The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0332-1649.htm
COMPEL
38,6
2070
Received 20 March 2019
Revised 3 July 2019
Accepted 9 August 2019
COMPEL - The international
journal for computation and
mathematics in electrical and
electronic engineering
Vol. 38 No. 6, 2019
pp. 2070-2083
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0332-1649
DOI 10.1108/COMPEL-03-2019-0115
Efficient and stable generalized
auxiliary differential equation
FDTD implementation of
graphene dispersion
Omar Ramadan
Department of Computer Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Gazimagusa, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present efficient and stable generalized auxiliary differential
equation finite difference time domain (G-ADE-FDTD) implementation of graphene dispersion.
Design/methodology/approach – A generalized dispersive model is used for describing the graphene’s
intraband and interband conductivities in the terahertz and infrared frequencies. In addition, the von
Neumann method combined with the Routh-Hurwitz criterion are used for studying the stability of the given
implementation.
Findings – The presented G-ADE-FDTD implementation allows modeling graphene’s dispersion using the
minimal number of additional auxiliary variables, which will reduce both the CPU time and memory storage
requirements. In addition, the stability of the implementation retains the standard non-dispersive Courant–
Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) constraint.
Practical implications – The given implementation is conveniently applicable for most commonly used
dispersive models, such as Debye, Lorentz, complex-conjugate pole residue, etc.
Originality/value – The presented G-ADE-FDTD implementation not only unifies the implementation of
both graphene’s intraband and interband conductivities, with the minimal computational requirements but
also retains the standard non-dispersive CFL time step stability constraint.
Keywords Finite difference time-domain analysis, Computational electromagnetics, Graphene,
Auxiliary differential equation (ADE), Generalized dispersive model (GDM), Stability analysis,
Von Neumann, Routh-Hurwitz
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Graphene Geim and Novoselov (2007) and Novoselov et al. (2012), which is a two-
dimensional atomic layer of carbon, has attracted recently tremendous attention because of
its exceptional physical properties. This increases the interest in developing accurate and
efficient numerical methods for modeling graphene structures. In the past few years, the
finite difference time domain (FDTD) algorithm Taflove and Hangess (2005) together with
the auxiliary differential equation (ADE) scheme were often used in graphene simulations
(Afshar et al., 2016; Amanatiadis et al., 2016; Bouzianas et al., 2014; Papadimopoulos et al.,
2017). Based on Kubo’s formula Hanson (2008), graphene surface conductivity is simplified
in the terahertz and infrared frequencies as a sum of intraband and interband terms. Unlike
the intraband conductivity, which takes the form of Drude model, the interband
conductivity holds a complex form and cannot be incorporated directly into the FDTD
algorithm. In Wang et al. (2015), the interband graphene conductivity has been
approximated by N terms of complex-conjugate pole residue (CCPR) pairs and incorporated FDTD
into the FDTD algorithm by a direct integration ADE (DI-ADE) scheme that relates the implementation of
current density J and the electric field E. Nevertheless, as reported in Cummer (1997), the graphene
stability of the DI-ADE scheme does not retain the standard Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy
dispersion
(CFL) constraint and introduce additional time step stability stringent criterion. Very
recently, alternative semi-implicit ADE scheme that relates the polarization current density
P and the electric field E has been introduced for incorporating graphene’s CCPR dispersive 2071
model into the FDTD algorithm Wang et al. (2019). Although this approach, which is
referred in this paper as PE-ADE-FDTD implementation, was found to be numerically
stable at the standard FDTD CFL limit, detailed analytical stability analysis was not
provided. In addition, it must be noted that this approach deals with complex number
arithmetic, which will increase both CPU time and memory storage requirements.
In this paper, an efficient and stable generalized ADE-FDTD (G-ADE-FDTD)
implementation of graphene dispersion is introduced. In the presented implementation, a
generalized dispersive model (GDM) is used for describing the graphene’s intraband and
interband conductivities in the terahertz and infrared frequencies. The implementation
allows using less number of additional auxiliary variables than the PE-ADE-FDTD
counterpart Wang et al. (2019), which will reduce both the CPU time and memory storage
requirements. The given G-ADE-FDTD implementation is also conveniently applicable for
most commonly used dispersive models, such as Debye, Lorentz, CCPR, etc. The stability of
the given implementation is studied by using the von Neumann method combined with the
Routh-Hurwitz criterion Pereda et al. (2001) and it is shown that the standard non-dispersive
CFL stability constraint is preserved. Numerical examples are included to validate both
stability and accuracy of the presented implementation.

