a Thermo-Reflectance Technique. Int. J. Thermophys. 29, 2062–2071, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-008-0536-4 (2008).
Kim, E. K., Kwun, S. I., Lee, S. M., Seo, H. & Yoon, J. G. Thermal boundary resistance at Ge2Sb2Te5/ZnS: SiO2 interface. Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 3864–3866, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.126852 (2000).
Koh, Y. K., Bae, M. H., Cahill, D. G. & Pop, E. Heat conduction across monolayer and few-layer graphenes. Nano Lett. 10, 4363–4368, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl101790k (2010).
Koh, Y. K., Cao, Y., Cahill, D. G. & Jena, D. Heat-Transport Mechanisms in Superlattices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 19, 610–615, https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.200800984 (2009).
Krenzer, B. et al. Phonon confinement effects in ultrathin epitaxial bismuth films on silicon studied by time-resolved electron diffraction. Phys. Rev. B 80, 024307, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.024307 (2009).
Lee, S. M. & Cahill, D. G. Heat transport in thin dielectric films. J. Appl. Phys. 81, 2590–2595, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.363923 (1997).
Li, X. Y., Park, W., Chen, Y. P. & Ruan, X. L. Absence of coupled thermal interfaces in Al2O3/Ni/Al2O3 sandwich structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 111, 143102, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5006174 (2017).
Liu, D., Xie, R., Yang, N., Li, B. & Thong, J. T. Profiling nanowire thermal resistance with a spatial resolution of nanometers. Nano Lett. 14, 806–812, https://doi.org/10.1021/nl4041516 (2014).
Liu, J., Choi, G. M. & Cahill, D. G. Measurement of the anisotropic thermal conductivity of molybdenum disulfide by the time-resolved magneto-optic Kerr effect. J. Appl. Phys. 116, 233107, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4904513 (2014).
Losego, M. D., Grady, M. E., Sottos, N. R., Cahill, D. G. & Braun, P. V. Effects of chemical bonding on heat transport across interfaces. Nat. Mater. 11, 502–506, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3303 (2012).
Losego, M. D., Moh, L., Arpin, K. A., Cahill, D. G. & Braun, P. V. Interfacial thermal conductance in spun-cast polymer films and polymer brushes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 011908, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3458802 (2010).
Lyeo, H. K. & Cahill, D. G. Thermal conductance of interfaces between highly dissimilar materials. Phys. Rev. B 73, 144301, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.144301 (2006).
Ma, Y. B. Hotspot Size-Dependent Thermal Boundary Conductance in Nondiffusive Heat Conduction. J. Heat. Trans-T Asme 137, 082401–082407, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030170 (2015).
Minnich, A. J. et al. Thermal conductivity spectroscopy technique to measure phonon mean free paths. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 095901, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.095901 (2011).
Monachon, C., Hojeij, M. & Weber, L. Influence of sample processing parameters on thermal boundary conductance value in an Al/AlN system. Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 091905, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3560469 (2011).
Monachon, C. & Weber, L. Thermal boundary conductance of transition metals on diamond. Emerg. Mater. Res. 1, 89–98, https://doi.org/10.1680/emr.11.00011 (2012).
Monachon, C. & Weber, L. Thermal boundary conductance between refractory metal carbides and diamond. Acta Mater. 73, 337–346, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2014.04.024 (2014).
Norris, P. M. Modeling Interfacial Thermal Boundary Conductance of Engineered Interfaces. (Virginia Univ Charlottesville Office of Sponsored Programs, 2014).
Norris, P. M., Smoyer, J. L., Duda, J. C. & Hopkins, P. E. Prediction and Measurement of Thermal Transport across Interfaces between Isotropic Solids and Graphitic Materials. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Nanochannels, Microchannels Minichannels, 2010, Pts a B 134, 223–232, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004932 (2011).
O’Brien, P. J. et al. Bonding-induced thermal conductance enhancement at inorganic heterointerfaces using nanomolecular monolayers. Nature Materials 12, 118, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3465, https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat3465-supplementary-information (2012).
Pernot, G. et al. Precise control of thermal conductivity at the nanoscale through individual phonon-scattering barriers. Nat. Mater. 9, 491–495, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2752 (2010).
Pop, E., Varshney, V. & Roy, A. K. Thermal properties of graphene: Fundamentals and applications. Mrs Bull. 37, 1273–1281, https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2012.203 (2012).
Putnam, S. A., Cahill, D. G., Ash, B. J. & Schadler, L. S. High-precision thermal conductivity measurements as a probe of polymer/nanoparticle interfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 94, 6785–6788, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1619202 (2003).
Ryozo, K., Yibin, X. & Masahiro, G. Development of a Frequency-Domain Method Using Completely Optical Techniques for Measuring the Interfacial Thermal Resistance between the Metal Film and the Substrate. Japanese J. Appl. Phys. 50, 106602 (2011).
Sakata, M. et al. Thermal conductance of silicon interfaces directly bonded by room-temperature surface activation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 081603, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4913675 (2015).
Schmidt, A. J., Collins, K. C., Minnich, A. J. & Chen, G. Thermal conductance and phonon transmissivity of metal–graphite interfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 107, 104907, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3428464 (2010).
Schumann, B., Nitsche, F. & Paasch, G. Thermal Conductance of Metal Interfaces at Low-Temperatures. J. Low. Temp. Phys. 38, 167–189, https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00115274 (1980).
Shenogina, N., Godawat, R., Keblinski, P. & Garde, S. How wetting and adhesion affect thermal conductance of a range of hydrophobic to hydrophilic aqueous interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 156101, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.156101 (2009).
Shukla, N. C. et al. Thermal conductivity and interface thermal conductance of amorphous and crystalline Zr47Cu31Al13Ni9 alloys with a Y2O3 coating. Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 081912, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3090487 (2009).
