The Best FEA Mesh Density for Accuracy and

Speed | MSC Nastran

CHRISTIAN APARICIO JULY 12, 2013 0
The mesh density in a finite element model is an important topic because of its relationship to accuracy and
cost. In many instances, the minimum number of elements is set by topological considerations, for example,
one element per member in a space frame or one element per panel in a stiffened shell structure. In the
past, when problem size was more severely limited, it was not uncommon to lump two or more frames or
other similar elements in order to reduce the size of the model. With computers becoming faster and
cheaper, the current trend is to represent all major components individually in the finite element model.
If the minimum topological requirements are easily satisfied, the question remains as to how fine to subdivide
the major components. The question is particularly relevant for elastic continua, such as slabs and
unreinforced shells. In general, as the mesh density increases, you can expect the results to become more
accurate. The mesh density required can be a function of many factors. Among them are the stress
gradients, the type of loadings, the boundary conditions, the element types used, the element shapes, and
the degree of accuracy desired.
The grid point spacing should typically be the smallest in regions where stress gradients are expected to be
the steepest. Figure 9-7 shows a typical example of a stress concentration near a circular hole. The model is
a circular disk with an inner radius = a and an outer radius = b. A pressure load pi is applied to the inner
surface. Due to symmetry, only half of the disk is modeled. In the example, both the radial stress and the
circumferential stress decrease as a function of l / r2 from the center of the hole. The error in the finite
element analysis arises from differences between the real stress distribution and the stress distribution within
the finite elements.
In a study of mesh densities, elements and output options, three different mesh densities were used in the
example as shown in Figure 9-7. The first one is a coarse mesh model with the elements evenly distributed.
The second model consists of the same number of elements; however, the mesh is biased toward the center
of the hole. The third model consists of a denser mesh with the elements evenly distributed. These three
models are then analyzed with three different element types-CQUAD4, CQUAD8, and CQUAD4 with the
corner stress option. The circumferential stress at the inner radius is always greater than pi , which is the
applied pressure load at the inner radius, and approaches this value as the outer radius becomes larger. The
theoretical circumferential stress (see Timoshenko and Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, Reference 3.) is
given by the following equation:

where:
a = inner radius
b = outer radius
r = radial distance as measured from the center of the disk
pi = pressure applied at the inner radius
The stresses are then plotted as a function of the radius in a nondimensional fashion-stress pi versus
r / a. The results are summarized in Table 9-1.

