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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the rationale for using basic primitive shapes, specifically triangles and tetrahedrons, in Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Participants emphasize that these shapes can effectively represent any geometric configuration due to their ability to be decomposed into simpler elements, which aids in accurate interpolation and mesh quality. The consensus is that more complex shapes, such as hexagons or pentagons, do not provide significant advantages and complicate the stiffness matrix, making them less favorable for practical applications in FEA.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
  • Familiarity with interpolation functions in numerical methods
  • Knowledge of mesh generation techniques in computational modeling
  • Basic principles of structural mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of midside nodes in enhancing element shape flexibility in FEA.
  • Explore the differences between triangular and quadrilateral elements in mesh generation.
  • Learn about the mathematical foundations of stiffness matrices in FEA.
  • Investigate the practical applications of ANSYS and Hypermesh in FEA simulations.
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, FEA analysts, and students learning about computational modeling and numerical methods in engineering.

mvpunekar
Messages
13
Reaction score
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
All of the shapes you've described can be decomposed into pyramids (triangles).
 
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?
 
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??
 
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: 432
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:
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:
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.
 
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
 

Similar threads

Picking an element type for FEA
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Buckling and modal FEA of a submarine structure
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Simulation of impact on go-kart chasis
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
FEA meshing - why not 2d mesh -> 3d mesh ?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
Castigliano's method for the deflection of a cantilevered beam
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Undergrad Defining the Centroid, Centre of Mass, Centre of Gravity for 2D/3Dshapes
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Deriving the FEA formulation using triangular elements
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Bevel Gear Design: Choosing Between Straight and Spiral Bevel Gears
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Help, can't visualize a fantasy worldbuilding mechanic
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate What are shape functions and how are they used in FEA?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
25K