| |
|
For the numerical values of j1 and j2
we obtain |
| |
j1 | =
| e · L · ni 2
t · Ndot |
= |
1.6 · 1019 · 102 · 1020
103 · 1016 |
C
s · cm2 |
= |
1.6 · 1014 A/cm2 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
j2 | = |
e · ni · d(U)
t | = |
1.6 · 1019 · 1010 · 104
103 |
C
s · cm2 |
= |
1.6 · 1010 A/cm2 |
|
|
|
For the relation of j1 to j2
(and using NDot instead of NA, D) we obtain |
| |
j1
j2 | = |
| = |
ni · L
NDot · d(U) |
|
|
|
|
Inserting the numbers from above yields once more |
| |
j1
j2 | = |
1010 · 102
1016 · 104 |
= |
104 |
|
|
|
Now we can address the second part of the first question. Since
j2 is so much larger than j1, can we simply neglect the ji
terms in the diode equation? We should know the answers from
before: |
|
|
For biasing in the reverse direction, we have jrev
» j1 + j2 »
j2 and we can indeed neglect j1. |
| | |
|
|
For the forward direction - which is the one of interest to us - we have approximately |
| |
jfor |
» |
j1 · exp | eU
kT | + |
j2 · exp | eU
2 · kT |
|
|
|
|
No, we cannot neglect the j1
term "just so", we also have to consider what the exponential terms will do. That will become very clear as soon
as we look at the third part of the question. |
|
| |
|
Let's compare what we have in a table: |
| |
|
Calculated |
Measured |
j1 |
1.6 · 1014 A/cm2 |
109 A/cm2 |
j2 |
1.6 · 1010 A/cm2 |
107 A/cm2 |
| 104 |
102 |
|
|
|
We neglected the second term for j1, which we will now call j1E
for the time being; i.e. the reverse current flowing from the heavily doped thin n-emitter into the lightly doped
p-base. If we would naively calculate jE1, we would get an even smaller value
than what we already have for j1B because the doping concentration ND
of the emitter is larger than NA of the base and appears in the denominator
of the equation for j1E. |
|
|
However, we would commit a grave error in doing this because the diode "master"
equation from above is only valid for one-dimensional junctions in "infinitely" long semiconductors, meaning
that the semiconductor must extend at least a few diffusion lengths in both directions as seen from the junction. This is
clearly not the case here. |
|
|
More advanced theory teaches us that in the case of "thin" semiconductors we have
to replace the diffusion length L by the thickness d of the layer.. This makes sense because
the diffusion length came into the equation as the dimension over which carriers are collected that could make it across
the junction. |
|
|
If we use this insight, however, j1E gets even smaller
because L is found in the nominator of the equation. |
|
A first but wrong conclusion could be the
discrepancy between theory and experiment cannot come from the emitter part of the reverse current. |
|
|
However, we forgot the life time t, which we find in the
denominator of the equation, and now we must take into account that heavy doping simply
"kills" the life time, i.e. makes it very small. The diffusion length L gets smaller, too, but the
combined effect is that L/t µ
t½ so heavy doping always increases the j1
part coming from the heavily doped region, and this increase can be substantial |
|
As a first insight we note that a heavily doped thin emitter can indeed lead to
a substantial increase in j1. But there are more reasons for this. |
|
|
At the most elementary level of deriving j1 we simply equated it
with diffusion length L times the generation rate G; and G was equal to the recombination
rate R = nmin/t. An increased j1 thus
demands for an increase in generation -we simply need more charges to have larger currents. |
|
|
In not-so-perfect Si we might have generation of carriers at grain boundaries or at
the huge surfaces in excess of what just thermal generation can produce in a perfect lattice. To be sure, the recombination
rate R must still be equal to G in equilibrium, but j1 will go up with
increasing generation anyway. |
|
We see that there are several reason why we have the discrepancy. We simply must
accept that the experimental j1 and j2 values are essentially fitting parameters of something called "solar cell" that do not fall within
the range of a simple theory but still allow to describe the solar cell by the "simple" ideal theory if one accepts
these empirical "fitting parameters" instead of the theoretical constructs in the equation. |
| |
|
|
The first part is easy: ISC
is what we get for U = 0 and that is simply –jPh. |
|
|
We have used –jPh as a constant in the master equation, it thus does not depend on the values of j1 or j2
or on the variables determining their numerical values. |
|
|
This is not generally correct, of course. For example, if the diffusion length L
increases, more carriers generated by light deep in the volume of the solar cell can reach the junction and |jPh|
should increase with L. |
|
|
However, we have assumed good solar cells along, and this
means that practically all carriers generated by light end up in the photo current. This simply implies that for diffusion
lengths good enough not much can be gained anymore by increasing L. In other word, if the longest distance
between a generation event and the next contact is 20 µm, it just doesn't matter much if your carriers could
go 200 µm or 500 µm. |
|
| |
|
The second part is tough: If we try to solve
the master equation for UOC, i.e. setting j = 0, we realize that it can't be done. |
|
|
There is no analytical expression for UOC that we can
gain from the master equation. Short of going numerical, we need to consider other ways of gaining some insight, including
approximations. |
|
|
One way is to go for a graphical solution of the problem. We actually have
done that already, but probably not recognized what we can learn for solar cells from this. All we have to do is to
draw the master equation in a log j - eU plot. This is actually a very good exercise and you should
do - at least look at the solution - and learn how it's done. |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The result looks like this: |
|
|
|
|
From looking at the graph we can learn a lot of things |
|
1. The "-1" term in the master equation is only noticeable
for currents <» j2. |
|
|
We can safely neglect it for solar cells as long as we have a photo currents in just the µA/
cm2 region, i.e 1 000 times smaller than the maximum photo current density on earth. |
|
2. The open circuit voltage UOC depends only on j1 for reasonable photo currents. Even so j2
is much larger, the exponential term going with j1 always "wins" for voltages
above 0.3 V - 0.4 V. |
|
|
If we neglect the j2 term in the master equation, we
can solve it for UOC and obtain for eUOC as
measured in eV: |
| |
eUOC |
= | kT |
· ln |
jPh – j1
j1 |
» |
kT · ln | jPh
j1 |
|
|
|
|
This means that j1 is the decisive term for UOC,
one of the prime properties of a solar cell. |
|
Now we look at the temperature dependence of UOC. From
the solution of the exercise
we take only one curve here: |
| |
|
|
|
Increasing the temperature has the following effects: |
| |
- The slope of both exponentials decreases. This would lead to a higher UOC.
- The ji increase exponentially because their defining equations
contain the intrinsic carrier density ni, which increases exponentially with T.
- The total effect is a decrease of UOC with T
|
|
We can see that also in the equation for UOC. Inserting
j1 = c1 · ni2 = j1'
· exp–(Eg/kT) yields |
| |
eUOC = Eg + kT
| · ln |
jPh j1'
| = |
Eg – kT · ln |
j1'
jPh |
|
|
|
|
It first looks like we add something to eUOC
with increasing T; increasing eUOC. However, it is important to realize that
j1' >> jPh - even if that is counterintuitive - and ln(jPh/
j1') thus is a negative number! That the open circuit voltage indeed decreases is better seen in the final
formulation where we subtract a positive number from Eg. |
| |
|
|
If you made it to this point, you learned quite a bit about basic solar cell characteristics.
You also learned another thing: |
|
|
Don't rely on "feeling" if exponentials are involved! |
|
© H. Föll (Semiconductor Technology - Script)