Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solmat

Implementation of Fermi–Dirac statistics and advanced models

in PC1D for precise simulations of silicon solar cells
Halvard Haug a,n, Achim Kimmerle b, Johannes Greulich b, Andreas Wolf b,
Erik Stensrud Marstein a
a
Institute for Energy Technology, Instituttveien 18, 2007 Kjeller, Norway
b
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Heidenhofstraße 2, 79110 Freiburg, Germany

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work we present a modified version of the commonly used semiconductor simulation program
Received 15 April 2014 PC1D, named cmd-PC1D 6.0, which applies Fermi–Dirac (F–D) statistics, thus improving on the existing
Received in revised form Boltzmann approximation that is employed in the original program. Several up-to-date models for
4 June 2014
crystalline Si have been implemented in the new program, including injection dependent band gap
Accepted 8 June 2014
Available online 2 July 2014
narrowing, carrier mobility and Auger recombination. The results obtained using cmd-PC1D 6.0 are
verified against well-accepted and modern simulations tools for a range of both phosphorus- and boron-
Keywords: doped emitters with varying surface concentration. We find a good correspondence between the
Silicon simulation results obtained with the different programs, with a deviation of less than 2 fA/cm2 for the
Device simulation
calculated emitter saturation current density using F–D statistics and less than 0.8 % relative deviation in
Solar cell
all the main solar cell parameters under 1 sun illumination. By using the correct carrier statistics and the
Fermi–Dirac statistics
appropriate set of models it is now possible to avoid the commonly used effective models and adapted
values, thus taking a large step in bringing PC1D further towards a more general, consistent and
physically meaningful simulation tool for Si solar cells. The new program can be run from a command
line or within a recently developed, powerful graphical user interface. Both cmd-PC1D 6.0 and the
graphical user interface are freely available for download.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction description of the relative contributions from surface recombination

Since electrons are Fermions, they obey Fermi–Dirac (F–D)
statistics. For carrier concentrations in Si lower than approximately
1019 cm
3, F–D statistics can be approximated by Boltzmann
statistics. However if solar cells with doping concentrations larger
than 1019 cm
3 are modelled with Boltzmann statistics, large errors
of the surface recombination and the recombination occurring in
the bulk of the emitter may occur [1]. The choice of carrier statistics
is closely linked to the parameterization of band gap narrowing
(BGN), as the error induced by the use of Boltzmann statistics is
commonly compensated for by the use of apparent BGN models,
along with adjustments of the surface recombination velocity (SRV).
However, only adapting the SRV is not sufficient to recount for using
Boltzmann statistics in a physically sound manner and may even
lead to unphysical negative SRV in some cases. Additionally this
adaption may lead to differences in the calculated carrier collect-
ion efficiency for structures with highly doped regions. For a correct
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 47 63806233.
E-mail address: halvard.haug@ife.no (H. Haug).
and recombination in highly doped bulk regions below the surface,
F–D statistics in combination with a suitable actual BGN model (e.g.
the parameterizations by Schenk [2] or by Yan and Cuevas [3])
should therefore be applied [1].
One of the main reasons for the continued use of Boltzmann
statistics for solar cell simulations is the one-dimensional semi-
conductor device simulator PC1D, which has strongly influenced
the solar cell research community over decades [4–8]. PC1D is
based on the Boltzmann approximation, and several PV-specific
models have been developed for use in this framework.
The program is still commonly used today, and a command line
version (cmd-PC1D) and a new, efficient graphical user interface
have recently been developed to facilitate more efficient simula-
tions [9]. In this paper we present a new, modified version of cmd-
PC1D called cmd-PC1D 6.0, which applies the correct, more
general F–D statistics together with a comprehensive BGN model,
thus giving more accurate results.
Furthermore, since the release of the last PC1D version, refined
models for crystalline silicon have become available. These rely on
new data and are generally more precise and sophisticated than the
parameterizations of semiconductor properties already implemented

