3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

HOME

CAE INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

CAE TECHNICAL RESOURCES

CONTACT US

Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mes

october 27, 2011 by shengwei

19 comments

Although there are quite a few mesh-free (mesh-less) FEA and CFD codes, meshing is still one of th

important tasks for most CAE users. The importance of generating high quality mesh can never be
overemphasized.

But how to define a high qua

more preciously good, mesh

the output of mesh quality re

your meshing software is on

essential step; you need mak

judgements whether the mes

enough for your physical pro

Unfortunately, there are a lo

misunderstanding of good m

Nowadays, it is hard to find m

course in engineering depart

Source: (to be updated).

The numerical algorithm in m

engineering schools is option

is not surprising, the new generation CAE users lack some fundamental knowledge on how meshin
a CAE system.
Here are the top 5 misunderstandings on good mesh.

#1. Good mesh must follow CAD model well.

More and more CAE users are designers, as explained in the previous post. They are generally well

CAD, and they tend to bring all details to analysis. They believe more details means more close to t
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

1/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

This is not true, most of the time. Good mesh need resolve physics, not follow the CAD model.

The purpose of CAE simulation is to get physical quantities: stress, strain, displacement, velocity, p

CAD model is simply an abstraction of physical objects. Lots of details are not relevant to your ana

has marginal impact on your calculation. Therefore, knowing the physics in your system is essentia
mesh should simplify CAD model and placing nodes based on physics.
This implies you can generate good mesh only if you know the physics in your system.

#2. Good mesh is always good.

So many times, we can see some CAE users work hard to get high quality mesh by changing meshi

decomposing geometry and defeaturing. They carefully check the mesh quality output in the mesh
software.
This is necessary. But do not over-do it, because good mesh is not always good. It depends on the
problem to be simulated.

For example, you generate a very good mesh that captures the flow around an airfoil perfectly and

all forces accurately. Now if you change the flow attack angle from 0 to 45 degree, is your mesh sti
Very likely not.
A good mesh is always associated with the physics. When you change your boundary conditions,

your load conditions, or change analysis types, or change flow models, good mesh (with the identic
geometry) may turns to be bad mesh.

#3. Hexahedron is always better than tetrahedron.

Most old text books will tell you hexa (quad) mesh is better than tetra (tri) and show you how large

numerical errors may be introduced by tetra (tri) mesh. Sometimes, this is true, especially 15 or 20

Historically, people prefer hex mesh due to: 1). at that time, only structured mesh can be used for m

solvers ; 2). less cell (element) count (so, a lot of saving in RAM and CPU time); 3). unstructured solv
not matured.

The solver technology developments in most commercial FEA and CFD codes in last decade have le
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

2/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

similar results for hex and tetra mesh for most problems . Of course, tetra mesh normally need mo

computing resources during solving stage. But his can be easily offset by the time saved in mesh ge

The accuracy advantage of hex mesh is no longer existing anymore, for most engineering proble

For some special applications, e.g., wind turbine, pump, or airplane, hex mesh is still preferred, bec

industry convention; 2). well-understood physics (most users know how to align the mesh); 3). spe
to generated hex mesh for such geometries.

However, for most FEA and CFD users, if the geometry is slightly complicated, it is just a waste to s

on hex meshing. Your results will not be better, most of time, if not always. The (solver) computing
saved with hex mesh is marginal compared with time wasted in mesh generation.

#4. Good mesh can only not be generated by automatic meshin

When the software vendor need justify that his meshing software is in the high-end (of course pric

usually in the high end as well), he will tell you the software allows you to all sorts of manual contr
hidden information is only manual controls can generate better mesh.

Yes, to salesman, good mesh need manual control. But to engineer, you need understand this is mi

A good meshing software should have the intelligence to analyze the underlying geometry: calcu

curvatures, finding gaps; finding small features; finding hard edges; finding sharp angles, applying
default settings.

This is what automatic meshing should do. For most users, software can gather more info, and mo

accurately, on the underlying geometry. So, the software should be able to apply better settings to
better quality mesh compared with a lot of users users.

Of course, for advanced users who use the software everyday and work on similar geometries for y

story may be different. Such users also know the physics very well, and meshing software has no w

understand physic problems to be solved.But the percentage of such power users is decreasing da

Anyway, for mesh quality, a good automatic meshing software should perform far better then mos

experienced users unless you have a lousy meshing software. Manual control is for experienced us
know the physics very well.

#5. Good mesh must have a large cell/node count.

http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

3/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

Because HPC resource is easy to access, even a FYP student may try to solve 10-20 million cells CF

problems. In the eyes of most CAE users, large cell count means high fidelity and therefore all phys
resolved.

This is not true, because some physics must be modeled. For example, in CFD, if you are going to u

standard wall function, then any nodes in the viscous layer simply makes your wall function invalid

not only wasting computing resources, but also producing unphysical results.Even for LES, excess
mesh may lead to larger errors and unphysical solutions.

Fine mesh does not mean good mesh.The purpose of meshing is to get solutions in discrete locatio

mesh is the mesh that serves your project objectives. So, as long as your results are: 1) physical; a
accurate enough for your project, your mesh is sufficiently good.

Another example of this misunderstanding is that most users always use full 3D model. In their eye

model is realistic. However, if the problem is symmetry, using portion of your geometry (therefor

nodes/elements) will produce better results because the symmetric condition is exactly enforced.

problem is axis symmetric, 2D results is far more accurate than most 3D results. Anyway, most new

generation CAE users does not have the time to fully understand the physics of the system to be si

It is hard for them to do any simplifications. So, it is not surprising, the CAE problem is getting big
bigger, unnecessarily.
Currently, CAE still replies on meshing. Good mesh should:
1. be able to resolve the physics to be studied;
2. have reasonable quality so that the solver will not fail;
3. simplify the geometry based on physics;
4. be problem specific;
5. meet your project requirements
Share this:

Google

LinkedIn

10

Facebook

58

StumbleUpon

Twitter

Related posts:
1. CAE in the Cloud, Is It Just Hot Air?
2. CAEWatch, WTF?
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

4/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

filed under: cae industry analysis, cae technical resources

physics, quality, solver, tetra

tagged with: cad, cfd, fea, hex, hpc, mesh, mesh free

About shengwei

Dr. Ma Shengwei has spent last 20 years in numerical simulation, including writing CFD solver an

numerical simulation in solving various real-world problems, including pollutant dispersion, sedi
transport, heat transfer, membrane separation, water and waster treatment, centrifugal pump, n
ventilation, and separation systems.
You may get his detailed info on his expertise from Linkedin .

Comments
John says:
November 5, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Nice post!
Reply

Yifeng says:
November 11, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Totally agree!
Reply

lubos says:
November 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm

I would say that the most important of these is the point you made in #2. Its critical to make sure the mesh

correctly resolves the physics of your problem. For instance, I develop codes for plasma modeling. These code
hybrid method in which both kinetic particles and a mesh is used (http://www.particleincell.com/2010/es-p

method/). Depending on the type of the problem you are solving, there is a certain maximum size a cell eleme
have in order to resolve the local electric field correctly.

Also, in these hybrid particle/cell methods, another issue that comes up is the ease at which you can interpola
from particles to the mesh and vice versa. Although an unstructured mesh can give you a much better resoluti

geometry of interest, it also significantly complicates the particle push. The unstructured mesh also results in
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

5/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

order electric field, unless second-order polynomials are used to solve for the potential. So it ends up being a
between the resolving the geometry and obtaining results faster and possibly also with a greater accuracy.
Reply

klicken says:
June 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm

You have remarked very interesting details ! ps decent website .

Reply

Steve Saunders says:

July 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Thanks for that article. I just got some feedback on a proposal I submitted. The question was, Will a mesh
sensitivity analysis be performed? Im composing a reply that I hope wont come off as flippant that essentiall
whole project is a study in mesh sensitivity.
Reply

anu says:
August 1, 2012 at 9:30 am

well explained (mistakes of meshing)

Reply

Luffy says:
October 9, 2012 at 5:00 am

Simple and straightforward. Awesome article

Reply

liki says:
October 20, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Good understanding of mesh in CFD engineering

Reply

http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

6/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

Sanjay Choudhry says:

April 5, 2013 at 1:59 am

A good article for most part, but a couple of comments:

1. For structural incompressible problems, Hex and Quads give better results than Tets and Tri. Even with the

of bubble functions and incompatible modes to satisfy the LBB conditions, the Tets and Tris do not reach the s

level of accuracy. In the fluids problems, the flow direction can lead to numerical diffusion if not aligned (so Ph
based meshing is a must but that can be judiciously combined with Hexs and Quads to give better results than
Tris).
2. Instead of FEA and CFD, please say Structural and CFD since finite elements have been extensively used for
well.
Reply

shengwei says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:38 pm

Thank you for your comments and inputs, Sanjay.

