A thermal rectifier that utilizes thermal expansion to directionally control interfacial conductance between two contacting surfaces is presented. The device consists of two thermal reservoirs contacting a beam with one rough and one smooth end. When the temperature of reservoir in contact with the smooth surface is raised, a similar temperature rise will occur in the beam, causing it to expand, thus increasing the contact pressure at the rough interface and reducing the interfacial contact resistance. However, if the temperature of the reservoir in contact with the rough interface is raised, the large contact resistance will prevent a similar temperature rise in the beam. As a result, the contact pressure will be marginally affected and the contact resistance will not change appreciably. Owing to the decreased contact resistance of the first scenario compared to the second, thermal rectification occurs. A parametric analysis is used to determine optimal device parameters including surface roughness, contact pressure, and device length. Modeling predicts that rectification factors greater than 2 are possible at thermal biases as small as 3 K. Additionally, thin surface coatings are discussed as a method to control the temperature bias at which maximum rectification occurs.
Thermal contact resistance (TCR) is most commonly measured using one-dimensional steady-state calorimetric techniques. In the experimental methods we utilized, a temperature gradient is applied across two contacting beams and the temperature drop at the interface is inferred from the temperature profiles of the rods that are measured at discrete points. During data analysis, thermal conductivity of the beams is typically taken to be an average value over the temperature range imposed during the experiment. Our generalized theory is presented and accounts for temperature-dependent changes in thermal conductivity. The procedure presented enables accurate measurement of TCR for contacting materials whose thermal conductivity is any arbitrary function of temperature. For example, it is shown that the standard technique yields TCR values that are about 15% below the actual value for two specific examples of copper and silicon contacts. Conversely, the generalized technique predicts TCR values that are within 1% of the actual value. The method is exact when thermal conductivity is known exactly and no other errors are introduced to the system.