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2014.06.021
0927-0248/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36
in PC1D. In order to increase the quality of Si device simulation, we
have therefore implemented several advanced Si-specific models into
cmd-PC1D 6.0, including updated models for intrinsic carrier density,
carrier mobility and Auger recombination. The updated models are
not pre-initialized e.g. by the doping concentrations, but may be
coupled to the carrier densities throughout the device, enabling
injection dependent evaluation.
The present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we
discuss the implementation of F–D statistics in cmd-PC1D 6.0.
Section 3 deals with the choice and verification of the models
describing the fundamental semiconductor properties, e.g. intrin-
sic charge carrier density, mobility and BGN. Simulations of the
emitter saturation current density and important current–voltage
characteristics are verified against other well-accepted simulation
tools in Section 4. In Section 5, the possible further work is
discussed. The key results of the present work are summarized
in Section 6.
2. Implementation of Fermi–Dirac statistics
In the original PC1D program, the carrier densities are calcu-
lated with respect to the intrinsic carrier density ni , using
Boltzmann statistics. For a single-region simulation (no hetero-
junctions), the electron and hole carrier densities are then calcu-
lated as [10]
! when replacing the prefactor ni;0 in Eq. (1) with N c and N v . The


qψ þ ΔEc
qϕn;i
qψ þ ΔEv þqϕp;i
n ¼ ni;0 exp ; p ¼ ni;0 exp ; relations) has now been done throughout the entire PC1D source
kB T kB T
ð1Þ
respectively. Here, ni;0 is the reference intrinsic carrier density, q is
the elementary charge, kB is the Boltzmann coefficient and T is the
temperature. Furthermore, ψ is the electrostatic potential (taken
as zero for neutral intrinsic conditions), ΔEc and ΔEv are the shift
of the band edges due to band gap narrowing toward the center of
the bandgap (after accounting for electrostatic effects) and ϕn;i and
ϕp;i are the quasi-Fermi potentials for electrons and holes relative
to the equilibrium Fermi energy Ei : qϕn;i ¼ Ei
EFn and qϕp;i ¼
Ei
EFp .
The chosen value for ni;0 at a given temperature has a major
impact on the simulation results. ni;0 is related to the effective
density of states N c and N v and the band gap Eg through the
relation [11]
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 very precisely for accurate results. The pn product scales as the
Eg
ni;0 ¼ N c N v exp
: ð2Þ
2kB T
In the original PC1D program, the absolute values for N c , N v
and Eg do not affect the solution for single-region problems for a
given value of ni;0 , as only ni;0 enters in Eq. (1). For the full Fermi–
Dirac calculation however, the carrier densities need to be directly
related to the band edges and Nc and N v through the general
expressions



Ec
EFn EFp
Ev
n ¼ N c F1=2
; p ¼ Nv F1=2
; ð3Þ
kB T kB T
where EFn and EFp are the quasi-Fermi energies for electrons and
holes and Ec and Ev are the conduction and valence band energies.
F1=2 is the complete Fermi integral of order 1/2, given by
Z 1
2 t 1=2
F1=2 ðηÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffi dt: ð4Þ
π 0 e η þ1
t

If the quasi-Fermi energies lie within the band gap and are
separated from the conduction and valance band edges by more
than 0.05 eV, the Boltzmann approximation can be used with
negligible error, meaning that F1=2 ðηÞ can safely be approximated
by an exponential function, and Eq. (3) can be reduced to the form
31
shown in Eq. (1). For very large doping or high injection condi-
tions, the quasi-Fermi energies approach or even merge into the
bands, and the semiconductor is said to be degenerate. In these
circumstances the full F–D expressions are needed to obtain
correct results. The main reason why this is often avoided in
simulations is because Eq. (4) cannot be calculated analytically,
and a finely resolved numerical evaluation of the integral makes
the simulation computationally heavy. This issue can however be
solved by employing one of several numerical approximations. In
cmd-PC1D 6.0, two different analytical expressions are used to
effectively evaluate the F–D operator [12] and it's inverse function
[13]. These expressions are also used in the emitter simulation tool
EDNA [14] and have previously been shown to lead to less than
0.003% relative error in the carrier concentrations with little loss
in computation time [15].
The carrier concentrations in cmd-PC1D 6.0 are then calculated
using the same solution variables as in the original PC1D program:
 
