0What Is Finite Element Mesh Refinement?
Engineers and scientists use finite element analysis (FEA) software to build
predictive computational models of real-world scenarios. The use of FEA
software begins with a computer-aided design (CAD) model that represents the
physical parts being simulated as well as knowledge of the material properties and
the applied loads and constraints. This information enables the prediction of real-
world behavior, often with very high levels of accuracy.
The accuracy that can be obtained from any FEA model is directly related to the
finite element mesh that is used. The finite element mesh is used to subdivide the
CAD model into smaller domains called elements, over which a set of equations
are solved. These equations approximately represent the governing equation of
interest via a set of polynomial functions defined over each element. As these
elements are made smaller and smaller, as the mesh is refined, the computed
solution will approach the true solution.
This process of mesh refinement is a key step in validating any finite element
model and gaining confidence in the software, the model, and the results.
The Mesh Refinement Process
A good finite element analyst starts with both an understanding of the physics of
the system that is to be analyzed and a complete description of the geometry of
the system. This geometry is represented via a CAD model. A typical CAD model
will accurately describe the shape and structure, but often also contain cosmetic
features or manufacturing details that can prove to be extraneous for the purposes
of finite element modeling. The analyst should put some engineering judgment
into examining the CAD model and deciding if these features and details can be
removed or simplified prior to meshing. Starting with a simple model and adding
complexity is almost always easier than starting with a complex model and
simplifying it.
The analyst should also know all of the physics that are relevant to the problem,
the materials properties, the loads, the constraints, and any elements that can
affect the results of interest. These inputs may have uncertainties in them. For
instance, the material properties and loads may not always be precisely known. It
is important to keep this in mind during the modeling process, as there is no
benefit in trying to resolve a model to greater accuracy than the input data admits.
A finite element model of a wrench and the computed stresses. The mesh is not
shown.
Once all of this information is assembled into an FEA model, the analyst can
begin with a preliminary mesh. Early in the analysis process, it makes sense to
start with a mesh that is as coarse as possible – a mesh with very large elements.
A coarse mesh will require less computational resources to solve and, while it
may give a very inaccurate solution, it can still be used as a rough verification and
as a check on the applied loads and constraints.
The first few iterations of a mesh refinement study of a wrench, starting with a very
coarse mesh.
After computing the solution on the coarse mesh, the process of mesh refinement
begins. In its simplest form, mesh refinement is the process of resolving the model
with successively finer and finer meshes, comparing the results between these
different meshes. This comparison can be done by analyzing the fields at one or
more points in the model or by evaluating the integral of a field over some
domains or boundaries.
By comparing these scalar quantities, it is possible to judge the convergence of
the solution with respect to mesh refinement. After comparing a minimum of
three successive solutions, an asymptotic behavior of the solution starts to
emerge, and the changes in the solution between meshes become smaller.
Eventually, these changes will be small enough that the analyst can consider the
model to be converged. This is always a judgment call on the part of the analyst,
who knows the uncertainties in the model inputs and the acceptable uncertainty in
the results.
Different Mesh Refinement Metrics
Studying convergence requires choosing an appropriate mesh refinement metric.
This metric can be either local or global. That is, the metric can be defined at one
location in the model or as the integral of the fields over the entire model space.
An example of a local metric is the displacement or stress at a point within a
structural analysis. An example of a global metric is the integral of the strain
energy density over all domains. Both the stresses and the strain are computed
based upon the gradient of the solution and the displacement field. Gradients of
the solution are always computed to one order lower polynomial approximation.
A simple finite element model of a loaded plate with a hole. Symmetry is used to
reduce the model size, and several different metrics can be defined to study mesh
refinement.
While choosing a metric, it is important to remember that different metrics will
have different convergence behavior. This is illustrated in the figure below,
showing different meshes being used to solve the same FEA model. These meshes
differ in terms of the element size and are compared in terms of the number
of degrees of freedom (DOF) within the model. The DOF is related to the number
of nodes, the computational points that define the shape of each finite element.
The computational resources required to solve an FEA model are directly related
to the number of DOF.
From the figure below, it appears as if certain metrics converge faster than others,
but it is important to keep in mind that the rate of mesh convergence for a
particular problem statement is dependent upon which mesh refinement
technique is used.
Convergence of a global metric (top), a local metric based upon the solution field
(center), and a local metric based upon the gradient of the solution (bottom) with
1% error bars compared to the most refined solution. The same meshes were used
for the three cases.
Different Mesh Refinement Techniques
When it comes to mesh refinement, there is a suite of techniques that are
commonly used. An experienced user of FEA software should be familiar with
each of these techniques and the tradeoffs between them.
Reducing the Element Size
Reducing the element size is the easiest mesh refinement strategy, with element
sizes reduced throughout the modeling domains. This approach is attractive due to
its simplicity, but the drawback is that there is no preferential mesh refinement in
regions where a locally finer mesh may be needed.
The stresses in a plate with a hole, solved with different element sizes.
Increasing the Element Order
Increasing the element order is advantageous in the sense that no remeshing is
needed; the same mesh can be used, but with different element orders. Remeshing
can be time consuming for complex 3D geometries or the mesh may come from
an external source and cannot be altered. The disadvantage to this technique is
that the computational requirements increase faster than with other mesh
refinement techniques.
The same finite element mesh, but solved with different element orders.
Global Adaptive Mesh Refinement
Global adaptive mesh refinement uses an error estimation strategy to determine
the point in the modeling domain where the local error is largest. The FEA
software then takes this error estimation and uses the information to generate an
entirely new mesh. Smaller elements are used in regions where the local error is
significant, and the local error throughout the model is considered. The advantage
here is that the software will do all of the mesh refinement. The drawback is that
the user has no control over the mesh. As such, excessive mesh refinement may
occur in regions that are of less interest, regions where a larger local error is
acceptable.
Global adaptive mesh refinement changes the element sizes in a nonuniform
manner.
Local Adaptive Mesh Refinement
Local adaptive mesh refinement differs from global adaptive mesh refinement in
that the error is evaluated only over some subset of the entire model space, with
respect to a specific metric. For example, it is possible to refine the mesh such
that stresses at the boundary of a hole are more accurately resolved. This meshing
strategy will still remesh the entire model with the objective of reducing the error
in one region. If a logical and desirable local metric exists with respect to which
mesh can be refined, the local adaptive approach is superior to global adaptive
mesh refinement.
Local adaptive mesh refinement with respect to the stresses at a point.
Manually Adjusting the Mesh
The most labor intensive approach is for the analyst to manually create a series of
different finite element meshes based upon the physics of the particular problem
and an intuition as to where finer elements may be needed. For 2D models, a
combination of triangular and quadrilateral elements can be used. In the case of
3D models, a combination of tetrahedral, hexahedral (also called bricks),
triangular prismatic, and pyramidal elements can be used. While triangular and
tetrahedral elements can be utilized to mesh any geometry, the quadrilateral,
hexahedral, prismatic, and pyramidal elements are helpful when the solution is
known to vary gradually along one or more directions. By elongating, or
shrinking, elements in certain directions, the mesh can be tuned to the variation in
the fields.
A manually created mesh of a plate with a hole. Varying sizes of triangular and
elongated quadrilateral elements are used.
The manual meshing approach requires the most experience and a working
understanding of the finite element method and the physics being solved.
However, when done correctly, the savings on time and resources can be
significant.
Manual mesh refinement of a wrench using different element types.
Time-Domain and Frequency-Domain
Meshing
Along with all of the above techniques, additional considerations should be kept
in mind when meshing problems that have time-varying loads. A model with
nonlinear material responses or arbitrary time-varying excitations would need to
be solved in the time domain. On the other hand, if the applied excitation is of a
single frequency or a range of known frequencies and the material properties are
linear, then it is preferred for the modeling to take place in the frequency domain.
There are additional mesh refinement strategies for each of these cases.
Time-Adaptive Mesh Refinement
Time-adaptive mesh refinement remeshes the model at distinct time intervals and
considers an error estimate of the solution at each interval as the metric by which
to remesh the model. This is useful when the regions requiring good mesh
resolution move over time.
Time-adaptive mesh refinement of a model of a rising bubble solved with a two-
phase flow model. The finite element mesh is finer around the phase boundary.
Wavelength-Adaptive Mesh Refinement
When modeling in the frequency domain, both the range of excitation frequencies
and the material properties are known ahead of time. Thus, it is possible to predict
the wavelength in all modeling domains. The element size must be sufficiently
smaller than the wavelength, such that the element polynomial basis functions
resolve the waves.
Microwave waveguide with a dielectric load (cutout view). Wavelength adaptive
mesh refinement alters the element size based upon the frequency and material
properties.
Summary and Future Trends in Finite
Element Meshing
The key point to keep in mind with all of these approaches is that, no matter
which method is used, they will all converge toward the same solution for the
posed problem. The difference between these various approaches is only in
the rate at which they converge. This is, however, a significant practical
difference. Depending upon the problem, one technique may converge much
faster than others, and no one refinement strategy is appropriate in all
circumstances. Every problem will have its unique meshing challenges, which
continues to pose difficulties for analysts.
Some changes are underway that will ease these challenges. One of the most
important developments over the last few years has been increasingly easy access
to affordable cloud computing resources, enabling the running of several different
cases in parallel. This allows analysts to study many model and mesh variations in
much less time, giving them the ability to quickly address all of the uncertainties.
The algorithms used to generate the meshes themselves are also continuously
improving and taking greater advantage of multicore computing. Additionally, the
solvers are becoming more efficient, with the ability to solve huge models on
cluster computers. All of these changes will provide more accurate solutions in
less time, while accelerating the analysis and design process.
Published: January 6, 2016
Last modified: February 21, 2017