Electrical Resistivity Measurements: A Review: International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series January 2013

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/258790967
Electrical Resistivity Measurements: a Review
Article in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series · January 2013

DOI: 10.1142/S2010194513010970
CITATIONS READS
114 25,562
1 author:
Yadunath Singh
BIKANER TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER (RAJASTHAN) - INDIA
54 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
1. TRANSPORT PROPERTIES OF CHARGE TRANSFER COMPLEXES (TCNQ FAMILY): SYNTHESIS, CHARACTERIZATION AND MEASUREMENTS.
View project
Disaster Management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Yadunath Singh on 23 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Ceramics, Bikaner, India
International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series
Vol. 22 (2013) 745–756
 World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S2010194513010970
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS: A REVIEW
YADUNATH SINGH
Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013.22:745-756. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Department of Physics, Government College of Engineering and Technology, Bikaner (Rajasthan) India
E – Mail ID: singh_kyn@yahoo.co.in
World-wide interest on the use of ceramic materials for aerospace and other advanced engineering
applications, has led to the need for inspection techniques capable of detecting unusually electrical
and thermal anomalies in these compounds. Modern ceramic materials offer many attractive
by 180.215.217.156 on 05/30/13. For personal use only.
physical, electrical and mechanical properties for a wide and rapidly growing range of industrial
applications; moreover specific use may be made of their electrical resistance, chemical resistance,
and thermal barrier properties. In this review, we report the development and various techniques
for the resistivity measurement of solid kind of samples.
1. Introduction
Electrical resistivity is one of the most sensitive indicators of changes in the nature of the
chemical binding. In general, the electrical resistivity is inversely proportional to the
carrier density and the carrier mobility. A change in the nature of the chemical binding
primarily alters the carrier density, and the structural changes alter the carrier mobility.
Very early investigation of metals showed that resistivity increases approximately by a
factor of 2 at the melting point, while it decreases in silicon and germanium as they
transform from semiconducting solids to conducting liquids. Electrical resistivity plays
an important role in technical applications.
There is much interest at present for the study of ceramic materials. Since the
realization of electrical and thermal conducting properties of these materials, there have
been extensive investigations in to the transport properties of these compounds. The
significant progress of ceramic materials has been attaching attention of a lot of scientists
in various disciplines and encouraging their entry into field. The synergy of diverse
scientific senses brings further spread of the study of these materials.
Recent technological improvements in measurement instruments and technology have
opened up the way for new methodological applications and have led to new discoveries
in the field of material science. There has been a great progress in the synthesis of a
variety of inorganic colloidal Nano crystals (NCs) with highly controlled size and shape
in the last decade1. This achievement haspromoted comprehensive researches on the
fabrication and engineering of NC devices with novelstructure and function with the aim
of utilizing them in a wide area of applications, includingelectronics and optoelectronics,
by using various NC assembling and patterning methods. However, colloidal NCs having
745
746 Y. Singh
been extensively investigated so far are mostly metals, semiconductors andmagnetic

materials, and only limited investigations on oxide NCs from a point of view of NC
ceramicengineering have been done.
Determination of the temperature dependent electrical resistance is a very important
tool to explain the nature of ground state, phase diagrams, electrical, electronic and
magnetic properties and instabilities observedof the studied materials for this kind of
developments.
2. Electrical Resistivity Measurements

Various models and methods have been suggested to measure the electrical resistance.
Factors affecting the suitability of various methods and precision attainable include
contact resistance and shape of the sample i.e. whether is it in the form of single crystal,
thin film, powder pellet or small crystallite. Among the methods to be discussed here, are
two probes (ohmmeter or voltmeter – ammeter measurements) can be used for higher
resistive samples and four probes methods (potential probe measurements) for the low
resistive and single crystals. Whereas, Montgomery, van der Pauw and Smith techniques
for the pellets and bulky samples.
The use of resistivity measurement in research work is old and many excellent
accounts of various measurement techniques are already available2-9.
2.1. Two probes measurements

This is the simplest method of measuring resistivity and is illustrated in fig.1. In this
method, voltage drop V across the sample and current through the sample I are measured.
Then the resistivity is given as
(1)
This method is useful when the sample has large resistance.
Figure 1: Electrical resistivity measurement by two probe method.

