Docs › Reference › MoM engine

The MoM Engine

The planar method-of-moments solver: what it does, what it will not do, and how it works.

In plain terms

A circuit model of a microstrip bend is a formula: someone measured a family of bends, fitted a closed-form expression, and published its validity range. It is fast, it is accurate inside that range, and it knows nothing about your bend — not that there is a via 200 µm away, not that the ground plane has a slot under it, not that the adjacent trace couples into it.

An electromagnetic solve computes the fields for the artwork you actually drew. It takes your layout, your stackup and your frequency range, and returns S-parameters. No formula, no validity range, no family of measured parts — just Maxwell's equations discretised over your geometry.

What that buys you, concretely:

• Discontinuities you have no model for — a bend into a taper into a pad, a coupled section with a via in the middle, a matching stub whose neighbour matters.
• Coupling you did not intend. A circuit model connects what you wired; an EM solve reports what the metal actually does, including the parts you would rather it did not.
• A number you can hand to a harmonic-balance run. An EM result is a Touchstone file, and a Touchstone file drops into a test bench beside the real device model. That is the workflow that makes this worth having rather than a curiosity — see Co-simulation.

It is not free. A circuit model answers in microseconds; a full-wave solve of a small structure takes seconds per frequency point. Use the model where the model is valid, and the solver where it is not.

What can and cannot be simulated

This is a planar (2.5D) solver. It solves conductors embedded in a laterally infinite, vertically stratified medium: metal is horizontal and thin, current flows in-plane, and z-directed current flows through vias. That is the same class of tool as the commercial planar solvers, and it is not FEM and not general 3D.

Can

• Planar conductors on a layered substrate — any number of dielectric layers, with real ε_r and tanδ. Dielectric AND conductor loss, in both kernels.

• Conductor loss, from the conductivity and thickness set in the stackup. In the full-wave kernel it is a term in the field equation itself — the solved current is the one a lossy conductor actually carries, not a perfect conductor's current with a correction applied afterwards — so the extra loss at a rim, where the current crowds, comes out of the solve rather than being assumed. Two things bound it and both are measured. The model is a sheet: one current per location, so it cannot carry the different currents a real strip's upper and lower faces carry, nor the current down its sides. Against the quasi-static kernel's independent thick-strip calculation on a re-bisected 50 Ω line, the full-wave answer comes out at 0.63 of it on 1.6 mm FR-4 and 0.73 on 100 µm GaAs — under-reading, consistently, and converging: refining the mesh at the conductor rim changes it by under 1% per step, so this is the model's own limit and not a resolution you can mesh your way out of. The ground plane's share IS included — see The ground plane's own loss below. How much it matters depends entirely on the substrate, and the FR-4 figure everyone quotes is the one where it matters least:

  Substrate	conductor loss as a share of the total, at 2 / 10 / 20 GHz
  1.6 mm FR-4, 35 µm Cu, tanδ 0.02	6.4% / 3.0% / 2.1%
  MMIC starter — 100 µm GaAs, 3 µm Au, tanδ 0.0006	98.5% / 96.2% / 94.6%
  Low-loss laminate 0.508 mm, 35 µm Cu, tanδ 0.0015	72.2% / 53.7% / 45.1%

  On FR-4 dielectric loss dominates and always did. On the MMIC technology the conductor is effectively all of the loss — which is why "the metal is nearly lossless" is the wrong intuition to carry from one to the other. On an antenna this lands on radiation efficiency: the power the metal absorbs is itemised in the power budget as its own term rather than left inside the dielectric residual, and Antennas says which way each correction pushes. A measured example — a half-wave patch — loses 0.28 points of radiation efficiency to 35 µm copper on FR-4 at 2.4 GHz and 4.12 points to 3 µm gold on GaAs at 60 GHz.

• The ground plane's own loss, in both kernels. The laterally infinite plane the stack terminates on is a real conductor: it takes the conductivity and thickness of whichever stackup conductor this run returns through, and the run's notes name that layer and its σ. It is not meshed and costs no unknowns — it enters as a surface impedance on the boundary the solver's own Green's function terminates on, which is why it is free. It is worth about a fifth to a quarter of the conductor term — measured on a re-bisected 50 Ω line as 21% on 1.6 mm FR-4, about 11% on the MMIC technology and 25% on a low-loss laminate — so on the MMIC technology, where the conductor term is nearly all of the loss, the plane alone is about a tenth of a line's total attenuation. Two independent formulations agree on it: the full-wave kernel's surface impedance and the quasi-static kernel's incremental-inductance rule come out within 6% of each other wherever the substrate is electrically thin (k₀·h ≤ 0.07). It scales as 1/√σ, as a skin-effect term must, and it is additive with the signal metal's — the two surfaces do not double-count each other. A ground layer with no conductivity set is a perfect plane, as it always was, and the run says so rather than leaving you to infer it. Set σ on that layer in the technology editor's Stackup tab to carry the term. In the power budget it is not separable from the dielectric loss and the line is named for both — see Antennas. The plane has no basis function to integrate over, so what it absorbs can only be reported as part of the residual; on a low-tanδ substrate that is most of what the line reads.

• Arbitrary planar shapes: lines, bends, tapers, stubs, spirals, pads, coupled sections.

• Multiple metal levels, with vias carrying z-directed current between them. A via is either a placed via primitive or a drawn region — a rectangle or polygon on the via entry's drawing layer, which is how a plate-sized connection is expressed. See Vias.

• A ground plane at the bottom of the stack, or an open boundary.

• Discontinuities and the coupling between them — which is the entire point.

• Frequency sweeps, with adaptive sampling so a resonant response does not need a fine uniform grid.

• Radiation. The top of the stack is an open half-space and the radiation condition is exact — no airbox, no absorbing boundary — so an antenna is an ordinary run with one checkbox added. Far-field pattern, directivity, gain, radiation efficiency, the itemised power budget, beamwidth per plane and polarization all come out of the same solve. See Antennas, which also carries the limits that bound every one of those numbers.

Cannot

• Anything genuinely three-dimensional. A wirebond arcing through air is not a planar structure. Use wBond, which is a separate 3D kernel built for exactly that.
• Finite substrate extent. The dielectric layers are laterally infinite. A board edge, a cavity wall, a shielding can — none of these exist to this solver.
• A finite ground plane. The plane is laterally infinite too, so there is no field behind it at all: no back radiation, no front-to-back ratio (the metric is present and refused by name), and a directivity that reads optimistic against a real board, whose plane is finite and puts substantial power behind it. A run that can see your pour reports how large it is in wavelengths — the example antenna's is 0.78 λ₀ across, the measured board that prompted this work 0.41 λ₀ — but the analysis still terminates on the infinite plane. See Antennas.
• Apertures in the ground plane. A slot in the plane is not representable, so a slot antenna, a CPW-fed slot and an aperture-coupled patch are out. Edge-fed, inset-fed and coupled-patch feeds are in — see Antennas for which feed to use instead.
• A dielectric that stops somewhere. This is the limit most often mis-remembered, because circuitRF does model drawn dielectric artwork — a thin-film (MIM) capacitor's patterned film, tied to its plate. That mechanism decides whether a layer is in the run, never where it stops: inside a run every dielectric is laterally infinite. So a radome, a conformal coating or a gain-raising superstrate drawn over the patch alone is modelled as covering the whole run, to infinity — which moves resonance, gain and surface-wave launch. And a cover layer above the topmost analysis level is not in the solve at all: the medium is built from the ground plane up to that level and terminated in air there, so a radome or coating is discarded and the run warns by name. Measured on the shipped patch example — adding one gives bit-identical s-parameters. See Antennas.
• Enclosures and absorbing boundaries. There is no box. Real planar tools suppress port-to-port radiative and surface-wave coupling with box walls or absorbing boundaries; this kernel has neither, by design, and that is what sets the de-embedding accuracy floor.
• Vertical conductors other than vias. A via is a z-directed current path through the stack. An edge-plated wall, a connector barrel, a heatsink is not.
• Non-planar dielectrics. A partially milled cavity, a moulded package body, a coating that follows the metal — the medium is stratified, so a dielectric is a slab spanning the whole plane or it is not representable.
• Magnetic materials beyond a scalar µ_r per layer. No ferrites, no anisotropy.
• Non-linearity of any kind. This solves a linear problem and returns S-parameters.
• A plate capacitance read off a mesh that does not resolve the plate gap. A thin-film (MIM) capacitor's network, feeds and vias are solved normally, and since a port on upper metal de-embeds the capacitance itself is in the de-embedded answer — to within 10% of ε₀ε_rA/d while the mesh cell is at most five times the plate separation, 1.46× at 12.5 and the wrong sign at 25. The shipped MMIC technology's default mesh sits outside that and the run says so in a note. Two things that are no longer limits, because they were fixed: the plate sheets used to be separated by the capacitor dielectric plus the lower plate's own metal thickness, and a port on upper metal used to be refused. See A thin-film (MIM) capacitor.

