際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo
WMD JOURNAL CLUB:
3RD FEB 2015
Hole barriers and reduced recombination at grain
boundaries in polycrystalline chalcopyrites
 Supercell: 40  56 atoms
 LDA  LDA+U
 Inhibit artificial charge transfer between top and bottom
surface slab using pseudo-hydrogen atoms
 Experimental confirmation
Polycrystalline CuInSe2 solar cells
Single-crystalline CuInSe2  ~13%
Polycrystalline CuInSe2  ~20%
 Polycrystalline devices usually have lower efficiencies
than corresponding single-crystalline devices
 e.g Si or GaAs devices
 Poor carrier transport in in polycrystalline materials
 Interfaces between grains are sinks for defects
 GB defects form recombination centres for optically generated e-
and h+
Anomalous grain boundary physics
 Cation-terminated CIS and CGS GBs had a VBM offset
w.r.t to grain boundary
 Repels holes at GB
 Deprives e- from recombining at GB defects
 GIs possibly closer to being perfect than in single-
crystal
CIS GBs JC talk
lower VBM
(repels h+)
cation-terminated GB anion-terminated GB
grain interior
CBM
offset
VBM
offset
larger
VBM
offset
CIS
CGS
Formation of VCu
 Analogy between structure of
GB internal surfaces and
surface structure of CIS films
 Polar surface is more stable
than the non-polar surface
 Unlike in conventional
semiconductors (e.g. GaAs)
 Polar surface reconstructs to
remove dipole
 Reconstruction creates rows of
Vcu in cation-terminated GB
 Charge neutral defects
Lowering of the valence band maximum
(VBM)
 Interface between
Cu-poor GB and
closely Cu
stoichiometric GI
 Cu d-orbitals repel
Se p-based VBM
upwards
 Lack of Cu at GB
results in less
repulsion of VBM here
Lowering of the valence band maximum
(VBM)
CIS CGS
grain
interior
grain
boundary
Experimental confirmation of model
 Micro-Auger electron spectroscopy
Up to 50% Cu deficiency at CIS GB
 Pump-power dependent cathodluminescence
Strongly reduced recombination at GB
Limited supply of one charge carrier at GB
 Scanning tunneling microscopy
Decrease in photon emission intensity at GB relative to GI
Demonstrates reduced hole density at GB
 2D device simulations
Strongly reduced recombination at GB
Model  charge-neutral hole reflector at GB
Key conclusions
1. Anion-terminated GBs in CIS and CGS have negligible
VB offsets
2. Cation-terminated GBs have a VB offset
larger in CGS than in CIS
3. Cation-terminated CGS GB has a CBM offset relative to
the GI
 Attracts e- to the GB
 Also reduces recombination
Key conclusions (cont.)
4. Poor solar cell performance of Ga rich
(>30% Ga) CIGS is not due to less hole
repulsion at the GB
 CBM offset and smaller g in CGS
 Fermi level pinning more detrimental to voltage
 Tunnelling-assisted recombination possible
4. CIS and CGS have different
electrostatic barriers
Shown by kelvin-probe studies
Explained by calculation of lower formation
enthalpy of III-on-Cu antisite double donor defect
in CIS than CGS
Final comments
 Phenomena is material specific
Unlikely to be applicable for processing other high efficiency
polycrystalline devices
 Nice example of modeling to answer questions posed
from experimental observation
 Generally interesting physical phenomena!

