A circuit model for plasmonic resonators

Di Zhu; Michel Bosman; Joel K. W. Yang

doi:10.1364/OE.22.009809

1. Introduction

Localized plasmon resonances are the collective oscillations of electrons in metal nanostructures. They can conveniently be modeled by lumped-circuit elements in the form of a resistor, inductor, and capacitor (RLC). Doing so led to the concept of optical nanocircuits that was first introduced by Engheta et al., and has since generated great interest [1–10]. In its first report, a circuit model was constructed for the example of a nanosphere [1]. Although mathematically accurate, the determination of the complex impedance of the circuit from the total displacement current and the average voltage across the nanostructure does not necessarily produce a physical model. For instance, one would expect that increasing the material resistivity would directly cause an increase in the extracted R and a reduction in the quality factor (Q-factor) of the resonance; or that changing the geometry of the structure to increase the kinetic inductance would increase the extracted L. However, this basic physical intuition is missing in existing treatments of the problem. A detailed treatment is thus needed to explicitly and intuitively link the RLC values of the circuit model to the nanostructure properties, and the physical processes during the resonance.

In this work, we detail the procedure for “circuitizing” plasmonic nanostructures from a thermodynamic perspective. Here, each circuit element is associated with an energy component obtained by considering that a resonator requires the cyclic exchange of different forms of energy. For plasmonic resonators, this cyclic exchange occurs between (1) the electric potential energy (arising from the accumulation of charges on surfaces of the nanostructure), and (2) the sum of kinetic energy of the moving electrons, and the induced magnetic field energy from the current flow. Dissipation or damping of the oscillation occurs through electron scattering (Joule heating) and radiative damping. Intuitively, the electric potential energy is captured by a capacitor (C); the electron kinetic energy by a kinetic inductor (L_K) [9]; the magnetic field energy by a Faraday inductor (L_F); and the losses by an ohmic resistor (R_ohmic) and a radiative-loss resistor (R_rad). In contrast to previous work [1–8, 10], where displacement current is the only current flow, we explicitly introduce a term for the conduction current due to the moving electrons. Doing so links the currents in the RLC circuit to the charge flow in the nanostructure. We compare our model to the previous work, and test the correctness of the model by observing its ability to reproduce the spectral response for a nanorod plasmonic resonator (including resonance frequency and Q-factor), and its extension to a split-ring resonator.

2. “Circuitizing” a plasmonic resonator

First, we consider the charge oscillation in the metal arising from the free-electron gas that is enclosed by the nanostructure surface. Therefore, the total displacement current, −iωD, can be separated into two parts as follows:

- i ω D = - i ω ε E = - i ω (ε - ε_{0}) E - i ω ε_{0} E = J - i ω D_{0}

where J is the conduction current, corresponding to charge flow, and −iωD₀ is the free-space displacement current, caused by charge accumulation (see Fig. 1(a)-1(c));

ε

is the complex permittivity of the material, and ε₀ is the free-space permittivity; E is the electric field.

Fig. 1 The process of forming a lumped circuit model for a metal nanorod. (a) The total displacement current density, −iω(D), can be separated into two parts: (b) the conduction current density, (J), due to free electrons, and (c) free-space displacement current density, −iω(D)₀, that stems from the surface charges accumulated on the nanorod [Fields in (c) were scaled to accentuate the free-space displacement current]. The electron kinetic energy and Joule heating caused by the conduction current in (b) are modeled using an inductor and a resistor in series; while the electric potential energy stored in the displacement current (c) is modeled using a capacitor. (d) Schematic of a “unit-cell” circuit. (e) Overall RLC lumped circuit formed by defining the lumped current as the net current in each branch in (d) [R′, L′, and C′ are per-unit values, while R, L and C are lumped values.]

Download Full Size | PDF

This separation leads to a “unit-cell” circuit with three branches, containing –iωD, J and −iωD₀ (see Fig. 1(d)). By separating the conduction and the free-space displacement current, we rewrite the “standard” source-free Maxwell’s equations into the following form:

{\begin{matrix} \nabla \cdot D_{0} = ρ \\ \nabla \cdot μ_{0} H = 0 \\ \nabla \times H = - i ω D_{0} + J \\ \nabla \times E = i ω μ_{0} H \end{matrix} with {\begin{matrix} ρ = - \nabla \cdot (ε - ε_{0}) E \\ J = - i ω (ε - ε_{0}) E = σ E \end{matrix}

where H is the magnetic field; µ₀ is the free-space permeability; ρ is the charge density within the metal; and σ is the optical conductivity, equal to –iω(ε−ε₀).

