2016/07/31 by Xufei Wu, Vikas Varshney, Jonghoon Lee +3 · 134 citations
Materials Science · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Thermoelectric Materials and Devices #Composite material #Computer science #Condensed matter physics #Conductance #Constant (computer programming) #Graphene research and applications #Heat transfer #Layer (electronics) #Materials science #Monolayer #Nanotechnology #Physics #Property (philosophy) #Thermal #Thermal conductivity #Thermal contact conductance #Thermal properties of materials #Thermal resistance #Thermal transfer #Thermodynamics #cond-mat.mtrl-sci
paper · pdf · doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2016.12.054
published in Chemical Physics Letters 669, 233-237 (Elsevier BV)
arxiv created 2016/11/18 · openalex publication_date 2016/12/29 · arxiv updated 2017/02/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Ever since the discovery of the record-high thermal conductivity of single layer graphene, thermal transport capability of monolayer 2D materials has been under constant spotlight. Since thermal conductivity is an intensive property for 3D materials and the thickness of 2D materials is not well defined, different definitions of thickness in literature have led to ambiguity towards predicting thermal conductivity values and thus in understanding the heat transfer capability of different monolayer 2D materials. We argue that if conventional definition of thermal conductivity should be used as the quantity to compare the heat transfer capability of various monolayer 2D materials, then the same thickness should be used. Alternatively, to circumvent the problem of ambiguous thickness completely, we also suggest that a "sheet thermal conductance" to be defined as an intensive 2D material property when characterizing the heat transfer capability of 2D materials. When converting literature thermal conductivity values of monolayer materials to this new property, some new features that were not displayed when using different thicknesses show up.