This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
research  review


Defects could account for LED droop’s temperature dependency


Calculations unveil two problems with the Auger theory for LED droop.This recombination mechanism is far too weak,and it has a temperature dependence that fails to tally with experimental results.


A US-German collaboration has put forward more theoretical evidence to support its claim that density-activated defect recombination (DADR) could account for droop in GaN-based LEDs.


The team from Nonlinear Control Strategies, the University of Arizona and Philips University Marburg has included terms that can be responsible for droop – the decline in LED efficiency as the current is cranked up high – in calculations on device efficiency at temperatures from 100 K to 400 K. In general, in this regime the warmer the device gets, the weaker the droop causing mechanism becomes.


Reasonably good fits to experimental data are possible with the DADR model. With a model that accounts for droop with Auger recombination, however, it is only possible to replicate real data when the Auger recombination coefficient is about two orders of magnitude higher than the highest value produced by calculations. What’s more, the variations of the droop causing mechanism with temperature do not follow the generally assumed increase in Auger loss strength with temperature.


In other words, this recent theoretical work, which involves radiative loss calculations that include higher excitonic terms, indicates that Auger recombination is not the primary cause of LED droop.


In the DADR model, at low current densities carriers are localized in regions with very few defects. But as the current increases, more and more carriers spill over into regions with strong defect recombination.


Energetic barriers separate these two regions, and carriers move between them via electron-electron scattering, which is more prevalent at high electron densities. Consequently, droop is stronger when the electron density is higher.


that are responsible for SRH recombination, but in this case they only contribute to droop at higher current densities, due to the energy barriers. Another possibility is that they are V-pits. “While we are not sure, they seem to fit the DADR picture.”


According to Hader, findings reported in a recent paper by Guan Sun and co-workers from Lehigh University (Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 081104 (2011)) support the DADR hypothesis. In that experimental work, the researchers uncover two decay times in InGaN/GaN quantum wells. One that is relatively slow and has a time scale typical for SRH recombination; and another that is faster, and has a time scale similar to that expected for DADR recombination.


“The strength of electron-electron scattering becomes weaker with increasing temperature,” says Joerg Hader from Nonlinear Control Strategies and the University of Arizona. This occurs because at higher temperatures there is a reduced probability of finding electrons with an energy close to the bandgap – more occupy higher energy states.


Hader and his co-workers have used their DADR model to fit graphs produced by other researchers, which detail LED efficiency at various drive currents and temperatures. Experimental results generated with a blue-emitting LED fabricated by Nichia and a green cousin made at Osram Opto Semiconductors were used in the theoretical study.


The DADR model contains two recombination processes involving defects: Schottky-Read-Hall (SRH) recombination, which is associated with crystal defects, such as threading dislocations; and DADR recombination.


“We don’t know what the defects are that are involved in DADR,” admits Hader. He says that they could be the same defects


“Moreover, through spectral analysis they conclude that the SRH-like decay originates from localised states and the fast decay happens at elevated densities when carriers start to occupy delocalised states,” says Hader.


Fred Schubert’s group at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in collaboration with Samsung LED, published a paper in early 2011 detailing the temperature dependence of the strength of droop (D.S. Meyaard et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 041112 (2011)).


According to Hader, that work focuses on LED behaviour above room temperature, which is a regime where carrier leakage is expected to become more significant as the device gets hotter. This expectation was found to be the case by this US- Korean team.


“We don’t take that as a contradiction of our results,” says Hader, “since we look specifically at situations where leakage is not significant – low temperatures and low- to-medium currents.”


J. Hader et al. Appl. Phys Lett. 99 181127 (2011)


January/February 2012 www.compoundsemiconductor.net 53


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  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241