There is also a quasi-static kernel for the special case of a uniform transmission-line cross-section, which is described below and which is far faster than the full-wave path where it applies. Its own limits are narrower: no discontinuities, no bends, no stubs, no spirals, no radiation, no resonance, and no coupling between non-parallel conductors. It models conductor loss through Wheeler's incremental inductance rule over every lossy surface including the ground plane, which is a different calculation from the full-wave kernel's sheet — so the two do not agree exactly on a uniform line, and the quasi-static one reads the higher of the two, by the 0.63/0.73 sheet factor given above. The ground plane's own term is in both of them now, and where the substrate is electrically thin the two formulations agree on it to within 6% — see below.

For advanced users: how circuitRF implements MoM

Two kernels ship. circuitRF chooses between them from the geometry and tells you which one it picked and why.

The quasi-static kernel — uniform cross-sections

When the selected geometry reduces to straight, mutually parallel, constant-width conductors, it is not solved as a field problem at all. Its cross-section is solved for per-unit-length RLGC, and everything else follows in closed form.

The unknowns are charge density on boundary segments — free charge on conductor perimeters, bound polarisation charge on dielectric interfaces. Carrying bound charge explicitly is the decision that makes this cheap: the Green's function stays the free-space 2D logarithmic potential, so there are no Sommerfeld integrals and no special functions, and an arbitrary number of dielectrics costs nothing. A ground plane is one image.

From there:

[C]  from the real stackup, with ε* = εr(1 − j·tanδ) carried through  →  C = Re(C), G = −ω·Im(C)
[C₀] from the same geometry with every dielectric replaced by air
εeff = C/C₀                    [L] = µ₀ε₀[C₀]⁻¹        (the TEM identity)
[R]  from Wheeler's incremental inductance rule, summed over EVERY lossy surface — including the ground plane
γ = √((R+jωL)(G+jωC))          Z_c = √((R+jωL)/(G+jωC))    →  ABCD of a length-ℓ line  →  S

[C], [C₀] and ∂L/∂n are frequency-independent. A 1001-point sweep is therefore one matrix solve plus 1001 closed-form evaluations — effectively instantaneous. An optional closed-form Kirschning–Jansen dispersion correction extends the useful frequency range without needing a solver.

The one place it can be quietly wrong is that dielectric interfaces are laterally infinite and must be truncated. The truncation distance is a visible setting with a sensible default, and extending it must not move Z₀ — which is a convergence test you can run yourself.

The full-wave planar kernel

The general case. It solves the mixed-potential integral equation over the metal.

Green's function. The spatial-domain Green's function for a layered medium requires inverting the spectral form through a Sommerfeld integral — oscillatory, slowly convergent, with branch points and surface-wave poles. circuitRF uses DCIM (the Discrete Complex Image Method): the spectral Green's function is approximated as a sum of complex exponentials by matrix-pencil fitting, and each term inverts in closed form by the Sommerfeld identity. It is validated against direct Sommerfeld integration — a second, independent formulation — over ρ/λ from 10^-4 to 10 on both starter substrates. As a fraction of the free-space kernel at the same ρ, which is what a matrix fill actually experiences, the error is ≤ 6 × 10^-3 across that span; strict relative error is ≤ 10^-2 out to ρ/λ ≈ 1, beyond which the fit refuses rather than extrapolating.

Basis functions and mesh. Rectangular rooftop basis functions on a tensor-product grid. Diagonals and curves are staircased by default, or cut conformally — see Conformal boundary cells. The unknown count is basis functions, not cells: a rooftop spans a pair of adjacent cells.

Edge mesh. Current density has a 1/√d singularity at a conductor edge, and a uniform mesh under-resolves it badly — which shows up directly as wrong loss and wrong Z₀. So every conductor edge gets 2–4 geometrically graded cells, the outermost a small fraction of the conductor width and growing inward by a ratio of about 1.5–2. The reference length for that grading is the conductor width, and that choice is measured rather than assumed: on the FR-4 reference structure it lands 0.18% from the converged limit at N = 552, where the alternative reference needs N = 7,562 for a comparable answer.

The fill. With a rectangular mesh and source and observer in one plane, the inner integral is closed form — six of them, checked against adaptive quadrature to 10^-12. That is why the classic "nearly touching cells" problem is not where the difficulty lives here: only the outer integral is numerical, and it sees a continuous function with a kink, which is a quadrature-order question. Against an ε_r = 1 reduction where the kernel is exact, the assembled matrix is right to 5.0 × 10^-6.

The solve. A dense complex factorisation per frequency, or — optionally — an iterative solve against a grid-accelerated matrix–vector product. The dense one exploits the fact that the matrix is symmetric: it factors it in place, in half the arithmetic a general solver would use, across every core your core-count setting allows. The accelerated path computes the same answer a different way, to its own accuracy gates; its win is working-set memory, roughly 4× less past about 900 unknowns, while the time crossover is much later, around 3,700 unknowns. Below that the dense path is faster. It does raise the unknown ceiling — from 5,000 to 12,000 — but only on a single-metal-level structure with no vias, which is the only case it can accelerate at all.

De-embedding. A two-line calibration; see De-embedding.

Which kernel ran, and why

The EM Setup panel names it, with the reason. The quasi-static kernel is chosen when the geometry reduces to a uniform cross-section — and when it does, the panel shows you the cross-section it extracted: "uniform 2-conductor cross-section · W = 2.9 mm · ℓ = 20 mm". If it does not reduce, the refusal is specific: "this geometry has a bend at (x, y)", not a vague failure.

Ports

What a port is

A port is where power enters or leaves the structure. In this engine every port is the same thing: a voltage source impressed across a cut in the metal, driving the current that crosses that cut. The solve excites one port at a time to build the S-matrix.

The two port types differ in where the cut is — at the end of a conductor, or in the middle of one — and everything else about them follows from that one difference.

How you define one

A port is a label, not a new kind of shape. The Port tool places an ordinary layout label with its port flag set, which is why a layout carrying ports is still just a layout.

• Numbering comes from the label's own text. 1, P1, p2, #3, Port 4 all parse. A label that names no number is auto-numbered to the lowest free one rather than refused.
• Two labels naming the same number is a refusal by name, not a silent win for one of them.
• The direction is inferred from geometry where it can be, reported, and refused when it cannot. A label at the exact corner of a conductor is equally close to two edges — and guessing reverses the direction of current into the structure, which is a hard π in S₂₁: smooth, plausible, and completely invisible in a magnitude plot. So it is named and refused: "Port 1 is ambiguous… Move the label." Every resolved port reports the cut it landed on and which way current flows in. Read that report.
• The type and the reference impedance live in the EM setup, per port, not on the shape. A layout is geometry; how you drive it is an analysis setting. The same artwork can be an edge-driven filter in one setup and a structure with a gap in the middle in another, without editing the drawing.

The three port types

The decision rule is two questions.

1. Does the power cross the boundary of your drawn metal? If it comes in from a connector, a probe, or the next block along — it is an edge port, on that boundary.
2. If not: does your component go IN LINE with the trace, or DOWN TO GROUND? In line means breaking the conductor and putting something across the break — an internal delta-gap port. Down to ground means an internal port, placed on the metal at the point that goes to ground.

What each one looks like in the layout

A Klopfenstein taper with an edge port on each end — the ordinary two-port setup, and what a correct one looks like. Each port draws a bar across its own end face (where current crosses into the structure) and an arrow along the direction it flows in. A dashed leader ties the label to the bar when the two are not in the same place, so the mark stays readable wherever you put the text.

Three things worth reading off this picture:

• Each bar is the width of the metal at ITS OWN end, not the width of the part. On a taper those are very different numbers, and the bar is how you check the solver agrees with you about which face you named.
• The labels sit at the centre of each end face, not at a corner. A label at a corner is equally close to two edges, and the run refuses it rather than guessing — because guessing reverses the direction of current into the structure, which is a hard π in S₂₁ and invisible in a magnitude plot.
• Both arrows point inward, at each other. Current flows into the structure through every port; that is what a port's direction means, on both ends of a two-port.

A 50 Ω line with the same two edge ports on its ends and an internal delta-gap port in the middle — where a series component would go. Holding the width constant is what makes the comparison readable: the only thing that differs between port 3's mark and ports 1 and 2's is the mark itself.

An internal delta-gap port is drawn as a different mark on purpose: two bracketed bars facing each other across a break in the metal, overhanging the conductor top and bottom, with the arrow running through the break. An edge port's mark says a boundary, and which way in; a gap's says a break, and which way across. At a glance they are not each other.

The gap is drawn where you placed the label, because that is where the cut is. An edge port's bar is always snapped to the conductor's end face, however far from it you put the text.

The same line with an internal port at its centre — where a bypass capacitor or a grounded resistor would attach. (A via is drawn here as well, to show the case where you have one; the port does not need it.) Its mark is deliberately unlike the other two: a plain ring round the point.

The reason is that the other two marks are statements about a plane the current crosses in the layout — an edge port's bar across an end face, a gap's brackets either side of a break — and both are oriented by the direction current flows. An internal port has no such direction: its current leaves the metal downward, out of the plane the layout draws. The ring says the port is here, without claiming a direction the port does not have.

The ring used to carry a schematic ground symbol hanging below it. It said the other terminal is the plane — which is true of every internal port and never varies, so it was ink on every one of them that told none of them apart, and over dense artwork it read as clutter. The ring alone carries what actually varies.

Its polarity is fixed and you do not set it: the + terminal is the metal and the − terminal is the ground plane. Rotating the label does nothing, because there is nothing for a direction to mean.

Like the gap's break, the ring is drawn at the real thing once a mesh exists. Before you compute one it is a fixed fraction of the conductor's width — a legible glyph, not a dimension, so do not measure it. After, it is drawn round the actual footprint the mesh resolved: the cells the port drives, centred on them, with a dashed leader back to your label when the two are not in the same place. That is how you see a via that meshed smaller than you drew it, or the size of the path the solver built for you. Editing the layout drops the mesh and the ring reverts to its glyph size.

How wide is the gap, really?

The gap is the mesh's, not the artwork's. The cut is a mesh gridline, and the excitation drives the pair of cells either side of it — so the length of conductor the gap occupies is those two cells, set by Cells per wavelength and the rest of the mesh settings. Nothing you can draw changes it.

The drawing follows that, and says which of the two things it is showing:

• Before you compute a mesh there is nothing to measure, so the break is drawn at a fixed fraction of the port's width — a legible glyph, not a dimension. Do not measure it.
• Once the mesh is computed the break is drawn at the real thing: the two cells either side of the cut, with the brackets on the mesh's own gridlines so you can read them against the overlay.

The mark also moves to the cut. A gap can only fall on a gridline, so if your label sits between two, the brackets go to the gridline that was chosen and a dashed leader runs back to your label — the snap, drawn, rather than only reported in the notes.

If you edit the layout, the mesh is dropped and the break reverts to its glyph width. That is deliberate: a stale width left on screen would look exactly like a live one.

Refine the mesh and the gap gets shorter, which is what makes it a better approximation to a point discontinuity. There is no other lever.

How to choose, in practice

• Two-port and multi-port passive structures — everything from a bend to a Wilkinson — are all edge ports. This is the overwhelmingly common case.
• A structure you will attach a component to in the middle — a series capacitor breaking a line, a resistor across a gap — gets an internal delta-gap port at the break, plus edge ports wherever power actually enters. Simulate the metal in EM, connect the component in the schematic, and the two meet at the gap.
• A component that returns to ground — a bypass capacitor, a grounded resistor — gets an internal port at the point it attaches, plus edge ports wherever power enters. Drawing the via is optional; the solver builds one if you have not.
• An active device embedded in your artwork is the same pattern: an internal port at each terminal you will attach the device model to — a delta gap where the terminal sits in the trace, an internal port where it returns to ground.
• If power crosses your metal's boundary, use an edge port. The two types report at different planes and give different answers; which one is right is set by where the power actually goes, not by which is cheaper to compute.

Setting the type

EM Setup panel → Ports. Each port gets a row with its reference impedance and a type dropdown — Edge, Internal delta gap or Internal. The rows come from the port labels in your layout, so the port count is the geometry's; the type and the impedance are yours.

The type only appears for a full-wave planar analysis. Both internal port types are full-wave features, and the uniform-line (quasi-static) kernel has neither — the row shows a reference impedance and nothing else there.

That is a property of what the uniform-line kernel is, not a gap in it. It never meshes the plane at all: it solves a cross-section for per-unit-length RLGC and forms the network of a length-ℓ line in closed form, so its ports are the two ends of that line by construction. There is no gridline in the middle to cut, no pair of cells to drive across, and no mesh whose refinement could shrink a gap. (It is the same fact that makes de-embedding a no-op there: the reference planes are the line's ends exactly, so there is no port discontinuity to remove.)

If you need an internal port on a uniform line, set Analysis to the full-wave planar kernel explicitly. Do not leave it on Auto for this. A uniform line with a gap or a via on it is still a uniform cross-section as far as the geometry is concerned, so Auto picks the cheaper uniform-line kernel — and that kernel has nowhere to put the port. circuitRF refuses that combination by name rather than running it, because the alternative is a complete, plausible two-port answer for a line without the gap you asked for. The refusal names the remedy: change the analysis, or change the port back to an edge port.

Three rules the panel enforces:

• An internal port must sit on the metal, not just near it. An edge port's label may sit slightly off the end face it names; an internal one cuts the conductor, so it has to be on the conductor.
• A delta-gap port must state its direction. For an edge port the direction can be inferred from the nearest conductor boundary. A label in the middle of a conductor is roughly equally far from all four edges, so there is nothing to infer from — and the direction is what decides which way positive current crosses the gap. Rotate the port to point the way current should flow across the cut.
• An internal port states no direction at all: its terminals are the metal and the ground plane, so the polarity is decided by what the port is — + is the metal, − is the plane. Rotating the label does nothing. It does need to be on the metal, because that is where its + terminal is.

A gap in the middle of a conductor is a series source: it drives the two halves in antiphase, so a gap at the centre of a symmetric line gives S₁₃ = −S₂₃, not +. That sign is real physics, not a convention you can flip, and it is why the direction is required rather than guessed.

Auto-ports and the feed extension

You do not have to add a feed line to your artwork. Place a port on the part you drew and press Simulate.

This matters more than it sounds. The de-embedding calibration standard is an isolated uniform line of the port's cross-section, and the calibration is only valid if your metal looks like that line for the distance the standard replaces. A taper's flanks are oblique from the first cell, so it does not. So before meshing, each port's own polygon is extruded outward from its drawn end face by however much uniform line the calibration is short of; afterwards the lead is removed exactly, as a matched section in the line's own Z_c, using the propagation constant the calibration already measured.

Three properties of that are load-bearing:

• The reference plane is still your drawn metal edge. The lead moves where the error box is measured, never where the answer is reported.
• A feed that is already uniform grows nothing, so a structure that never needed this is unchanged bit for bit. Running out of metal counts as uniform — a short line is a short structure, not a flared one.
• Every case it cannot be sure of is declined, not guessed. An end face that is not a single straight segment, a port whose level is ambiguous, a lead that would run into other metal: all declined, with the warning you would have got anyway. Moving metal you drew would be a worse failure than the one being fixed.

Port Z0

Default 50 Ω, editable per port in the EM Setup panel. It is a renormalisation applied to the result, not a property of the geometry — the solve does not change.

The ground reference — every port's negative terminal

Get this wrong and everything downstream is wrong, and there is no per-port control for it.

Every port in a full-wave run returns through the same plane: the stackup's ground. That is the negative terminal of every edge port and of every internal delta gap, and it is not something you set on a port — it comes from the technology, by one rule:

the top surface of the highest conductor marked as a ground reference that lies below the signal level. If no conductor is marked, the stackup's bottom boundary condition is used instead, and the run says so.

On a stackup with several metal layers this matters and is worth checking. Which levels take part in the analysis is yours to choose (the EM Setup panel's analysis-level checkboxes). Which one is ground is not a port setting — to return through a different conductor, designate that conductor as the ground reference in the technology editor. The run's notes name the plane it resolved, its height, and the signal level it sits below.

Two consequences of it being the stackup's plane:

• It is modelled as laterally infinite. A finite ground pour is not that, and a via to a ground-designated conductor that is not the resolved reference is dropped by name rather than treated as the plane. If you have drawn the pour, the run now measures it and tells you how big it is in wavelengths — its size, its area, and, the number that actually matters, how far it extends beyond your own metal. The pour is still not meshed and reading it changes none of the numbers beside the note; what it buys you is knowing whether "laterally infinite" was a fair description of your board before you trust a result that assumed it. On a plane that is a fraction of a wavelength across it is not, and the errors all run the same way: no back radiation at all, and a gain and directivity that read high.
• Any other reference is refused, not approximated — a coplanar ground, a second signal conductor, a differential pair, or a port driven between two levels at a via. Each is named in the refusal.

Coplanar waveguide is the case people expect to work and it does not: its return is the adjacent coplanar conductors, which is a different port model rather than a different layer, and this kernel does not build one.

De-embedding

What it does

A raw port excitation includes the port discontinuity — the local field disturbance where the excitation is applied, which is an artefact of the simulation and not a property of your structure. Reporting those S-parameters as the structure's response is simply wrong. De-embedding removes it.

circuitRF uses a two-line calibration: it simulates a short and a longer uniform reference line of the port's cross-section, extracts the port's own reflection and the line's propagation constant, and removes them.

Where the reference plane sits

One more property of the method, worth stating because it is a property and not a gap: the de-embedded S-matrix is referenced to the line's own Z_c, and the calibration cannot determine it. Z_c is recovered from γ and the per-unit-length capacitance, differenced between the two standards so the end effects cancel exactly. The assumption that C is frequency-independent is that route's real cost, and it is measured at 0.4% / 2.3% / 6.3% at 1 / 5 / 20 GHz.

The accuracy limit is radiation, not the algebra

The calibration algebra is exact: a de-embedded uniform section comes out perfectly matched at the two lengths the calibration was solved from (|S₁₁| = 8.5 × 10^-16), and two independent routes to γ agree to between 2.5 × 10^-4 and 3.9 × 10^-3 across 2–10 GHz.

What limits the answer is direct radiative and surface-wave coupling between the two ports. It decays only algebraically, and there is no term for it in a "box + matched line + box" model. Measured on 1.6 mm FR-4, a section that should be perfectly matched reads:

That is an f² scaling — and, importantly, it is not monotone in the standard's length, which is how it was identified as coupling rather than as calibration error.

Rules of thumb for port setup

All of these follow from one fact: de-embedding accuracy is limited by radiation, so a port whose feed radiates cannot be cleanly de-embedded.

• Keep ports apart. Port-to-port coupling is the error floor, and it grows as f². If you can place the two ports on opposite ends of the structure rather than on the same side, do. Rule of thumb: at least a few substrate heights of separation, and more at the top of your band.
• Do not lengthen the feed to fix accuracy. It does not work — the coupling is direct, not through the line — and it costs solve time. This is the counter-intuitive one, and it is measured.
• Keep the feed's own cross-section uniform for the calibration's run. The solver grows the uniform lead it needs, but a lead lengthens a feed, it cannot move a neighbour sideways. A neighbour that carries a port of its own inside the calibration's run is never just a warning: if its port is at the same reference plane as yours the two are calibrated together, and otherwise the run is refused. One that carries no port is reproduced in the standard instead, as long as it runs straight past the port — see the validity condition directly below.
• Use a feed width the mesh can resolve. The edge mesh needs several cells across the conductor; a feed narrower than a few cells is under-resolved exactly where the port excitation is applied. Rule of thumb: at least 3–5 cells across the feed width, which is what the default mesh settings give you if you leave them alone.
• Port the end face, not a corner. A label at a corner is ambiguous and will be refused; a label on a clean straight end face resolves without a guess.
• None of this applies to an internal delta-gap port, which is not de-embedded at all. Its accuracy is set by the mesh at the cut, not by radiation between feeds.
• Watch the band, not just the centre. Everything above degrades with frequency. If your structure is fine at 2 GHz and strange at 12 GHz, suspect the port before the geometry.

The validity condition: the standard has to be the feed's own neighbourhood

The calibration standard is a uniform line of the port's own cross-section. That is not a tolerance, it is what the standard is — so when the standard's cross-section is not the feed's, the error box is measured on a structure that is not the one being corrected, and the peel divides that mismatch by a₂₁², which is of order 10⁻⁴ at 1 GHz.

The error that produces is not mild. Measured against the exact cross-section answer on two straight 254 µm microstrips 246 µm apart on 0.9 mm FR-4, ports at all four ends:

Non-passive at 48 of 51 frequencies, and a finer mesh does not help — it computes the wrong error box more accurately. Doubling the cells per wavelength on a real board moved S₁₁ by at most 0.19 dB and left the answer non-passive at every point.

That table is what the two-line calibration does on this geometry when it is forced to describe it with one scalar per port. It is the size of the error the condition below exists to prevent — not what circuitRF publishes for this structure, which calibrates those four ports as a group and comes back at the accuracy floor.

So the clearance is a condition, it is enforced, and it is two numbers:

Both are measured across the port's own profile, over the run of line the standard reproduces, and both scale with substrate height — not with line width, and not with the neighbour's width. That was measured rather than assumed: a 4× change in line width moves the threshold by 5%, and a 5 mm ground pour behaves like a 254 µm trace to within 2%. A neighbour carrying a port needs 2–3× the clearance of one that does not, because it brings a second port's error box and the mutual terms with it; one number for both cases would either refuse designs that are fine or pass designs that are 18 dB wrong.