qψ þ ΔEc
qϕn;i þ lnðni;0 =N c Þ
n ¼ Nc F1=2 kB T
  ð5Þ

qψ þ ΔEv þ qϕp;i þ lnðni;0 =Nv Þ
p ¼ N v F1=2 kB T
;
Note that the terms lnðni;0 =Nc Þ and lnðni;0 =N v Þ have been added
in the numerator in the expressions for n and p. These terms
correspond to ðEi
Ec Þ and ðEi
Ev Þ, respectively, and must be
added to account for the change in the energy point of reference
replacement of Eq. (1) with Eq. (5) (as well as the reverse
code. When Boltzmann statistics are chosen by the user the F1=2
function is simply changed to an exponential function (and a
natural logarithm for the inverse function). By also selecting the
original PC1D models, this causes the results to revert back to
those of the original program, as expected.
3. Implementation of new physical models
3.1. Choice of models and parameterizations
In contrast to many semiconductor devices, solar cells are
strongly affected by carrier recombination and thus by the excess
concentration of minority carriers. Both the pn product and the
recombination processes in the device must therefore be known
square of the intrinsic carrier density ni , and at large doping
densities it is also significantly influenced by degeneracy and band
gap narrowing. The models used in PC1D up to now have been
developed for use together with Boltzmann statistics, and should
therefore be re-evaluated when changing to F–D statistics. This is
particularly true for BGN, as the current models used in PC1D
represent the apparent BGN, which account for various effects,
including degeneracy at high doping levels. Because of this we
cannot apply F–D statistics together with the existing BGN models,
as this would overestimate the high doping effects. Instead, the
BGN is calculated using the comprehensive theoretical model for
both p- and n-type Si by Schenk [2], which is derived for the case
of F–D statistics from a non-self-consistent, full random phase
approximation formalism, taking both carrier–carrier and carrier–
dopant interactions into account. As in the original PC1D program
the total BGN is applied to one of the band edges only, according to
the doping polarity of the material. In the space charge region the
local equilibrium carrier densities are used as input to the Schenk
model in order to avoid excessively large BGN values in this region.
In addition, several updated values and parameterizations of Si
properties, based on the current state-of-the-art experimental
results, have been published since the last version of PC1D was
32 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36

Table 1
The full set of models that currently are implemented into the new cmd-PC1D 6.0 program, together with the
numerical approximations for the Fermi operator and it's reverse.

Model Symbol Ref.

Intrinsic carrier density ni;0 Altermatt et al. [17]

Intrinsic energy band gap Eg;0 Green [21]
Effective density of states, conduction band Nc Green [21]
Effective density of states, valence band Nv (adjusted to match ni;0 )
Bandgap narrowing ΔEc ; ΔEv Schenk a[2]
Carrier mobility μn ; μp Klaassen a[22,23]
Intrinsic recombination U intr Richter et al. [19]
Kerr and Cuevas [20]
Numerical approximations for:
Fermi integral u ¼ F1=2 ðηÞ Van Halen and Pulfrey [12]
Inverse Fermi integral η ¼ f 1=2 ðuÞ Antia [13]

a
As default, these models are only evaluated for equilibrium conditions in the beginning of the simulation. There
is also an option to update these models at each iteration to account for high injection effects, at the cost of a slightly
lower computation speed.

Fig. 1. (a) Intrinsic carrier density and (b) carrier mobilities as a function of doping concentration, calculated with the original PC1D (black dashed line) and the modified
cmd-PC1D 6.0 program (red solid line). The results from the previous Excel VBA implementation are shown as black symbols. Bottom part of each subfigure: relative
deviation between cmd-PC1D 6.0 and the Excel VBA implementation. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

released in 1997. The updated cmd-PC1D 6.0 is now based on a set
of models suggested by Altermatt et al., who have performed an
extensive work on the subject [1,16]. These new models include
the updated value of ni;0 (9:65  109 cm
3 at 300 K) [17], which
has a significant impact on many simulation results as compared
to the previously used value of 1  1010 cm
3 [18]. We have also
implemented latest parameterisation of Auger recombination
published by Richter et al. [19], which was derived using F–D
statistics and Schenk's parameterization for BGN and is able to
reproduce the high lifetimes measured by Richter et al. As an
alternative we have also implemented the commonly used model
by Kerr and Cuevas [20] for Auger recombination.
A complete list of the new models that have been implemented
in cmd-PC1D 6.0 is presented in Table 1. The models have been
selected with much care and to best knowledge of the authors.
However, Table 1 does not necessarily represent a final, fully
correct and consistent set of models for simulation of Si solar
cells. For instance there are still issues with carrier mobility in
heavily doped and in heavily compensated material, as Schenk's
BGN parameterization and experimental data for compensated Si
were not available when Klaassen published his mobility para-
meterization. Another open question is the choice of BGN. Very
recently, Yan and Cuevas presented an empirical parameterization
of BGN for highly n-type doped Si [3], in which the authors state
that their experimental findings are not compatible with Schenk's
widely accepted BGN model. However, the framework for includ-
ing new models and specifying which models and parameters to
use is now in place in cmd-PC1D 6.0 and additional options for
models will therefore be included in future versions.
3.2. Verification against previous implementation of the models
In order to verify that the new models have been implemented
correctly, we have performed a range of different simulations and
compared the results against a previous and well-checked Excel
VBA implementation of the models. Fig. 1(a) shows the intrinsic
carrier density ni of both p-type and n-type Si as a function of the
doping concentration, based on F–D statistics and models from
Refs. [13,15,19]. Boltzmann statistics can be observed to give a
good approximation of ni up to a doping concentration of
 1  1019 cm
3, but for higher doping there is a large deviation
from the correct F–D statistics, with the difference being a factor of
2 at N D ¼ 2  1020 cm
3. Fig. 1(b) shows the carrier mobilities in
n-type Si as a function of doping concentration based on the
comprehensive work of Klaassen [22,23]. Also here the most
 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36 33

significant difference to the original PC1D can be seen for the
largest doping concentrations, with ND 4 1020 cm
3.
For all the simulations, the relative deviation from the Excel
VBA implementation was found to be below 0.05 %, mainly caused
by rounding errors. (A somewhat larger deviation of 2–3% relative
was observed for the Auger recombination in the space charge
region of the pn-junction, possibly caused by the polynomial form
of the Auger parameterization [16]. This difference is however
small and has normally little or no effect on the simulation
results). The simulated intrinsic carrier concentration (and thus
the BGN) has previously been cross-checked against the numerical
simulation tool EDNA [14] and, together with Richter's parameter-
ization of Auger recombination, is also implemented in the Sinton
WCT-120 lifetime tester software [24]. Note that the use of models
which are common with modern characterization equipment is an
advantage of the new cmd-PC1D 6.0 program, as it facilitates
comparison between experimental results and simulations.
Finally, the Klaassen mobility model has been cross-checked
against EDNA and the Sentaurus TCAD simulation package [25].
of the simulation tools. The same set of models and parameters
was used for cmd-PC1D 6.0, Sentaurus TCAD and EDNA 2, with the
default models presented in Table 1 and the device structure
defined in Table 2.
Fig. 2 shows the calculated emitter saturation current as a
function of surface doping density, using cmd-PC1D 6.0, Sentaurus
TCAD and EDNA 2. We observe an excellent correspondence
between the J 0e values calculated from the programs for all the
emitters, both when using Boltzmann and F–D statistics, with a
relative deviation below 5%, except for the first point with
Nsurf ¼ 1  1018 cm
3. The increase in relative deviation for the
lowest surface doping is mainly caused by low numerical values.
For F–D statistics, the absolute deviation is less than 2 fA/cm2 for
all the investigated emitters. As expected the results for Boltz-
mann and F–D statistics are very similar for the lowest doping
densities, but start to deviate for N surf larger than 1019 cm
3, with
a significant difference for the largest surface doping.
4.2. Comparison of current–voltage characteristics

4. Simulation results and comparisons with other
simulation tools
4.1. Comparison of emitter saturation currents
The largest differences when changing from Boltzmann statis-
tics to F–D statistics are expected for highly doped regions.
Therefore, we chose to test cmd-PC1D 6.0 by performing calcula-
tions of the emitter saturation current J 0e for a series of Gaussian
emitters with different surface doping concentration. J 0e is calcu-
lated in PC1D in a simple manner by simulating a pn-junction
in the dark under moderate forward bias (in this case with
V¼ 0.55 V). J 0e is then given by
J min;SCR
J 0e ¼  
exp qV SCR

1
kB T
cmd-PC1D 6.0 enables the user to extract the charge carrier
profiles and to simulate the optical and electrical behaviour of
solar cells in one dimension. In order to validate these features,
they are compared to Sentaurus TCAD [25]. We apply the same
phosphorus-doped emitters and surface recombination para-
meters as in Section 3.2. In Sentaurus TCAD, we implemented a
quasi-one-dimensional symmetry element. All models and para-
meters are set to the same as in cmd-PC1D 6.0, except for the
following three modifications. First, as in Schenk's original work
[2], the BGN is implemented in a simplified, doping-dependent
manner, which leads to small artificial BGN in the space charge
region. Second, the boundary conditions for the charge carriers at
the contacts are defined slightly differently. In Sentaurus TCAD,
the boundary conditions are defined as
ð6Þ !
jn  n^ ¼ q  Sn0  ðn
n0 Þ ð8Þ

where J min;SCR is the minority charge carrier current into the !