Electrical Resistivity Measurements: A Review 747
2.2. Four probes measurements

The potential probe is the most widely used method for resistivity measurements on the
low resistive samples. In this method the potential drop is measured across two probes
and distance between these probes D replaces the sample length L in equation 1. When
the probes are not point contacts, in that case, the most accurate value for the probe
distance is the distance between the centers rather than the closest distance between the
probes. Fig. 2 shows the schematically arrangement for this method. In this case ρ is
given by
(2)
Four probe method can be used to determine the resistance of the single crystal as well as
the bulk specimen also. Here current passes through the outer contacts which are close to
the edges of the sample. The potential difference is measured across the inner contacts.
This method can eliminate the effects of contact resistance between the sample and
electrical contacts and therefore is most suitable for low and accurate resistance
measurements.
Contact and lead resistances are cancelled out by the four point method, however the
contact resistance can still cause error if these are produce enough heat. Thus it is
imperative that the contacts should have low resistance. Instrumental dc offsets also
contributes to the error, but this can be easily corrected by subtraction. Self-induced
voltage offsets in the circuit further add to the error. This problem can be corrected by
reversing the flow of current through the sample. When the low level of the voltage (in
the range of µV) is produced across the sample, signal noise also adds to the error. By
using the proper shielded cables and low thermal contactors, as well as making single
point grounding, noise problem can be reduced.
Figure 2: Electrical resistivity measurement by four probe method

748 Y. Singh
2.3. Four point probes measurements

The ‘four point probe’ method has proven to be a convenient tool for the resistivity
measurement of small size (of the order of mm) specimen. This method is applicable
when the distance between the probes is small compared to the smaller dimension of the
sample, and provided none of the probe is too close to an edge of the sample. The
arrangementofprobes is shown in fig. 3. Detailed description of the method is given by L.
Valdes10. This gives the functional relationship between the resistivity ‘ρ’ and the voltage
and current ratio for various geometries.
Figure 3: Electrical resistivity measurement by four point probe method
Later, A. Uhlier11 has evaluated functions, which gives the relationship for additional
geometries. All these treatments are concerned with three dimensional structures and
infinite in at least one direction. In the case of a four point probe on a sheet, the two
outside current points represent the dipole. Therefore, the resistivity in this case can be
given by11
(3)
Here, the distance between all the four points is equal. I, is the current flowing
through the sample, VD is produced voltage across two inner points and S is the distance
between the adjacent points. If the distance between contact points is not equal and it is
given as S1, S2 and S3 respectively, then the resistivity is given as
(4)
Where, V is the floating potential difference between the inner probes, and I is the
current through outer pair of probes. A detailed study has been done by F. M. Smit12 for
different geometries with various correction factors in the resistivity as shown in fig. 4
and correction factors are tabulated in the table 1.
Figure 4: Arrangement for the measurement of sheet resistivity with four point probe method12.
Table 1: Correction factor C for the measurement of Sheet resistivity with the four point probe method12
2.4. Resistivity measurement for a disc of arbitrary shape (Pauw Method)

This is the method discussed by vander Pauw13 to measure resistivity of flat disc (pellet)
of arbitrary shape without knowing the current pattern. This method is applicable only
when satisfying the following conditions:
A. The contacts are at the circumference of the sample.
B. The contacts are sufficiently small.
C. The sample is homogeneous in thickness.
D. The surface of the sample is singly connected, i.e. the sample does not have
isolated holes. A sample of comparatively low resistance and of arbitrary shape
satisfies all conditions (A) to (D) as shown in fig. 5.
The resistance RAB,CD is defined as the potential difference VD – VC between D and C
contacts per unit current through the contacts A and B. Here the current enters in the
sample through contact A and leaves it through B. Similarly resistance RBC,DA is defined.
If the sample has an uniform thickness “d”, the resistivity ρ as a function of RAB,CD,
RBC,DA and ‘d’ of the sample can be determined as:
750 Y. Singh
Figure 5: Samples of any arbitrary shape with four small contacts for electrical resistivity measurement
(5)

Where is the function of the ratio , only and satisfies the relation
,
(6)