A neighbour that carries no port is reproduced, not refused

A conductor that is merely there — a passive trace, an adjacent net, a ground pour — leaves one driven mode at the reference plane, so the error box can stay what it has always been. The standard is therefore widened to contain it: the neighbour is copied out of your own mesh, at your own gridlines, with the gap between the two conductors reproduced as a gap, and it is driven by nothing in the standard exactly as it is driven by nothing in your structure. The run says what it took in, and the clearance margin then reads clear because everything inside a port's profile is reproduced.

On the 246 µm case above, with the neighbour's ports deleted, that takes the answer from 18.0 dB out in S₁₁ and non-passive at 3 of 7 frequencies to within the two kernels' own agreement floor and passive at every one.

Three things are declined by name rather than guessed at, and each falls back to the refusal:

• A neighbour that bends, ends or changes width inside the run the standard reproduces. A standard is a uniform extrusion; guessing what such a conductor should become in it would be inventing metal you did not draw.
• A neighbour on another conductor level. Nothing has been measured about one, so nothing is assumed.
• A neighbour carrying a port. Two driven conductors support two modes at one reference plane and the per-port error box is one scalar — reproducing the metal does not give it a second mode to describe. That case has its own treatment: a calibration group.

A wider profile is also a wider standard on every frequency of every run, and standards already dominate a de-embedded solve. On the fixture this was developed against they go from 4.6× to 9.1× the DUT's own unknowns. The run reports both numbers.

Two ports on coupled conductors are calibrated TOGETHER

Where the neighbour carries a port of its own at the same reference plane, reproducing it is not enough: two coupled conductors support two modes there, with different propagation constants and different characteristic impedances, and no pair of scalars can describe them. Those ports form a calibration group instead, and the group — not the port — becomes the unit of calibration:

• one standard carrying every conductor of the group, built from your own mesh at your own gridlines exactly as a one-conductor standard is, with a port on each conductor at each end;
• one MODAL error box whose blocks are N×N, solved from that standard's own cascade;
• one propagation constant and one characteristic impedance per mode, both reported.

On the same 246 µm pair as above — the case this whole section opened on — that takes the answer from 22.6 dB out in S₂₁ at 1 GHz and non-passive at almost every point to inside the two kernels' own agreement floor at every frequency, with S₂₁ within 0.04 dB of exact. It is measured on a symmetric pair, an asymmetric pair and a three-conductor group, because a symmetric pair is the one case where assuming even and odd modes would also have worked.

The modes are extracted from the standard, never assumed. Even and odd is the right answer for two identical lines and the wrong answer for almost anything else — unequal widths, unequal spacings, three conductors — so the modal basis comes out of the standards' own cascade, and how far apart the modes are is reported on every run. That number is the one everything else rests on.

A group is declined — and the run falls back to the clearance refusal — when its conductors do not all cross one plane, when one of them carries no port (a driven conductor and a floating one cannot share one standard), when one is not uniform over the run the standard reproduces, when the port needed an automatic feed lead (a lead is a matched length of ONE propagation constant, and a group's port region has one per mode), or when the group would be larger than three conductors.

The group's own cost is the surprise: its standard carries the same metal a widened one does, so it is the same mesh and the same 9.1× the DUT's unknowns, and a four-port coupled pair runs about 8 % slower than the two-port passive case. What it adds is one port excitation per conductor on a mesh that was going to be solved anyway, and a second electrostatic solve with the dielectric removed, which is what the modal impedances need.

Three things are deliberately not neighbours:

• Metal on the port's own net — a flare, a pad, the structure the port is attached to. That is what the automatic feed extension is for, and it removes its lead exactly.
• A coplanar port's own return conductor, and everything else inside the port's declared cross-section. All of it is reproduced in the standard.
• Metal outside the run of line the standard reproduces. A coupled section several millimetres down a clean feed is part of your circuit, not part of the port's neighbourhood.

Every de-embedded run reports its margin, breached or not, in substrate heights — the variable the error was measured to follow. There is deliberately no error bound: nothing the solve already computes tracks the size of this error. The de-embedding residuals cannot, structurally — they are computed from the two standards and the DUT is not an input, so they are bit-for-bit identical between a run that is 22 dB wrong and one at the accuracy floor. σ_max detects the failure well and estimates it not at all; it is not even monotone in the error.

What to do about a refusal, in the order worth trying: check whether you need the full-wave kernel at all (a uniform cross-section is solved exactly and far more cheaply by the uniform-line kernel); move the ports to where the line is already isolated and de-embed the extra length in the circuit; or give the feeds an isolated run in the artwork. The two switches in Solver options are the ways to get a number out of the geometry as drawn — the raw solve, or the de-embedded answer with the file marked.

What a good and a bad de-embedded result look like

Adaptive frequency sampling

The problem it solves

Fill is O(N²) and solve is O(N³) per frequency, because the Green's function is frequency-dependent. So a sweep costs the number of points times the cost of a point. Sample finely enough to see every feature and you have paid for that resolution across the whole band; sample coarsely and the sweep is cheap but thin. Adaptive sampling breaks that link: it lets you ask for a fine grid and pay closer to what a coarse one costs, because it solves only where the response is actually doing something.

How it works

1. Solve a sparse subset of the requested frequencies.
2. Fit a complex cubic spline to what has been solved.
3. Solve a midpoint and compare it with what the model predicted.
4. Where they disagree, add samples there and refit. Where they agree, stop.

The tolerance is agreement to 10^-3 in |S|. Four properties are worth knowing:

• Both ends of your sweep are always solved, and so is a DC point. The first and last frequencies you asked for are the refinement's own starting samples, so neither end is ever modelled. A 0 Hz point is not part of the sampling at all: it is taken out of the sweep and answered as a conduction network — resistance only, no reactance — so the bias path an HB or s-parameter run reads off it is solved, not interpolated. Points low enough that the full-wave fit has no valid range carry that same answer, and the run says which ones did.
• The published sweep is always exactly the grid you asked for. Adaptive sampling changes which points are solved, never which are reported.
• Every solved point carries the solver's own result, unchanged. Nothing that was actually solved is replaced by the model.
• It never adds a frequency you did not ask for. So it cannot rescue a feature that falls between two of your requested points — a resonance narrower than your frequency step is lost with the setting on or off. Resolving a feature is the grid's job; adaptive sampling only makes a fine grid affordable. The one exception is the resonance search, which is off by default and which flags every point it adds.

What the tolerance trades

Tighter tolerance means more solved points, so more time, and a curve that tracks the true response more closely between the ones you asked for. Looser means fewer solves and a curve that may smooth a feature the solver would have found.

Two things to know before turning either knob. The tolerance is a local stopping test, not an error bar: it is checked at the midpoints the refinement probes, and the worst realised difference against a fully-solved sweep can be up to about ten times it. And reducing the number of requested points is usually the wrong move — with adaptive sampling on, how many points get solved is set by the structure rather than by your grid, so a coarser grid mostly costs you resolution without saving much time. On a 20 mm microstrip over 1–20 GHz, asking for 401 points and letting it sample adaptively is faster than asking for 101 and solving them all.

How to tell it converged, and what to do if it did not

The run reports how many points it solved out of how many you requested. Two checks:

• Solve fraction. A response that is smooth on the grid you asked for converges after solving a fraction of it. A run that solved nearly every point is telling you the response is not smooth on that grid — which is information, not a failure, and on a wide band over an electrically long structure it is the normal answer, because the transmission phase alone rotates a long way between neighbouring points.
• Re-run with the sampling off. If the curve does not move, it converged. This is the direct test and it costs one full sweep; it is worth doing once per new class of structure, not once per run.

