CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite / silicon tandem solar cells: characterization based optical simulations

Miha Filipič; Philipp Löper; Bjoern Niesen; Stefaan De Wolf; Janez Krč; Christophe Ballif; Marko Topič

doi:10.1364/OE.23.00A263

Optics Express
Vol. 23,
Issue 7,
pp. A263-A278
(2015)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.00A263

CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite / silicon tandem solar cells: characterization based optical simulations

Miha Filipič, Philipp Löper, Bjoern Niesen, Stefaan De Wolf, Janez Krč, Christophe Ballif, and Marko Topič

Open Access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Miha Filipič, Philipp Löper, Bjoern Niesen, Stefaan De Wolf, Janez Krč, Christophe Ballif, and Marko Topič, "CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite / silicon tandem solar cells: characterization based optical simulations," Opt. Express 23, A263-A278 (2015)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Abstract

In this study we analyze and discuss the optical properties of various tandem architectures: mechanically stacked (four-terminal) and monolithically integrated (two-terminal) tandem devices, consisting of a methyl ammonium lead triiodide (CH₃NH₃PbI₃) perovskite top solar cell and a crystalline silicon bottom solar cell. We provide layer thickness optimization guidelines and give estimates of the maximum tandem efficiencies based on state-of-the-art sub cells. We use experimental complex refractive index spectra for all involved materials as input data for an in-house developed optical simulator CROWM. Our characterization based simulations forecast that with optimized layer thicknesses the four-terminal configuration enables efficiencies over 30%, well above the current single-junction crystalline silicon cell record of 25.6%. Efficiencies over 30% can also be achieved with a two-terminal monolithic integration of the sub-cells, combined with proper selection of layer thicknesses.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Optical characterization of voltage-accelerated degradation in CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite solar cells

Taketo Handa, David M. Tex, Ai Shimazaki, Tomoko Aharen, Atsushi Wakamiya, and Yoshihiko Kanemitsu
Opt. Express 24(10) A917-A924 (2016)

Optical modeling of wide-bandgap perovskite and perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells using complex refractive indices for arbitrary-bandgap perovskite absorbers

Salman Manzoor, Jakob Häusele, Kevin A. Bush, Axel F. Palmstrom, Joe Carpenter, Zhengshan J. Yu, Stacey F. Bent, Michael D. Mcgehee, and Zachary C. Holman
Opt. Express 26(21) 27441-27460 (2018)

Numerical optical optimization of monolithic planar perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells with regular and inverted device architectures

Klaus Jäger, Lars Korte, Bernd Rech, and Steve Albrecht
Opt. Express 25(12) A473-A482 (2017)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

Optica participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from Optica Publishing Group journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the simulated architectures: A) Four-terminal device, where individual CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite and silicon cells are optically stacked. B) Two-terminal device with CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite and silicon cells connected in series. On the left side textured wafers (front surface) and layers deposited on top by conformal growth are shown.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 2 A) Real part n and imaginary part k of the refractive index of Spiro-OMeTAD. B) VASE experimental spectra (symbols) and calculated spectra (lines) of Spiro-MeOTAD on c-Si substrate. C) Reflection and transmission experimental spectra (symbols) and calculated spectra (lines) on a glass and c-Si substrates.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 3 Reflection and absorption plots for the flat four-terminal tandem configuration without the MgF₂ anti-reflection layer. A) Reflection of the tandem stack, and absorption in the active layers. B) Parasitic absorption of layers in the CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite cell. Dashed lines represent the optimal results of the constrained case, while full lines show optimum results when the thicknesses were unconstrained. Grey circle symbols in the top plot represent the measured EQE of a SHJ cell [35].

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 4 Reflection and absorption plots for the flat two-terminal tandem configuration. A) Reflection of the tandem stack and absorption in the active layers. B) Parasitic absorption of layers in the CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite cell (y-scale changes after wavelength > 600 nm). Dashed lines represent the optimal results of the constrained case, while full lines show optimum results of the unconstrained case.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 5 Angular dependence of J_sc of the two-terminal tandem device. Full lines represent unconstrained thicknesses, while dashed lines show the results for constrained thicknesses. Above x-axis schematics show the incident angle.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 6 Reflection and absorption plots for the textured two-terminal tandem configuration. A) Reflection of the tandem stack and absorption in the active layers. B) Parasitic absorption of layers in the CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite cell (y-scale changes after wavelength > 600 nm). Dashed lines represent the optimal results of the constrained case, while full lines show optimum results of the unconstrained case.

Download Full Size | PDF

Tables (6)

Table 1 Layer thickness constraints for the perovskite cell and references to the refractive indices of simulated layers, cf. Fig. 1. ‘Bottom’ ITO has different constraints for the four-terminal (4T) and two-terminal (2T) configuration.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 2 Parameters of the dielectric function model, giving the best fit to the data.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 3 One-diode parameters of single junction cells, extracted by fiting from literature data.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 4 Optimal parameter values of the four-terminal tandem device with equivalent J_sc values of selected layers without the MgF₂ anti-reflection layer.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 5 Optimal layer thicknesses for constrained and unconstrained optimization of the two-terminal device with flat or textured bottom cell surface.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 6 Estimated efficiencies of various four-terminal (4T) and two-terminal (2T) tandem configurations based on the one-diode model and simulated J_sc values.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Equations (4)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

ε = ε_{\infty} + \sum_{i = 1}^{4} \frac{(ε_{s, i} - ε_{\infty}) ω_{t, i}^{2}}{ω_{t, i}^{2} - ω^{2} + i Γ_{0, i}} .

n = n_{\infty} + \frac{B \times 10^{4}}{λ^{2}} + \frac{C \times 10^{9}}{λ^{4}}

f_{4 T} = η_{P e r} + η_{S H J} .

f_{2 T} = η_{P e r} + η_{S H J} - | J_{M P P}^{P e r} - J_{M P P}^{S H J} | .

Layer	Thickness constraints (nm)	Source of n and k
MgF₂	0-200	[41]
‘Top’ ITO	60-150	[42]
Spiro-OMeTAD	100-300	This study
CH₃NH₃PbI₃	200-350	[28]
Compact TiO₂	10-80	[43]
‘Bottom’ ITO	60-150 (4T) or 20-150 (2T)	[42]
a-Si layers	Not varied	[44]
c-Si	Not varied	[45]
Ag	Not varied	[46]


n_∞	1.57	ε_s_,1	0.69	ε_s_,2	2.06	ε_s_,3	1.15	ε_s_,4	0.48
B	−1.55	ω_t_,1	2.94	ω_t_,2	3.09	ω_t_,3	0.78	ω_t_,4	2.81
C	3.44	Γ₁	0.52	Γ₂	1.11	Γ₃	0.26	Γ₄	1.40
ε_∞	1.00

Cell	J_L (mA/cm²)	J₀ (mA/cm²)	n	R_S (Ω × cm²)	R_SH (Ω × cm²)
Perovskite	21.2	4.93 × 10⁻⁷	2.20	0.48	8.90 × 10³
SHJ	39.4	8.21 × 10⁻¹⁰	1.17	0.07	8.84 × 10⁵

	Flat		Textured
Varied parameters	Constrained	Unconstrained	Constrained	Unconstrained
‘Top’ ITO thickness (nm)	61	67	61	67
Compact TiO₂ thick. (nm)	10	14	10	14
CH₃NH₃PbI₃ thickness (nm)	350	1000	350	1000
Spiro-OMeTAD thick. (nm)	100	0	100	0
‘Bottom’ ITO thick. (nm)	60	95	60	95
Intermediate layer n ()	1.8	1.6	1.8	1.6
*Equivalent J_sc* (mA/cm²)**
Perovskite absorber	20.1	23.3	19.9	23.3
SHJ absorber	17.9	16.0	19.6	17.7
Reflection	6.7	5.7	4.6	2.8
Spiro-OMeTAD	0.5	0.0	0.7	0.0
‘Top’ ITO	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.6
‘Bottom’ ITO	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.8

	Flat		Textured
Varied parameters (nm)	Constrained	Unconstrained	Constrained	Unconstrained
MgF₂ thickness	105	109	119	142
‘Top’ ITO thickness	127	52	123	58
Spiro-OMeTAD thickness	155	0	156	0
CH₃NH₃PbI₃ thickness	350	437	350	421
Compact TiO₂ thickness	79	72	10	83
‘Bottom’ ITO thickness	37	0	68	0
*Equivalent J_sc* (mA/cm²)**
Perovskite absorber	18.4	21.7	19.2	22.0
SHJ absorber	18.0	21.2	19.3	21.2
Reflection	6.2	2.7	3.0	2.2
Spiro-OMeTAD	2.4	0.0	3.0	0.0
‘Top’ ITO	1.0	0.4	1.2	0.6
‘Bottom’ ITO	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.0

	Perovskite cell (%)	SHJ cell (%)	Tandem cell (%)
4T Constrained Flat	16.4	11.1	27.5
4T Unconstrained Flat	19.2	9.8	29.1
4T Constrained Textured	16.3	12.1	28.4
4T Unconstrained Textured	19.2	11.0	30.1
2T Constrained Flat	14.5	10.9	25.4
2T Unconstrained Flat	17.3	12.9	30.2
2T Constrained Textured	15.2	11.7	26.8
2T Unconstrained Textured	17.5	12.8	30.3

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (6)

Tables (6)

Equations (4)

Optics Express