f can be given approximately as and plotted against the ratio, in figure 7
,
(7)
However, this method is very useful to determine electrical resistivity of arbitrary shaped
samples with some limitations but it is also modified by some scientists later on.
Ronald Chwang14 et al. was investigated the effects on van der Pauw’s resistivity and
Hall coefficient measurement due to finite size contacts with selected shapes on a square
sample. For the sheet resistivity measurement, correction factors for the apparent
measured values at zero magnetic fields were determined from both electrolytic tank
experiments and computerized over-relaxation calculations. For the Hall coefficient,
correction factors for the effect of voltage shorting due to current electrodes and for the
effect of current shorting due to Hall electrodes were calculated (by use of a fast-
convergent over-relaxation technique) through a range of Hall angle from tan θ = 0.1–0.5.
The current shorting contribution to the correction factor at zero magnetic field was also
closely estimated by use of an electrolytic tank. In the symmetrical structures studied the
Hall errors introduced by the voltage and current electrodes were approximately equal.
The study shows that contacts of appreciable size relative to that of the sample can be a
good approximation to van der Pauw’s infinitesimal contact. Thus, one can utilize the
simplicity and other advantages of finite size ohmic contacts for these measurements in
normal semiconductor materials evaluation and still obtain precise data by using the
appropriate correction factors determined in this paper.
Jonathan D. Weiss15 et al. along with two others has observed that van der Pauw
formula for determining the electrical resistivity of an irregularly-shaped material was
derived by him with the help of conformal mapping and is inherently two-dimensional.
Thus, it is valid in the limiting case of a sample of infinitesimal thickness. In this paper,
they demonstrate how the same formula can be derived from classical electrostatics for a
rectangular sample of non-zero thickness which is allowed to approach zero. The
calculation is carried out with the current probes at two adjacent corners and the voltage
probes at the other two. In addition, the effects of non-ideality, particularly non-zero
thickness and non-point contact voltage and current probes, are examined using the
analytic formulation derived here and a semiconductor device code.
Later on Jonathan D. Weiss16 and others have reported that the original van der Pauw
relationship could be derived from three-dimensional electrostatics, as opposed to van der
Pauw’s use of conformal mapping. The earlier derivation was done for a conducting
material of rectangular cross section with contacts placed at the corners. Presented here is
a generalization of the previous work involving a square sample and a square array of
electrodes that are not confined to the corners, since this measurement configuration
could be a more convenient one. As in the previous work, the effects of non-zero sample
thickness and contact size have been investigated. Buehler and Thurber derived a similar
relationship using an infinite series of current images on a large and thin conducting sheet
to satisfy the conditions at the boundary of the sample. The results presented here agree
with theirs numerically, but analytic agreement could not be shown using any of the
perused mathematical literature. By simply equating the two solutions, it appears that, as
a byproduct of this work, a new mathematical relationship has been uncovered. Finally, it
is concluded that the application of this methodology to the Hall Effect measurements is
quite useful.
2.5. Resistivity measurement of a pellet using Montgomery Method

The samples are obtained in powder form, used for pellet study. The pellet should be
made by pressing the powder up to a sufficient and known pressure without using any
binder. Usually these are shaped in the form of circular discs. A pellet of uniform
thickness and circular in shape has four point contacts on the top surface of it arranged in
the form of rectangle ABCD. The distance between the contacts at A and B is ‘b’ and that
between the contacts at B and c is ‘a’. The thickness of the pellet is ‘d’ must be less than
or of the order of 0.3 √ . As shown in the figure 6.
752 Y. Singh
Figure 6: Circuit arrangement for electrical resistivity measurement of a pellet

The resistance R1 is determined by sending current through AB and the potential

difference is measured across CD. Now, the resistance R2 is determined by sending
current through AD and the produced potential difference is measured across BC. To
change the direction of current and measure the resistances R1 and R2 a schematic
arrangement as shown in the figure 5 has made. The theory behind the method of
calculating the resistivity of the pellet from the knowledge of resistances R1, R2 and
thickness of pellet d is described by Montgomery17.
We have considered a rectangular pellet of width ‘b’, length ‘a’ and the thickness ‘d’
and if ABCD represent the corners of the top face of such a pellet, then according the
theory developed by Montgomery, the resistivity can be given by
(8)
Here, H is the geometric parameter which is a function of the ratio of width and length
(b/a), and E is an effective thickness of the specimen. The effective thickness E, which is
determined by the plot of a curve drawn in between the ratio (b/a) and d. However for

0.3, E does not depend on b/a significantly, and is almost equal to thickness of the

sample.
Figure 7: The function ƒ used for determining the electrical resistivity of a sample, plotted as a
function of R AB,CD / RBC,DA.
For the pellet, which is of the uniform thickness but not rectangular in shape, an
effective value for b/a can be obtained from the ratio of R2 /R1. Montgomery has drawn a
graph of R2/R1 as a function of b/a. The graph is insensitive to the actual thickness of the
sample. To determine the resistivity of the sample, the effective value of b/a is obtained
from the measurement of R2/R1. Then the value of effective thickness E and geometric
factor H are determined for this value of b/a. The value of H can be obtained directly in
terms of R2/R1 from the table given by Montgomery17. Thus by putting the values of H
corresponding to the different values of E in equation 8, one can determine the resistivity
of the given pellet.
2.6. Resistivity measurement by using pulse probe method