2. Methodology
2.1 Basic formulation
Assuming that the graphene sheet has a very small thickness h, the equivalent permittivity
can be written as:

s gr ðv Þ
« r ðv Þ ¼ 1 þ (1)
jv h« 0

where s gr(v ) stands for the graphene surface conductivity. Using equation (1), the
frequency-domain Maxwell-Ampere’s equation can be written as:

rH e þ s gr ðv Þ E
e ¼ jv « 0 E e (2)
h
Based on Kubo’s formula Hanson (2008), the surface conductivity of the graphene sheet can be
simplified in the terahertz and infrared frequencies as a sum of intraband and interband terms as:

s gr ðv Þ ¼ s intra ðv Þ þ s inter ðv Þ
 
s0 je2 2j m c j  ðv  j=t Þ
h
¼  ln (3)
jv t þ 1 4p
h 2j m c j þ ðv  j=t Þ
h

where s 0 ¼ e2 kB t T mc
kB T þ 2lnðe m c =kB T þ 1Þ=p
h2 , t is the scattering rate, m c is the
chemical potential, T is the temperature, e is the electron charge,
h is the reduced Planck’s
COMPEL constant, and kB is the Boltzmann’s constant. Unlike the intraband term, s inter(v ) holds a
38,6 complex form and cannot be incorporated directly into the FDTD algorithm. This problem
has been alleviated by approximating the graphene conductivity by a sum of N terms of
CCPR pairs as Wang et al. (2019):
!
X
N
rk rk*
2072 s gr ðv Þ ¼ s 1 þ þ (4)
k¼1
jv  pk jv  p*k

where pk and rk are the k-th pole and residue, respectively, and the asterisk is the
complex conjugate. It is important to note that direct FDTD implementation of
equation (2) together with equation (4), as proposed in Wang et al. (2019), would
increase the computational requirements due to the involved complex number
arithmetic. In the following, efficient and stable G-ADE-FDTD implementation of
graphene’s dispersion is described.

2.2 Generalized auxiliary differential equation finite difference time domain formulation
Using a [1/2]-pade approximant, graphene’s conductivity can be represented in a GDM
as:

X
N
jv ak þ bk
s gr ðv Þ ¼ s 1 þ (5)
k¼1 ðjv Þ2 þ jv ck þ dk

Then, by rearranging equation (5) as:

X
N ak þ jbvk
s gr ðv Þ ¼ s 1 þ (6)
k¼1 jv þ ck þ jdvk

A unified formula for s gr(v ) that represents both the Drude intraband and the CCPR
interband conductivities can be derived. In this respect, the coefficients of equation (6) are
related to those of the CCPR model by ak ¼ rk þ rk* ; bk ¼ rk p*k  rk* pk , ck ¼ pk  p*k and
dk ¼ pk p*k , while for the Drude term by ak = s 0/t , ck = 1/t and bk = dk = 0. Then, by using
equation (6) the Maxwell-Ampere’s equation of equation (2) can be arranged in the frequency
domain as:
 
e ¼ s1 e 1 X N
e
rH jv « 0 þ Eþ Jk (7)
h h k¼1

jv e e  ck e
J k ¼ ak E ek
Jk þ Q (8)

e k ¼ bk E
jv Q e  dk e
Jk (9)