The insight gained by modeling R and L in series is immediately seen from the Drude model [9]. Here, the permittivity of metal is given by $ε_{m} = ε_{0} (1 - ω_{P}^{2} / (ω^{2} + i γ ω))$ , with $ω_{P}^{2} = n e^{2} / (m ε_{0})$ (n is the free-electron density, m is electron mass, e is electron charge, and γ is the inelastic electron scattering rate (damping parameter)). From Eq. (2), we express the optical resistivity as 1/σ = γm/(ne²)−iωm/(ne²) = R′−iωL′. R′ and L′ are identified as the intrinsic resistivity and inductivity of the material. Therefore, a circuit consisting of R in series with L makes good intuitive sense. We then substitute the expression for current density, |J| = nev, where v is the drift velocity of the electron, and integrate over the volume of the metal nanostructure, V_metal, to determine the time-averaged energy stored in L and power dissipated in R. We obtain W_L = ½∫|J|²L′dv = ½∫mv²ndv, which is the expression for the total kinetic energy of electrons; and P_R = ½∫|J|²R′dv = ∫½mv²nγdv, which represents the power dissipated due to the inelastic scattering of electrons.

To transform the “unit-cell” circuit to an overall macroscopic lumped circuit, it is necessary to define the lumped currents, I₀, I₁, and I₂. These are the total currents in the three branches shown in Fig. 1(d) obtained via surface integrals of –iωD, J, and –iωD₀:

I_{0} = \int_{US} - i ω D \cdot n d A = \int_{V} \nabla \cdot (- i ω D) d v = 0

I_{1} = \int_{US} J \cdot n d A = \int_{V} \nabla \cdot J d v = i ω \int_{V} ρ d v = i ω Q

I_{2} = \int_{US} (- i ω D_{0}) \cdot n d A = \int_{V} \nabla \cdot (- i ω D_{0}) d v = - i ω \int_{V} ρ d v = - i ω Q

where US denotes the upper-half surface of the nanorod; Q is the total charge accumulated on the upper half surface. Since I₀ = 0 and −I₁ = I₂ = −iωQ = I, the “unit-cell” circuit in Fig. 1(d) is transformed into an overall lumped circuit shown in Fig. 1(e) in accordance to Kirchhoff’s current law. This source-free circuit models the impulse-response of the RLC circuit that undergoes transient oscillation and damping, reminiscent to the response of resonators as excited experimentally by a beam of energetic electrons, using electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) [11, 12], and in pulse-response calculations as done in finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations, e.g. using Lumerical FDTD Solutions.

Next, we consider the power flow in the plasmonic resonator to identify the role and value of each circuit element. Applying Poynting’s Theorem for harmonic fields in phasor notation, in which all fields have a time dependence $\exp (- i ω t)$ , we obtain [13]:

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \int_{V} J^{*} \cdot E d v = \frac{1}{2} \int_{V metal} \frac{1}{σ} {| J |}^{2} d v \\ = \frac{1}{2} \int_{V} {(\nabla \times H + i ω D_{0})}^{*} \cdot E d v \\ = \frac{1}{2} (\int_{V} - \nabla \cdot S d v + \frac{1}{i ω ε_{0}} \int_{V} {| - i ω D_{0} |}^{2} d v + i ω \int_{V} μ_{0} {| H |}^{2} d v) \end{matrix}

where V_metal is the volume of the nanostructure, and V is the volume of the nanostructure and its surroundings (the entire simulation space in practice); S = E × H* is the complex Poynting vector. Practically, the integral is performed for a simulation space that is sufficiently large, where the boundary of V is at least one half wavelength away from the nanostructure.

Separating out the real and imaginary components in Eq. (4) yields the following equations:

\underset{P_{E}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{- i ω ε_{0}} \int_{V} {| - i ω D_{0} |}^{2} d v}} + \underset{P_{K}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} i Im (\frac{1}{σ}) \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v}} - \underset{P_{M}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} i ω μ_{0} \int_{V} {| H |}^{2} d v}} = 0

\underset{P_{in}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} \int_{V} {(\nabla \cdot S)}_{in} d v}} = \underset{P_{ohmic}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} Re (\frac{1}{σ}) \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v}} + \underset{P_{rad}}{\underset{︸}{\frac{1}{2} \int_{V} {(\nabla \cdot S)}_{out} d v}}

In an RLC circuit, the power delivered at each circuit element can be expressed as ½Z|I|², where Z is the impedance and I is the current. As the capacitor and inductor have opposite signs for their impedances (i/ωC and −iωL), their reactive powers are 180 Deg out of phase, denoting the cyclic power flow between them. On the other hand, a resistor has a real impedance (R) and power, corresponding to the power dissipation.

