ansys meshing tutorial

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 1

ansys meshing tutorial

© All Rights Reserved

- Introduction to the Finite Element Method (NISA) JSK.pptx
- FEA Report - Ravi Patel 1101066
- AFEM.Ch13
- 15665709 Model Airplane Engine Analysis
- Developing of a Finite Element Program Incorporating Advanced Element Types-Thesis
- ME-CAD-CAM-R-2013
- Application of Discrete Element Method for Continuum Dynamic Problems
- Mesh Free Method 111
- 06 Finite Elements Basics
- STR_018
- FEM for 2D Elements3
- Fluent-FSI 14.5 Lect-00 Intro
- Ans13_Mechanical APDL Coupled-Field Analysis Guide
- 584
- Thesis a Koopman
- CFX-FSI 14.5 Lect-00 Intro
- Finite Element Analysis of Bridge Decs
- ANSYS Fluent Tutorial Guide r170
- 1
- INCAS BULLETIN Vol 9 Issue 4 Internet First Pg

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Vikrant Srivastava

Updated Nov 24 2017 · Upvoted by Sparsh Ganju, Ph. D. Mechanical Engineering, University of

Kentucky (2022) and Pericles Farmakis, M.Sc. Computational Fluid Dynamics & Mechanical

Engineering, Cranfield University (2018) · Author has 398 answers and 5.2m answer views

Answer:

As a mentor once told me — proper meshing is 75% of the simulation. The rest is boundary

conditions.

So, to first answer your question — No. You cannot depend on automatic meshing. Not in Ansys,

not in Abaqus, not in Hypermesh, and not in any other software. To understand which mesh to

use, you need to first understand meshing itself. (The OP of the question might know much of it

already, but others might not, so bear with me. It might even act as a useful reminder.)

TL;DR

The purpose of automatic meshing is to give you the simplest possible solutions to the simplest

possible geometries.

Hence, you need to depend on actual experimentation values and perform mesh studies. If the

results don’t vary a lot upon decreasing the size of the mesh, the mesh is good enough.

Let’s start with the most basic of questions — what is a mesh?

In layman speak, meshing is simply a way to show a big body as the sum of smaller bodies.

That is it.

You take many small bodies (elements), and join them together to form a bigger one (hence

creating a mesh).

Then you apply some loads (thermal, structural, etc.) on one (or more) of these elements, fix

these bodies in certain ways (boundary conditions), settle on some predefined temperature/pre-

stressing if necessary (initial conditions), and then see the results of these applied loads pass on

from one body (element) to the next.

The problem was not the idea of it. The problem was the mathematics of it all — understanding

how the loads are passed on. A body in real life shows continuous behavior (at a macroscopic

level), and needs the use of integration (continuum mechanics). Though we (humanity, not I

personally) know and understand these equations to a decent level, the problem with solving

them is the time it needs to solve it — the computers of old were way too slow to be able to

solve such integration in a reasonable amount of time (and computers now — millions of times

faster — are no match for these equations), and hence approximations needed to be developed.

And that is what all of FEM is — an approximation. An approximation used to get good enough

results without having to wait weeks/months/decades (depending on the complexity of the

question and the speed of the computer) for an exact answer to be found. An approximation

where a weak form of an equation (the integral form) is changed into the strong form (the

differential form) making the use of some boundary conditions.

Great mathematicians worked for decades on figuring out the mathematics behind a simple

question (the cornerstone of FEM) — how to accurately model the loads being transmitted

through a body. The base equation was simple enough:

[F]=[K][X]

where [F] is the applied force (the force matrix), [X] is the result of the force (the unknown), and

[K] is the constant (the stiffness matrix) that relates the applied force to the result it creates

when acting on another body.

Finding the [F] matrix is simple enough — you just need to input the load that you intend to

provide. But making a good enough approximation for [K] to find [X] is where things get tricky.

The simplest way to do this (used by direct solvers) would be to invert the matrix K and multiply

it with F:

[K−1][F]=[X]

As anyone who has tried to invert a 3x3 matrix can tell you, it is not the best part of life. And

then you might have to actually scale it up for accuracy and hence invert a matrix many

thousands or millions of elements long, which is mildly irritating, to say the least. But I wish that

scaling was our only problem. A bigger issue is that the [K] matrix — more often than not —

hates to be inverted. (I mean, I understand. No one wants to be taken off their team and hung

around inverted on the other side. But still, goddammit, you’re a matrix! Behave like one!) This

happens mostly when:

The matrix has a lot of zeros. Why waste time inverting a million zeros after multiplying them by

— you guessed it — zeros?

