Note: This discussion is about an older version of the COMSOL Multiphysics® software. The information provided may be out of date.
Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.
3D or 2D, which model I should use?
Posted 2011年1月11日 GMT-5 11:03 Geometry Version 3.5a 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Dear helper,
I am confused of a very simple (should be) problem: when should one use a 2D simulation to replace so simplify 3D simulation?
Theoretically, this should happen when the size along one dimension is infinite so its effect can be neglected. I wonder if the geometry in consideration is symmetric, i.e. a rectangular block with large width and length but much smaller thickness(100 smaller than the width and length, width equals to the length), can I take it as a 2D problem?
I am studying a heat transfer problem inside a device with huge substrate and thin film semiconductor layer.
Thank you very much.
I am confused of a very simple (should be) problem: when should one use a 2D simulation to replace so simplify 3D simulation?
Theoretically, this should happen when the size along one dimension is infinite so its effect can be neglected. I wonder if the geometry in consideration is symmetric, i.e. a rectangular block with large width and length but much smaller thickness(100 smaller than the width and length, width equals to the length), can I take it as a 2D problem?
I am studying a heat transfer problem inside a device with huge substrate and thin film semiconductor layer.
Thank you very much.
2 Replies Last Post 2011年1月11日 GMT-5 11:39
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
in general a 2D model always solves quickerthan a 3D, and requires far less RAM. ut there are many reasons and arguments how & why to choose a 2D rather thana 3D model. I would say to make it short, if the physics in 1 direction is not seeing ny major changes, you can says your model is expressed "per meter depth" then a 2D model should be better. The same if you have axi-symmetric geoemtry AND boundary conditions, then a 2D axi is easier than a full 3D. Unfortunately, you need correct symmetry in the geoemtry AND simulatneously for the boundary conditions
--
Good luck
Ivar
in general a 2D model always solves quickerthan a 3D, and requires far less RAM. ut there are many reasons and arguments how & why to choose a 2D rather thana 3D model. I would say to make it short, if the physics in 1 direction is not seeing ny major changes, you can says your model is expressed "per meter depth" then a 2D model should be better. The same if you have axi-symmetric geoemtry AND boundary conditions, then a 2D axi is easier than a full 3D. Unfortunately, you need correct symmetry in the geoemtry AND simulatneously for the boundary conditions
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Thank you very much for the quick reply.
I just compared the 2D results with 3D. The 3D simulation is so, so slow. Good thing is the two results are very similar and I think it is reasonable to do the 2D simulation.
I just compared the 2D results with 3D. The 3D simulation is so, so slow. Good thing is the two results are very similar and I think it is reasonable to do the 2D simulation.