Equation (5.1) consists of three reactive power terms that sum to zero, describing the energy oscillation between the inductive and capacitive circuit elements at resonance. (1) P_E is positive (capacitive), and the energy stored in the corresponding capacitor (C) is the total electrostatic energy (|P_E/ω| = ½ε₀∫|E|²dv). (2) Because of the negative imaginary optical resistivity for metals, P_K is negative (inductive), and the energy stored in the corresponding inductor (L_K, kinetic inductance) is the electron kinetic energy (|P_K/ω| = ½Im[1/σ]∫|J|²dv/(−iω)). (3) The last term, P_M, is also inductive, and emanates from a Faraday inductance (L_F), because it arises from the total magnetic energy (|P_M/ω| = ½µ₀∫|H|²dv).

On the other hand, Eq. (5.2) consists of the balance of three real power terms in accordance to the conservation of energy. Note that $\frac{1}{2} \int_{V} \nabla \cdot S d v$ in Eq. (4) was separated into two parts: $\frac{1}{2} \int_{V} {(\nabla \cdot S)}_{in} d v$ and $\frac{1}{2} \int_{V} {(\nabla \cdot S)}_{out} d v$ , denoting the power flow in and out of V respectively. Thus, the left hand side, P_in, is the power input; and on the right hand side, P_ohmic and P_rad are the ohmic and radiative losses, respectively.

Finally, linking all the power (Eq. (5)) and current (Eq. (3)) terms, the corresponding circuit parameters can be expressed as follows based on the simple formula in circuit theory, i.e. P = ½|I|²Z:

R_{ohmic} = 2 P_{ohmic} / {| I |}^{2} = Re [\frac{1}{σ}] \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v / {| I |}^{2}

R_{rad} = 2 P_{out} / {| I |}^{2} = \int_{V} {(\nabla \cdot S)}_{out} d v / {| I |}^{2}

C = i {| I |}^{2} / (2 ω P_{E}) = | Q |^{2} / (ε_{0} \int_{V} {| E |}^{2} d v)

L_{K} = 2 P_{K} / (- i ω {| I |}^{2}) = \frac{1}{- ω} Im [\frac{1}{σ}] \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v / {| I |}^{2}

L_{F} = 2 P_{M} / (- i ω {| I |}^{2}) = \int_{V} μ_{0} {| H |}^{2} d v / {| I |}^{2}

These expressions provide a means for extracting the RLC components from the corresponding physical quantities.

3. Circuit model for nanospheres

In this section, we analytically derive the circuit parameters of a metal nanosphere using our model, for the ease of direct comparison with the previous work [1].

Quasi-static approximation for the electric field inside and outside a nanosphere under an external excitation electric field E₀ writes [1, 14]:

\begin{matrix} E_{int} = 3 ε_{0} E_{0} / (ε + 2 ε_{0}) \\ E_{ext} = E_{0} + E_{dip} = E_{0} + [3 u (p \cdot u) - p] / (4 π ε_{0} r^{3}) \end{matrix}

where p = 4πε₀a³(ε−ε₀)E₀/(ε + 2ε₀); u = r/r; ε₀ is the free space permittivity; ε is the permittivity of the nanosphere; a is the radius of the sphere; and r is the position vector, with r = |r|.

Removing the excitation field E₀ gives the “source-free” fields inside and outside the nanosphere:

\begin{matrix} E_{i} = E_{int} - E_{0} = (ε_{0} - ε) E_{0} / (ε + 2 ε_{0}) \\ E_{out} = E_{dip} \end{matrix}

From Eq. (3), we obtain the current and charge values:

\begin{matrix} I = - \int_{US} J \cdot n d A = - \int_{US} σ E_{i} \cdot n d A= - σ E_{i} π a^{2}, \\ Q = I / (- i ω) \end{matrix}

where σ = −iω(ε−ε₀) is the optical conductivity.