A modified dc method known as the pulse probe method has reported by C.R.B. Lister18
can also be used to determine the resistivity of some samples by some modifications. Fig.
7 shows the block diagram for the pulse method. In this method, a short pulse of high
voltage is applied to the sample and the current or the potential drop across a pair of
probes of the sample is measured, usually by means of a fast oscilloscope or other
amplifying and recording systems. Since the pulse is of very short duration and repeated
only a few in times in a second or even less. The current density during the time of
application of the pulse is very high without unduly heating or affecting the sample. This
technique is most suitable for the samples having small dimensions, more fragile and
having Joule heating problems.
Figure 7: Block diagram for electrical resistivity measurement by pulse method
2.7. A spreading resistance technique for resistivity measurements

A technique is developed by R. G. Mazur and D. H. Dickeya21 for determining local
sample resistivity from the measured spreading resistance associated with a metal to
semiconductor, small‐area pressure contact is described. The major problems
encountered in earlier attempts to derive quantitative resistivity data from small area
pressure contacts on sample have been circumvented by making the measurements at bias
754 Y. Singh
levels of a few millivolts and by using a particular osmium‐tipped probe arrangement to

provide contact reproducibility. The method provides a three‐dimensional spatial
resolution in resistivity measurements on sample on the order of 1µ, and, using a
calibration curve determined for a particular silicon surface finish, yields an experimental
reproducibility ≤15% for sample resistivity in the range. Several examples of the
application of the technique to problems of current interest in the technology are given.
2.8. Noncontact electrical resistivity measurement technique

A noncontact technique of measuring the changes in electrical resistivity (or resistivity)
of conducting liquids is reported by Won-KyuRhima and Takehiko Ishikawab22. The

technique is based on a conducting drop that is levitated by the high-temperature
electrostatic levitator in a high vacuum. This technique, which utilizes the principle of the
asynchronous induction motor, measures the relative changes in torque as a function of
temperature by applying a rotating magnetic field to the sample. Changes in electrical
resistivity are related to the changes in measured torque using the formula developed for
the induction motor. Validity of this technique was demonstrated using a pure aluminum
sample around its melting temperature. When the measurement results were calibrated by
a literature value of resistivity at the melting point then it is found that those are in close
agreement with the literature, confirming the validity of the present technique.
The electrical resistivity controls the flow of melts under the influence of
electromagnetic force in the process of refining or growing semiconductor crystals, and it
is a sensitive measure of concentration fluctuation in a critically mixed liquid alloy near
the critical point in the homogeneous liquid phase. In a conventional rotating magnetic-
field method for electrical conductivity, a cylindrical container holding a molten liquid is
suspended by a tungsten wire, and the torque experienced by the hanging cylinder is
measured when a rotating magnetic field is applied23. However, chemically reactive
liquids, especially molten refractory materials, contained in the cylinder may be easily
contaminated, altering intrinsic electrical properties. Furthermore, one cannot expect
those liquids to reach a deeply undercooled state as long as the container provides
heterogeneous nucleants that trigger early solid-phase nucleation.
Figure 8: A schematic diagram of an electronics assembly that generates and channels appropriate electric
currents to the coils to produce the desired magnetic field at the sample position22.
3. Summary
In conclusion, we say that there are several methods to determine the electrical
conductivity. An extremely important aspect of electrical resistivity measurement is to
choose an appropriate method to the nature of the material is being studied. It is also
being depended on the resistivity range, the temperature range, current flown and other
condition of measurements. The bad effect from improper contacts may be most serious
for these studies.
During the experiment for the resistivity measurement at room temperature or with
the low temperature variation, there are a number of precautions, which must be cared to
obtain good and accurate results. These cares can also save a lot of time consumed in the
measurements on the breaking of the samples, unstabilization of the temperature, change
in the dimensions of the sample or sample mount, Joule heating and breaking off the
electrical connection from the sample etc. during the observation. These all problems
may be eliminated out, if one can take care of some important factors. These are as given
below and are purely dependent on the type of the study or measurement, nature of the
sample and limitations of the experimental equipment’s etc.
I. Sample preparation.
II. Adaptation of suitable method of measurement as per shape and nature of
the sample.
III. Suitable sample mount.
IV. Temperature control at the sample.
V. Electrical contacts with the sample.
VI. Suitable value of input current or signal.
VII. Evaluation of the homogeneity.
It is expected in these measurements that it needs a steady hand and a keen eye to
work with some fine wires and small, brittle and fragile samples.
Acknowledgments
The financial assistance provided by the Department of Science and Technology, New
Delhi for this study is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Makoto KUWABARA: Journal of Advanced Ceramics 1(2): 79-88, 2012, DOI:
10.1007/s40145-012-0016-y ISSN 2226-4108.
2. H. Geiger and K. Scheel, eds. “hand buch der Physik” 16 Springer, Berlin, 1927.
3. A. N. Gerritsen, in “Hand buch der Physik – Encylopedia of Physics” Ed. S. flogge et al, 19
Springer, Berlin, 1956.
4. W. Meissner in “Hand buch der Experimental physic” Ed. W.Wein and F. Harms, 11,
AkademischeVerlagsges Leipzig, 1935.
5. G. Borelius in “Hand buch der Experimentalphysik” Ed. W.Wein and F. Harms, 01,
AkademischeVerlagsges Leipzig, 1935.
6. W. C. Michels “Electrical Measurement in their Applications”, Van Nostrand, N. York, 1957.
7. W. C. Dunlap Jr., “An Introduction to semiconductors”, Chapter 9, Wiley, N. York, 1957.
756 Y. Singh
8. L. P. Hunter, Ed. “Hand buch of semiconductors Electronics”, Mc-Graw-Hill, N. York. 1956.

