From: SMTP%"A.A.Carter@qmw.ac.uk" 1-NOV-1997 06:42:15.63 To: ATLAS-SCT@atlas-lb.cern.ch CC: Subj: Thermal Conductivity Measurements of TPG and PG _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | Thermal Conductivity Measurements of TPG and PG | | _______________________________________________ | | GA Beck, AA Carter and J Morris | | Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London | | | | In preparation for construction of thermal and electrical SCT modules we | | have carried out thermal conductivity measurements on a limited set of TPG | | and PG samples that relate to candidate materials for both module | | baseboards and possible hybrid substrates. | | The thermal conductivity measurements have been made with TPG/PG samples | | in the form of 10mm wide x 80mm long strips. Each strip was measured by | | clamping it in turn to a 0.3mm thick copper foil base, equipped with a | | resistive heat source at one end and four thermistors at 15mm intervals | | along its length. Thermal grease was necessary near the ends of the sample | | to ensure good thermal contact with the copper. The cold end of both strips| | was clamped in a heat sink, and the strips were surrounded by 3mm of foam | | insulation and by a copper guard, maintained close to the strip temperature | | at each end. | | Measurements were made with a temperature difference of about 10 degrees | | between the ends of the strip.The error in the derived thermal conductivity,| | k, due to uncertainties in the temperature gradient, cross-sectional area | | and heat input, was +-4%. The error in correcting for conduction by the | | parallel copper foil was negligible (this procedure was tested using a | | sample of aluminium of known conductivity). Corrections (less than 2%) were | | made for heat loss through the insulation and guard structure. | | The samples of particular interest were: | | (1) TPG: a sample of material currently under investigation as a prototype | | silicon module baseboard. The thermal conductivity of this sample | | has a clear negative temperature coefficient. | | (2) PG700: This material is mechanically superior. It is misleadingly | | named, since our measurements confirm k is well below 700W/mK (as | | indicated also by the manufacturer). | | (3) PG1300: A material with properties some way between the above two. | | In summary, our results show: | | | | Sample: Thickness k at 20C Temp.Coeff. | | (mm) (W/mK) (1/k)*dk/dT | | ______________________________________________________ | | | (1) TPG | 0.40 | 1705 (+-70) | -0.4(+-0.2)% | | | ______________________________________________________ | | | (2) PG700 | 0.25 | 330 (+-16) | 0 (+-1) % | | | ______________________________________________________ | | | (3) PG1300 | 0.53 | 1360 (+-55) | -0.4(+-0.3)% | | | ______________________________________________________ | | | | A more complete write-up of this work will become an ATLAS SCT note, | | and will include details of the apparatus and an overview of the current | | understanding of TPG/PG thermal properties, including the affects of | | encapsulation and review the availability of such materials that could | | be appropriate for use in SCT modules. | | | |_____________________________________________________________________________|