Stevens, R. J., Smith, A. N. & Norris, P. M. Measurement of thermal boundary conductance of a series of metal-dielectric interfaces by the transient thermoreflectance technique. J. Heat. Trans-T Asme 127, 315–322, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1857944 (2005).
Stoner, R. J. & Maris, H. J. Kapitza conductance and heat flow between solids at temperatures from 50 to 300 K. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 48, 16373–16387, https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.48.16373 (1993).
Szwejkowski, C. J. et al. Size effects in the thermal conductivity of gallium oxide (β-Ga2O3) films grown via open-atmosphere annealing of gallium nitride. J. Appl. Phys. 117, 084308, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4913601 (2015).
Taube, A., Judek, J., Lapinska, A. & Zdrojek, M. Temperature-dependent thermal properties of supported MoS2 monolayers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7, 5061–5065, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b00690 (2015).
Wang, R. Y., Segalman, R. A. & Majumdar, A. Room temperature thermal conductance of alkanedithiol self-assembled monolayers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 173113, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2358856 (2006).
Wang, W. & Cahill, D. G. Limits to thermal transport in nanoscale metal bilayers due to weak electron-phonon coupling in Au and Cu. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175503, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.175503 (2012).
Wilson, R. B. & Cahill, D. G. Experimental validation of the interfacial form of the Wiedemann-Franz law. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 255901, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.255901 (2012).
Witte, T., Frigge, T., Hafke, B., Krenzer, B. & Horn-von Hoegen, M. Nanoscale interfacial heat transport of ultrathin epitaxial hetero films: Few monolayer Pb(111) on Si(111). Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 243103, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4986509 (2017).
Xu, Y. B., Goto, M., Kato, R., Tanaka, Y. & Kagawa, Y. Thermal conductivity of ZnO thin film produced by reactive sputtering. J. Appl. Phys. 111, 084320, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4706569 (2012).
Xu, Y. B., Kato, R. & Goto, M. Effect of microstructure on Au/sapphire interfacial thermal resistance. J. Appl. Phys. 108, 104317, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3514563 (2010).
Xu, Y. B., Wang, H. T., Tanaka, Y., Shimono, M. & Yamazaki, M. Measurement of interfacial thermal resistance by periodic heating and a thermo-reflectance technique. Mater. Trans. 48, 148–150, https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.48.148 (2007).
Yalon, E. et al. Temperature-Dependent Thermal Boundary Conductance of Monolayer MoS2 by Raman Thermometry. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 43013–43020, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b11641 (2017).
Yalon, E. et al. Energy Dissipation in Monolayer MoS2 Electronics. Nano Lett. 17, 3429–3433, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00252 (2017).
Yasaei, P. Thermal Transport and Power Dissipation in Two-Dimensional (2D) Materials and Interfaces PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, (2017).
Yasaei, P. et al. Interfacial Thermal Transport in Monolayer MoS2- and Graphene-Based Devices. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 4, 1700334, https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201700334 (2017).
Yasaei, P. et al. Enhanced Thermal Boundary Conductance in Few-Layer Ti3 C2 MXene with Encapsulation. Adv. Mater. 30, e1801629, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201801629 (2018).
Zhan, T. et al. Thermal boundary resistance at Au/Ge/Ge and Au/Si/Ge interfaces. Rsc Adv. 5, 49703–49707, https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra04412j (2015).
Zhan, T. Z. et al. Phonons with long mean free paths in a-Si and a-Ge. Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 071911, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4866799 (2014).
Zhang, X. et al. Measurement of Lateral and Interfacial Thermal Conductivity of Single- and Bilayer MoS2 and MoSe2 Using Refined Optothermal Raman Technique. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7, 25923–25929, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b08580 (2015).
Zheng, H. & Jaganandham, K. Thermal Conductivity and Interface Thermal Conductance in Composites of Titanium With Graphene Platelets. J. Heat. Trans-T Asme 136, 061301–061309, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026488 (2014).
Rohatgi, A. WebPlotDigitizer version 4.2, https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer (2019).
Touloukian, Y. S. Thermophysical properties of matter. In the TPRC data series (Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1970).
Inorganic Material Database (AtomWork-adv) National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), https://atomwork-adv.nims.go.jp/ (2017).
Pitzer, K. S. The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 82, 4121–4121, https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01500a088 (1960).
Periodic Table: Atomic Properties of the Elements. NIST Standard Reference Database 145 ed, https://www.nist.gov/pml/periodic-table-elements (2010).
Computational Electronic Structure Database (CompES-X). National Institute for Materials Science: Japan, https://compes-x.nims.go.jp/index_en.html (2018).
Wu, Y., Zhan, T., Hou, Z., Fang, L. & Xu, Y. Descriptor dataset for predicting interfacial thermal resistance. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3564173 (2019).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by “Materials research by Information Integration” Initiative (MI2I) project of the Support Program for Starting Up Innovation Hub from Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y. Xu led the design and analysis of this research; Y. Wu collected the ITR and descriptor data, did the data analysis and wrote the paper; T. Zhan constructed the data table and collected the ITR and descriptor data; Z. Hou calculated the total energy of mono-element and multi-element crystalline inorganic compounds by the first-principles calculations; L. Fang preformed the normalization and statistics of data.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Online-only Table
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, YJ., Zhan, T., Hou, Z. et al. Physical and chemical descriptors for predicting interfacial thermal resistance. Sci Data 7, 36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0373-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0373-2
This article is cited by
-
Assessment of computational approaches in the prediction of spectrogram and chromatogram behaviours of analytes in pharmaceutical analysis: assessment review
Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2023)
-
Machine learning approach for the prediction and optimization of thermal transport properties
Frontiers of Physics (2021)