METROLOGIA-2003 – Metrologia para a Vida
Sociedade Brasileira de Metrologia (SBM)
Setembro 01−05, 2003, Recife, Pernambuco - BRASIL
FLASH METHOD STANDARDIZATION IN BRAZIL FOR THE
MEASURMENT OF SOLID THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Paulo Couto1, Helcio R. B. Orlande1, Renato M. Cotta1, Sérgio P. Oliveira2,
Jorge A. Cruz2, Paulo R. F. Santos2, Cláudio S. Pinto Costa1 and Henrique Massard1.
1
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - EE/COPPE, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil
2
National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality – INMETRO, Xerém, Brazil
Abstract: The flash method, proposed by Parker, Butler,
Jenkins, and Abbott from the U.S. Navy Radiological De-
fense Laboratory in 1960, is the most popular method of
measuring the thermal diffusivity of solids. In this method
the front surface of a small sample is subjected to a very
short burst of radiant thermal energy. The resulting tempera-
ture rise on the opposite surface of the sample is measured,
and the thermal diffusivity is computed from the tempera-
ture rise vs. time data. Also, the heat capacity can be com-
puted from the temperature vs. time data, for the calculation
of the thermal conductivity. Several theoretical models are
available for the flash method, which include adiabatic
boundary conditions, heat losses, surface coating effects,
among many other aspects. In this paper, these models are
briefly discussed. This paper also describes the implementa-
tion of the flash method in Brazil as a standard method for
the identification of thermal diffusivity. This work is under-
taken in the context of a joint project between the Graduate
School in Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ) and the National Institute of Me-
trology, Standardization and Industrial Quality
(INMETRO).
Keywords: flash method standardization, thermal diffusiv-
ity measurement, and thermal conductivity.
1. INTRODUCTION
The second half of the twentieth century has seen the subject
of thermal properties measurement change from an exercise
mostly of academic interest to a complex issue employing
the attention of a large number of people in different sectors
of industry, government and universities. The explosion in
materials development for many emerging technologies has
produced very substantial quantities of improved materials
and composites in different forms. This has led to a corre-
sponding requirement for evaluation of their thermophysical
properties more rapidly and often, under conditions that
cannot be satisfied using the appropriate classical methods
[1]. These classical methods, which involved the fitting of
steady state and non-steady-state experimental temperature
data to theoretical models, were usually time expendable.
Additionally, the large size of the samples imposed intoler-
able limitations, usually tied to heat losses and contact resis-
tance between the specimen, and its associated heat sources,
heat sinks and measurement devices. The Flash Method,
first proposed by Parker et al. [2], eliminated the problem of
contact resistance of the classical methods, and minimized
the heat losses by making the measurement time short
enough so that very little cooling can take place. This
method consists of heating the front surface of a thermally
insulated specimen with a high-intensity short-duration
radiative heat pulse and measuring the temperature evolu-
tion on the back surface by the use of an infrared (IR) detec-
tor. The non-intrusive backside measurement method elimi-
nates the concern and issues with sensor attachment to the
sample, and removes all uncertainties associated with con-
tact resistance and sensor measurement accuracy.
Although different industries and research institutes are
already using the Flash Method for thermal properties
measurements in Brazil, the lack of a national standardized
procedure does not allow the inter-laboratory comparison of
thermal properties, which reduces the measurement trace-
ability. Therefore, the National Institute of Metrology, Stan-
dardization and Industrial Quality (INMETRO) in a joint
project with the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(COPPE/UFRJ), funded by the National Council for Scien-
tific and Technological Development (CNPq), is working
towards the implementation of a primary method for the
measurement of the thermal diffusivity of solids materials
based on the Flash Method, according to the ASTM stan-
dard E1461-0 [3]. This standardized primary method will
stimulate the development of new techniques for thermo-
physical properties identifications, which is of main interest
of several Brazilian industries, decreasing its external de-
pendence of qualified materials testing and thermal charac-
terization.
This paper describes the actions performed by INMETRO
and COPPE/UFRJ within the scope of this joint project, as
well as a description of the method itself. A brief literature
review about the Flash Method is summarized and a discus-
sion of the traditional theoretical models considered for this
method is performed.
2. FLASH METHOD STANDARDIZATION IN BRA-
ZIL
The objective of the work presented here is performing and
assessing thermophysical tests of materials and systems
including the provision of reference procedures and refer-
ence materials.
Reference materials and standards are essential tools to
validate techniques and apparatus based on primary methods
of measurement and for use in the calibration of techniques
based on secondary or indirect methods. In order to cover
the wide ranges of material types and their overall conduc-
tivity and temperature ranges of use it is seen that a broad
variety of materials and specimens are required to satisfy the
total needs.
During the last years there has been a huge increase in the
development and use of new and modified materials for a
very broad range of engineering, physical, chemical, bio-
logical and medical applications. In a majority of cases
involving heat transfer, the thermal properties (e.g., thermal
conductivity, thermal diffusivity and specific heat) are nec-
essary to model, design and safely operate the system. The
levels of accuracy and precision required can vary depend-
ing upon the application. Reliability and confidence in the
measured value is the primary intention and use of reference
materials is an essential ingredient towards attaining this
goal. It has been found that values, particularly of thermal
conductivity for a material, vary significantly many times by
amounts well outside the required precision levels. In addi-
tion, some concern has been expressed by the occurrence of
cases where significant discrepancies appear to exist be-
tween directly measured thermal conductivities and values
derived from measurements of thermal diffusivity and spe-
cific heat for certain well-known isotropic materials. Clearly
such differences and uncertainties create serious problems
for the scientists and engineers requiring reliable data for
whatever material and/or application of concern to them.
The final goal is the development, certification and provi-
sion of reference materials, both in Brazil and abroad, de-
signed to meet the increasing scientific and commercial
requirements. Reference materials (RM) are materials or
substances with sufficiently well established properties,
which can be used for calibrating instruments, assessing
measurement methods or assigning values to materials.
Reference Materials are the key to guarantee reliability and
accuracy for technical measurement data.
In addition to reference materials we can refer to reference
procedures (RP). We define reference procedures as those
that have been designed to deliver results, which can be used
as a reference. The term “reference procedure” applies to
testing, measurement and analysis, i.e. all procedures for
determining characteristics of materials, products and proc-
esses. These characteristics can be of quantitative or qualita-
tive form, and they can be defined independently or by the
procedure itself.
Reference procedures are used to validate other procedures,
to characterize reference materials or reference objects, as
well as for determining reference values of materials proper-
ties. Another field of application of reference materials is
testing, measurement or analysis as a basis for important
decisions, e.g. for authoritative evidence. The definition of a
“reference procedure” presumes the existence of several
procedures for a specified task or of different realizations of
the same methodology. Therefore, a reference procedure is
qualified by the uncertainty of results, proven to fit for a
given purpose. Moreover it has to be accepted as such by the
relevant target groups. In the case of quantitative results the
uncertainty comprises trueness and precision combined in
the sense of measurement uncertainty. In the case of qualita-
tive results the uncertainty is an estimate of the probability
of erroneous results.
Accordingly, the developed procedures and techniques
within the scope of this project are implementations of pub-
lic standard methods. It will not be include test methods for
which special legal regulations apply, e.g. in the field of
dangerous goods and substances, nor healthy and environ-
mental rules. Provision of reference procedures at metro-
logical level will be oriented towards current needs and
tasks; the reference procedures will be reviewed on a regular
basis and an updated list will be published at an Internet site
and in every new edition of a booklet catalogue.
