Patterns of Variation in the External Quantum Efficiency of InGaN/GaN Green LEDs during Accelerated Tests
- 7 Downloads
Abstract
The causes and mechanisms of variation in the quantum efficiency and other characteristics of InGaN/GaN heterostructures are actively investigated in various operating modes. The results are presented from an experimental study of the variation in the external quantum efficiency of low-power InGaN/GaN green light-emitting diodes with and without a quantum well in the space–charge region (SCR) of the heterostructure in the accelerated test mode. It is found that after 8 hours of testing at a temperature of 300 K in the pulse mode with a pulse amplitude of 0.5 A, a pulse duration of 100 µs, and a duty cycle of 100, the external quantum efficiency grows for all LEDs without a quantum well in the SCR and diminishes for LEDs with a quantum well throughout the range of operating currents. It is shown that at a low level of injection, the intensity of emission of light emitting diodes without a quantum well in the SCR is determined by recombination processes according to the Shockley–Read–Hall mechanism, while that of LEDs with a quantum well is determined by tunneling–recombination processes. Current training of green LEDs based on InGaN/GaN heterostructures in the forced pulse mode for 4 hours can be used as a technological operation for stabilizing their lighting characteristics, and for identifying potentially unreliable products under conditions of mass production.
Keywords:
LED heterostructure quantum well external quantum efficiency radiative and non-radiative recombination lifetime of charge carriersNotes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 16-32-60051 mol_a_dk.
REFERENCES
- 1.N. M. Shmidt, A. S. Usikov, E. I. Shabunina, et al., Nauch.-Tekh. Vestn. Inform. Tekhnol., Mekh. Opt. 15, 46 (2015).Google Scholar
- 2.L. Rigutti, L. Basirico, A. Cavallini, et al., Semicond. Sci. Technol. 24, 055015 (2009).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.G. Verzellesi, D. Saguatti, M. Meneghini, et al., J. Appl. Phys. 114, 071101 (2013).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.N. I. Bochkareva, Yu. T. Rebane, and Yu. G. Shreter, Semiconductors 48, 1079 (2014).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.D. A. Zakgeim, A. S. Pavlyuchenko, and D. A. Bauman, in Proceedings of the 7th All-Russia Conference on Nitrides of Hallium, Indium, Aluminium: Structures and Devices, Moscow, Feb. 1–3, 2010 (Moscow, 2010), p. 105.Google Scholar
- 6.X. Meng, L. Wang, Z. Hao, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 013501 (2016).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.T.-S. Kim, B.-J. Ahn, Y. Dong, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 071910 (2012).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.V. A. Sergeev, I. V. Frolov, and A. A. Shirokov, Prib. Tekh. Eksp., No. 1, 137 (2014).Google Scholar
- 9.F. Schubert, Light-Emitting Diodes (Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.J. Piprek and S. Nakamura, IEE Proc.-Optoelectron. 149, 145 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.A. N. Kovalev and F. I. Manyakhin, Semiconductors 32, 192 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.E. K. Naimi, S. G. Nikiforov, O. I. Rabinovich, and V. P. Sushkov, Mater. Elektron. Tekh., No. 1, 86 (2009).Google Scholar
- 13.V. A. Sergeev, I. V. Frolov, and A. A. Shirokov, Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Elektron. 20, 598 (2015).Google Scholar