Are swept meshes always better?
Are swept meshes always better?
(OP)
I have a fairly simple question actually, that I'm sure will result in a not-so-simple answers for all analysis cases.
My question is the following: are swept meshes always better? In terms of analysis time, convergence and results accuracy.
A good example would be a hat stiffener beam which is being meshes with shell elements.
Does one prefer a random triangular mesh or does one prefer an ordered swept quad mesh that follows the general shape of the beam?
My question is the following: are swept meshes always better? In terms of analysis time, convergence and results accuracy.
A good example would be a hat stiffener beam which is being meshes with shell elements.
Does one prefer a random triangular mesh or does one prefer an ordered swept quad mesh that follows the general shape of the beam?





RE: Are swept meshes always better?
The more difficult question arises with complex geometry like organic shapes. Here sometimes hex meshes are near impossible to achieve.
If using triangles or tets I usually run with second order. Infact Abaqus has changed this to the default.
In the end the mesh needs good aspect ratios and mesh densities where needed. I usually test several and pick the one with the best:
cost (time) vs reward (accuracy)
I hope this helps.
Rob Stupplebeen
www.optimaldevice.com
https://sites.google.com/site/robertkstupplebeen/
RE: Are swept meshes always better?
use quad meshs whenever you can.
avoid TET4s as you'd avoid TRIAs
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Are swept meshes always better?
In the case that the material is an isotropic one, such as steel, titanium or aluminum.
RE: Are swept meshes always better?
btw, i used TRIA3 intentionally ... you wouldn't mesh a sheet metal part with TETs, would you ?
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Are swept meshes always better?