jp  n^ ¼ q  Sp0  ðp
p0 Þ ð9Þ
emitter and V SCR the splitting of the quasi-Fermi potentials at
! !
the edge of the space charge region. The calculated J 0e values are with the electron and hole current densities jn and jp at the
compared to results from Sentaurus TCAD and from the freeware contacts, the surface normal n,^ the elementary charge q, the
simulation tool EDNA 2 [14,15], which is specifically made for surface recombination velocities Sn0 and Sp0 for electrons and
simulation of emitter properties in Si solar cells. A series of holes, the electron and hole concentrations n and p, and their
Gaussian-shaped phosphorus and boron emitters with a surface equilibrium concentrations n0 and p0. In PC1D, the surface recom-
concentration between 1018 and 1021 cm
3 was chosen for the bination rate
simulations. The largest doping densities thus exceed the solubi-
pn
n2i;ef f
lity limit for P in Si [26] for temperatures of typical POCl3 Rsurf ¼  h i  h i ð10Þ

Ei
Ei
diffusions (  800 1C) [27]. Thus, the heaviest emitters are not p þni;ef f exp
Et kT =Sn0 þ n þ ni;ef f exp Et kT =Sp0
relevant for real-life POCl3 diffused solar cell devices, but poten-
tially for ion implanted regions [28]. The full range of doping levels depends on the effective intrinsic density ni,eff and the surface trap
was also included in order to test the new program under the full energy level Et
Ei and is directly integrated into the discretised
range of conditions. The surface recombination velocity Sp0 electron and hole transport equations, defining the boundary
for phosphorus doped profiles is chosen depending on the surface
doping concentration according to the parameterization of Table 2
Altermatt et al. [1] of the data of Cuevas et al. for Si passivated Details of the device structure used to calculate the curves shown in Figs. 2–4.

with SiO2 [29]:

Emitter profile Gaussian



Nsurf γ p1 Nsurf γ p2
S0p ¼ Sp1 þ Sp2 ð7Þ Surface dopant density N surf 1018
1021 (cm
3)
N p1 N p2
Standard deviation xstd 0:2 (mm)
with the parameters Sp1 ¼ 200 cm/s, N p1 ¼ 1019 cm
3, γ p1 ¼ 0:2, Base doping N base 1  1016 (cm
3)
Sp2 ¼ 130 cm/s, N p2 ¼ 1019 cm
3 and γ p1 ¼ 2:4. For the boron Front SRV parameter for majority carriers S0maj;f 1  107 (cm/s)
doped profiles, we use this same parameterization also for Sn0 as Front SRV parameter for minority carriers S0 min ;f Eq. (7)
suggested by Hoex et al. [30] for Al2O3 passivation, but neglect the Rear SRV parameter for minority carriers S0 min ;r 100 (cm/s)
Rear SRV parameter for majority carriers S0maj;r 1  107 (cm/s)
influence of fixed charges for simplicity. The calculated results
Bulk SRH time constants τ0n ; τ0p 1000 (ms)
therefore do not necessarily describe the physics of boron profiles Cell thickness W 180 (mm)
passivated with Al2O3 correctly, but surely serve for a comparison
34 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36

Fig. 2. Emitter dark saturation current density J0e as a function of surface doping concentration, for a series of n-type (a) and p-type (b) Gaussian emitters with a constant
standard deviation of 0.2 mm. Emitter sheet resistance calculated using cmd-PC1D 6.0 are shown on the top axis. J 0e values are calculated using cmd-PC1D 6.0, EDNA 2 and
Sentaurus TCAD. A clear difference between Boltzmann and F–D statistics is observed for high surface doping density. Note that the EDNA 2 simulation did not converge for
the largest n-type doping density. Bottom part of each subfigure: Relative difference between the results from cmd-PC1D 6.0, Sentaurus TCAD and EDNA 2. Models and
simulation parameters are given in Tables 1 and 2.