If it will not settle, the usual cause is a genuine sharp resonance. Narrow the band around it and sweep that region on its own rather than fighting the whole span — or turn on the resonance search, which is built for exactly this case.

Adaptive sampling applies to the full-wave kernel only. The quasi-static kernel evaluates in closed form after one solve, so there is nothing to sample adaptively, and the control says so rather than sitting there greyed out with no explanation.

The resonance search

The problem it solves

Adaptive sampling bisects the grid you gave it. That is what makes every published point yours, and on a high-Q structure it is also what puts the answer out of reach: if the resonance is narrower than your frequency step, there is no point refinement is allowed to look at that is near it. The symptom is a sweep that solves nearly every point you asked for and still reports that it did not converge — all of the cost, none of the saving, and the feature still invisible.

You cannot fix that by refining harder. Either the grid gets finer, or something is allowed to look between its points.

What it does

The resonance search is the one setting in circuitRF that lets a sweep publish a frequency you did not ask for. It is off by default. With it on:

1. It looks for Im(Z_in) crossing zero — which costs no solve, because it reads the same model adaptive sampling already built.
2. It brackets each crossing by bisection, solving as it goes, until f₀ is pinned to 1 part in 10⁴.
3. It reports f₀, Q, the resistance at resonance, the half-power bandwidth and the measured −10 dB bandwidth as a diagnostic — so "where is it" comes back as a number rather than a curve you have to read off.
4. It then spends what is left of its budget resolving the shape of the curve around each resonance, on the same |ΔS| criterion adaptive sampling uses.

Three properties are worth knowing:

• Every added point is flagged. Your own grid is published exactly as it was — same frequencies, same values — with the found points spliced in between, each marked as found rather than requested.
• It finds all of them. A patch has higher-order modes; the search reports every resonance in the span, not the first or the strongest.
• The number of added solves is capped, and the cap is reported when it binds. A full-wave point costs tens of seconds, so this is a budget you are spending deliberately.

Q here is the resonator's own Q at that port — radiation and loss, everything inside Z_in — not the loaded Q of a matched system. It is the number that sets the bandwidth you can achieve before any matching network is designed.

What it cannot do

It needs a sign to bracket. The search finds a resonance your solved points straddle in sign; a resonance whose entire reactance swing falls between two neighbouring solved points leaves nothing for it to notice. When it finds nothing it says so in those words, rather than implying there is nothing there.

So the search does not remove the need for a sensible grid — it removes the need for that grid to resolve the resonance. Asking for a few hundred points across the band you care about, with both adaptive sampling and the search on, is the combination this is built for: the grid notices the feature, the search pins it, and adaptive sampling keeps you from paying for the rest of the band.

It needs adaptive sampling on, because it seeds itself from the model refinement builds. With adaptive sampling off, the control is disabled and says why.

Conformal boundary cells

What it is

The mesh is a rectangular tensor-product grid. Where a conductor's edge is oblique or curved, the grid has to decide what to do with the cells the edge passes through. Two options:

• Staircase (the default) — a cell is either in the metal or not, so a diagonal becomes a staircase.
• Conformal — the boundary cells are cut to follow the metal: one straight cut through an otherwise rectangular cell.

The setting is Boundary cells in the EM Setup panel's Surface mesh group, and it is the only thing that differs between those two pictures. Look at the flank rather than at the interior: the two meshes are the same grid, and what changes is what happens to the cells the outline passes through.

What it buys, measured

On a 96-sided disc refined from 316 to 3,964 unknowns:

The first row is the real result. Under a staircase, refining the mesh quietly changes which shape is being simulated, which is why the second row is possible at all.

What it costs

Essentially nothing. At matched settings the conformal mesh was slightly smaller than the staircased one (316 unknowns vs 324 coarse; 3,964 vs 3,972 fine), and solve time is set by the unknown count. Building the mesh does a little more geometry work, but meshing is milliseconds against a solve measured in seconds to minutes.

It ships OFF, and that is not an oversight

Turn it on when you are simulating a bend, a linear taper, a disc, or any curved outline, and you want an answer you can refine toward with confidence. On a bend or a linear taper the area error goes from 0.10–0.47% to exact.

Leave it off for all-Manhattan artwork, where it has nothing to do, and for a Klopfenstein taper at coarse settings.

Convex decomposition — the reflex-vertex fallback

The cut works by clipping a rectangular cell against the metal outline, and the result has to be a region the fill's integrals can evaluate exactly. Where the clipped region fails that test — most often because the outline bends back on itself inside a single cell — the cell falls back to the staircase rule rather than producing an answer it cannot stand behind.

The consequence you can observe: on artwork with many reflex vertices, the number of fallback cells saturates. Measured on a Klopfenstein taper at cells/λ of 20 / 40 / 80 / 160 / 320, the fallback count runs 52 / 78 / 126 / 126 / 126 — and the outline has exactly 126 reflex vertices. Once each reflex vertex owns a cell, refining the mesh cannot reduce the count any further.

That is why "exact" holds for a bend, a linear taper and a disc but not for a Klopfenstein taper, and why refining does not fix it. It is a property of the artwork, not of the settings.

Mesh convergence, and how to check it

A mesh is a discretisation, so an EM answer is only as good as its mesh, and the only honest test is refinement. The procedure:

1. Run at the default mesh. Note the unknown count and the answer at a frequency you care about.
2. Raise Cells per wavelength by roughly 1.4× and re-run.
3. Repeat until the answer stops moving by more than you care about.

What to look for:

• A monotone, decreasing step. Each refinement should move the answer less than the last, in the same direction. That is convergence.
• A wandering value is not converging, and on curved or oblique artwork it usually means the staircase is changing the shape at each refinement — see Conformal boundary cells.
• Edge mesh matters more than cell size. If loss or Z₀ is off, refine the edge cells before refining the whole grid; the edge singularity is where the error lives.

The Mesh button computes the mesh without solving, so the unknown count, the smallest and largest cell and the truncation extent are all visible before you commit to a run. Use it.

What makes a run infeasible

The full-wave matrix is dense and complex: N unknowns is N² × 16 bytes. The matrix is most of what a frequency point costs, and the frequency-independent geometry cache is the rest — so the figure the refusal quotes, and the one below, is both together. The factorisation itself is free of charge: it is written into the matrix rather than beside it.

A de-embedded run holds more again — every calibration standard's geometry cache is live alongside the structure's own.

There is a hard ceiling at 5,000 unknowns for the dense solve, the predicted N is shown before you solve, and a mesh above it is refused with a message pointing at the remedies that actually bind. A tool that silently tried to allocate 12 GB would not be lightweight.

The accelerated solve raises that ceiling to 12,000 — on a single-metal-level structure with no vias, which is the only kind it can accelerate. A multi-level or via-bearing mesh is refused by name regardless, so the ceiling there is still 5,000, and the refusal names turning the accelerator on as the first remedy whenever doing so would let your mesh through.

Two numbers that surprise people, both measured on 1.6 mm FR-4 at 10 GHz:

• A 4 MB matrix is not a 4 MB sweep. At N = 552, one frequency costs about 1.7 s once the frequency-independent core is built — so a 101-point sweep is about three minutes, not "instant".
• De-embedding multiplies that by about 4.4×. The calibration standards are not small — on that same structure they measure 2.58× the DUT's own unknowns — and they are 78% of the total cost. A de-embedded 101-point sweep of that structure is about 13 minutes.

That is the arithmetic behind adaptive sampling being on by default: the per-point cost went up 4.4× and the number of points did not.