The matrix is huuuge. Imagine a matrix of order n. To invert it, you need to perform n x n x n

operations (using Gaussian elimination method). Ever heard of memory issues?

Non-linearity. Yes, that’s the most dreaded of all words ever used in mechanical simulations. As

long as the matrix is linear, we know that Newton-Raphson is going to ultimately bail you out.

But in case of non-linearity, not anymore. Be it hyperelasticity, viscoelasticity or just simple

plasticity: if the matrix says no, it means no.

Another way to find this [K] matrix is to use what is called an iterative solver. These solvers work

by first assuming a result ([K][X1]), and then improving upon them ([K][X1],[K][X2],[K][X3]……[K]

[Xn]) till once reaches till a more “accurate” predefined criteria. This is done simply by setting a

criteria for how accurate the results should be, and then subtracting the [K][X1]matrix from the

[F] matrix till the difference is essentially very close to 0.

Regardless of which way is chosen to find a solution, the creation of these equations — the

creation of a mesh — is one of the most essential steps in all of FEM.

The Compromise

models) to get closer to the most accurate result in the shortest amount of time possible. Each

model was suitable for a small subset of problems, but none was good enough for everything at

once. This suitability is defined in many ways, but there are two simple needs that define it all:

Accuracy — Is the answer accurate enough? Does it cover all points of stress generation suitably,

making sure that the product does not fail in real life? Is the shape change/force generation

representative of reality? Does it give results which can be used to make engineering decisions?

Speed — How long do I need to wait for the results? Do I have enough time for reiteration?

Both speed and accuracy are inversely linked to each-other. The higher the speed that you want

the results at, the more you shall need to give up on accuracy. In the initial stages of the field,

the speed of computers was a big problem — you needed excessively long time frames to get

simple answers. As Moore’s law has made simulation faster and faster, this balance between

accuracy and speed has definitely improved. But we are still nowhere close to the ideal situation

— excessively accurate answers in a moment.

Improving Accuracy

As I mentioned above, the accuracy of a FEM solution is inversely proportional to the speed.

Why is that? Simply because of the way a surface is mapped for meshing.

For having the most accurate answer, we must have a continuous flow of the forces from one

point of the system to other. But instead, as said before, the flow of forces happen from element

to element (essentially, node to node) rather than in a continuous flow. The values at the points

between these nodes is then interpolated using some functions (shape functions). This creates

the thumb of rule — the more the number of elements, the more accurate is the result.

Note that this is not always the case, as many factors can stop the solution from being more

accurate — the element shape, the element size, the location of the element, the development

of singularities, or quite simply an ill defined load/boundary condition. Usually, with increasing

number of elements, the results tend to become more precise rather than more accurate. (This

fact gives another simple rule-of-thumb check for the simulation by itself. If the results do not

seem to tend to a common point after increasing the number of elements, you need to either

increase the number of elements even further, or there is usually something wrong with your

setup.)

As you know, there is no way to capture all the (2D) boundaries of a circle with a square. Same

way, you can not capture the 3D curves of a cylinder with a hexagonal element. The straight

edges of a hex — regardless of how fine you mesh it — can never perfectly fill a circular area.

What is the way out?

A simple way would be to use cylindrical elements. Another way is to use tet-elements, which

would cover the exact geometry better than a hex would. Not all circular boundaries shall be

covered, but it could still provide a better estimate. After all, as I said already, FEM is an

approximation! Also, if you take a bigger number of elements, the chance of getting element

stiffness or locking [which occurs when an element is unable to interpolate a field property

correctly with the nodal values and the element’s shape functions, especially near high values of

incompressibility (i.e. Poisson’s ratio 0.5)] related issues lowers itself, as does the chance of

obtaining singularities.

Image: The more the number of elements (tet elements here), the better the shape is captured.

Improving Speed

The increase in the time needed for obtaining a solution is not linear, but exponential. So the

finer the mesh is, the (exponentially) more the time you need to get a good result.

Higher Order Elements: One way to obtain better results with lesser number of elements, is to

simply use elements with higher order. For e.g., second order elements have a middle node in

each area, and hence they deform much more smoothly.

A second order element has lesser total number of nodes than having multiple first order

elements in the same area, and it would give results of a similar accuracy to what can be

achieved with higher number of nodes in a smaller amount of time.

The figure above (from Comsol) perfectly describes how higher order elements capture the

shapes much better than lower order, just because they have an additional middle node,

allowing the element deformation in a much more realistic way (the interpolation of values at

the middle point is better.) (Also, notice that the area under high stress keeps getting smaller,

which mimics reality better.).

Remember that this is not always true — e.g., in cases related to contact, a first order element

can perform much better than second order elements would. Also, it is not always better to go

for higher order elements, as it can cause issues with oscillation. But for certain types of analysis

— e.g., bending analysis — a second order element can work wonders!

Mesh refinement: Another way is to have a bigger mesh in most areas where it is already known

that the stress result won’t be too high, and refine the mesh in only a few other locations of

interest. This can drastically reduce the total number of elements in the body, but still give

results usable to make engineering decisions.

Symmetry: Using geometrical symmetry is nearly always a good idea — the results normally are

the same over a geometrically mirrored part, but the number of nodes required can do down by

half, one-fourth, or even more (e.g.; in the case of a circular pipe, even simulation over a couple

of degrees can give the same results as the whole.).

Force Symmetry of Matrix: This is not making use of the geometrical symmetry of the CAD, but

rather forcing the symmetry in a matrix. An advanced option, to be used carefully, but it can

reduce the total matrix size by half.

Mesh Aspect Ratio: Bad aspect ratio combined with high deformation makes for bad results. Try

and obtain a good mesh in areas of non-linearity. Many solvers can also provide a check for such

ratios.

Sparse matrix : This is a more advanced solver option, but a sparse matrix can come in handy

when there are a lot of zeros in the stiffness matrix. This is especially effective in case of a

symmetric matrix!

Reduced Convergence Criteria: Once again, this is a more advanced option, and can lead to

inaccurate results (Dr. Ajay B. Harish has covered this brilliantly in this article on convergence in

FEM.). If your convergence criteria is too strict (and therefore the relative error is too small to be

noticeable) (specially in dynamic analysis) and hence the solver requires a lot of iterations to

reach the convergence threshold, the results can take too long to obtain. You can cut down on

the time required for convergence by eliminating the number of digits carried after decimal, and

hence obtain a faster solution.

Eliminating singularities: Sharp corners always tend to have higher stress concentrations than

round ones. Find such high points and eliminating them before the start of the simulation can

speed up the process substantially. But note that the displacement results at these points can

still be used, if not the stress values (the stress values can be taken from the nodes near the

singularity).

Summary

The purpose of automatic meshing is to give you the simplest possible solutions to the simplest

possible geometries. That means a square plate with a no holes or other surface features. (This,

ideally, should be done with hex meshing. And then too, the results always depend on the mesh

size!) But as soon as any surface irregularities/features are introduced, there is essentially no

way for you to use a hex element (a square peg in a round hole!).

Hence, you need to depend on actual experimentation and perform mesh studies. Ideally, you

should be making a test after every couple of iterations, and after any design change. Practically,

you might need to make more or less. But understand, simulation is not good enough (yet) to

expel all need for actual testing (and humans make assumptions which may be plain wrong). It

just makes the iterative design process much faster.

Parallel to this, the easiest way to know if a mesh is good enough is to perform mesh studies.

Start with as coarse a mesh as possible, and then iteratively refine it. If the results don’t vary a

lot upon decreasing the size of the mesh, and the results match the experimental values, the

mesh is good enough!

- Introduction to the Finite Element Method (NISA) JSK.pptxЗагружено:Jeetender Singh Kushawaha
- FEA Report - Ravi Patel 1101066Загружено:RAV
- AFEM.Ch13Загружено:PanchoMiyamoto
- 15665709 Model Airplane Engine AnalysisЗагружено:irina_andra
- Developing of a Finite Element Program Incorporating Advanced Element Types-ThesisЗагружено:Concepción de Puentes
- ME-CAD-CAM-R-2013Загружено:Uma Mageshwari
- Application of Discrete Element Method for Continuum Dynamic ProblemsЗагружено:andylei_23
- Mesh Free Method 111Загружено:Debabrata Podder
- 06 Finite Elements BasicsЗагружено:Pankaj Saini
- STR_018Загружено:banudgp
- FEM for 2D Elements3Загружено:Dubela Mekiso
- Fluent-FSI 14.5 Lect-00 IntroЗагружено:Enrique Flores
- Ans13_Mechanical APDL Coupled-Field Analysis GuideЗагружено:Avinash Kumar
- 584Загружено:zachari.alamsyah
- Thesis a KoopmanЗагружено:bharath_9585
- CFX-FSI 14.5 Lect-00 IntroЗагружено:Abraham Rojas
- Finite Element Analysis of Bridge DecsЗагружено:Claudiu Gabriel
- ANSYS Fluent Tutorial Guide r170Загружено:Roberto Carlos Ramos Santillano
- 1Загружено:HEMANT BANSOD
- INCAS BULLETIN Vol 9 Issue 4 Internet First PgЗагружено:Candace Frank
- FEM Synchronous Machine Modeling 2000Загружено:henryvargas238565
- Mitered ElbowЗагружено:afrizal_2011
- Computational Contact Mechanics Yastrebov (1)Загружено:PranavaDart
- md_17Загружено:Nshdnkabd hsbbs
- Lecture 1Загружено:Boban
- 3. CES 6116 4. Energy Methods .pdfЗагружено:Logan Patrick
- ME6603 2M REJINPAUL.pdfЗагружено:AJIT KUMAR
- cfx_tutr.pdfЗагружено:Aung Myat Thu
- Structural Terms - CompilationЗагружено:Ruby Magsino
- Compatibility and CompletenessЗагружено:Amandeep Singh Bansal