conditions [10]. Due to these slightly different formulations of the

boundary conditions, different electron, hole and total currents at
the contacts may possibly occur, depending on the surface
recombination parameters, doping and injections conditions. The
third modification concerns the charge carrier generation profile,
which is implemented in a different way in Sentaurus TCAD than
in PC1D and cmd-PC1D. While the latter use the cumulative
generation rate Gcum ðzÞ, Sentaurus TCAD uses its derivative gðzÞ,
given in units of cm
³/s. In order to use the same information in
both programs, we first calculate gðzÞ using the Sentaurus ray
tracer for an alkaline textured silicon solar cell coated with a
75 nm thin SiNx anti-reflection coating under 1 sun illumination,
resulting in a total cumulated generation of 41.8 mA/cm². Then, we
determine Gcum ðzÞ from gðzÞ using the trapezoidal rule for the
numerical integration at set this as input for the cmd-PC1D
6.0 simulations.
First, the charge carrier profiles at the highly doped emitter
without illumination at zero bias are compared. As shown in Fig. 3,
an excellent agreement is obtained. In the space charge region, the
product of electron and hole density is even smoother using cmd-
PC1D 6.0 than using Sentaurus TCAD. The scattering of this
quantity might be attributed to the implementation of doping- Fig. 3. Carrier and doping concentrations as a function of depth below the surface
dependent BGN in Sentaurus TCAD. for a Gaussian emitter, calculated at steady state conditions in the dark, with a
constant forward bias of 0.55 V. Results are calculated both using cmd-PC1D 6.0
Next, important parameters of the current–voltage (IV) char-
(solid black lines) and Sentaurus TCAD (dashed red lines) applying the same set of
acteristics of a set of model solar cells under 1 sun illumination parameters and models. The corresponding J 0e values are indicated, showing an
(1000 W/m², AM 1.5 g spectrum) are calculated with cmd-PC1D excellent correspondence between the values calculated with the two programs.
6.0 and are compared to Sentaurus TCAD. The same emitters as (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
before and the same models and parameters are applied in both referred to the web version of this article.)

tools (see Tables 1 and 2). As shown in Fig. 4, a good qualitative

and quantitative agreement is observed for all four parameters in
the whole range of surface doping concentrations. The deviations
of the short circuit current and the open circuit voltage are smaller
than 0.3%. The deviation of the fill factor is less than 0.8% relative.
Please note that the observed differences occur for both F–D and
Boltzmann statistics in a similar way, and should therefore not be
caused by the implementation of F–D statistics. Instead, numerical
errors of partly Sentaurus TCAD and partly cmd-PC1D 6.0, together
with the slightly different implementations of the boundary
conditions at the contacts may probably cause the small deviations
of the IV parameters. As the surface doping concentration of the
emitter is varied between 1018 cm
3 and 1021 cm
3, the energy
 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36 35

Fig. 4. Calculated cell parameters: (a) Short circuit current, (b) open circuit voltage, (c) fill factor and (d) conversion efficiency, as a function of surface doping concentration.
A good correspondence is found between the results from cmd-PC1D 6.0 (black squares) and Sentaurus (red circles), both for Boltzmann (open symbols) and F–D statistics
(filled symbols). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

