Help with Ansys Electronics error please: "The quality of some mesh elements is not acceptable for solution"

  • Thread starter Thread starter uze1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion addresses an error encountered in Ansys Electronics regarding unacceptable mesh element quality during simulation. Users are advised to inspect geometry for issues such as sharp angles, self-intersections, and overlapping elements, which can complicate meshing. Utilizing tools like Preview Mesh and Geometry Check can help identify problematic areas. A trial-and-error approach, such as isolating parts of the design, is recommended to troubleshoot meshing issues effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Ansys Electronics software
  • Knowledge of mesh generation techniques
  • Familiarity with geometry optimization for simulations
  • Experience with troubleshooting simulation errors
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore Ansys Electronics Preview Mesh functionality
  • Learn about Geometry Check features in Ansys
  • Research best practices for optimizing mesh quality in simulations
  • Investigate techniques for isolating geometry issues in CAD models
USEFUL FOR

Simulation engineers, Ansys users, and professionals involved in computational modeling who need to resolve meshing issues effectively.

uze1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I have error in Ansys Electronics when simulating. I get this error: "The quality of some mesh elements is not acceptable for solution. Please check the geometry for issuesin the following location (x,y,z)".Can someone help me with that?
I have error in Ansys Electronics when simulating. I get this error: "The quality of some mesh elements is not acceptable for solution. Please check the geometry for issuesin the following location (x,y,z)". I have tried to change the mesh to fine, but the simulation is taking over 24 h . This can´t be reasonable. Can someone help me with that?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

Do you think you might be able to get better help from us if you showed us the simulation you are trying to run? We probably are not going to be much help if you don't give us *much* more information. Please at least attach your source file (renamed to *.txt) and tell us what you are trying to simulate.
 
Meshing is always a really tricky issue. It would be difficult even if you called an application engineer for help on it.

What you typically want to look for: Anything with like sharp acute angles or self-intersection; also really long narrow lines can be tricky to mesh mostly because it tries to slice it diagonally. When you have two things touching each other you wont want any overlapping with offsets because the tool tries to simplify the mesh by snapping (I've seen even two overlapping circles of the same size cause mesh issues and that's because the tool doesn't simulate true cylinders it's actually meshing a high N-sided polygon and the two circles can have slightly different mesh causing the shapes to offset)

(Fake examples)
1747980775721.webp


If you can use Preview Mesh this might work even if you can't mesh it, and then you can look and see if there's anything that looks weird and take a closer look. I think I've seen in there like a Geometry Check feature too I would look for that because that can point to things. If you try to mesh it and there's an error you might be able to click on the setup and look at something like Mesh Feedback it'll list off a bunch of errors and sometimes point you to the cause.

You can do it the old school way, which a lot of people end up having to do anyways (and then their intuition helps them avoid it in the future): Delete parts of the design like clip it out or just delete like half the design and see if it meshes, and repeat until you can kind of narrow down or isolate the issue.

Good luck!

edit:

And yes: Finer mesh will take way longer to simulate. If there is meshing issue preventing the simulation from running... this is just my own experience... I've never seen a finer mesh resolve that. I personally don't think that would be the right approach plus if your scope has tighter schedule this would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K