Using the inverse Fourier transform jv ! @/@t, equations (7)-(9) can be discretized in the
time domain as:
 nþ1
d t nþ12 e  2 s1 nþ1 1X N
nþ1
FDTD
« 0 ErE ¼ r  H  m t ErE 2  m t Jkr 2 (10) implementation of
Dt rE h h k¼1
E

graphene
dispersion
d t nþ12 nþ1 nþ1 nþ1
Jkr ¼ ak m t ErE 2  ck m t Jkr 2 þ m t Qkr 2 (11)
Dt E E E
2073

d t nþ12 nþ1 nþ1

Q ¼ bk m t ErE 2  dk m t Jkr 2 (12)
Dt krE E

where rE denotes the spatial position of E field at Yee’s FDTD cell Taflove and Hangess
e is the discrete version of r obtained by replacing the
(2005), Dt is the time step size, r
field’s spatial derivatives @/@ h , ( h = x, y, z), by the central difference operator d h defined
as:
   
D D
un h þ 2h ;     un h  2h ;   
d h un ¼ (13)
Dh

where D h is the space cell size in the h -direction, and d t and m t are, respectively, the central
difference and average operators over Dt defined as:
1 1
d t un ¼ unþ2  un2 (14)

1 1
unþ2 þ un2
m t un ¼ (15)
2

Based on equations (10)-(12) and after some manipulations, the fields are updated at each
time iteration as:

X
N
j  zk nþ1
D t =« 0  2
Enþ1 ¼
k¼1
EnrE þ e  H
r
rE
XN X
M 
rE
jþ þ zk jþ þ zk
k¼1 k¼1
"  #!
1 XN
g n Dt n
 1 þ þ Jkr þ þ Qkr
k
(16)
2h k¼1 gk E gk E

g aþ   D
t n
Jnþ1
kr ¼ k n nþ1 n
þ JkrE þ þ ErE þ ErE þ þ QkrE
k
(17)
E gk gk gk
    
COMPEL Qnþ1
kr ¼ Qnkr þ e
b k Enþ1 n e nþ1 n
rE þ ErE  d k Jkr þ Jkr (18)
38,6 E E E E

where j 6 = 1 6 s 1Dt/2h« 0, e g k ¼ gk Dt =2, for g = ak, bk, ck or dk, a6 e e

k ¼ a k 6 b k Dt =2,
g6 ¼ 1 6 b 6
, with b 6
¼ e
c k 6 e
d k D t =2 and z ¼ D t a þ
=2h g þ
« 0 . It must be emphasized
k k k k k k
that equations (16)-(18) are not restricted to the implementation of graphene’s dispersion
2074 only but can also be easily applied for different physical models such as Debye, Lorentz, etc.,
by setting the ak, bk, ck and dk coefficients accordingly. Finally, the magnetic field is updated
by discretizing the Maxwell-Faraday’s equation using the standard FDTD algorithm
Taflove and Hangess (2005) as:

n
nþ1 n1 Dt e 
HrH 2 ¼ HrH 2  r  E (19)
m0 rH

For clarity, the update procedure of the field components from the time step n to n þ 1 is
summarized by the following steps:
nþ1
 Update Hr 2 from (19);
H

 Update Enþ1 from (16); and

rE
 Update Jnþ1 and Qnþ1 auxiliary variables from equations (17) and (18), respectively.
krE
kr E

To demonstrate the potential saving in the number of additional auxiliary variable of

the proposed implementation, the update equations of the Maxwell-Ampere’s equation
based on the PE-ADE-FDTD counterpart summarized in (Wang et al., 2019,
equations (18), (19) are considered. Apart from the standard E and H main field
components, the additional auxiliary variables per graphene’s FDTD cell required for
both implementations are summarized in Table I. The comparison is made for the
implementation of a CCPR dispersive model composed of N terms. Due to the complex
number arithmetic of the PE-ADE-FDTD implementation Wang et al. (2019), two real
auxiliary variables P< =
k and Pk Þ are required to store the real and imaginary parts of
the auxiliary complex variable Pk. As compared with the PE-ADE-FDTD
Table I.
implementation, it is clear from Table I that the proposed implementation allows about
Total number of 50 per cent reduction in the additional auxiliary variables. Specifically, a saving of
additional auxiliary (2 N þ 1)Ne variables per FDTD cell in the graphene layer is achieved.
variables per
graphene’s FDTD
cell required for
implementing a
CCPR model
composed of N terms
Scheme Required auxiliary variables No. of variables
by using the
proposed G-ADE- Jnþ1 Qnþ1
G-ADE-FDTD k ; k 2NeN
FDTD, and the PE-
P<
nþ1
P<
n1
P= P=
nþ1 n1
n1
ADE-FDTD (Wang PE-ADE-FDTD E ; k ; k ; k ; k Ne þ 4 NeN
et al., 2019, equations Notes: Ne: Number of electric field components; P< and P= are, respectively, the real and the imaginary
k k
18, 19) schemes parts of the complex auxiliary variable Pk
2.3 Stability analysis FDTD
Assuming causal time domain signals, and transforming equations (16)-(19) into the Z- implementation of
domain, and after some manipulations, the following discrete wave equation can be graphene
obtained:
dispersion
" #
1
Zc20 D2t re  re  ðZ  1Þ
2
I EðZ Þ ¼ 0 (20)
1 þ 2hD«t 0 Zþ1 e ðZ Þ
Z1 s 2075
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Z = ejv Dt is the amplification factor, c0 ¼ 1= « 0 m 0 is the speed of light in
e ðZ Þ is the numerical conductivity, which can be
vacuum, I is the identity matrix, and s
arranged as:

X aþ 
k Z þ ak Z  ak
N 2 0
e ðZ Þ ¼ s 1 þ
s (21)
k¼1 gþ 2 0 
k Z þ b kZ þ g k

where a0 ¼ e b k Dt and b 0k ¼ e
d k Dt  2. Assuming that a plane wave propagating in a
divergence-free homogeneous domain, and replacing the difference operators (d h , h = x,y,z)
of re  r
e by their eigenvalues, i.e.:

j2sin k h D h =2
^
dh ! dh ¼ ; ð h ¼ x; y; zÞ; (22)
Dh

where ek h is the numerical wavenumber in the h -direction, the following stability

polynomial for the presented G-ADE-FDTD implementation can be obtained:

Z 1
S ðZ Þ ¼ 1 þ K ¼0 (23)
ðZ  1Þ2 1 þ 2hD«t 0 Zþ1 e ðZ Þ
Z1 s

where K is given by:

D2t
K ¼ 4 2 (24)
DCF
t
L

with DCF
t
L
is the standard CFL stability limit given by Taflove and Hangess (2005):

D
DCF
t
L
¼ pffiffiffiffi (25)
c0 D

where D= Dx = Dy = Dz, D[{1, 2, 3} is the problem dimension, and the worst case is taken
for sin2 ek h D=2 , i.e. sin2 e
k h D=2 ¼ 1. By applying the root-locus method Hulse and
Knoesen (1994), and considering equation (24), the time step stability constraint can be
computed from the maximum value of k (k max) that maintains the roots of the stability
polynomial of equation (23) to be in the unit circle, i.e. |Z| # 1, as:
COMPEL 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi CF L
Dtmax ¼ Kmax Dt (26)
38,6 2

Alternately, and to avoid exhaustive numerical searching for the roots of S(Z), the time step
stability constraint can be derived by using the von Neumann method combined with the
Routh-Hurwitz criterion Pereda et al. (2001). Following this approach, and considering one
2076 term of equation (21) for simplicity, the stability polynomial of equation (23) is first
transformed into the r-plane by using the bilinear transformation:
rþ1
Z¼ (27)
r1
as
X
4
S ðr Þ ¼ qi ri (28)
i¼0

where:
q0 ¼ 4h« 0 ð4  KÞ;

q1 ¼ 8s 1 Dt þ 2c1 Dt h« 0 ð4  KÞ;

q2 ¼ 4Kh« 0 þ 4a1 D2t þ 4c1 s 1 D2t þ d0 D2t h« 0 ð4  KÞ;

 
q3 ¼ 2Dt b0 D2t þ Kc1 h« 0 þ 2d0 s 1 D3t ;

q4 ¼ Kd0 D2t h« 0 :

