Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Explanation of low efficiency droop in semipolar $(20\bar 2\bar 1)$ InGaN/GaN LEDs through evaluation of carrier recombination coefficients

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1706.03135 v1 pith:GZ536IY4 submitted 2017-06-09 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords carrierefficiencysemipolardensitylowerrecombinationdroopcoefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

We report the carrier dynamics and recombination coefficients in single-quantum-well semipolar $(20\bar 2\bar 1)$ InGaN/GaN light-emitting diodes emitting at 440 nm with 93% peak internal quantum efficiency. The differential carrier lifetime is analyzed for various injection current densities from 5 $A/cm^2$ to 10 $kA/cm^2$, and the corresponding carrier densities are obtained. The coupling of internal quantum efficiency and differential carrier lifetime vs injected carrier density ($n$) enables the separation of the radiative and nonradiative recombination lifetimes and the extraction of the Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) nonradiative ($A$), radiative ($B$), and Auger ($C$) recombination coefficients and their $n$-dependency considering the saturation of the SRH recombination rate and phase-space filling. The results indicate a three to four-fold higher $A$ and a nearly two-fold higher $B_0$ for this semipolar orientation compared to that of $c$-plane reported using a similar approach [A. David and M. J. Grundmann, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 103504 (2010)]. In addition, the carrier density in semipolar $(20\bar 2\bar 1)$ is found to be lower than the carrier density in $c$-plane for a given current density, which is important for suppressing efficiency droop. The semipolar LED also shows a two-fold lower $C_0$ compared to $c$-plane, which is consistent with the lower relative efficiency droop for the semipolar LED (57% vs. 69%). The lower carrier density, higher $B_0$ coefficient, and lower $C_0$ (Auger) coefficient are directly responsible for the high efficiency and low efficiency droop reported in semipolar $(20\bar 2\bar 1)$ LEDs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools