What is exact reason behind choosing basic primitive shapes for elements in FEA?

In summary, the primary reason for using basic primitive shapes in Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is to simplify the analysis process and reduce computational complexity. These shapes, such as triangles and quadrilaterals, are easier to mesh and analyze compared to more complex shapes, allowing for faster and more accurate results. Additionally, basic primitive shapes are commonly used in FEA software, making it easier to import and manipulate models. Overall, the use of basic primitive shapes in FEA allows for efficient and effective analysis of complex structures.
  • #1
mvpunekar
13
0
what is exact reason behind choosing basic primitive shapes for elements in FEA?

Why it can't be hexagonal, pentagonal, octagonal, etc. in both cases 2D and 3D...

Thanks in advance...
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
All of the shapes you've described can be decomposed into pyramids (triangles).
 
  • #3
Mech_Engineer said:
All of the shapes you've described can be decomposed into pyramids (triangles).


Thanks for reply...

Its true...but why those small elements can take any other shape...

why only those basic shapes are standardised?
 
  • #4
Mech_Engineer said:
All of the shapes you've described can be decomposed into pyramids (triangles).

how interpolation functions are affected by choosing higher primitive shapes??
 
  • #5
mvpunekar said:
Thanks for reply...

Its true...but why those small elements can take any other shape...

why only those basic shapes are standardised?

They're the only ones neceaary to describe any shape under the sun, especially when you take into account midside nodes which allow arbitrary shapes and quadratic interpolation. take for example this ANSYS element:

gELEM152-1.gif


An element that was shaped like a dodecahedron would still be subject to the limitations of triangular elements, since it has faceted sides with discrete nodes; there is no advantage to using a huge element with a million faces when you can use a million elements with single faces.
 

Attachments

  • gELEM152-1.gif
    gELEM152-1.gif
    3.3 KB · Views: 368
  • #6
For some more examples:

Pyramid with midside nodes:
[PLAIN]http://www.me.cmu.edu/academics/courses/NSF_Edu_Proj/Statics_Solidworks/tutorial%20pictures/ansys/10%20node%20tet.gif

Brick with midside nodes:
[URL]http://research.me.udel.edu/~lwang/teaching/MEx81/ansyshelp/graphics/gELEM95-1.gif[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Mech_Engineer said:
For some more examples:

Pyramid with midside nodes:
[PLAIN]http://www.me.cmu.edu/academics/courses/NSF_Edu_Proj/Statics_Solidworks/tutorial%20pictures/ansys/10%20node%20tet.gif

Brick with midside nodes:
[PLAIN]http://research.me.udel.edu/~lwang/teaching/MEx81/ansyshelp/graphics/gELEM95-1.gif[/QUOTE]

Thanks for such wonderful explanation...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
A follow-up question from me: Why does it seem like pretty much every mesher aims to create quads/hexahedrons, and from my own experience quads/hexahedrons blows away triangles/tetrahedrons in terms of density/precision of result; fewer quads/hexa are required to reach a comparable analytical solution.
 
  • #9
Claws said:
A follow-up question from me: Why does it seem like pretty much every mesher aims to create quads/hexahedrons, and from my own experience quads/hexahedrons blows away triangles/tetrahedrons in terms of density/precision of result; fewer quads/hexa are required to reach a comparable analytical solution.

Thanks for help...

but can u relate ur answer to interpolation functions??

why elements like octagon, pentagon,etc are not used for 2D meshing(also in solids)?
 
  • #10
Claws said:
A follow-up question from me: Why does it seem like pretty much every mesher aims to create quads/hexahedrons, and from my own experience quads/hexahedrons blows away triangles/tetrahedrons in terms of density/precision of result; fewer quads/hexa are required to reach a comparable analytical solution.

Quads are typically easier to "control". The mesh lines are smooth, so I can typically avoid erroneous results from rapidly changing element shapes and sizes. In addition to that, you typically find that you can get a better mesh with much fewer elements using "brick" elements.
 
  • #11
mvpunekar said:
Thanks for help...

but can u relate ur answer to interpolation functions??

why elements like octagon, pentagon,etc are not used for 2D meshing(also in solids)?

As I explained, both an octagon and pentagon can be broken down into triangles; there is no advantage to use a larger element when it will have a much larger stiffness matrix to solve. There are fundamental advantages between brick and pyramidal elements in terms or solution accuracy and mesh quality, but I can't think of any reasons a more complex element would be better.
 