In this transformation, the exterior of the unit circle in the Z-plane is mapped onto the right
half of the r-plane. Therefore, if S(r) has no roots in the right half of the r-plane, then S(r) will
not have any root outside the unit circle of the Z-plane. It must be noted that S(r) polynomial
will not have roots in the right half of the r-plane if all entries of the first column of the Routh
table, which can be constructed from S(r), are non-negative Pereda et al. (2001). To this end,
the Routh table can be constructed from equation (28) as:
q4 q2 q0
q3 q1 0
q4 q1
c3;0 ¼ q2  q0 0
q3 (29)
q3 q0
c4;0 ¼ q1  0 0
c3;0
q0 0 0
Then, by forcing all entries of the first column of equation (29) to be non-negative, to
guarantee that none of the poles exist outside the unit circle Pereda et al. (2001), the time step
limit can be derived from the following inequality:
 q0 ¼ 4h« 0 ð4  KÞ  0 (30) FDTD
implementation of
which necessitate the condition:
graphene
K#4 (31) dispersion
Using equation (24), the time step limit for the presented implementation, which is referred
to as, DGADE
tmax , can be computed from equation (31) as: 2077
DGADE
t max ¼ DCF
t
L
(32)

Hence, the presented implementation retains the standard non-dispersive CFL limit.

3. Simulation study
The numerical stability and accuracy of the presented implementation are studied through
three numerical tests. These tests are conducted on a PC with Intel Core i3-3220 CPU @
3.30 GHz, 4 GB RAM. The code has been compiled using MATLAB version 7.8 (2009) under
Microsoft Windows 10 (32-bit) operating system.
Firstly, the stability of the given implementation is investigated and compared with that
of the DI-ADE-FDTD counterpart Wang et al. (2015). For this case, a plane-wave, with the
fields of Ez and Hy propagating in the x-direction, is incident normally on an infinite free-
standing graphene sheet in free space. A computational domain with a size of Nx = 8,000Dx
and terminated by additional 10 cells thick convolutional perfectly matched layer (CPML)
Roden and Gedney (2000) is considered. It is important to note that the space derivative of
the field equations in the CPML regions are modified as Roden and Gedney (2000):
@u 1 @u
! (33)
@x k x þ ax þjs vx « o @x

where s x, k x and ax are one-dimensional real positive metrics designed to minimize CPML
reflections and given by the following graded polynomials:
 m
max x
sx ¼ sx (34)
D
 
 x m
k x ¼ 1 þ k max  1 (35)
x
D
 m
Dx a
ax ¼ amax (36)
x
D

where x is the depth in the CPML and D is the CPML thickness, and ma and m are the graded
polynomial orders. The parameters for 
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the graded polynomials of equations (34)-(36) are taken
as: s max
x ¼ 0:8 ð m þ 1 Þ = D x m 0 = « 0 , ax
max
¼ 0:05; k max
x ¼ 1, m = 3 and ma = 1. The
graphene sheet, with the parameters of T = 30 Kelvin, m c = 0.1 eV and t = 0.5 ps, is located at
node 4,000 and occupies one FDTD cell, i.e. h = Dx = l min/20, where l min is the wavelength at
the maximum frequency of interest fmax = 10 THz. In this frequency range, the graphene
intraband conductivity is dominant Hanson (2008). The excitation is located 10 cells away from
COMPEL the CPML boundary and the observation point is located 20 cells from the back of the graphene
38,6 layer, as shown in Figure 1. The time dependence of the excitation is given by:

ðtt0 Þ2

gðtÞ ¼ e
2
tw
(37)

where tw = 1/p fmax and t0 = 3tw. The time step size is selected to satisfy the standard CFL limit,
2078 CF L
i.e. Dt ¼ DGADE
tmax ¼ Dtmax ¼ 5 fs. The simulation time must include the entire pulse duration
and should allow the wave to propagate across the grid several times. Hence, the number of
time steps (Nt) can be computed as Nt = (12 td þ 5tprop)/Dt, where tprop = NxDx/c0 is the time it
takes the wave to propagate across the grid Taflove and Hangess (2005). In this test, Nt is taken
as 40,000. Figure 2(a) shows the electric field Ez recorded at the observation point as obtained
by the presented G-ADE-FDTD implementation with Dt ¼ DCF L
tmax and it can be seen that no
instability occurs over the whole period of time, confirming the stability of the given