From Eq. (6.1), we obtain the resistance value:

R_{ohmic} = Re [\frac{1}{σ}] \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v / {| I |}^{2} = Re [\frac{1}{σ}] \frac{\frac{4}{3} π a^{3} {| σ E_{i} |}^{2}}{{| σ E_{i} π a^{2} |}^{2}} = \frac{4}{3 π a} Re [\frac{1}{σ}]

From Eq. (6.4), we obtain the inductance value:

L_{K} = \frac{1}{- ω} Im [\frac{1}{σ}] \int_{V metal} {| J |}^{2} d v / {| I |}^{2} = \frac{1}{- ω} Im [\frac{1}{σ}] \frac{\frac{4}{3} π a^{3} {| σ E_{i} |}^{2}}{{| σ E_{i} π a^{2} |}^{2}} = \frac{4}{- 3 ω π a} Im [\frac{1}{σ}]

From Eq. (6.3), we obtain the capacitance value:

C = | Q |^{2} / (ε_{0} \int_{V} {| E |}^{2} d v) = | Q |^{2} / (ε_{0} \int_{V metal} {| E_{i} |}^{2} d v + ε_{0} \int_{V - V metal} {| E_{out} |}^{2} d v)

It is easy to see that $ε_{0} \int_{V metal} {| E_{i} |}^{2} d v = \frac{4}{3} π a^{3} ε_{0} {| E_{i} |}^{2}$ , but the calculation of $ε_{0} \int_{V - V metal} {| E_{out} |}^{2} d v$ needs to be done in spherical coordinates ( $r$ is the radius, $θ$ is the polar angle, and $φ$ is the azimuthal angle) .

Note that,

\begin{matrix} {| E_{out} |}^{2} = {| E_{dip} |}^{2} = \frac{{(3 | p | \cos θ - | p | \cos θ)}^{2} + {(| p | \sin θ)}^{2}}{{(4 π ε_{0} r^{3})}^{2}} \\ = \frac{| p |^{2} + 3 | p |^{2} \cos^{2} θ}{16 π^{2} ε_{0}^{2} r^{6}} \end{matrix}

where p = 4πε₀a³(ε−ε₀)E₀/(ε + 2ε₀) = −4πε₀a³E_i.

Take the integration in spherical coordinates, we get

\begin{matrix} ε_{0} \int_{V - V metal} {| E_{out} |}^{2} d v = ε_{0} \int_{a}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{π} \int_{0}^{2 π} \frac{| p |^{2} + 3 | p |^{2} \cos^{2} θ}{16 π^{2} ε_{0}^{2} r^{6}} \sin θ r^{2} d r d θ d φ \\ = \frac{| p |^{2}}{6 π a^{3} ε_{0}} = \frac{| - 4 π ε_{0} a^{3} E_{i} |^{2}}{6 π a^{3} ε_{0}} = \frac{8}{3} ε_{0} π a^{3} {| E_{i} |}^{2} \end{matrix}

Therefore, the capacitance is

\begin{matrix} C = | Q |^{2} / (ε_{0} \int_{V metal} {| E_{i} |}^{2} d v + ε_{0} \int_{V - V metal} {| E_{out} |}^{2} d v) \\ = {| σ E_{i} π a^{2} / ω |}^{2} / (\frac{4}{3} π a^{3} ε_{0} {| E_{i} |}^{2} + \frac{8}{3} ε_{0} π a^{3} {| E_{i} |}^{2}) \\ = \frac{π a}{4 ω^{2} ε_{0}} | σ |^{2} \end{matrix}

Hence, the circuit parameters of a nanosphere are extracted as

R_{ohmic} = \frac{4}{3 π a} Re [\frac{1}{σ}], L_{K} = \frac{4}{- 3 ω π a} Im [\frac{1}{σ}], and C = \frac{π a}{4 ω^{2} ε_{0}} | σ |^{2}

As direct comparison, the previous work by Engheta et al. shows the following circuit parameters [1]:

R_{sph} = {(π ω a Im [ε])}^{- 1}, L_{sph} = {(- ω^{2} π a Re [ε])}^{- 1}, and C_{fringe} = 2 π a ε_{0}

It is mentioned that the resonance condition for a circuit, L_sphC_sph = ω⁻², requires the well-known condition of plasmonic resonance for a nanosphere Re[ε] = −2ε₀ [1, 14].

Similarly, we check whether our circuit satisfies this resonance condition. Assuming ε = ε′ + iε″,

\begin{matrix} L_{K} C = \frac{4}{- 3 ω π a} Im [\frac{1}{σ}] \frac{π a}{4 ω^{2} ε_{0}} | σ |^{2} = \frac{1}{- 3 ω^{3} ε_{0}} Im [σ^{*}] \\ = \frac{1}{- 3 ω^{3} ε_{0}} Im [i ω (ε^{'} + i ε^{″} - ε_{0})] = \frac{ε^{'} - ε_{0}}{- 3 ω^{2} ε_{0}} \end{matrix}

It can be seen that, when ε′ = −2ε₀, L_KC = ω⁻², which satisfies the resonance condition.

Furthermore, Engheta’s model has a parallel connection of R, L and C, whose Q-factor is [15]

Q = \frac{R}{ω L} = - \frac{Re [ε]}{Im [ε]},

while our model derives that R and L are in series, whose Q-factor is [15]

Q = ω \frac{L}{R} = - \frac{Im [1 / σ]}{Re [1 / σ]}

We test the Q-factor using the Drude model,

\begin{matrix} ε = ε_{0} (1 - ω_{P}^{2} / (ω^{2} + i γ ω)) \\ = ε_{0} - ε_{0} ω_{P}^{2} / (ω^{2} + γ^{2}) + i γ ε_{0} ω_{P}^{2} / (ω (ω^{2} + γ^{2})), \end{matrix}

1 / σ = 1 / (- i ω (ε - ε_{0})) = - i ω / (ε_{0} ω_{P}^{2}) + γ / (ε_{0} ω_{P}^{2})

where

ω_{P}^{2} = n e^{2} / (m ε_{0})

(n is the free-electron density, m is electron mass, e is electron charge), and γ is the inelastic electron scattering rate (damping parameter).

Engheta’s model gives Q-factor:

Q = - Re [ε] / Im [ε] = \frac{ω}{γ} (1 - \frac{ω^{2}}{ω_{P}^{2}}) - \frac{γ ω}{ω_{P}^{2}}

Our model gives Q-factor:

Q = - Im [1 / σ] / Re [1 / σ] = ω / γ

In comparison, Wang’s derivation gives Q-factor (independent of the plasmon frequency) [16]:

Q = \frac{ω d ε^{'} / d ω}{2 ε^{″}} = \frac{ω}{γ + γ^{3} / ω^{2}}

Given that $ω_{P}^{2} > > ω^{2}$ and $ω > > γ$ , all three models result in the same prediction, i.e. increasing damping factor decreases Q-factor. Our model importantly connects R and L in series, so that they are directly related to the optical resistivity and conductivity of the metal.

4. Circuit model for nanorods

FDTD simulations were performed using Lumerical FDTD Solutions to evaluate the accuracy of our model. We considered a gold nanorod with hemispherical ends (Fig. 2(a)) whose permittivity is given by the Drude model ε_Au(ω) = ε₀(1−ω_p²/(ω² + iγω)), with ω_p = 9eV, and γ = 0.07 eV [17]. The radius (r) was constant at 10 nm, and the length (l) was varied from 100 nm to 260 nm. In the simulations, we determined the absorption cross-section (σ_abs), scattering cross-section (σ_scat), extinction cross-section (σ_ext = σ_abs + σ_scat), total electric potential energy (½ε₀∫|E|²dv), total magnetic energy (½∫µ₀|H|²dv), total charge ((½∫|ρ|dv), and total current density (∫|J|²dv) at resonance. R_ohmic, C, L_K and L_F were calculated according to Eq. (6). Equivalently, the radiative resistance was estimated using R_rad = R_ohmicσ_scat/σ_abs. The resonance frequency for the circuit, (LC)^−½, and its Q-factor, (L/C)^½/R, were calculated and compared to simulated values in Fig. 2(c) and 2(d). The resonance energy shows perfect agreement between FDTD simulations and the RLC circuit model (see Fig. 2(c)). Assuming that the circuit is driven by an external current source, by considering the power dissipation, ∝Re[Z], where Z = (R–iωL)||1/(–iωC), the extinction spectra of the nanorods were closely reproduced by the circuit model (see Fig. 2(b)). As the circuit model only works for the fundamental mode, the high order mode at ~2.3 eV for the longer nanorod was not accounted for.

Fig. 2 Comparison between FDTD simulation and RLC circuit model. (a) Geometry of the simulated nanorod. (b) Plot of the nomarlized extinction cross-section vs. resonance energy for two different nanorods. The circuit model can reproduce the spectra by considering the power dissipation in the circuit. Solid lines show FDTD simulation results for nanorods with 100 nm (blue) and 260 nm (black). Dashed lines are the reproduced extinction spectra using the circuit model. (c) Resonance enrgy (E_res) and (d) Q-factor calculated from RLC circuit model (black solid line) well matches FDTD simulation results (red triangles).