The accelerated solve option buys memory first and time second: roughly 4× less working set past about 900 unknowns, and a faster frequency point past about 1,100 — its frequency-independent state is built once per structure and the dense factorisation's cost grows as the cube of the unknown count, so the gap widens with size (about 2× at 1,900 unknowns, an order of magnitude at 3,700). Below the crossover it is somewhat slower than the dense solve. It is single-metal-level only, with no vias — and within that, it raises the ceiling from 5,000 unknowns to 12,000.

The accelerated solve, and when to use it

Accelerated solve is a checkbox in the EM Setup panel, off by default. It changes how the linear system is solved, not what is solved: the same mixed-potential integral equation, the same mesh, the same basis functions, the same Green's function, checked against the dense path to its own accuracy gates. What changes is that the matrix is never formed.

What AIM is

The method is the Adaptive Integral Method (AIM) — the standard grid-based acceleration for method-of-moments problems, and the same family as the pre-corrected FFT and IE-FFT schemes you will find in the literature.

The idea in one paragraph. A dense MoM matrix is expensive because every basis function talks to every other one, and the direct solve costs O(N³). But at any useful distance a basis function's field is indistinguishable from that of a small cluster of point sources carrying the same low-order multipole moments. AIM exploits that in three steps:

1. Project. Lay a uniform auxiliary grid over the structure and replace each basis function, for far-field purposes only, by weights on a small block of grid nodes chosen to reproduce the same moments. circuitRF projects three densities per basis — the x̂ current, the ŷ current, and the charge ∇·f — because the operator has two blocks with two different kernels and projecting the current without its divergence would accelerate half of it and quietly leave the rest dense.
2. Convolve. On a uniform grid the interaction is a convolution, so the whole far field is three FFT convolutions per matrix–vector product — two for the vector potential, one for the scalar — rather than an N² sum.
3. Correct. Near pairs — where the multipole approximation is not good enough — are computed exactly, as they are on the dense path, and the grid's approximation of them is subtracted back off. That correction is sparse and O(N).

The system is then solved iteratively (GMRES), preconditioned by the near-field block's own sparse LU. No dense matrix is ever formed and nothing dense is ever factored.

Two details worth knowing, because they are the reason this works on a real mesh:

• Your mesh is not the grid. circuitRF's mesher is edge-graded and conformally cut, which is what buys accuracy at low unknown counts — a uniform mesh needs roughly twenty times the unknowns to match it. AIM keeps that mesh untouched; only the auxiliary grid it projects onto is uniform. This is not the "uniform mesh makes the matrix Toeplitz" trick, which would cost you the grading.
• A non-converged solve throws. GMRES has an iteration cap, and reaching it raises an error rather than returning a current distribution that is smooth, plausible and wrong. That is the backstop behind the higher unknown ceiling.

When to turn it on

Turn it on when the structure is large. The switch buys memory first and time second, and both thresholds are measured rather than estimated:

Concretely, the cases where the answer is yes:

• The mesh was refused for being past the 5,000-unknown ceiling and the structure is on one metal level. This is the common one, and the refusal names the switch.
• A long or wide board at a fine mesh — anything where N is in the thousands. Measured on a length-growth ladder to N ≈ 12,900, the accelerator's working set went 53 MB → 188 MB; the dense matrix alone at that size would be 2.3 GB, which is why it is structurally unreachable.
• A de-embedded run whose calibration standard was refused. A standard reproduces your port's own cross-section, so a wide port's standard can be larger than the DUT. Both the standards' frequency-domain solves and their static capacitance step are accelerated, and are judged against the same 12,000-unknown ceiling.
• A long frequency sweep on a big structure, where the frequency-independent projection state is built once and reused at every point.

When to leave it off

• Small structures. Below about 1,100 unknowns it is 1.3–1.5× slower than the dense solve, and it saves memory you were not short of. A bend, a short line, a single stub — leave it off. This is why off is the default.
• A multi-level or via-bearing layout. The checkbox is disabled, with the reason stated beside it: the accelerator projects the single-level horizontal basis family, and a via's vertical current needs its own grid kernel per height pairing. Such a mesh is judged against the 5,000-unknown dense ceiling whatever the switch says.
• A cross-section (quasi-static) setup. There is no dense system to accelerate — that kernel's solve is closed-form per frequency — so the checkbox is disabled there too.
• When you are checking a result you do not trust. The two paths are separate implementations of the same operator, so running a suspect point both ways is a genuine cross-check. They agree to the accelerator's own gates; a disagreement is worth reporting.

What it does not do

It does not change the mesh, the ports, the de-embedding or the physics, so it cannot fix an accuracy problem — a mesh too coarse to resolve a gap is equally wrong on both paths. It does not raise the ceiling for multi-level geometry. And it is not a licence to ask for an arbitrarily fine mesh: the ceiling was set from a length-growth ladder that stayed healthy to N ≈ 12,900, while refining the resolution at a fixed footprint was measured pushing GMRES from 5–8 iterations to 372 by cells/λ = 120 and failing to converge at 140. Growing the structure is well behaved; over-refining a small one is where the iteration count goes.

What the engine refuses, and why a refusal is better

A wrong EM answer is smooth, plausible and expensive — it goes into a design, and the board comes back wrong. So this engine refuses rather than extrapolating, and every refusal names the specific feature and says where the capability arrives.

The refusals you are most likely to meet:

A refusal you can read is worth more than a number you cannot check.

Using EM results in a circuit simulation

An EM run produces a Touchstone file. That is the whole co-simulation story, and it needs no new machinery.

1. Lay out the structure — a matching network, a coupler, a bias tee.
2. Set up and run the EM analysis. It writes an .sNp to a predictable path derived from the layout and setup names.
3. Drop an SnP component into your test bench and point it at that file.
4. Run harmonic balance with the real device model beside it.

Putting a component in the middle of the metal

An internal delta-gap port is how a component gets into the metal rather than beside it. The workflow is the ordinary one with one extra port:

1. Draw the conductor as one continuous piece — do not draw a slot where the component goes.
2. Put edge ports where power enters and leaves, and an internal delta-gap port where the component goes. Three ports, so the EM run writes an .s3p.
3. Drop that .s3p into a schematic and connect the component to the gap's port.

Ports 1 and 2 are the line's ends. The 1.2 pF capacitor sits on port 3 — the gap — and it is in series in the metal: everything that gets from port 1 to port 2 goes through it.

Putting a component from the metal down to ground

Same three steps, one port type further:

1. Draw the conductor. (You may draw the via to ground where the component attaches, and the port will use it — but you do not have to; the solver builds that path if it is not there.)
2. Put edge ports where power enters and leaves, and an internal port where the component attaches. Three ports again, so the run writes an .s3p.
3. Connect the component between that port and ground in the schematic.

Port 3's + terminal is the metal and its − terminal is the ground plane, so the connection in the schematic means what it looks like this time. The EM run models the whole path down to the plane, including its inductance; your component model is only the component. Which conductor the plane is comes from the stackup.

Two practical notes, for either kind of internal port:

• Leave port 3's reference impedance at 50 Ω unless you have a reason. It is a reference the answer is expressed in, not a property of the gap; the .sNp header records it and the schematic reads it back, so the two cannot disagree.
• Use it for anything the gap can carry: a series R, L or C, a measured 2-port of a real part, or a device terminal. The EM run models the artwork; the schematic models the part. Neither approximates the other, which is the whole point of splitting them.

Everything else about co-simulation

Three consequences, all good ones:

• The artefact is inspectable and portable. It is a Touchstone file: plot it, archive it, hand it to a colleague, diff it against a measurement.
• Re-running is a file update, so the schematic picks up a new result the same way it picks up any changed source.
• Staleness is detectable. The file's header is stamped with the stackup, the mesh settings, the port definitions and a hash of the geometry — hashed separately, so a warning can say which of the three moved. A stale .sNp sitting beside an edited layout is reported rather than silently wrong.