- EFFECTIVE LENGTHЗагружено:Rufus Cheng
- FRPЗагружено:Widodo Muis
- Structural Design of Flexible ConduitsЗагружено:DenisR9
- TS27Загружено:Tim
- 11 en Mmtk Wireless Communication-Tower HandoutЗагружено:Shadishwaren Parameswaran
- Back to BcakЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- Torque-Tension Chart for Metric Fasteners.pdfЗагружено:mhd abdou
- Torque value guideЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- Wind IndiaЗагружено:Ajay Nanda
- 1678 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE POLES FOR OVERHEAD FOR OVERHEAD POWER TRACTION.pdfЗагружено:bhopo
- Study Note on DynamicsЗагружено:San Yu Khaing
- NDT methods on steel buildingsЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- AMES ManualЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- NDE_Steel BridgesЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- Design of Single Plate Shear ConnectionsЗагружено:secanet10
- 001Загружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya
- SearchЗагружено:Uppala Krishna Chaitanya

- VCCTЗагружено:Ali Fahem
- 5.Eng Design and Analysis of Helical Springs in Two Wheeler Suspension SystemЗагружено:Impact Journals
- Mesh Convergence Study Using ANSYSЗагружено:smvarunmurthy
- Applied Mechanics of SolidsЗагружено:ariyosage
- 600.pdfЗагружено:Hai Tung
- Day 1Загружено:Jose Manuel
- FEM Composite Laminate MATLABЗагружено:lekan4
- Visualization for Finite Element Method EducationЗагружено:my name
- Plaxis quatationЗагружено:raaji2002
- A Linear Static Analysis of..Загружено:Raed Zuhair Hasan
- The Shear Behaviour of the Reinforced Concrete Four-pile CapsЗагружено:Humberto Magno Fuke
- Plaxis Danang Course-CompiledЗагружено:Trần Quang Huy
- DownloadЗагружено:Lobo Lopez
- Acoustic Radiation EfficiencyЗагружено:paulomareze
- Effect of Tool Edge Geometry and Cutting Conditions on Experimental and Simulated Chip Morphology in Orthogonal Hard Turning of 100Cr6 Steel 2009 JourЗагружено:Edo Destrada
- InTech-Active Vibration Control of a Smart Beam by Using a Spatial ApproachЗагружено:Ozgur Harputlu
- Catia Rectangular Beam AnalysisЗагружено:UNsha bee kom
- CATIA V5 FEA Tutorials Release 20Загружено:roandluc
- Sim Mech tutorial Part1Загружено:haikal86
- ENVICO Company Information Rev1Загружено:Dong-Yong Kim
- ERHARD Needle Valve BrochureЗагружено:phanishankar
- Comparative Study of Cohesive Zone and Virtual Crack Closure Techniques for Three Dimensional Fatigue DebondingЗагружено:aravind kumar
- Dot-faa-Ar-95-17- Probabilistic Design Methodology for Composite StructuresЗагружено:Rwilco
- Savonius DesignЗагружено:jrozousb
- An Optimized Design and Modelling of Prosthetic Runner BladeЗагружено:International Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- o Ring Guide SuperiorЗагружено:Suresh Kumar Mittapalli
- prospectus-141712.pdfЗагружено:Anonymous mINYaMOoYf
- 10673282 Ansys Tips and Ansys TricksЗагружено:great2008
- A New Simplified Procedure to Estimate Loads on Slabs and Shoring During the Construction of Mulstistorey BuildingsЗагружено:Hugo Avelino
- FeaЗагружено:Swarupendra Bhattacharyya

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.