Figure 1.
One-dimensional
simulation domain
geometry, where S
and O are the source
and observation
points, respectively

170
x 10
0.5 5
E z (V/m)

E z (V/m)

0 0

−0.5 −5
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
Time (ns) Time (ns)
(a) (b)

1
free-space free-space
E z (V/m)

graphene sheet
−1
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Cell #
(c)

Figure 2. Notes: (a) The presented G-ADE-FDTD; (b) the

Electric field recorded DI-ADE-FDTD Wang et al. (2019) schemes; (c) snapshot
at node 4020 obtained of Ez at the 4,800th time step obtained by the
with Dt ¼ DCF L
tmax for DI-ADE-FDTD Wang et al. (2019) scheme with∆t = ∆CFL
t max
implementation at the CFL limit. Figure 2(b) shows the field obtained by the DI-ADE-FDTD FDTD
implementation of Wang et al. (2015) with Dt ¼ DCF L
tmax and it can be seen that the field is implementation of
unstable. To determine the cause of this instability, Figure 2(c) depicts snapshot of the electric graphene
field at the time step 4,800 and it can be seen clearly that the onset of instability occurs at the dispersion
graphene sheet. Hence, the DI-ADE-FDTD implementation of Wang et al. (2015) does not
maintain the standard non-dispersive CFL constraint. The stability of the presented G-ADE-
FDTD is also investigated when the CFL limit is exceeded. For this test, and to avoid instability 2079
in the free-space surrounding region, the graphene is sandwiched between semi-infinite
dielectric with a relative permittivity slightly larger than 1, i.e. « r = 1.025. Figure 3(a) shows Ez
field obtained with Dt ¼ 1:01DGADE tmax and it can be seen that the field is unstable. Figure 3(b)
depicts snapshot of Ez at the time step 4,700. Clearly, the instability occurs in the graphene
region, which is ultimately responsible for the unstable growth of the field. As
DGADE
t ¼ DCF L
tmax , the presented G-ADE-FDTD implementation retains the CFL limit.
The accuracy and the computational efficiency of the presented implementation are also
compared with that of the PE-ADE-FDTD Wang et al. (2019) counterpart by computing the
transmission coefficient of a thin graphene sheet. For this case, a three-dimensional
computational domain with the size of 40  40  70 cells is considered and the graphene sheet
is located at the center of the y-axis in the x-z plane, as shown in Figure 4. The computational
domain is terminated by 10 cells thick CPML at both ends of the y-direction, with the same
parameters used in the previous numerical test, and periodic boundary condition is used to
model the infinite graphene sheet in the y and z directions. The graphene sheet, with the
parameters of T = 300 Kelvin, m c = 0.6 eV and t = 1 ps, occupies one FDTD space cell size, i.e.
h = D, where D = Dx = Dy = Dz = l min/20, with l min is the wavelength at the maximum
frequency of interest fmax = 300 THz. In this frequency range, graphene conductivity includes
both intraband and interband terms. Based on the fitting of Wang et al. (2015), the interband
conductivity is modeled by 6 CCPR terms, and therefore, the corresponding coefficients of
GDM of equation (6), for k = 1,   , 6, are given in Table II. In addition, the graphene’s intraband

307
x 10
2
E z (V/m)

−2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time (ns)
(a)
1
dielectric dielectric
E z (V/m)

graphene sheet
−1 Figure 3.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Cell # Electric field
(b) obtained by the
presented G-ADE-
Notes: (a) Ez recorded at node 4,020; (b) snapshot FDTD scheme with
of Ez at the 4,700th time step Dt ¼ 1:01DGADE
tmax
COMPEL conductivity is modeled in equation (6), for k = 7, with a7 = s 0/t , c7 = 1/t and
pffiffiffi b7 = d7 = 0. The
17
38,6 time is selected to satisfy the standard CFL limit, i.e. Dt ¼ DCFt
L
¼ D=c 0 3 ¼ 9:62  10 .
This time step selection is verified by plotting the root-locus of the stability polynomial for the
presented implementation as shown in Figure 5. As the instability occurs at Z = 1, when one
root escapes outside the unit circle, the time step limit can be obtained by substituting Z = 1
into equations (21) and (23). Hence, k max is found as k max = 4, and therefore, DGADE
tmax ¼ DCFt
L