  • #12
Mech_Engineer said:
As I explained, both an octagon and pentagon can be broken down into triangles; there is no advantage to use a larger element when it will have a much larger stiffness matrix to solve. There are fundamental advantages between brick and pyramidal elements in terms or solution accuracy and mesh quality, but I can't think of any reasons a more complex element would be better.

now i got it perfectly ...thanks Mech engg...:smile: :smile:
 
  • #13
mvpunekar said:
now i got it perfectly ...thanks Mech engg...:smile: :smile:

Mech_Engineer said:
As I explained, both an octagon and pentagon can be broken down into triangles; there is no advantage to use a larger element when it will have a much larger stiffness matrix to solve. There are fundamental advantages between brick and pyramidal elements in terms or solution accuracy and mesh quality, but I can't think of any reasons a more complex element would be better.

can u provide some links to clear basics of FEm from practicality point of view...
 
  • #14
You can just do a search on Google. Some results that will come up are like this:

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/IFEM.d/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Mech_Engineer said:
You can just do a search on Google. Some results that will come up are like this:

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/IFEM.d/"

Thanks again :smile:

by the way ,,,whats ur specialisation ??

n where r u from??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Mech_Engineer said:
You can just do a search on Google. Some results that will come up are like this:

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/IFEM.d/"

This books has more mathematical approach ..

can u provide me links which teaches basic from pratical point of view ...like there is one book called "Practical Finite Element Analysis" by Nitin Gokhale, Finite to Infinite Publications...


Thanks in advance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
mvpunekar said:
This books has more mathematical approach ..

can u provide me links which teaches basic from pratical point of view ...like there is one book called "Practical Finite Element Analysis" by Nitin Gokhale, Finite to Infinite Publications...

Thanks in advance

In case you didn't realize it let me clear something up for you- finite element analysis is ALL math. You can't learn about FEA without math, period. Even if you want a book with "pratical" in the name, it doesn't mean it won't cover the math aspects of FEA.

I'm a mechanical engineer, my job involves a lot of FEA analysis. Structural, thermal, electromagnetic, CFD, and coupled-physics.
 
  • #18
Mech_Engineer said:
In case you didn't realize it let me clear something up for you- finite element analysis is ALL math. You can't learn about FEA without math, period. Even if you want a book with "pratical" in the name, it doesn't mean it won't cover the math aspects of FEA.

I'm a mechanical engineer, my job involves a lot of FEA analysis. Structural, thermal, electromagnetic, CFD, and coupled-physics.

Thanks

But i have seen in some big companies that the Sr FEA engineers r just good at application part ...and not good in basics of maths of FEA... i guess only practical application of FEA is necessary & not its all core maths...its necessary for ppl who r developing those softwares?? isn't it?

anyways myself i have started learning FEA, ansys n Hypermesh ...will ask u whenever i get some doubts ...

Thankss in advance
 

1. Why are basic primitive shapes used in FEA instead of more complex shapes?

Basic primitive shapes, such as triangles, rectangles, and tetrahedrons, are used in FEA because they are simple and easy to work with mathematically. This allows for quicker and more efficient calculations, making the analysis process faster and more accurate.

2. How do basic primitive shapes accurately represent complex structures in FEA?

Basic primitive shapes can accurately represent complex structures in FEA by using a technique called discretization. This involves breaking down the structure into smaller, simpler elements, and then applying the principles of FEA to each individual element. When combined, these elements can accurately simulate the behavior of the entire structure.

3. What are the limitations of using basic primitive shapes in FEA?

One limitation of using basic primitive shapes in FEA is that they may not be able to accurately capture all the details of a complex structure, especially in areas with sharp corners or irregular shapes. This can lead to errors in the analysis results. Additionally, using too few elements can also result in less accurate results.

4. Are there any advantages to using more complex shapes in FEA?

Using more complex shapes in FEA can provide more accurate results in certain cases. For example, using curved elements can better represent structures with curved surfaces. However, this comes at the cost of increased computational time and complexity, which may not always be necessary for the desired level of accuracy.

5. Can basic primitive shapes be combined to create more complex elements in FEA?

Yes, basic primitive shapes can be combined in FEA to create more complex elements, such as quadrilaterals or hexahedrons. This allows for a more detailed representation of the structure while still maintaining the simplicity and efficiency of using basic shapes. However, this approach may also increase the computational time and complexity of the analysis.

Similar threads

Picking an element type for FEA
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
Simulation of impact on go-kart chasis
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
12
Views
1K
Buckling and modal FEA of a submarine structure
    • General Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
Castigliano's method for the deflection of a cantilevered beam
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
4K
Defining the Centroid, Centre of Mass, Centre of Gravity for 2D/3Dshapes
    • Classical Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
A Deriving the FEA formulation using triangular elements
    • Differential Equations
Replies
2
Views
2K
Help, can't visualize a fantasy worldbuilding mechanic
    • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
1
Views
533
FEA meshing - why not 2d mesh -> 3d mesh ?
    • General Engineering
Replies
4
Views
12K
Bevel Gear Design: Choosing Between Straight and Spiral Bevel Gears
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
5K
On the proof of the Principle of Virtual Work
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top