MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Drift-Diffusion Modelling of Four-Junction InGaP/InGaAs/SiGeSn/Ge Solar Cells

2022· article· en· W4312353798 on OpenAlexaff
Laurier S. Baribeau, R. F. Hunter, Christopher E. Valdivia, Karin Hinzer

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE 49th Photovoltaics Specialists Conference (PVSC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuns in alchemyOptoelectronicsBand gapQuantum efficiencyMaterials scienceGermaniumSolar cellGallium arsenideEnergy conversion efficiencySolar cell efficiencySilicon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ternary alloy silicon germanium tin is a versatile candidate to extend the industry standard lattice matched InGaP/InGaAs/Ge multijunction solar cell to four junctions. Here, the SiGeSn composition space is discussed and its bandgap trend is visualized. Then, InGaP/InGaAs/SiGeSn/Ge solar cells are simulated using drift-diffusion modelling to ascertain SiGeSn quality limits, and the design challenges in the four-junction material system. Power conversion efficiencies of 42.6% and 41.6% at 1000 suns AM1.5D are determined for designs implementing surface recombination velocities of 103 cm/s and 5×104 cm/s, respectively, at important interfaces in the device. These signify absolute efficiency gains of 1.3% and 0.4% with respect to like-modelled InGaP/InGaAs/Ge designs. The obtained power conversion efficiencies assume a Shockley-Read-Hall recombination lifetime of 1 µs in the SiGeSn material, however, lifetimes of 100 ns drop the efficiency by only ~1 % (absolute). The external quantum efficiency of the four-junction devices is near 90% across most of the solar spectrum. A plot of the fraction of incident light lost to various physical mechanisms in the solar cell is given and has been used to optimize the surface field layers to reduce minority charge carrier loss currents. Designs have been optimized for output power by thinning the top three subcells to ensure that the germanium does not limit the device’ 11.25 A/cm2operating current at its maximum power point. This result indicates that current-matching limited by inefficient absorption and Auger recombination in the Ge subcell is one of the main design challenges of this material system and suggests avenues for possible improvements to the design, such as improved light trapping, refined bandgap engineering, and subcell segmentation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE 49th Photovoltaics Specialists Conference (PVSC)Same topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207