In addition to the development of standard procedures in
Brazil for the identification of thermophysical properties,
the present project will also permit the validation and ad-
vancement of new techniques for the identification of ther-
mophysical properties, developed within the framework of
research projects conducted by the group of the Laboratory
of Heat Transmission and Technology at COPPE/UFRJ.
Such novel techniques have been under development by
using inverse analysis and design of optimum experiments
approaches [4]. Among the techniques already available, we
can find those for the identification of the thermal conduc-
tivity components of orthotropic materials [5-9], of thermo-
physical properties of ablating materials [10], of the heat
capacity and thermal conductivity of solids [11,12] and of
the heat and mass transfer properties of drying bodies
[13,14].
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
The thermal diffusivity, α, of a medium is the thermophysi-
cal property that is associated with the propagation of heat
into a medium during changes of temperature in time. The
higher the thermal diffusivity, the faster is the propagation
of heat. The thermal diffusivity is related to the thermal
conductivity, k, specific heat, Cp, and density, ρ, as follows:
α = k /( ρC p ) (1)
The thermal diffusivity has the dimension length2/time and it
is usually expressed in the unit m2/s. The most popular
method used for measuring thermal diffusivity is the flash
method. It has the advantage of being fast while providing
values with excellent accuracy and reproducibility. After the
sample has been stabilized at a desired uniform temperature,
T0, a nearly instantaneous pulse of energy (usually laser,
Xenon lamp, or other discharge source) is imposed on its
front surface, and the temperature increase on the rear sur-
face of the sample is recorded as a function of time (Fig. 1). IR detector
The thermal diffusivity is then determined by comparing Signal
this thermogram with theoretical models that describe this amplifier
transient heat conduction phenomenon. These models are Data
discussed next. aquisition

Furnace
Furnace
3.1. The Parker Analysis Test sample power
Parker et al [2] developed the earliest method of analysis in supply
1961. The authors modeled the heat pulse diffusion by con-
duction in a perfectly insulated solid of thickness L, using a Heat pulse
one-dimensional transient formulation. Parker et al [2] power
source Computer, and
assumed that all the light energy Q was absorbed instanta- supply
(Flash) software
neously in a very thin layer g of the sample material facing
the heat pulse source (zero pulse width), and that the mate- Figure 1. Schematic of Flash Method
rial properties were constant over the small temperature thermal diffusivity measurement
range of the measurement. Under these conditions, the tem-
perature at the rear face (x = L) of the solid at any time can
be written as [15]: We note the interesting fact that the time corresponding to
half of the maximum temperature, which is the selected time
Q  ∞
 αt  to compute the thermal diffusivity with equation (6), results
T ( L, t ) = 
ρC p L 
1 + 2 ∑ ( −1) n exp − n 2π 2 2 
 L 
(2) in a large sensitivity coefficient [16]. Therefore, the use of
n =1 such time results in an accurate estimated value for thermal
conductivity, if the experimental implementation of the
where ρ, Cp and α are the density, the specific heat, and the
method is in accordance with the proposed theoretical
thermal diffusivity of the solid, respectively. Equation (2)
model.
can be written in a dimensionless format, by using the fol-
lowing non-dimensional parameters: Parker et al. [2] compared data obtained from Eq. (6) with
several other sources, obtaining good agreement and maxi-
Θ = T ( L, t ) / Tm (3) mum deviations on the order of ± 5%. However, this model
is somewhat limited in applicability because it neglected the
τ = αt / L2 (4)
heat loss effect from the material surfaces (adiabatic condi-
where Tm is the maximum temperature rise at the rear sur- tion), and it assumed instantaneous pulse heating in the front
face [Tm = T(L, t → ∞)]. By substituting Eq. (3) and (4) into surface of the solid. These effects become more evident at
Eq. (2) we obtain: high temperatures.
