RESEARCH REVIEW Is Auger definitely the cause of droop?
Researchers question claims of a definitive proof for Auger recombination as the cause of LED droop.
ONE OF THE MOST hotly debated issues within the compound semiconductor community is whether Auger recombination is the primary cause of droop – the decline in LED efficiency as the current passing through the device is cranked up.
This April, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, (UCSB) and the École Polytechnique, France, claimed that they had finally brought this controversial, long-running debate to an end when they reported the results of a novel experiment.
By simultaneously measuring the energy of the electrons passing through a GaN- based LED and the photons emitted by it, they argued that they had gathered undisputable evidence that Auger recombination is the cause of droop.
However, while some peers in the nitride community were impressed by the elegance of this experiment, they were not convinced that these results offered undisputable proof that Auger recombination is the origin of droop.
“We think that they had a truly brilliant idea to apply electron emission spectroscopy for elucidating Auger processes in GaN-based LEDs,” says Michele Goano from Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. But he questions the interpretation of the experimental results, and is voicing his concerns in a comment submitted to Physical Review Letters, co-authored with other researchers from the Polytechnic University of Turin and Masahiko Matsubara and Enrico Bellotti from Boston University.
One of their criticisms is that the UCSB- École Polytechnique team claim that the higher energy electron peak observed at about 1.5 eV originates from a satellite valley in the conduction band. Goano and his co-workers argue that the energy of satellite band is as high as 2.5 eV.
This value is based on their calculations, which give similar results to those of other groups.
Theorists are questioning the interpretation of results obtained by researchers Jacques Peretti, Claude Weisbuch, and Lucio Martinelli who have used a spectrometer to measure the energy of electrons emitted from a GaN LEDs. Photo credit: Ecole Polytechnique, Ph. Lavialle.
The precise energy of this satellite valley does not actually matter, however, according to Goano: “The point is that, according to our calculations, the scattering rates in the satellite valleys are so high that electrons there would undergo relaxation to the bottom of the conduction band well before they reach the LED surface.” In other words, electrons in satellite valleys would not account for the experimentally observed high-energy peak.
Another difference of opinion concerns the level of carrier heating in the LED. Researchers from the UCSB-École Polytechnique partnership claim that it is negligible, while the theoretical team have calculated that it may account for the high-energy peak seen in the experiment.
“According to our present view, electrons leaked from the active region – regardless of the originating leakage mechanism – thermalize at the bottom of the conduction band and, upon reaching the narrow band-bending region below the surface, propagate ballistically
through it, thanks to the high electric field there. In other words, they convert their potential energy into kinetic energy,” explains Goano.
Although he and his co-workers are critical of the claim that the experimental evidence proves that Auger is the cause of droop, they point out that the results of their calculations do not imply that Auger, and possibly Auger-induced leakage, play a negligible role in LED droop.
“The LED community is probably coming to terms with the idea that there is not a single cause of droop,” says Goano.
In his opinion, experiments similar to the one by the UCSB-École Polytechnique team, but measuring electron energies in carefully designed test structures, could help to shed new light on this debate.
F. Bertazzi et. al.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2512 (2013) July 2013
www.compoundsemiconductor.net 59
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