conversion efficiency varies between 23.7% and 18.3%, with a
maximal deviation of the two tools of less than 0.8 % relative,
corresponding to a deviation of approximately 0.2 % absolute.
5. Further work
There is still room for further improvement in the cmd-PC1D
6.0 program, which hopefully will be addressed in future updates
of the program. For example, in F–D statistics, the charge carriers
interact with each other due to Pauli blocking. Therefore, the
Einstein relation relating the diffusion coefficient to the mobility is
no longer valid, and should be replaced with the following
expression: D=μ ¼ ðkB T=qÞ  ðF1=2 = F
1=2 Þ, where F
1=2 is the
Fermi integral of order—1/2 [31]. Also, an additional term should
be added in the transport equations for electrons and holes, in
order to avoid any unphysical currents flowing at dark equilibrium
conditions [16]. The effects of this and the abovementioned
modification of the Einstein relation are small, and have so far
not been implemented in Sentaurus TCAD. Note also that no
equilibrium current larger than 10
7 mA/cm² has been observed
in cmd-PC1D 6.0 so far. A different unphysical effect related to the
use of F–D statistics in cmd-PC1D 6.0 is observed in that the total
current is not entirely constant in the emitter region for operating
conditions close to open circuit. This issue does not seem to
significantly affect the simulated I–V curves, but may be a
motivation for including the abovementioned features in a future
update and thus obtaining a fully consistent solution.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there exist several
problems with simulation of heavily doped emitters that are not
solved by the introduction of F–D statistics alone. Most impor-
tantly, in many industrially relevant emitters formed by POCl3
diffusion the phosphorus concentrations approaches or exceeds
the solubility limit in Si. P can then easily form various forms of
precipitates, which may introduce a significant contribution from
SRH recombination, sometimes even dominating over Auger
recombination. In any case, the correct carrier statistics and a
robust infrastructure for adding and modifying models are now in
place for PC1D, and additional choices for models will be added in
future versions of the program. Based on both the existing
improvements and these future possibilities we expect PC1D
simulations to continue to play an important role in the continued
research effort within in this field.
6. Conclusions
We successfully verified the implementations of the new
physical models for the intrinsic carrier density, the mobility,
Auger recombination and band gap narrowing into PC1D against
36 H. Haug et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 131 (2014) 30–36
several other implementations in Visual Basic, Microsoft Excel and
Sentaurus TCAD. We demonstrated the agreement of the emitter
saturation currents for several emitters of the new program cmd-
PC1D 6.0 with the established simulation tool EDNA 2 and
Sentaurus TCAD with deviations being smaller than 5%. These
deviations are most probably caused by numerical errors. We
calculated important parameters of the illuminated current–vol-
tage characteristics of model solar cells as the short circuit current,
open circuit voltage, fill factor and energy conversion efficiency
with cmd-PC1D 6.0 and Sentaurus TCAD. A good agreement of
both tools is reached. The observed small relative deviations of less
than 0.8% relative are probably caused by slightly different
boundary conditions and different working modes of the BGN in
the two programs. In summary, the correct implementation of
both F–D statistics and new physical models in cmd-PC1D 6.0 has
been successfully demonstrated.
The cmd-PC1D 6.0 program can be run from a command line,
which gives additional flexibility for simulations. It is also pro-
vided with a new and modern graphical user interface called PC1D
for Matlab, which can be run as a standalone executable. The PC1D
for Matlab interface gives easy access to changing between the
different models described in this work, as well as the original
PC1D models. It also has many built-in possibilities for data
visualization and advanced analysis, including optimization and
fitting to experimental data. Both the cmd-PC1D 6.0 program and
PC1D for Matlab are freely available for download and are
currently hosted by PV Lighthouse (http://www.pvlighthouse.
com.au/). The source code of cmd-PC1D 6.0 will be available at
www.sourceforge.net.
Acknowledgements
Halvard Haug wants to thank the University Graduate Centre
(UNIK) and The Norwegian Research Centre for Solar Cell Technol-
ogy for funding. Achim Kimmerle acknowledges the scholarship
support of the Reiner-Lemoine Foundation.
References
[1] P.P. Altermatt, J.O. Schumacher, A. Cuevas, M.J. Kerr, S.W. Glunz, R.R. King,
G. Heiser, A. Schenk, Numerical modeling of highly doped Si:P emitters based
on Fermi–Dirac statistics and self-consistent material parameters, J. Appl.
Phys. 92 (6) (2002) 3187.
[2] A. Schenk, Finite-temperature full random-phase approximation model of band
gap narrowing for silicon device simulation, J. Appl. Phys. 84 (7) (1998) 3684.