∞
3.2. Analyses Accounting for Heat Losses
Θ(τ ) = 1 + 2 ∑ (−1) n exp(−n 2π 2τ ) (5)
Cowan [17] derived in 1963 equations for the temperature
n =1
distribution within a thin slab of solid material, which has
Equation (5) is a function of the non-dimensional time τ received a short pulse of energy on one surface, for the case
only. Figure 2 shows the variation of the non-dimensional in which energy losses at the surfaces by radiation or con-
temperature Θ as a function of τ. According to Parker et al. vection to surroundings at T0 are not negligible. When heat
[2], the thermal diffusivity α can be determined from Eq. (5) is lost from the sample surface, the temperature vs. time
and Fig. 2, at the point where the non-dimensional tempera- curve reaches its maximum at a lower temperature when
ture Θ is equal to 0.5. At this point, the non-dimensional compared to the adiabatic case. After the peak, the solid
time τ is equal to 0.1388, and from Eq. (5) it follows that: temperature drops off due to the cooling effect provided by
the heat loss. Additionally, it was also assumed that the
0.1388L2 energy pulse was rectangular in shape and of relatively short
α= (6)
t0.5 duration (pulse time tpulse << t0.5). The expression for the rear
surface temperature derived by Cowan [17] is:
where t0.5 is the time required for the back surface tempera-
∞
ture to reach half of the maximum temperature rise. There- Q  2 2 
fore, the thermal diffusivity α can be directly determined Θ(τ ) =
ρC p L  ∑
exp( − aτ ) + 2 ( −1) exp( − n π τ )
n
(7)
from Eq. (6) by measuring the time where the non- n =1 
dimensional temperature Θ equals 0.5 (t0.5). It is important where τ is defined by Eq. (4) and Θ(τ) = T(L, τ) – T0. The
to observe that it is not necessary to know the amount of non-dimensional parameter a in the first term on the right
energy absorbed in the front surface in order to determine hand side of Eq. (7) accounts for the heat losses at the solid,
the thermal diffusivity with this method, which depends and it is given by:
only on the shape of the temperature vs. time curve (Fig. 2)
and thickness of the solid.  1  dW  1  dW  
a = L   +    (8)
 k  dT  x = 0 k  dT  x = L 
 1,0 1,0
0,9 0,9

0,8 0,8

0,7 0,7

CpΘ( )L/Q
0,6
0,6
Θ(τ)

0,5 0,5
0,4 a=0
0,4
0,3 a = 0.01
0,3 a = 0.1
0,2 a = 0.5
0,2
0,1 a=1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
τ = t/L2
Figure 2. Thermal diffusivity measurement Figure 3. Thermal diffusivity measurement
according to Parker et al. [2]. according to Cowan [5].

where W is the heat flux lost to the ambient at the surfaces at different dimensionless temperatures θ as measured on the
x = 0 and x = L. It is clear that if there are no heat losses temperature rise curve. These times were t0.2, t0.3, t0.4, t0.7 and
from the solid surfaces, a = 0 and Eq. (7) turns into Eq. (5), t0.8. They developed a theoretical relationship between the
which represents the case modeled by Parker et al. [2]. dimensionless time τ in Eq. (4) and the following three sets
of time ratios:
This method requires the knowledge of the value of a at
least approximately, for maximum accuracy. In the case of Θ(t0.7)/Θ(t0.3), Θ(t0.8)/Θ(t0.4), and Θ(t0.8)/Θ(t0.2) (11)
radiation losses only, a rough knowledge of the sample
The three values resulting from these ratios are very close
emissivity ε may give a with sufficient accuracy from [17]:
and are averaged to compute the thermal diffusivity value.
a ≈ 2.3 × 105{[1 + (TL / T0 ) 3 ](T / 1000) 3 (εL / k )} (9) Koski [18] presented a two-dimensional transient analysis of
the heat transfer problem, including a dimensionless heat
Since Equation (8) correlate Θ and τ as a function of a, an loss factor to characterize the radiative losses form the sam-
alternative approach for the thermal diffusivity estimation is ple.
to experimentally measure the ratios:
∞
γ n2 (γ n2 + Bi 2 ) cos(γ n )
∑ exp( −γ n2τ )
Θ(5t0.5)/Θ(t0.5) or Θ(10t0.5)/Θ(t0.5) (10) Q
Θ( L,τ ) = 2 (12)
ρC p n =1 γ n2 + Bi 2 + 2 Bi
and then find the value of τ for a given heat loss estimation.