Download Full Size | PDF

It is worth noting that our simple derivation using Poynting’s Theorem for harmonic fields does not consider the dispersion in the metal [13], and therefore slightly overestimates the Q-factor (Fig. 2(d)). According to our model, the Q-factor limit of the material is ωL_K/R_ohmic = − Im[1/σ] /Re[1/σ] = (ε′ − ε₀)/ε″, where ε′ and ε″ are the real and imaginary parts of the permittivity, respectively. Using the Drude model, this value can be further simplified to ω/γ. In contrast, by accounting for dispersion, this Q-factor limit is given by (ωdε′/dω)/(2ε″) = ω/(γ + γ³/ω²) [16], which converges to the circuit-model predictions when γ << ω, γ + γ³/ω² ≈γ. For the sake of simplicity, we excluded the effect of dispersion in this work. If needed, a more accurate expression for ohmic resistance with dispersion can be derived from Poynting’s Theorem for dispersive media [13, 18].

Besides full numerical calculations based on Eq. (6), it is convenient to approximate circuit parameters using simple analytical expressions. More specifically, it can be seen that the ohmic resistance and the kinetic inductance are functions of the optical conductivity (σ) and current density distribution (∫|J|²dv/|I|²). If currents are uniformly distributed in the metal structures, ∫|J|²dv/|I|² simply reduces to l/A, the ratio between length and cross-sectional area of the nanorod. However, this uniform distribution is generally not satisfied; and therefore we use an effective length, l_eff to account for the non-uniformity. As a result, the impedance of the nanostructure can be expressed as:

Z_{rod} = (1 / σ) l_{eff} / A = Re [1 / σ] l_{eff} / A + i Im [1 / σ] l_{eff} / A = R - i ω L

where l_eff ≈(l−2r)/2, because the fundamental mode approximates a half-wavelength standing wave of current across the nanorod. Figure 3(a) shows a characteristic current-density distribution from FDTD simulation along the axial direction in a 100 nm nanorod. The Faraday inductance for a nanorod geometry can be calculated using L_F = (µ₀l/2π)ln(l/2r) [19]. Figure 3 shows the comparison between the circuit parameters obtained from the full numerical calculation based on Eq. (6) and simple analytical approximations. As can be seen in Fig. 3, simple formulas give adequate accuracy, and this is particularly useful for a quick assessment of the resonance behavior for plasmonic resonators. The deviation in the estimate for Faraday inductance in Fig. 3(d) is due to the fact that the equation used to calculate L_F from Ref [19]. is for a perfect cylinder, and does not account for the semispherical ends in the simulated structure.

Fig. 3 Using simple formulas to estimate the circuit parameters. (a) Current inside the nanorod forms a standing wave for the fundamental mode. (b) Ohmic resistance, (c) kinetic inductance, (d) Faraday inductance, and (e) resonance energy calculated from full numeric calculation (black solid lines) and simple analytical formula (red dashed lines) are with good agreement.

Download Full Size | PDF

5. Circuit model for split-ring resonators

To demonstrate the applicability of our approach to other structures, we extend our model to split-ring resonators (SRRs) [20–23]. Most applications of SRRs are based on the so called “LC mode”, whose resonance is sensitive to the gap size. Based on the similar resonance nature between the dipolar mode in a nanorod and the LC mode in an SRR, an SRR is topologically equivalent to a nanorod, i.e. a nanorod can be reshaped to form an SRR [24]. Therefore, its equivalent circuit can be intuitively constructed by adding a gap capacitance, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Consequently, the total capacitance of a split ring is the sum of the self-capacitance (C_self) from the nanorod, and the gap capacitance (C_gap).

Fig. 4 Extending the circuit model from a nanorod to an SRR. (a) Constructing a circuit model for SRRs from nanorods with equivelent lengths. (b) The total capacitance for SRRs calculated from FDTD simulation (black triangles) is approximately equal to the sum (black dot-dash lines) of the self-capacitance of a nanorod calculated from FDTD simulation (red dashed line) and the gap capacitance estimated using Eq. (27) (blue dotted line).