9. F. K. Harris, ed. “Electrical Measurements”. Wiley, N. York, 1952.
10. L. B. valdes: Proc. I. R. E. 42, 1954, p. 420.
11. A. Jr. Uhlir: The Bell System Technical Journal, 34, Jan. 1955, p. 105.
12. F. M. Smit: The Bell System Technical Journal, May 1958, p. 711.
13. L. J. vanderPauw: Philips Res. Reports 13, 1958, p. 72.
14. Ronald Chwang, B. J. Smith and C. R. Cowell: Solid state electronics 17 issue 12, December
1974, P. 1217-1227.
15. Jonathan D. Weiss, Robert J. Kaplar and Kenneth E. Kambur: Solid state electronics 52 issue
1, January 2008, P. 91-98.
16. Jonathan D. Weiss, Robert J. Kaplar and Kenneth E. Kambur: Solid state electronics 62 issue
1, August 2011, P. 123-127.

17. H. C. Montgomery: J. Appl. Phys. 42, 1971, p. 2971.
18. C R B Lister: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 57 issue 2, May 1979,
P. 451 – 461.
19. P. W. Bridgmann “The Physics of High Pressure”, Bell London, 1952.
20. P. W. Bridgmann: Phys. Rev. 60, 1941 p. 351.
21. R. G. Mazur and D. H. Dickeya: The Electrochemical Society, 1966.

22. Won-KyuRhima and TakehikoIshikawab: Reviewof Scientific Instrument 69, (10) October
1998.
23. T. Iida and R. I. L. Guthrie, “The Physical Properties of Liquid Metals”, Clarendon, Oxford
1988, p. 228.
View publication stats

Electrical Resistivity Measurements: A Review: International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series January 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electrical Resistivity Measurements: A Review: International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series January 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electrical Resistivity Measurements: A Review: International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series January 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Electrical Resistivity Measurements: a Review

Article in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series · January 2013

Disaster Management View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS: A REVIEW

been extensively investigated so far are mostly metals, semiconductors andmagnetic

2. Electrical Resistivity Measurements

2.1. Two probes measurements

This method is useful when the sample has large resistance.

Figure 1: Electrical resistivity measurement by two probe method.

2.2. Four probes measurements

Figure 2: Electrical resistivity measurement by four probe method

2.3. Four point probes measurements

Figure 3: Electrical resistivity measurement by four point probe method

2.4. Resistivity measurement for a disc of arbitrary shape (Pauw Method)

2.5. Resistivity measurement of a pellet using Montgomery Method

Figure 6: Circuit arrangement for electrical resistivity measurement of a pellet

The resistance R1 is determined by sending current through AB and the potential

2.6. Resistivity measurement by using pulse probe method

Figure 7: Block diagram for electrical resistivity measurement by pulse method

2.7. A spreading resistance technique for resistivity measurements

levels of a few millivolts and by using a particular osmium‐tipped probe arrangement to

2.8. Noncontact electrical resistivity measurement technique

of conducting liquids is reported by Won-KyuRhima and Takehiko Ishikawab22. The

8. L. P. Hunter, Ed. “Hand buch of semiconductors Electronics”, Mc-Graw-Hill, N. York. 1956.

1, August 2011, P. 123-127.

21. R. G. Mazur and D. H. Dickeya: The Electrochemical Society, 1966.

View publication stats

You might also like