When there is no heat loss from the sample (a = 0), the rear where γn are the roots of:
surface temperature remains constant after reaching its
maximum and the ratio Θ(5t0.5)/Θ(t0.5) [or Θ(10t0.5)/Θ(t0.5)] 2γ n Bi
tan γ n = (13)
becomes 2. The non-dimensional time τ in equation (7) then γ n2 − Bi 2
becomes 0.1388 as in Parker’s [2] analysis. Although this
method accounts for the heat losses, two aspects of this The radiative losses parameter is written in a Biot number
model may be considered as source of errors: 1) the derived format, and it is given by:
equations require estimation of parameters, such as the
4σεT 3 L
amount of heat loss per square meter; 2) the use of Eq. (9) is Rloss ≡ Bi = (14)
tied to the solid thermal conductivity k, which must be k
known a priori. where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, ε is the surface
Clark and Taylor [18] proposed in 1975 another method for emissivity, T is the average absolute temperature of sample
the thermal diffusivity measurement based on Cowan’s [17] front and back faces, L is the sample thickness, and k is the
procedure. However, instead of analyzing the cooling part of sample thermal conductivity. The radiative Biot number is
the temperature rise curve, they proposed a method for de- determined in the Koski [17] analysis and provides a meas-
termining thermal diffusivity based on analysis of the heat- ure of the heat loss during the measurement. When
ing part of the curve (i.e., before the back surface tempera- Bi = 0, there is no heat loss from the sample. Equation (14)
ture reaches its maximum). Clark and Taylor [18] deter- is useful in that it shows how the various variables influence
mined five points on the time scale corresponding to five the loss factor. Koski's [17] analysis also allows the laser
pulse width, tpulse to be relatively long, as compared to the
characteristic heating time.
Koski [17] uses five time and temperature ratios including
those four indicated in Eqs. (10) and (11), and an additional
ratio:
Θ(tpulse)/Θ(t0.5) (15)
Koski [17] generated a series of coefficients that can be used
in conjunction with various combinations of the five tem-
perature ratios and temperature ratios to calculate three
values of the dimensionless time τ parameter in Eq. (4)
based on Clark and Taylor's time ratios, and one value of the
τ parameter based on Cowan's temperature ratio. The three
Clark and Taylor results are then averaged. Loss factors (Eq.
14) are also computed for each case. The results of the
Koski [17] analysis are limited to cases where the loss factor
Bi is less than 1.2 and the pulse time is less than t0.5. Flash
method measurements based on a Xenon Lamp usually have
a minimum pulse width of 100µs. This means that t0.5 must
be greater than 100µs in all cases. Even when testing thin
samples of high diffusivity material, t0.5 is likely to be
greater than 100µs. The Koski [17] method thus produces
two values of thermal diffusivity and loss factor for each
test. The results are typically very close. Koski [17] recom-
mends that the results based on the Clark and Taylor [16]
ratios be selected for most conventional tests.
