The core performance metric for thermal‑interface materials of IGBT and SiC power modules is not standalone thermal‑conductivity value, but the actual interfacial thermal resistance. Real‑world heat‑dissipation performance is governed by thermal conductivity, bond‑line thickness (BLT), contact area, compression ratio, interfacial wet‑out property and long‑term pump‑out stability. For new‑energy‑vehicle inverters, MCUs and high‑power power supplies, Elaplus TIM grades such as TCMP 1935 and TCMP 3380 may be evaluated.

One major advantage of SiC semiconductors lies in higher switching frequency and elevated power density.
Meanwhile, system hardware becomes more compact. This leads to the following chain effect: Same footprint → higher power load → increased heat‑flux density per unit area → thermal interface performance becomes more critical. Poor TIM interface control will trigger rapid chip‑junction‑temperature rise.
Heat flows from semiconductor chips toward heat sinks via intermediate thermal‑interface materials. Thermal resistance is not determined solely by material thermal conductivity.
Simple illustration:
‑ Material A: 8 W/m·K, bond‑line thickness 1.5 mm
‑ Material B: 5 W/m·K, bond‑line thickness 0.3 mm
We cannot judge which one delivers lower thermal resistance merely by comparing 8 vs 5. Thicker bond‑line means longer heat‑transfer path. Well‑designed TIM selection must consider thermal conductivity together with bond‑line thickness (BLT).

Mismatches frequently occur between power modules and housing assemblies, including:
‑ Manufacturing tolerances
‑ PCB warpage
‑ Component height offset
‑ Heat‑sink flatness deviation
Thermal conductive gels deform mechanically to fill these micro‑gaps.

It builds stable thermal interfaces for IGBT, SiC, MCU, ECU and general power‑electronic modules.
During prototype development of new‑energy‑vehicle electronic assemblies, engineers repeatedly perform:
Disassembly → failure analysis → re‑assembly → re‑validation testing.
Non‑reworkable TIMs significantly raise R&D and field‑repair costs. Accordingly, compressible, rework‑oriented materials such as TCMP 3380 offer distinct advantages for certain mechanical designs.
Do not only ask: What is its thermal conductivity?
You should also verify the following parameters:
‑ What is the actual assembly gap?
‑ What is the minimum achievable BLT?
‑ What is the maximum allowable compression ratio?
‑ What mechanical pressure can components withstand?
‑ Is reworkability required?
‑ Does the material support automated dispensing?
‑ Is vertical sagging / flow‑out a concern?
‑ Does pump‑out occur after long‑term high‑temperature exposure?
‑ Does interfacial performance remain stable through thermal cycling?
‑ What is the measured real‑world thermal resistance?
No simple yes‑or‑no answer. Selection shall be determined comprehensively by device heat‑flux density, cooling architecture and bond‑line thickness.
Yes. Air voids increase localized interfacial thermal resistance. Bubble suppression shall be controlled throughout dispensing and compression‑mounting processes.
They serve different purposes. Thermal conductive gels focus on interfacial gap filling; potting compounds deliver large‑area electronic encapsulation together with thermal conduction.
ELAPLUS | Thermal‑interface‑material Application Support 📧 info@elaplus.cc
COPYRIGHT ◎ 2023 Elaplus Functional Materials Co. LTD
We will reply within 24 working hours. If urgent, please help us to contact through email: kennis.zhu@elaplus.cc