news review Yole: LED packaging cost reduction is key
III-NITRIDE LED packaging will drive new technology and design adoption. Depending on the device type, packaging can represent 40 to 60 percent of total LED cost. As such, packaging represents the single-largest opportunity for cost reduction, which is required in order for the industry to access the “Holy Grail” that is General Lighting.
However, if you’re expecting this cost reduction to come from standardisation, you can abandon all hope. The creativity of LED engineers and specificities of each application have led to an infinite number of package type and formats.
These include single or multiple chips, low and middle-power plastic leaded chip carrier, ceramic-based high-power LEDs, small and large arrays and chip on board devices. This profusion of styles is inhibiting LED manufacturing cost reduction by multiplying the stock keeping unit and preventing standardisation of the manufacturing process and the associated economies of scale.
In this context, LED manufacturers are reacting by developing new manufacturing concepts such as: “Design for manufacturing”, which consists of trying to simplify and standardise elements whenever possible, and push differentiation as far downstream as possible in the manufacturing process. “Design for cost”, which consists of favouring cost of ownership or cost per lumen over end performance.
“Technological developments are also impacted by the quest for cost reduction, and LED manufacturers are now searching for equipment and/or materials with the right mix between cost and performance”, explains Pars Mukish, Technology & Market Analyst, LED at Yole Développement.
Also, equipment and materials suppliers are proposing more and more equipment and materials that fit these requirements, such as a laser-based dicer and a low-cost ceramic package substrate among other things. In the end, LEDs are going mainstream but are still not a mature commodity. This is good news for the entire industry, since design and materials innovation still provides opportunity for differentiation. All of this benefits the
consumer, who receives budget-friendly, environmentally friendly and increasingly credible LED-based alternatives for replacing traditional light sources.
The LED packaging materials market will enjoy a 20 percent CAGR during the period 2012 - 2017, driven primarily by package substrate and phosphors. The package substrate market will attain a CAGR of 20 percent over the
aforementioned period, growing to nearly $900 million by 2017. Concerning LED phosphors, despite strong price pressure, the associated market will also enjoy double-digit growth, with a CAGR of 20 percent during the period 2012 - 2017.
In the face of intensifying competition, players are trying to differentiate themselves by proposing an increasing variety of technology options for LED packaging. Substrate material options as well as assembly and interconnection techniques abound as many companies work around the limiting patents of the established players. New players from the general semiconductor markets are proposing new solutions based on their
respective capabilities. Similar to IC packaging, new technologies for LED packaging mimic the existing ones, without completely phasing them out - and there is still a lot of room for innovation, which could lead to more added-value. For such products, however, it remains paramount that the solution offers LED manufacturers an overall reduction in cost of ownership ($/lumen).
At the LED packaging equipment level, growth will return for the next three years “The LED packaging equipment market, which stagnated in 2012 due to industry oversupply, is growing again and will peak at nearly $650 million by 2016”, says Pars Mukish. He adds LED packagers are still using mostly retrofitted equipment from the IC industry and relying on existing technology solutions and materials to improve LED cost of ownership and performance.
While this has allowed LED manufacturers to benefit from decades of R&D, and investments in the IC industry, it also limits the industry to a space defined by existing technology platforms which are not optimised to the specific needs of LEDs. However, the industry has gained enough momentum in 2011/2012 to entice equipment and material providers into developing dedicated solutions for LED manufacturing. Many dedicated solutions emerging from both existing and new players will allow significant reduction in LED manufacturing cost through improved yields, throughputs and material efficiency.
Korean Institute purchases
Veeco MBE reactor KOPTI’s Laser-IT Research Centre and Photonics System Lab in Gwangju, South Korea, has ordered an MBE tool for high-powered GaAs-based laser diode research. Swook Hann, head of KOPTI’s Laser-IT Research Centre and Photonics Systems Lab, says, “We have selected the MBE GEN20 system for our work in development of high-powered GaAs laser diodes because of its process flexibility and Veeco’s impressive track record in supplying tools to the III-V laser diode market. These are critical elements for KOPTI since we are developing technologies that can be taken from lab to fab.”
Jim Northup, Vice President, General Manager of Veeco’s MBE Operations, adds, “KOPTI is known worldwide for developing pioneering breakthroughs which bridge the gap between pure research and industrial production. We are pleased to partner with such an important technology centre in Korea supporting the further commercialisation of high power laser diodes with our GEN20 MBE system.”
January / February 2013
www.compoundsemiconductor.net 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233