Ongoing LED R&D Challenges

ONGOING LED R&D CHALLENGES (LED droop still challenge)

Steven P. DenBaars, Shuji Nakamura, James Speck

SOLID STATE LIGHTING AND ENERGY CENTER

UCSB, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93106 USA

2015 DOE SOLID-STATE LIGHTING WORKSHOP, JAN 27-29, 2015

Major Issues in SSL

•Current Droop still dominates performace

• Auger Recombination limits high current regime

• New LED crystal structures (nonpolar/semipolar)

• Pure bulk GaN

• (No Auger) LASER BASED LIGHT SOURCE

•Thermal Droop impacts delivered Light

• Higher Junction Temp Active layers

• Better Phosphors needed

Two Biggest Drawbacks of White LEDs

Thermal Droop Current Droop

UPDATE!! Quantum Efficiency

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Current Density (A/cm²)

Eff

icie

nc

y

Peak

Efficiency

Current Droop of Chip

Press Release 200 lm/W ACTUAL Commercial LEDs 70-90 lm/W (warm white)

Fundamental understanding of Droop: Auger Process in LEDs

28 Identify Interband Process

is dominant in Nitrides

Cover Article Compound Semi,

August 2009

Theory (Philips Lumileds, UCSB)

Experimental Confirmation (UCSB & Ecole Polytech)

Auger goes as N3

Quantum Efficiency

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Current Density (A/cm²)

Eff

icie

nc

y

Peak Efficiency

0 50 100 150 2000

50

100

150

200

250

300

Current (A/cm2)

Lig

ht

Ou

tpu

t P

ow

er

(mW

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

EQ

E (

%)

Low-Efficiency Droop (Make more QW, Thicker Active Region)

Efficiency Droop 2011

(2011) -5% at 70A/cm2 (2009) >-50% at 70A/cm2

λ=445nm, T=300°K

chip size=0.001cm2

C-Plane and Nonpolar GaN Semi polar GaN

SOLUTION New GaN Crystal Planes

• Semipolar planes for blue, green and yellow LEDs

A. Romanov et al. : J. Appl. Phys. 100 (2006) 023533.

(1122) (1011)

(1010)

(2021) (2021)

Reduce piezoelectric fields

S. H. Park, et al, Jour. Quant. Elec. 43, 1175 (2007).

• Quantum confined stark effect is reduced or eliminated

• Optical matrix elements are larger for nonpolar and semipolar orientations

• Hole effective mass is smaller for nonpolar and semipolar orientations

• Predictions of lower transparency carrier densities and higher differential gains

• Reduced blue shift with increasing bias

Benefits of Nonpolar/Semipolar QuantumStructures

c-plane m-plane

Laser Based White Lighting

White LD Light 83 lm/W

LD EQE as high as 53%,

WPE of 24%

CRI: 56-71

Laser Diodes v. LED are Droop Free across a wider current range

LDs Are The Light Source of the Future

VISIBILITY RANGE: LASER HIGH BEAM, LED HIGH

BEAM, LOW BEAM

700M

11 2/08/12

LED

LD-Phosphor

LD

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Rad

ian

ce (

W/s

r cm

^2)

Devices/ wafer sq in

LD vs. LED

“Delivered” Lum/W and $/Lum for LD sources is increasingly appealing, for specialty lighting applications

Substantially more LD devices per sq in of wafer (vs LED)

LDs are higher brightness by several orders of mag (vs LED)

LD WPE is increasing and cost is decreasing

Why LD Light--Game changing radiance

Laser diode based white light emitters

LD White

87 Lm/Watt

1000 lumen

6x better than

incandescent

Laser White Efficacies (lm/Watt)

YAG:Ce + Red

80 lm/W at 4200K

YAG:Ce

83 lm/W at 6200K

CRI 57

WPE 24%

Powder vs. Single Crystal Phosphors

Powder vs. Single Crystal YAG:Ce

Different long wave length emission due to reabsorption

Powder binder limits power output under CW

Single Crystal YAG:Ce plus Red

Increased CRI

Similar to Powdered YAG:Ce

Efficacy Limits to Laser Based Lighting

Dichromatic laser sources 360 lm/W

2 nm FWHM

Limited by WPE

Laser plus Phosphor ~280 lm/W

Limited by

- WPE

- Stokes Shift η ≈ 0.75

- Phosphor Quantum Efficiency η ≈ 0.9

Commercial LEDs

80-150 lm/W

CRI 75-90

CCT 2700 – 5500 K

Droop Ratio

20% by 70 A/cm2

40% by 150 A/cm2

WPE

40% at 70 A/cm2

<20% at 150 A/cm2

Laser White

87 lm/W

CRI 56-71

CCT 4100 – 6200 K

Droop Free:

1 to 5 kA/cm2

WPE

30% at 5 kA/cm2

20% at 17 kA/cm2

LED vs Laser White Performance