Model Rectangular structure in 2D domain

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

How to model rectangular structure in 2D having different depths?

In COMSOL, we can define the depth for the simulation only one time. I want for each conductor, different depths. How can I design it?



1 Reply Last Post 2024年7月29日 GMT+2 18:28
Robert Koslover Certified Consultant

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 month ago 2024年7月29日 GMT+2 18:28
Updated: 1 month ago 2024年7月29日 GMT+2 18:30

If you have a 3D structure in which the physics depends on all three spatial dimensions, all without some convenient symmetry, then you may have little choice but to use a 3D model. If you use a 2D model to represent a 3D problem, then you must make some assumption(s), which may or may not be valid, depending on the details of the physics. You have to be the one who decides whether a 2D approximation is valid/useful or not. In some cases, a 3rd dimension can indeed be (in effect) ignored, especially if no meaningful physical behavior depends on it. In some other cases, physical behavior in a 3rd dimension can be represented analytically, or by some separate numerical calculation, or even by interpolated experimental data, such that a 2D model supplemented by some analytical or empirical rule (either pre-, post- or during calculation) may then account for the dependences in the 3rd dimension. But many problems are simply fully 3-dimensional problems and cannot be reduced to 2D representations in any straightforward manner. That said, do you have a particular reason (a physics-based reasoning) to believe that your 3D system can truly be represented accurately in 2D? If so, that reasoning provides you with the foundation for how to proceed (or if you can). And if you can explain that reasoning here, you may possibly get some good advice in regard to implementing it.

-------------------
Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA) Inc.
www.comsol.com/partners-consultants/certified-consultants/sara
If you have a 3D structure in which the physics depends on all three spatial dimensions, all without some convenient symmetry, then you may have little choice but to use a 3D model. If you use a 2D model to represent a 3D problem, then you must make some assumption(s), which may or may not be valid, depending on the details of the physics. You have to be the one who decides whether a 2D approximation is valid/useful or not. In some cases, a 3rd dimension can indeed be (in effect) ignored, especially if no meaningful physical behavior depends on it. In some other cases, physical behavior in a 3rd dimension can be represented analytically, or by some separate numerical calculation, or even by interpolated experimental data, such that a 2D model supplemented by some analytical or empirical rule (either pre-, post- or during calculation) may then account for the dependences in the 3rd dimension. But many problems are simply fully 3-dimensional problems and cannot be reduced to 2D representations in any straightforward manner. That said, do you have a particular reason (a physics-based reasoning) to believe that your 3D system can truly be represented accurately in 2D? If so, that reasoning provides you with the foundation for how to proceed (or if you can). And if you can explain that reasoning here, you may possibly get some good advice in regard to implementing it.

Reply

Please read thediscussion forum rulesbefore posting.

Pleaselog into post a reply.

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL®software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via theSupport Centerfor a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Baidu
map