"2.5D solver" term was coined by J. Rautio and he explained the term on this forum some time ago. It means that the solver uses a full-wave formulation with all six electromagnetic field components in multilayered media and only two components of conduction currents (xy for instance). It uses a full-wave Green's function of multilayered media to reduce a 3D problem to just surface of metallization using method of moments procedure (in contrast 3D tools mesh whole space). In addition, 2.5D means that the thickness of the traces is neglected. It provides good approximation for planar circuit with large ratio of strip width to thickness (MIC application). Semi-analytical Green's function gives more accurate solution for structures with multiple dielectric layers comparing to general purpose 3D solvers. 2.5D solvers that account metal thickness and include z-directed components of the conduction current in addition to the xy components are sometimes called 3D planar. Here 3D means that the solver can treat some 3D structures that fit into the multilayered problem formulation. Traces and vias fit such formulation for instance but bondwires do not. Full-wave means that the radiation is included in the problem formulation or, in other words, displacement term in the Maxwell's equation is taken into account. Static formulation do not contain neither time nor frequency at all. Essentially it is a boundary value problem for Laplace's equations. Transmission line field solvers usually solve Laplace's equations for line cross-section and may be classified as static 2D solvers. Quasi-static formulations do not account radiation or do not have the displacement term in the Maxwell's equations (sometime it is not obvious and hidden in the integral equations). Though, the frequency is included in the formulation and it provides the impression of a full-wave solution. Magneto-quasi-static transmission line filed solvers and PEEC-based solvers (without retardation) are examples of 2D and 3D quasi-static tools. Selecting a solver, in addition to the geometry dimension, you have to verify what particular effects can be simulated within the problem formulation and how those effects are approximated. Best regards, Yuriy Shlepnev Simberian Inc. http://www.simberian.com/ -----Original Message----- From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avtaar Singh Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:47 AM To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [SI-LIST] 2.5D and 3D Solvers Gurus: I have a very basic question. What are the differences between 2.5D and 3D EM Field solvers? In fact, what do the terms 2.5D and 3D mean? What are electrostatic field solvers? Kindly give me an example of each kind. Regards! ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu