Thermal conductivity bounds for isotropic, porous materials

By J. Carson, S. Lovatt, D. Tanner, A. Cleland. 2005

641 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A review on thermally conductive polymeric composites: classification, measurement, model and equations, mechanism and fabrication methods (2018, background): “And the λ value is also related to the microstructure of polymeric matrix itself and the mass fraction, shape, distribution, and surface performance of the thermally conductive fillers [76, 77].”
The Classical Nature of Thermal Conduction in Nanofluids (2008, background): “In the lower HS configuration, the nanoparticles are always well-dispersed and therefore, the effective conductivity is biased towards the conduction paths in the surrounding fluid [64].”
Thermal conductivity of an organic phase change material/expanded graphite composite across the phase change temperature range and a novel thermal conductivity model (2015, neutral): “However, models based on porosity e fail to work, as two types of pores in composite PCMs – the inherent pores in EG and external pores produced by the interlocking of particles – raised confusions about how to determine the porosity of the porous mixture [24].”
Critical Review of Thermal Conductivity Models for Unsaturated Soils (2015, methodology): “inafter HS (Hashin and Shtrikman 1962, 1963), employed variational principles and established the effective conductivity bounds that were first used for magnetic permeability and were found to be the best or narrowest possible bounds for composite materials, whose bulk properties could be derived fr”