Download Full Size | PDF

We simulated 20-nm wide square cross-sectional strips, as analytical expressions for the gap capacitances of these structures are readily available. Figure 4(a) shows the simulated structures. The side length for the SRR was kept constant at 100 nm, and the gap was varied from 10 nm to 50 nm. For comparison, nanorods of equivalent lengths of 270 to 310 nm were simulated (the equivalent total length of an SRR is calculated as 4(side length – width) − gap size). To verify our circuit model, we calculated the total capacitance for the nanorod and SRR using the total charge (½∫|ρ|dv) and electric potential energy (½ε₀∫|E|²dv) based on Eq. (6). The gap capacitances were analytically estimated using a formula adapted from Ref [25]:

C_{gap} = ε_{0} \frac{h w}{g} + ε_{0} (h + g + w) + \frac{2 ε_{0} (h + w)}{π} \log \frac{8 l}{π g}

where h, w, g and l are the height, width, gap size, and side length of the split ring. From Fig. 4(b) we can see that adding the gap capacitance to the capacitance of the equivalent nanorod gives a good approximation to the total capacitance of the SRR. Furthermore, we show the comparison for other circuit parameters in Fig. 5.Given the same length, width and height, and the similar resonance nature of the fundamental modes, we intuit that the kinetic inductance and ohmic resistance of SRRs are the same for that of the nanorods (Fig. 5(a) and 5(c)). The slight differences of the circuit parameters (C, L_K and R_ohmic) between the SRR and nanorod may come from the irregular current flow and charge distribution in the SRR caused by the sharp corners. On the other hand, the Faraday inductance and radiative resistance are largely dependent on the shape of the resonators. As shown in Fig. 5(b) and 5(d), bending a nanorod significantly reduces its radiative resistance (i.e. scattering) [24] and Faraday inductance. From the circuit model, the resonance frequency is (LC)^−½, and the Q-factor is R⁻¹(L/C) ^½. Because of the significant increase in total capacitance, the resonance of the SRR red shifts relative to the nanorods. Decreasing gap size increases the capacitance at the gap, and reduces the resonance frequency (see Fig. 5(e)). Interestingly, although increased capacitance would reduce the Q-factor, the effect is counteracted by the suppressed radiative resistance of the SRR (Fig. 5(f)). Similar to the case of the nanorods (Section 4), the Q-factor is overestimated because dispersion was not considered.

Fig. 5 Comparison of the circuit parameters between SRRs and nanorods with equivalent lengths. (a) Kinetic inductance and (c) ohmic resistance are comparable for the SRRs and nanorods; while (b) Faraday inductance and (d) radiative resistance are geometry dependent, and their values reduce significantly after bending. (e) Smaller gaps increase gap capacitance, and the resoannce red shifts accordingly. (f) According to circuit theory, the Q-factor is calculated as R⁻¹(L/C)^1/2. Though SRRs have larger total capacitance, their radiative resistance is significantly suppressed, giving an even higher Q-factor compared to nanorods. [Black solid lines and dots are for SRRs; red dashed lines and squares are for nanorods; lines are from circuit model, and symbols are from FDTD simulations.]

Download Full Size | PDF

The extension from nanorods to SRRs demonstrates that our model can be tailored to account for plasmonic nanostructures with different geometries through intuitive manipulation of the equivalent circuit. Moreover, the elementary RLC circuit models for single structures will serve as building blocks for more complex plasmonic structures, such as coupled nanoantennas [11], Fano systems [26], and offer insight to other hybridized plasmonic modes [27].

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, we provide a detailed procedure to extract physical RLC circuit parameters for plasmonic resonators. Based on Poynting’s Theorem, we identified each energy component and defined its corresponding circuit element. Complete numerical formulas as well as simple analytical approximations were derived and tested, demonstrating the effectiveness of our circuit model. Although we considered only nanorods and split-ring resonator structures, our treatment would enable circuit models to be extracted from more complex plasmonic resonators, and provides valuable prediction of the spectral response due to geometry and material properties.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the funding support from Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Young Investigatorship (grant number 0926030138), SERC (grant number 092154099), and National Research Foundation grant award No. NRF-CRP 8-2011-07. The authors thank Huang Shaoying from the Singapore University of Technology and Design for fruitful discussions.