2080 as computed from equation (26). To compute the transmission coefficient, a uniform plane
wave is incident normally on the sheet and its electric field is polarized along the z-axis. The
time dependence of the excitation function is given by:

ðtt0 Þ2
gðtÞ ¼ ðt  t0 Þe b
2
(38)

where t0 = 20 fs and b = 10/t0, and the plane wave is introduced into the computation domain
via a total-field/scattered-field formulation. The simulation is performed for the first 10,000
iterations and the transmitted fields (Etr) is recorded five space cells away from the back of the
graphene layer, i.e. point O shown in Figure 4. An auxiliary simulation that uses the same
configuration but replaces the graphene sheet by a vacuum layer is performed to record the
incident fields (Einc). Then, the transmission coefficient is computed as Bouzianas et al. (2014):
jEtr j
T ðv Þ ¼ (39)
jEinc j
  n o n o *
  X
where Etr  ¼ F F T E htr F F T E htr , with FTT is the Fourier transform
h ¼x;y;z
operator. Figure 6 shows the transmission coefficient magnitude obtained by presented

Figure 4.
Graphene sheet
placed in three-
dimensional
computational
domain.

k ak (108) bk (1025) ck (1014) dk (1030)

Table II.
1 0.043916 0.020266 0.0580 1.4716
Coefficients of
2 0.176248 0.079760 0.2480 1.4723
equation (6) for 3 0.827340 0.261280 0.9060 1.4771
modeling interband 4 2.635200 0.781690 2.9460 1.5069
conductivity. s 1 = 5 6.0348 2.37530 8.9560 1.6950
6.0072  105 S 6 415.04 10.3080 27.184 2.6856
 FDTD
1.5 implementation of
[Z ]
graphene
1 dispersion

0.5
2081
0
[Z ]

−0.5 Figure 5.
Root-locus of S(Z) for
−1 κ max = 4 .0 the presented G-
ADE-FDTD
−1.5 implementation
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

1.01
1 Figure 6.
Transmission
0.98
coefficient magnitude
0.96 of graphene sheet
|T |

obtained by using the

0.94 presented G-ADE-
G−ADE−FDTD FDTD, the PE-ADE-
0.92
PE−ADE−FDTD FDTD Wang et al.
Analytical (2019) and the
0.9
0 100 200 300 analytical approaches
Frequency, THz

G-ADE-FDTD implementation, the PE-ADE FDTD implementation of Wang et al. (2019),

and the theoretical transmission coefficient (Tth) computed by Hanson (2008):

2
T th ðv Þ ¼ (40)
2 þ h s gr ðv Þ

where h is the wave impedance in the medium. Clearly, it can be seen from Figure 6 that
strong agreement between these methods is achieved. The computational resources for the
presented implementation are also investigated and compared with that of the PE-ADE-
FDTD Wang et al. (2019) counterpart. Table III shows the CPU time and memory storage
requirements for both implementations. It is important to note that although the proposed Table III.
Computational
requirement for the
proposed G-ADE-
FDTD and the PE-
Method G-ADE-FDTD PE-ADE-FDTD
ADE-FDTD Wang
CPU (s) 190.44 220.72 et al. (2019)
Memory (MB) 5.86 6.21 implementations
COMPEL implementation allows around 50 per cent less auxiliary variables per graphene’s FDTD cell
38,6 as compared with the PE-ADE-FDTD counterpart, the overall computational saving is
about 13.72 per cent in the CPU and 5.64 per cent in the memory storage. This is because the
additional auxiliary variables are computed for the field equations at the cells occupied by
the graphene layer. For the problem geometry used in this simulation, Ex and Ez and the
related auxiliary variables are located at the graphene layer cells, while Ez is updated using
2082 the standard FDTD algorithm. Therefore, the computational saving can be more significant
in case of using very fine gridding, where the graphene sheet occupies more than one FDTD
spatial cell.