[3] D. Yan, A. Cuevas, Empirical determination of the energy band gap narrowing
in highly doped n þ silicon, J. Appl. Phys. 114 (4) (2013) 044508.
[4] D.T. Rover, P.A. Basore, G.M. Thorson, Solar cell modeling on personal
computers, in: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Confer-
ence, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 1985, pp. 703–709.
[5] P.A. Basore, D.T. Rover, A.W. Smith, PC-1D version 2: enhanced numerical solar
cell modelling, in: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 1988, pp. 389–396.
[6] P.A. Basore, PC-1D Version 3: improved speed and convergence, in: IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1991, Conference Record of the Twenty
Second, vol. 1, 1991, pp. 299–302.
[7] P.A. Basore D.A. Clugston, PC1D version 4 for windows: from analysis to
design, in: 25th IEEE Photovoltiac Specialists Conference, Washington, 1996,
pp. 377–381.
[8] D.A. Clugston, P.A. Basore, PC1D version 5: 32-bit solar cell modeling on
personal computers, in: Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1997., Conference
Record of the Twenty-Sixth IEEE, 1997, pp. 207–210.
[9] H. Haug, B.R. Olaisen, Ø. Nordseth, E.S. Marstein, A graphical user interface for
multivariable analysis of silicon solar cells using scripted PC1D simulations,
Energy Procedia 38 (2013) 72–79.
[10] PC1D help file. [Online]. Available: 〈http://www.pvlighthouse.com.au/
Resources/PC1D/〉. [Accessed: 01-Apr-2014].
[11] P. Würfel, U. Würfel, Physics of Solar Cells: From Basic Principles to Advanced
Concepts, Wiley (2009) 44.
[12] P. Van Halen, D.L. Pulfrey, Accurate, short series approximations to Fermi–
Dirac integrals of order
1/2, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 5/2, 3, and 7/2, J. Appl. Phys. 57 (12)
(1985) 5271.
[13] H.M. Antia, Rational function approximations for Fermi–Dirac integrals,
Astrophys. J. Suppl 84 (1993) 101–108.
[14] K.R. McIntosh, P.P. Altermatt, A freeware 1D emitter model for silicon solar cells,
in: IEEE 35th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2010, pp. 002188–002193.
[15] K.R. McIntosh, P.P. Altermatt, T.J. Ratcliff, K.C. Fong, L.E. Black, S.C. Baker-Finch,
M.D. Abbott, An examination of three common assumptions used to simulate
recombination in heavily doped silicon, in: Proceedings of the 28th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France, 2013,
pp. 1672–1679.
[16] P. Altermatt, Models for numerical device simulations of crystalline silicon
solar cells—a review, J. Comput. Electron 10 (3) (2011) 314–330.
[17] P.P. Altermatt, A. Schenk, F. Geelhaar, G. Heiser, Reassessment of the intrinsic
carrier density in crystalline silicon in view of band-gap narrowing, J. Appl.
Phys. 93 (3) (2003) 1598.
[18] A.B. Sproul, M.A. Green, Intrinsic carrier concentration and minority-carrier
mobility of silicon from 77 to 300 K, J. Appl. Phys. 73 (3) (1993) 1214.
[19] A. Richter, S.W. Glunz, F. Werner, J. Schmidt, A. Cuevas, Improved quantitative
description of Auger recombination in crystalline silicon, Phys. Rev. B:
Condens. Matter 86 (16) (2012) 165202.
[20] M.J. Kerr, A. Cuevas, General parameterization of Auger recombination in
crystalline silicon, J. Appl. Phys. 91 (4) (2002) 2473–2480.
[21] M.A. Green, Intrinsic concentration, effective densities of states, and effective
mass in silicon, J. Appl. Phys. 67 (6) (1990) 2944.
[22] D.B.M. Klaassen, A unified mobility model for device simulation—I. Model
equations and concentration dependence, Solid State Electron. 35 (7) (1992)
953–959.
[23] D.B.M. Klaassen, A unified mobility model for device simulation—II. Tempera-
ture dependence of carrier mobility and lifetime, Solid State Electron. 35 (7)
(1992) 961–967.
[24] A.L. Blum, J.S. Swirhun, R.A. Sinton, A. Kimmerle, Updated analysis to the WCT-
120 QSSPC measurement system using advanced device physics, in: Proceed-
ings of the 28th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Paris, France, 2013.
[25] Synopsis Inc, Sentaurus Device, Version H-2013.03. Mountain View, California,
USA.
[26] S. Solmi, A. Parisini, R. Angelucci, A. Armigliato, D. Nobili, L. Moro, Dopant and
carrier concentration in Si in equilibrium with monoclinic SiP precipitates,
Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter 53 (12) (1996) 7836–7841.
[27] A. Kimmerle, A. Wolf, U. Belledin, D. Biro, Modelling carrier recombination in
highly phosphorus-doped industrial emitters, Energy Procedia 8 (2011)
275–281.
[28] J. Wu, Y. Liu, X. Wang, L. Zhang, Application of ion Implantation Emitter in
PERC Solar Cells, IEEE J. Photovoltaics 4 (1) (2014) 52–57.
[29] A. Cuevas, P.A. Basore, G. Giroult-Matlakowski, C. Dubois, Surface recombina-
tion velocity of highly doped n-type silicon, J. Appl. Phys. 80 (6) (1996) 3370.
[30] B. Hoex, J. Schmidt, R. Bock, P.P. Altermatt, M.C.M. van de Sanden, W.M.
M. Kessels, Excellent passivation of highly doped p-type Si surfaces by the
negative-charge-dielectric Al2O3, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91 (11) (2007)
112103–112107.
[31] J.S. Blakemore, Approximations for Fermi–Dirac integrals, especially the
function used to describe electron density in a semiconductor, Solid State
Electron. 25 (11) (1982) 1067–1076.