Reply

bmikuz says:
March 11, 2014 at 10:31 pm

Hi,

Im interested in benchmark studies comparing hexa with tetra meshes What would you recommend fo
(articles, books,)?
Reply

Sijal Ahmed says:

August 4, 2013 at 9:37 am

Very nice article.

Regarding Point # 4. I have two observations:

1. There are many meshers in market which are able to make mesh with minimum user input. But still they nee

work for fine tuning the mesh in important regions which software does not know at all. Moreover for hexa m
automatic meshers will find hard time for complicated models. But I would always go for good tet mesh than t
Hexa mesh.
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

7/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

2. Author has emphasized importance of experienced users and Hexa mesh. Which implies if you have option t
Hexa mesh you should go for it. Which is really a contradiction!!!

But there are many situations in which it is not possible to create hexa mesh or the problem is not highly depe
mesh.

Last but not the least, you always need a good Hexa mesh if you want to have good results and your model sha
used for different design points simulation e.g. aircraft, missile, turbine, compressor CFD simulation etc.
Reply

shengwei says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm

thank you for your input.

1. as an experienced user, you probably seldom rely on these automatic tools. However, for most not-so-exp
users, automation tools are valuable.
2. actually, my point is hex mesh are seldom necessary. Mesh quality, not mesh type, is the key.
Reply

Sijal Ahmed says:

August 5, 2013 at 2:05 pm

Point # 2 : As we increase the no of faces (hexa, polygonal) in a cell, we can have more information from
neighbouring cells. Since tet cells have less neighbouring cells therefore it needs more dense mesh in tho
critical regions. This is what we learned in our CFD classes.
Take an example of backward facing step validation case. You can easily observe HEX meshes have clear
advantages.
However for quick design iterations for complex geometries, it is better to go for tet type meshes, which
adopt the themselves to geometry.
Can we use tet mesh for transition predictions? separation dominated flows? LES simulations?

How we are going to estimate uncertainty with tet mesh to the time needed for hex mesh generation? W
is more important? Doubts on results from tet meshes or time consumed in Hex mesh?
Reply

http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

8/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

James Feng says:

December 30, 2014 at 9:49 pm

I find this post as well as the follow-up discussion-comments very helpful and valuable. I highly appreciate
the authors knowledge and participants contributions.

I wonder if anybody has done detailed comparison between finite volume method and finite element method w

same mesh containing non-orthogonality, skewness, non-uniformity. To my understanding (with some level o

experience with the finite element method on hex-quad meshes), the finite element method is quite robust (o

insensitive) with high aspect ratio meshes and large element-to-element size ratios (nonuniformity). But finite
method, based on central difference or so, will theoretically lose accuracy on nonuniform meshes. Am I correc
Reply

Swapnil Gaul says:

January 19, 2015 at 10:08 am

Very useful and meaningful !

Reply

Leave a Reply
Enteryourcommenthere...

Follow Us!

Recent Posts
CFD in 2014
Why isnt open source CFD solution
for everyone?
CFD in 2013: what will change? what
will not
http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

9/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

From post-processing and

visualization to simulation result
exploration
The best 3 answers to Why is
visulization important for CFD?

Recent Comments
Swapnil Gaul on Top 5
misunderstandings on (good) mesh
Swapnil Gaul on CFD in 2013: what
will change? what will not
James Feng on Top 5
misunderstandings on (good) mesh
Timothy Suhr on The Big 6 in
CAD/CAE/PLM software industry
(2011)
John Vanworkum on CFD in 2014

Google

Meta
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org

Return to top of page

http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

Copyright 2011-2015 CAEWatch.com Hosted by PTRHosting

10/11

3/11/2015

Top5misunderstandingson(good)mesh

Privacy
Disclaimer: All the information provided on this website is provided
on an "as is" and "as available" basis and you agree that you use such
information entirely at your own risk.

http://caewatch.com/top5misunderstandingsongoodmesh/

11/11