Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Apr 29, 2010 #1
    what is exact reason behind choosing basic primitive shapes for elements in FEA?

    Why it cant be hexagonal, pentagonal, octagonal, etc. in both cases 2D and 3D.....

    Thanks in advance....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 29, 2010 #2

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    All of the shapes you've described can be decomposed into pyramids (triangles).
     
  4. Apr 29, 2010 #3

    Thanks for reply....

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

    why only those basic shapes are standardised?
     
  5. Apr 29, 2010 #4
    how interpolation functions are affected by choosing higher primitive shapes??
     
  6. Apr 29, 2010 #5

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Apr 29, 2010 #6

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 [Broken]

    Brick with midside nodes:
    [URL]http://research.me.udel.edu/~lwang/teaching/MEx81/ansyshelp/graphics/gELEM95-1.gif[/URL]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Apr 29, 2010 #7
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Apr 29, 2010 #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.
     
  10. Apr 30, 2010 #9
    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)?
     
  11. Apr 30, 2010 #10

    minger

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  12. Apr 30, 2010 #11

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Apr 30, 2010 #12
    now i got it perfectly ...thanks Mech engg...:smile: :smile:
     
  14. Apr 30, 2010 #13
    can u provide some links to clear basics of FEm from practicality point of view.......
     
  15. Apr 30, 2010 #14

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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/" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Apr 30, 2010 #15
    Thanks again :smile:

    by the way ,,,whats ur specialisation ??

    n where r u from??
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  17. May 1, 2010 #16
    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: May 4, 2017
  18. May 1, 2010 #17

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. May 2, 2010 #18
    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?? isnt it?

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

    Thankss in advance
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: What is exact reason behind choosing basic primitive shapes for elements in FEA?
  1. FEA: What's the point? (Replies: 4)

Loading...