MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081517420 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3019775

Automotive Power Module Packaging: Current Status and Future Trends

2020· article· en· W3081517420 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuhang Yang, Lea Dorn-Gomba, Romina Rodriguez, Christopher Mak, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutomotive industryPackaging engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Electronic packagingAutomotive electronicsManufacturing engineeringIntegrated circuit packagingElectronicsComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringProcess (computing)Integrated circuitPower (physics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semiconductor power modules are core components of power electronics in electrified vehicles. Packaging technology often has a critical impact on module performance and reliability. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the automotive power module packaging technologies. The first part of this paper discusses the driving factors of packaging technology development. In the second section, the design considerations and a primary design process of module packaging are summarized. Besides, major packaging components, such as semiconductor dies, substrates, and die bonding, are introduced based on the conventional packaging structure. Next, technical details and innovative features of state-of-the-art automotive power modules from major suppliers and original equipment manufacturers are reviewed. Most of these modules have been applied in commercial vehicles. In the fourth part, the system integration concept, printed circuit board embedded packaging, three-dimensional packaging, press pack packaging, and advanced materials are categorized as promising trends for automotive applications. The advantages and drawbacks of these trends are discussed, and it is concluded that a preferable overall performance could be achieved by combining multiple technologies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations184
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207