References and links

1. N. Engheta, A. Salandrino, and A. Alù, “Circuit Elements at Optical Frequencies: Nanoinductors, Nanocapacitors, and Nanoresistors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95(9), 095504 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. N. Engheta, “Circuits with light at nanoscales: optical nanocircuits inspired by metamaterials,” Science 317(5845), 1698–1702 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. A. Alù and N. Engheta, “Input Impedance, Nanocircuit Loading, and Radiation Tuning of Optical Nanoantennas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101(4), 043901 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. A. Alù and N. Engheta, “Tuning the scattering response of optical nanoantennas with nanocircuit loads,” Nat. Photonics 2(5), 307–310 (2008). [CrossRef]

5. A. Alù, M. Young, and N. Engheta, “Design of nanofilters for optical nanocircuits,” Phys. Rev. B 77(14), 144107 (2008). [CrossRef]

6. M. G. Silveirinha, A. Alù, J. Li, and N. Engheta, “Nanoinsulators and nanoconnectors for optical nanocircuits,” J. Appl. Phys. 103(6), 064305 (2008). [CrossRef]

7. A. Alù and N. Engheta, “All Optical Metamaterial Circuit Board at the Nanoscale,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103(14), 143902 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. Y. Sun, B. Edwards, A. Alù, and N. Engheta, “Experimental realization of optical lumped nanocircuits at infrared wavelengths,” Nat. Mater. 11(3), 208–212 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9. M. Staffaroni, J. Conway, S. Vedantam, J. Tang, and E. Yablonovitch, “Circuit analysis in metal-optics,” Photon. Nanostructures 10(1), 166–176 (2012). [CrossRef]

10. H. Caglayan, S.-H. Hong, B. Edwards, C. R. Kagan, and N. Engheta, “Near-Infrared Metatronic Nanocircuits by Design,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(7), 073904 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. H. Duan, A. I. Fernández-Domínguez, M. Bosman, S. A. Maier, and J. K. Yang, “Nanoplasmonics: classical down to the nanometer scale,” Nano Lett. 12(3), 1683–1689 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12. M. Bosman, E. Ye, S. F. Tan, C. A. Nijhuis, J. K. W. Yang, R. Marty, A. Mlayah, A. Arbouet, C. Girard, and M. Y. Han, “Surface Plasmon Damping Quantified with an Electron Nanoprobe,” Sci. Rep. 3, 1312 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 1999).

14. C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles (Wiley, 1983).

15. J. W. Nilsson and S. A. Riedel, Electric Circuits, 9th ed. (Prentice Hall, 2011).

16. F. Wang and Y. R. Shen, “General Properties of Local Plasmons in Metal Nanostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(20), 206806 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17. P. B. Johnson and R. W. Christy, “Optical Constants of Noble Metals,” Phys. Rev. B 6(12), 4370–4379 (1972). [CrossRef]

18. S. A. Maier, Plasmonics: Fundamentals and Applications, 1st ed. (Springer, 2007).

19. C. P. Huang, X. G. Yin, H. Huang, and Y. Y. Zhu, “Study of plasmon resonance in a gold nanorod with an LC circuit model,” Opt. Express 17(8), 6407–6413 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20. J. B. Pendry, A. J. Holden, D. J. Robbins, and W. J. Stewart, “Magnetism from conductors and enhanced nonlinear phenomena,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory 47(11), 2075–2084 (1999). [CrossRef]

21. R. A. Shelby, D. R. Smith, and S. Schultz, “Experimental verification of a negative index of refraction,” Science 292(5514), 77–79 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

22. A. W. Clark, A. Glidle, D. R. S. Cumming, and J. M. Cooper, “Plasmonic Split-Ring Resonators as Dichroic Nanophotonic DNA Biosensors,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131(48), 17615–17619 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23. E. Cubukcu, S. Zhang, Y. S. Park, G. Bartal, and X. Zhang, “Split ring resonator sensors for infrared detection of single molecular monolayers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95(4), 043113 (2009). [CrossRef]

24. A. Pors, M. Willatzen, O. Albrektsen, and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, “From plasmonic nanoantennas to split-ring resonators: tuning scattering strength,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27(8), 1680–1687 (2010). [CrossRef]

25. O. Sydoruk, E. Tatartschuk, E. Shamonina, and L. Solymar, “Analytical formulation for the resonant frequency of split rings,” J. Appl. Phys. 105(1), 014903 (2009). [CrossRef]

26. M. Amin, M. Farhat, and H. Baǧcı, “A dynamically reconfigurable Fano metamaterial through graphene tuning for switching and sensing applications,” Sci. Rep. 3, 2105 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. B. Willingham and S. Link, “A Kirchhoff solution to plasmon hybridization,” Appl. Phys. B 113(4), 519–525 (2013). [CrossRef]

A circuit model for plasmonic resonators

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. “Circuitizing” a plasmonic resonator

3. Circuit model for nanospheres

4. Circuit model for nanorods

5. Circuit model for split-ring resonators

6. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References and links

Cited By

Figures (5)

Equations (34)

Optics Express