2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-03525-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization of 3D IC stacking chip on molded encapsulation process: a response surface methodology approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Response Surface Methodology approach has been preferred and utilized by many scientists [24][25][26][27][28] to optimise various systems. Hence, in this study, Response Surface Methodology was utilized for designing the experiments and developing a model to evaluate the influence of three independent process parameters (A: feed water temperature, B: flow rate, C: vacuum pressure) on the response (R: distillate).…”
Section: Experiments Design Using Rsmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Response Surface Methodology approach has been preferred and utilized by many scientists [24][25][26][27][28] to optimise various systems. Hence, in this study, Response Surface Methodology was utilized for designing the experiments and developing a model to evaluate the influence of three independent process parameters (A: feed water temperature, B: flow rate, C: vacuum pressure) on the response (R: distillate).…”
Section: Experiments Design Using Rsmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both the main constituents in underfill fluid of epoxy resin and silica fillers were separately considered to establish a two-way fluid-solid interaction with the aim to visualize the epoxy flow and filler particle distribution during the underfill flow stage [5]. On the contrary, other numerical studies on filler distributions were either based on the cured underfill package [64] or at the completion of underfilling [65] In the recent years, particle-based LBM was used to simulate the underfill flow, which had seen various applications in conventional capillary underfill [12,17,45,46,48,66,67], mold underfill [68,69], and pressurized underfill [70]. While both LBM and FVM numerical findings are comparable in terms of flow visualization and filling time aspects, it is reported that LBM-based simulation can simulate the void formation during underfill flow for which FVM-based simulation is incapable to achieve [46].…”
Section: Numerical Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%