More Related Content

CIS GBs JC talk

  • 1. WMD JOURNAL CLUB: 3RD FEB 2015 Hole barriers and reduced recombination at grain boundaries in polycrystalline chalcopyrites
  • 2. Supercell: 40 56 atoms LDA LDA+U Inhibit artificial charge transfer between top and bottom surface slab using pseudo-hydrogen atoms Experimental confirmation
  • 3. Polycrystalline CuInSe2 solar cells Single-crystalline CuInSe2 ~13% Polycrystalline CuInSe2 ~20% Polycrystalline devices usually have lower efficiencies than corresponding single-crystalline devices e.g Si or GaAs devices Poor carrier transport in in polycrystalline materials Interfaces between grains are sinks for defects GB defects form recombination centres for optically generated e- and h+
  • 4. Anomalous grain boundary physics Cation-terminated CIS and CGS GBs had a VBM offset w.r.t to grain boundary Repels holes at GB Deprives e- from recombining at GB defects GIs possibly closer to being perfect than in single- crystal
  • 6. lower VBM (repels h+) cation-terminated GB anion-terminated GB grain interior CBM offset VBM offset larger VBM offset CIS CGS
  • 7. Formation of VCu Analogy between structure of GB internal surfaces and surface structure of CIS films Polar surface is more stable than the non-polar surface Unlike in conventional semiconductors (e.g. GaAs) Polar surface reconstructs to remove dipole Reconstruction creates rows of Vcu in cation-terminated GB Charge neutral defects
  • 8. Lowering of the valence band maximum (VBM) Interface between Cu-poor GB and closely Cu stoichiometric GI Cu d-orbitals repel Se p-based VBM upwards Lack of Cu at GB results in less repulsion of VBM here
  • 9. Lowering of the valence band maximum (VBM) CIS CGS grain interior grain boundary
  • 10. Experimental confirmation of model Micro-Auger electron spectroscopy Up to 50% Cu deficiency at CIS GB Pump-power dependent cathodluminescence Strongly reduced recombination at GB Limited supply of one charge carrier at GB Scanning tunneling microscopy Decrease in photon emission intensity at GB relative to GI Demonstrates reduced hole density at GB 2D device simulations Strongly reduced recombination at GB Model charge-neutral hole reflector at GB
  • 11. Key conclusions 1. Anion-terminated GBs in CIS and CGS have negligible VB offsets 2. Cation-terminated GBs have a VB offset larger in CGS than in CIS 3. Cation-terminated CGS GB has a CBM offset relative to the GI Attracts e- to the GB Also reduces recombination
  • 12. Key conclusions (cont.) 4. Poor solar cell performance of Ga rich (>30% Ga) CIGS is not due to less hole repulsion at the GB CBM offset and smaller g in CGS Fermi level pinning more detrimental to voltage Tunnelling-assisted recombination possible 4. CIS and CGS have different electrostatic barriers Shown by kelvin-probe studies Explained by calculation of lower formation enthalpy of III-on-Cu antisite double donor defect in CIS than CGS
  • 13. Final comments Phenomena is material specific Unlikely to be applicable for processing other high efficiency polycrystalline devices Nice example of modeling to answer questions posed from experimental observation Generally interesting physical phenomena!