The EM result also carries a diagnostics group alongside S and the per-port Z0, and the two kernels deliberately do not share its name: the quasi-static kernel's is tline (Z_c, γ, ε_eff, attenuation, R/L/G/C per unit length) and the full-wave kernel's is planar (γ, Z_c, ε_eff, attenuation, C per unit length, and the calibration's own residual and usability flags). A per-unit-length quantity from a 2D quasi-static solve and one back-solved from a de-embedded full-wave S-matrix are different claims. They agree on a uniform line, and they diverge with frequency — which is dispersion, and is a result.

Worked example: a microstrip line with a bend

A 50 Ω line on the PCB starter technology, with a right-angle bend in it. The point of the exercise is that the bend is exactly what a circuit model handles badly and an EM solve handles well.

1. Draw it

New layout on the PCB starter technology — 1.6 mm FR-4, ε_r 4.4, tanδ 0.02, 1 oz copper, bottom ground. Display unit mil.

A 50 Ω line on that stack is W ≈ 2.9 mm (114 mil). Draw two rectangles on Top Copper:

horizontal arm:   from (0, 0)          to (400 mil, 114 mil)
vertical arm:     from (286 mil, 0)    to (400 mil, 400 mil)

They overlap in the corner square, which is what makes it one conductor. Leave the corner square — an unmitred bend is the thing being measured.

2. Set the stackup

Nothing to do. The stackup comes from the technology, and the EM Setup panel shows it back to you: FR-4 1.6 mm εr 4.4 tanδ 0.02 between Top Copper 35 µm and the ground plane. Check the Ground reference row reads the ground plane and not something else.

The cross-section prints every thickness in the technology's own display unit, which on this board is mil — so the core reads 62.99 mil, which is the 1.6 mm above, and each copper reads 1.378 mil, which is 1 oz. If anything there is not what you expected, that same drawing is live at the top of the Technology Editor's Stackup tab: click a band to land on its fields and change them in place — see The stackup.

That is the whole stack this run sees. The soldermask, the silkscreen and the outline are drawing layers with no stackup band, so they are not in the solve at all — see The stackup for which drawing layers become physics and which do not.

3. Place ports

Port tool; click the horizontal arm's left end face, then the vertical arm's top end face. Two labels, 1 and 2. Check the notes: each port should report the edge it resolved to and the direction current flows in. If either says "ambiguous", the label is on a corner — move it.

Leave both reference impedances at 50 Ω.

The two ports are on different faces here, which is the arrangement de-embedding likes: they are as far apart as this piece of artwork allows, and neither feed runs alongside the other. A structure whose two ports leave the same edge is the one to look at twice — see De-embedding, whose rules of thumb are all consequences of one fact, that port-to-port coupling is the error floor.

4. Choose a mesh

Leave the mesh on its defaults for the first run and press Mesh — not Simulate. Read the mesh report:

• Unknowns: expect a few hundred. Well under the ceiling.
• The largest cell, and what set it: the report names whichever of the two caps was binding, which is the question every later mesh change turns on.
• The finest cell: a small fraction of 114 mil — that is the edge mesh doing its job. The notes say how many graded cells it put at each edge and what they cost.

Those are the numbers "defaults" means, and the summary under them is the report. The two you will change first if you change anything are Cells per wavelength and Cells across conductor — and which of the two actually binds depends on the geometry, which is what This metal is decides. On this structure the two land within 2 % of each other — λ_g/20 is 28.1 mil and the 114 mil width over 4 cells is 28.5 — so the wavelength cap wins by a whisker, and the report says which.

Pressing Mesh also draws the grid over the artwork, which is worth looking at once:

The arithmetic behind it: at 10 GHz on this stack λ_g is 563 mil, so λ_g/20 is 28 mil — about 14 cells along each 400 mil arm and 4 across the 114 mil width, which the edge mesh then refines to 9 by adding three graded cells at each edge. That comes out at 351 cells and 654 unknowns, which is the few hundred the step above says to expect. A number wildly different from that means something is wrong with the geometry or the layer mapping, not with the mesh settings.

5. Set the sweep and run

1 to 10 GHz, 101 points. Leave adaptive sampling on. Press Simulate.

Expect roughly a minute or two — most of it in the calibration standards, not the structure. The run reports how many points it actually solved.

6. Read the result

The result opens in the Data Display. Two plots are worth making, and they answer different questions.

S₁₁ on a Smith chart says what KIND of mismatch this is, which no magnitude plot can:

It is one clean spiral. At 1 GHz the point sits almost exactly at the centre — a 50 Ω line into 50 Ω is matched, and the bend is electrically tiny — and it winds clockwise and outward from there. The winding is the two arms' electrical length, which is why it is one full turn across the band; the outward drift is the discontinuity itself, growing with frequency. An ideal corner between two perfectly matched lines would sit at the centre for the whole sweep, so everything you can see here is the bend, and how far out the locus has travelled by the top of the band is how much of it there is.

Magnitude and phase against frequency is where the numbers are. Put |S₁₁| and |S₂₁| in dB on the left axis and both phases on the right — the trace card has a left/right toggle for exactly this, and without it the dB curves flatten into the bottom of a frame scaled for ±180°:

Your own numbers will not match these to the last digit — the mesh is a function of the cell sizes your build's defaults produce — but every one of the four shapes should be there, and a result that breaks one of them is a setup problem rather than a physics one.

7. Sanity-check it against the circuit model

This is the step people skip and should not.

Build the same thing in a schematic from MLIN and MBEND with the same widths, lengths and substrate, and run an S-parameter analysis over the same band. Overlay the two in one Data Display — the EM result is a Touchstone file, so add it as a second data source and put both traces on one plot.

Give each MLIN 286 mil of length, not 400: the bend model owns the corner square, and its reference planes are that square's two edges. 400 − 114 = 286 either side. Leave every substrate parameter unstated — the microstrip family's own defaults are 1.6 mm of ε_r 4.4 FR-4 with tanδ 0.02 and 35 µm of copper, which is this stackup exactly, and restating them is a second place for the two to disagree.

They should agree closely at the bottom of the band and separate at the top, and they do: on this run the two S₁₁ phases are 2° apart at 1 GHz and 46° apart at 10 GHz, and the two magnitudes cross at 4.4 GHz. Below the crossing the closed-form bend reads a few dB more reflection than the solve (−29.9 dB against −39.4 dB at 1 GHz — a difference between two numbers that are both negligible); above it the solve keeps climbing while the model levels off, and by 10 GHz the model is reading −8.0 dB where the structure gives −7.1 dB. That divergence is the whole reason to own an EM solver: the formula was fitted on a family of bends and has a validity range, and the top of this band is at the edge of it.

If they disagree at 1 GHz, something is wrong with your setup, not with the physics — check, in this order: the line width (is it really 50 Ω on this stack?), the substrate (does the schematic's MLIN carry the same ε_r and h?), the arm lengths (286, not 400), the ground reference, and the port sides.

8. Refine once

Raise cells per wavelength by 1.4× and re-run. If |S₁₁| at the top of the band moves by less than you care about, you are converged. If it moves a lot, refine again — and if it moves differently each time on a mitred bend, turn on conformal boundary cells.

9. Run it again without the GUI

Once the setup is right, it does not need the window any more. circuitrf em Bend.cem runs the same extraction, the same mesh and the same solve, and writes the same two files to the same place — so a re-extraction after a technology edit is one line in a script, and the schematic that references the Touchstone picks the new result up with no further action. See the command line, EM section.

See also: EM Setup — the panel, control by control · The Layout Editor · Running an EM setup headless · wBond (3D bondwires) · The microstrip component family · The Data Display · AN-01 — coupled lines, where their ports go, and how two coupled feeds are de-embedded together.