Degiovanni and Laurent [18] developed a different method
of analyzing the experimentally obtained temperature rise
curve in 1986. Degiovanni and Laurent [18] used the time
integral of the temperature rise curve, Θ vs. t, which repre-
sent the area under the curve, to describe its shape. In addi-
tion, a second time integral is calculated representing the
area under the curve Θ/t vs. t, which can easily be derived
from the temperature history curve. The integration is car-
ried out between the limits t0.1 and t0.8:
t0.8
m0 = ∫ Θdt (16)
t0.1
and
t0.8Θ
m−1 = ∫ dt (17)
t0.1 t
Between certain limits of the value of m–1, a unique relation-
ship exists between m0 and m–1 that can be expressed as:
m0 = ( L2 / α )[ F ( m−1 )] (18)
where F(m–1) is a polynomial function of m–1, whose coeffi-
cients were derived by Degiovanni and Laurent [18]. The
thermal diffusivity can be computed from Eq. (18) once the
two integrals have been calculated from the experimental
curve. Degiovanni and Laurent [20] assumed that the laser
pulse width is small compared to the half-rise time t0.5 (i.e.,
there is no finite pulse width correction). The analysis al-
lows for heat loss from all sides of the sample, and it should
yield accurate results on thick samples of low thermal diffu-
sivity.
3.3. Heat Capacity Estimations
The specific heat of a material is defined as the amount of
energy required to raise a unit mass of material by one unit
of temperature at constant pressure:
Q
Cp = (19)
m∆T
where Cp is the specific heat, Q is the energy, m is the mate-
rials mass, and ∆T is the change in temperature.
Specific heat can be measured with the flash method by
comparing the temperature rise of the sample to the
temperature rise of a reference sample of known specific
heat tested under the same conditions [2]. This temperature
rise is recorded during the diffusivity measurement, so the
specific heat can be calculated from the same data with a
suitable calibration. Assuming that the light pulse energy
and its coupling to the sample remain essentially unchanged
between samples, Eq. (19) can be rewritten as follows:
Q = Absorbed energy = (∆T m Cp)sample = (∆T m Cp)ref (20)
Or, simply:
( m∆TC p ) ref
(C p ) sample = (21)
( m∆T ) sample
A reference sample is measured at each temperature of in-
terest to calibrate the change in output voltage of the IR
detector (∆V) resulting from the absorbed laser energy. The
measured ∆V divided by the detector amplifier gain (G) will
be proportional to the temperature rise (∆T), as long as the
temperature rise is small. This calibration gives the absorbed
energy or calibration factor in terms of the mass, specific
heat, ∆V and G for the reference sample measurement.
When a sample of unknown specific heat is measured, the
absorbed energy divided by the product of the mass and
∆V/G of the test sample, Equation (21), gives the test sample
specific heat.
The measured ∆V will be affected by heat loss during the
measurement, so in order to use ratios of the measured ∆V in
Equation (21), the heat loss factors (see section the Koski
[19] analysis) of the reference and test sample should be
similar. Tests have shown that the light pulse energy is sta-
ble from pulse to pulse within about ±2%, so the average of
several laser pulses at each temperature are used in the cal-
culations. The absorptive efficiency of the front surface of
the samples to the light pulse and the radiative efficiency of
the back surface to the IR detector are controlled by coating
the reference and test samples with a thin layer of graphite.
3.4. Thermal Conductivity Estimations
The thermal conductivity of a sample can be calculated from
Eq. (1) using the diffusivity and specific heat data obtained
by the flash method, that is,
k = α(ρCp) (22)
The primary data measured in the Flash Method is the ther-
mal diffusivity (α), while the specific heat (Cp) is a secon-
dary data. The thermal conductivity is not measured; it is
derived from a primary and a secondary measurement data.
It is important now to observe that the density (ρ) of the
sample must be known for the thermal conductivity calcula-
tion, while for the specific heat, the mass (m) of a sample
must be known. Therefore, special care must be taken when
measuring properties of porous materials. More specifically:
(i) If the measurements are performed in a high vacuum
environment, the heat transmission will occur only in the
solid phase of the porous material. On the contrary, convec-
tion with the pores will affect the temperature vs. time curve
shape on the back surface of the sample; (ii) If the mass and
density of the sample includes the effects of the fluid mass
within the porous structure, the measured thermophysical
properties will be the effective specific heat and thermal
conductivity (solid + fluid).
4. CONCLUSIONS
Generally, from the work conducted so far within the scope
of this joint project between COPPE and INMETRO, we
can mention the following, regarding the major advantages
of the flash method:
• It requires a very small sample, usually 12 mm diameter
and few millimeters thick;
• It is very fast; the actual measurement takes few seconds;
• The same instrument can be made to test a very broad
range of thermal diffusivity materials (10–7 to 10–3 m2/s),
while usual thermal conductivity instruments barely cover
a 10 to 1 ratio range;
• It can also be used to measure other thermophysical
properties (specific heat and thermal conductivity);
• It can be used to test samples up to much higher tempera-
tures than steady state methods.
On the other hand, major disadvantages of the flash method
are:
• The equipment is usually quite expensive, due to the heat
pulse generation, optical detection and high-speed data
acquisition systems;
• Porous and non-homogeneous materials require special
care to properly process the temperature data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by CNPq through the grant
460.203/01-0.
REFERENCES
[1] Campbell, R. C. and Smith, S. E. “Flash Diffusivity Method:
A Survey of Capabilities”. In: Electronics Cooling, Vol. 8,
no. 2, May 2002. Also available at http://www.electronics-
cooling.com/html/articles.html
[2] Parker W. J., Jenkins W. J., Butler C. P., and Abbott G. L.
“Flash Method of Determining Thermal Diffusivity, Heat
Capacity and Thermal Conductivity”. In: Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 1679-1684, Sept. 1961.
[3] ASTM Test Method E1461-01. “Standard Test Method for
Thermal Diffusivity of Solids by the Flash Method”.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Vol. 14.02, 2001.
[4] Ozisik, M.N. and Orlande, H.R.B., Inverse Heat Transfer:
Fundamentals and Applications, Taylor & Francis, New
York, 2000.
[5] Mejias, M. M.; Orlande, H. R. B.; Ozisik, M. N. Effects Of
The Heating Process And Body Dimensions On The
Estimation Of The Thermal Conductivity Components Of
Orthotropic Solids, Inverse Problems In Engineering, Vol.
11, no1, pp.423-440, 2003.
[6] Mejias, M. M.; Orlande, H. R. B.; Ozisik, M. N. Design Of
Optimum Experiments For The Estimation Of The Thermal
Conductivity Components Of Orthotropic Solids, Hybrid
Methods In Engineering, New York, V. 1, N. 1, P. 37-53,
1999
[7] Orlande, H. R. B.; Mejias, M. M.; Ozisik, M. N. On The
Choice Of Boundary Conditions For The Estimation Of The
Thermal Conductivity Components Of Orthotropic Solids In.
2000 ASME National Heat Transfer Conference, 2000,
Pittsburgh, 2000
[8] Mejias, M. M.; Orlande, H. R. B.; Ozisik, M. N. A
Comparison Of Different Parameter Estimation Techniques
For The Identification Of Thermal Conductivity Components
Of Orthotropic Solids, 3rd International Conference On
Inverse Problems In Engineering, Port Ludlow, WA, USA,
pp. 325-332, 1999.
[9] F. A. Rodrigues, H. R. B. Orlande And M. M. Mejias, Use
Of A Single Heated Surface For The Estimation Of Thermal
Conductivity Components Of Orthotropic 3d Solids, 4th
International Conference On Inverse Problems In
Engineering, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 2002.
[10] Orlande, H. R. B.; Silva, D. Estimation Of Thermal
Properties Of Ablating Materials In. International
Symposium On Inverse Problems In Engineering Mechanics
- 2001, Nagano, pp. 49-54, 2001
[11] Oliveira, A. P.; Silva, D.; Souza, R.; Orlande, H. R. B.
Estimation Of Thermal Conductivity And Volumetric Heat
Capacity In Transient Experiments, In. Xv Congresso
Brasileiro De Engenharia Mecânica - Cobem, 1999, Águas
de Lindóia, 1999
[12] F. Salas, A. Oliveira, D. Silva, H. Orlande, Experimental
Identification Of Thermal Conductivity And Volumetric
Heat Capacity, Paper CIT02-0117, Thermal Sciences
Meeting - Encit, Caxambu, 2002.
[13] L. B. Dantas, H. R.B. Orlande and R. M. Cotta, Estimation
of Dimensionless Parameter of Luikov’s System for Heat
and Mass Transfer in Capillary Porous Media, Int. J. Therm.
Sci., vol. 41, pp. 217-227, 2002.
[14] L. B. Dantas, H. R.B. Orlande and R. M. Cotta, An Inverse
Problem of Parameter Estimation for Heat and Mass
Transfer in Capillary Porous Media, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, vol. 46, pp. 1587-1598, 2003.
[15] Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. C. “Conduction of Heat in
Solids”. 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, New York,
1959.
[16] H.R.B. Orlande and M.N. Özisik. Simultaneous Estimation
of Thermal Diffusivity and Relaxation Time with Hyperbolic
Heat Conduction Model, Proceedings of the 10th
International Heat Transfer Conference, Paper No15-CI-20,
Vol. 6, pp.403-408, Brighton, UK, 1994.
[17] Cowan, R. D. Pulse Method of Measuring Thermal
Diffusivity at High Temperatures, Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 34, No. 4 (part 1), pp. 926 – 927, April 1963.
[18] Clark, L. M. and Taylor, R. E., Radiation Loss in the Flash
Method for Thermal Diffusivity, Journal of Applied Physics,
Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.714 – 719, February 1975.
[19] Koski, J. A. Improved Data Reduction Methods for Laser
Pulse Diffusivity Determination with the Use of
Minicomputers, Proc. of the 8th Symposium on
Thermophysical Properties, Volume II, pp. 94, 1981.
[20] Degiovanni, A. and Laurent, M., Une Nouvelle Technique
d'Identification de la Diffusivite Thermique pour la Methode
Flash, Revue Phys. Appl., Vol. 21, pp. 229-237, (1986).
Paulo Couto, Dr.Eng.: Visiting Professor, Department of Me-
chanical Engineering – PEM/EE/COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Cx. Postal 68503, Rio
de Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil. Phone/Fax: (21) 2562 8566
Helcio R. B. Orlande, PhD.: Associate Professor, Department of
Mechanical Engineering – PEM/EE/COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Cx. Postal 68503,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil. Phone/Fax: (21) 2562 8405
Renato M. Cotta, Ph.D.: Professor, Department of Mechanical
Engineering – PEM/EE/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro –UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Cx. Postal 68503, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil. Phone: (21) 2562 8567, Phone/Fax:
(21) 2562 8566
Sérgio P. Oliveira: National Institute of Metrology, Standardiza-
tion and Industrial Quality – INMETRO, Av. Nossa Senhora das
Graças 50, Xerém, RJ, 25250-020, Brazil.
Jorge A. Cruz: National Institute of Metrology, Standardization
and Industrial Quality – INMETRO, Av. Nossa Senhora das Gra-
ças 50, Xerém, RJ, 25250-020, Brazil.
Paulo R. F. Santos: National Institute of Metrology, Standardiza-
tion and Industrial Quality – INMETRO, Av. Nossa Senhora das
Graças 50, Xerém, RJ, 25250-020, Brazil.
Cláudio S. P. Costa, M.Sc.: Researcher, Department of Mechani-
cal Engineering – PEM/EE/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro –UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Cx. Postal 68503, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil. Phone: (21) 2562 8566
Henrique Massard: Undergraduate Student, Department of Me-
chanical Engineering – PEM/EE/COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro –UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Cx. Postal 68503, Rio
de Janeiro, RJ, 21945-970, Brazil. Phone: (21) 2562 8566