4. Conclusion
This paper presents an efficient and stable ADE scheme for incorporating graphene’s
dispersion into the FDTD algorithm. A GDM is used to effectively model the graphene’s
interband and intraband conductivities in the terahertz and infrared spectra. The
generalized scheme is applicable not only for graphene’s dispersion but also for other
commonly used dispersive models, such as Debye, Lorentz, etc. The stability of the given
implementation is studied and it is found that the standard non-dispersive FDTD stability
constraint is preserved. The method is validated by numerical examples and comparison
with the other analytical and numerical solutions show that the proposed implementation
allows using less computational resources while maintaining high accuracy.

References
Afshar, F., Sharbaf, A.A. and Giannacopoulos, D.D. (2016), “A provably atable and simple FDTD
formulation for electromagnetic modeling of graphene sheets”, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, Vol. 52 No. 3, p. 7203504.
Amanatiadis, S., Liaskos, C., Kafesaki, M. and Kantartzis, N. (2016), “Modified perfectly matched layers
in finite-difference time-domain schemes for the efficient truncation of propagating graphene
surface waves”, Proceedings of the 10th International Congress Advanced Electromag. Materials
Microw. Optics, Crete, 17-22 September, pp. 22-24.
Bouzianas, G.D., Kantartzis, N.V., Yioultsis, T.V. and Tsiboukis, T. (2014), “Consistent study of
graphene structures through the direct incorporation of surface conductivity”, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 50 No. 2, p. 7003804.
Cummer, S.A. (1997), “An analysis of new and existing FDTD methods for isotropic cold plasma and a
method to improve their accuracy”, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 45
No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Geim, K. and Novoselov, K.S. (2007), “The rise of graphene”, Nature Materials, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 183-191.
Hanson, G.W. (2008), “Dyadic green’s functions and guided surface waves for a surface conductivity
model of graphene”, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 103 No. 6, p. 64302.
Hulse, C. and Knoesen, A. (1994), “Dispersive models for the finite-difference time-domain method:
design, analysis, and implementation”, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 1802-1811.
MATLAB version 7.8 (2009), Computer Software, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA.
Novoselov, K.S., Falko, V.I., Colombo, L., Gellert, P.R., Schwab, M.G. and Kim, K. (2012), “A roadmap
for graphene”, Nature, Vol. 490 No. 7419, pp. 192-200.
Papadimopoulos, A.N., Amanatiadis, S.A., Kantartzis, N.V., Rekanos, I.T., Zygiridis, T.T. and
Tsiboukis, T.D. (2017), “A convolutional PML scheme for the efficient modeling of graphene
structures through the ADE-FDTD technique”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 53 No. 6,
p. 7204504.
Pereda, J.A., Vielva, L.A., Vegas, A. and Prieto, A. (2001), “Analyzing the stability of the FDTD FDTD
technique by combining the von Neumann method with Routh-Hurwitz criterion”, IEEE implementation of
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 377-381.
graphene
Roden, J.A. and Gedney, S.D. (2000), “Convolutional PML (CPML): an efficient FDTD implementation of
the CFS-PML for arbitrary media”, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 27 No. 5, dispersion
pp. 334-339.
Taflove, A. and Hangess, S. (2005), Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-
Domain Method, 3rd ed., Artech-House, Norwood, MA. 2083
Wang, X.-H., Gaoo, J.-Y. and Teixera, F.-L. (2019), “Stability-improved ADE-FDTD method for
wideband modeling of graphene structures”, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 212-216.
Wang, D.-W., Zhao, W.-S., Gu, X.-Q., Chen, W. and Yin, W.-Y. (2015), “Wideband and modeling of
graphene-based structures at different temperatures using hybrid FDTD method”, IEEE
Transactions on Nanotechnology, Vol. 24, pp. 250-258.

Corresponding author
Omar Ramadan can be contacted at: omar.ramadan@emu.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com