Editor's Notes

  • #2: The topic of the paper Im presenting on is possibly a bit dangerously close to my research area but this GB-enhanced carrier collection phenomena in CIGS cells seemed pretty exciting and I thought journal club would be a good excuse to look into it! Its a pretty short paper but they seem to have crammed a lot of interesting results into it.
  • #3: So the lower paper here Im presenting on .title, builds on the work done 2 years before by what more or less looks like repeating the calculations for CaGaSe2 GB as well as a CuInSe2 GB and performing calculations more accurately with a larger supercell, using LDA+U instead of just LDA and inhibiting the artificial charge transfer between the top and the bottom surface slab by using pseudo-hydrogen atoms with fractional charges and allowing dipole-compensating relaxation. It also includes some more recent complementary experimental work.
  • #4: So the motivation for the original study is that polycrystalline CuInSe2 solar cells break the usual rule of the low-cost polycrystalline cell outperforming the more expensive single-crystalline versions; as is the case for Si or GaAs devices. Polycrystalline devices usually have lower efficiencies than corresponding single-crystal devices because the materials contain a large number of grain boundaries which are sinks for defects which usually form recombination centres for optically-generated electrons and holes.
  • #5: But instead, this work showed that cation-terminated GBs of CuInSe2 and CaGaSe2 had a valence band offset w.r.t to the grain boundary interior which repels holes from the GB. This then deprives electrons from recombining at the GB defects. An additional benefit here of the polycrystalline device is that most defects and impurities migrate to the GBs during growth which could leave the grain interior even closer to being perfect than when attempting to grow perfect single-crystal materials.
  • #6: So this figure shows the main results from the paper with both the cation- and anion-terminated grain boundaries in CIS and CGS included in the figure. I thought I should include a plain version of this figure since I scrawled over it quite a lot in the next slide.
  • #7: Looking first at the CIS GBs, the offsets at the anion-terminated GB are negligible and so is the CBM offset at the cation-terminated GB but theres a significant VBM offset to repel electrons from the GB. Now looking at the CGS GBs, the offsets at the anion-terminated GB are also negligible but the cation-terminated GB has both a CBM and VBM offset relative to the GI. But also, notice that the VBM offset in the CGS GB is larger than that in the CIS GB.
  • #8: The reason for the lowering on the VBM is related to Cu vacancies at the GB. In the paper they use the analogy between the structure of GB internal surfaces and the surface structure of CIS films. Total-energy minimization of the surface structure of CIS showed that unlike in conventional semiconductors, such as GaAs, the polar surface is more stable than the non-polar surface. The polar surface must reconstruct to remove the dipole which in the case of the cation-terminated surface results in the creation of rows of Cu vacancies and this reconstruction costs little energy Cus in the sublattice are weakly bonded. These surface Cu vacancies however are charge neutral because they have been used to cancel the electrostatic dipole.
  • #9: Due to the Cu vacancies the interface between the GB and GI represents an interface between two materials of different chemical compositions one strongly Cu poor and one closely Cu stoichiometric. This leads to a lowering of the VBM at the Cu poor GB. This is because the Cu d-orbitals repel the Se p-based VBM upwards, and so without them there is a lowering on the VBM.
  • #10: Due to the Cu vacancies the interface between the GB and GI represents an interface between two materials of different chemical compositions one strongly Cu poor and one closely Cu stoichiometric. This leads to a lowering of the VBM at the Cu poor GB. This is because the Cu d-orbitals repel the Se p-based VBM upwards, and so without them there is a lowering on the VBM. Here Ive just cropped out the anion-terminated DOS since they arent very interesting to show the difference between the GI and GB for the cation-terminated GBs more clearly.
  • #11: The model presented in the paper to explain the anomalous behaviour of GBs in polycrystalline CIGS devices was a new concept in the 2003 paper but has since been studied in various ways experimentally and by device simulations. I followed up some of the experimental papers to look into how the top two techniques work but Im still a little unsure! Micro-Auger spectroscopy measurements found that there was a large deficiency of Cu at the CIS GB as predicted by the polar surface reconstruction model. (Uses characteristic emissions due to the Auger effect to gauge composition?) Pump-power dependent cathodluminescence showed a strongly recombination at the GB and indicated that there one a limited supply of one type of charge carrier there. (uses electron beam to excite electrons at GB but because holes are repelled recombination and subsequent photon emission cannot occur?) STM scans at low voltage showed a decrease in photon emission intensity at the GB compared to the GI which demonstrates a reduced hole density there. And lastly, 2D device simulations of the model of the neutral band offset at the GB/ GI interface indicated a strongly reduced recombination at the GB.
  • #12: So firstly, as Ive already mentioned the anion-terminated GBs in this study are a bit boring and dont have any VB offset so dont repel holes and are therefore prone to recombination so preferably these types of GBs should be minimized during growth for solar cell materials. Cation-terminated GBs have a VB offset and this is larger in CGS than CIS. This was found to be due to a larger p-d repulsion because the Cu-Se bond length is shorter in CGS than CIS. There is no CBM offset for the CIS GBs but there is for the cation-terminated CGS GB so this will attract electrons to the GB which actually also reduced recombination because it implies that photo-generated electron-hole pairs will dissociate at the interface (like in organic solar cells) with the electron being attracted to the GB and the hole to the GI.
  • #13: 4) Alloying CIS with the wider gap CGS seems advantageous to increase VOC but it has been shown than Ga rich CIGS solar cells with more than 30% GA have a lesser performance. This isnt due to less hole repulsion at GBs in CGS because weve already discussed that this effect is larger than in CIS. It instead relates to the fact that only CGS has a CBM offset and so has a smaller value for delta g: Firstly, the maximum attainable voltage can be reduced more in CGS than CIS by Fermi level pinning caused by the formation of Vcus even though in both cases the pinning is Ev+0.8 eV. I think this is because of the change in the position of the CBM in CGS, so the pinning could result in a larger decrease in voltage across the whole device. Secondly the smaller delta g between the GI and GB in the CGS means that at abrupt GI/GB interfaces tunnelling-assisted electron-hole recombination can occur at these GBs. 5) This study found that although CGS has a larger neutral VB offset than CIS but CIS has a larger electrostatic offset. Kelvin-probe studies have shown that there is a higher surface potential on the CIS GB (meaning a larger downward movement of the VBM at the GB) indicating that there are charges there. Calculations explain this from the lower formation enthalpy of of the III-on-Cu antisite double donor in CIS than CGS.
  • #14: So this advantageous effect is clearly pretty unique to the material and not a general way to improve the efficiency of all PV devices but I thought it was pretty exciting when I first came across this phenomena making cheaper versions of the device actually more efficient! But also its a really nice example of computational modelling thoroughly answering questions from experimental observations and the hole repulsion at GBs reducing recombination just seemed like a generally pretty cool phenomena!