This paper compares the eco-efficiency of Low Temperature Copper to Copper Bonding (LTCCB) technology against the Conventional Method (CM). The analyses look into the energy and material consumables consumption profiles of LTCCB technology and the Conventional Method (CM) which requires higher bonding temperature.
The energy profile includes identifying the power signatures of the bonding process, illustrating the power consumption at different phases of bonding. Through production cost modeling and carbon footprint assessment, the critical cost drivers and carbon footprint hotspots are identified for both technologies.
They are Absolute Ethanol consumption during Organic Coating process and energy consumption during bonding process. The comparative study developed an eco-efficiency graphical representation to position the eco-efficiency of both LTCCB technology and CM. LTCCB technology carbon footprint is 12.29 per cent lower than CM.
However, CM total unit cost is 47.42 per cent lower than LTCCB technology. To improve the eco-efficiency of LTCCB technology, it is recommended to replace Absolute Ethanol with Deionized water (DI water) at the Organic Coating process.
Scenario analysis shows that both total unit cost and carbon footprint of LTCCB technology are lower than that of CM. Using the eco-efficiency graphical representation, the recommendation has certainly improved the eco-efficiency of LTCCB technology.
Publish your content with EB Publishing
It's about who you reach. Get your news, events, jobs and thought leadership seen by those who matter to you.