Figure 9-7 Circular Disk with Different Meshes

Table 9-1 Stresses Close to r = a for a Circular Disk


For this particular case, since the stresses are proportional to l / r2, you expect the highest stress to occur at
the inner radius. In order to take advantage of this piece of information, the obvious thing to do is to create a
finer mesh around the inner radius. Looking at the results for the first two cases in Table 9-1, it is quite
obvious that just by biasing the mesh, the results are 30% closer to the theoretical solution with the same
number of degrees of freedom.
A third case is analyzed with a finer but unbiased mesh. It is interesting to note that for case number 3, even
though it has more degrees of freedom, the result is still not as good as that of case number 2. This poor
result is due to the fact that for the CQUAD4 element, the stresses, by default, are calculated at the center of
the element and are assumed to be constant throughout the element. Looking at Figure 9-7, it is also
obvious that the centers of the inner row of elements are actually further away from the center of the circle
for case number 3 as compared to case number 2. The results for case number 3 can, of course, be
improved drastically by biasing the mesh.
You can request corner outputs (stress, strain, and force) for CQUAD4 in addition to the center values (Shell
Elements (CTRIA3, CTRIA6, CTRIAR, CQUAD4, CQUAD8, CQUADR) (Ch. 1) in the MSC Nastran
Reference Manual). Corner results are extrapolated from the corner displacements and rotations by using a
strain rosette analogy with a cubic correction for bending. The same three models are then rerun with this
corner optiontheir results are summarized in cases 7 through 9. Note that the results can improve
substantially for the same number degrees of freedom.
Corner output is selected by using a corner output option with the STRESS, STRAIN, and FORCE Case
Control commands. When one of these options is selected, output is computed at the center and four
corners for each CQUAD4 element, in a format similar to that of CQUAD8 and CQUADR elements. See
Reference 8. for more information.
There are four corner output options available: CORNER, CUBIC, SGAGE, and BILIN. The different options
provide for different approaches to the stress calculations. The default option is CORNER, which is
equivalent to BILIN. BILIN has been shown to produce better results for a wider range of problems.
To carry it a step further, the same three models are then rerun with CQUAD8 (cases 4 through 6). In this
case, the results using CQUAD8 are better than those using the CQUAD4. This result is expected since
CQUAD8 contains more DOFs per element than CQUAD4. Looking at column three of Table 9-1, you can
see that due to the existence of midside nodes, the models using CQUAD8 contain several times the
number of DOFs as compared to CQUAD4 for the same number of elements. The results using CQUAD4
can, of course, be improved by increasing the mesh density to approach that of the CQUAD8 in terms of
number of DOFs.
It is important to realize that the stresses are compared at different locations for Cases 1 through 3 versus
Cases 4 through 9. This difference occurs because the stresses are available only at the element centers for
Cases 1 through 3, but the stresses are available at the corners as well as the element centers for Cases 4
through 9. When looking at your results using a stress contour plot, you should be aware of where the
stresses are being evaluated.
How fine a mesh you want depends on many factors. Among them is the cost you are willing to pay versus
the accuracy you are receiving. The cost increases with the number of DOFs. The definition of cost has
changed with time. In the past, cost is generally associated with computer time. With both hardware and
software becoming faster each day, cost is probably associated more with the time required for you to debug
and interpret your results. In general, the larger the model is, the more time it takes you to debug and
interpret your results. As for acceptable accuracy, proceeding from case 8 to case 6, the error is reduced
from 4.7% to 1.5%; however, the size of the problem is also increased from 194 to 2538 DOFs. In some
cases, a 4.7% error may be acceptable. For example, in cases in which you are certain of the loads to within
only a 10% accuracy, a 4.7% error may be acceptable. In other cases, a 1.5% error may not be acceptable.
In general, if you can visualize the form of the solution beforehand, you can then bias the grid point
distribution. However, this type of information is not necessarily available in all cases. If a better assessment
of accuracy is required and resources are available (time and money), you can always establish error
bounds for a particular problem by constructing and analyzing multiple mesh spacings of the same model
and observe the convergences. This approach, however, may not be realistic due to the time constraint.
The stress discontinuity feature, as described in Model Verification (Ch. 10), may be used for accessing the
quality of the mesh density for the conventional h-version elements.
Getting a good starting mesh density can be very useful, but there are mesh refinements which can be
performed automatically inside MSC Nastran. One is the use of Local Adaptive Mesh Refinement (Ch. 18)
for h-elements. The other is the use of p-version elements and p-version adaptivity. Discussion of the p-
version element is beyond the scope of this users guide. However a basic definition of the h- version and p-
version elements is warranted.
h-elements
In traditional finite element analysis, as the number of elements increases, the accuracy of the solution
improves. The accuracy of the problem can be measured quantitatively with various entities, such as strain
energies, displacements, and stresses, as well as in various error estimation methods, such as simple
mathematical norm or root-mean-square methods. The goal is to perform an accurate prediction on the
behavior of your actual model by using these error analysis methods. You can modify a series of finite
element analyses either manually or automatically by reducing the size and increasing the number of
elements, which is the usual h-adaptivity method. Each element is formulated mathematically with a certain
predetermined order of shape functions. This polynomial order does not change in the h- adaptivity method.
The elements associated with this type of capability are called the h-elements.
p-elements
A different method used to modify the subsequent finite element analyses on the same problem is to
increase the polynomial order in each element while maintaining the original finite element size and mesh.
The increase of the interpolation order is internal, and the solution stops automatically once a specified error
tolerance is satisfied. This method is known as the p-adaptivity method. The elements associated with this
capability are called the p-elements. For more details on the subject of the p-version element, refer to p-
Elements (p. 194) in the MSC Nastran Reference Manual.
Mesh transition can also be made with CINTC elements for connecting meshes on dissimilar edges. Linear
contact methods may also be used.
All of the content in this blog post has been directly extracted from Chapter 9 of the MSC Nastran 2012
Linear Static Analysis User's Guide.


Hello!,
The CQUAD8 have the same features as the CQUAD4 elements, but are not used as frequently. The
CQUAD8 are higher-order elements that let you use mid-side nodes in addition to corner nodes. Mid-side
nodes increase the accuracy of the element but can make meshing more difficult. CQUAD8 is an
isoparametric element with four corner and four mid-side grid points. Although they are useful for modeling
singly-curved shells like a cylinder, CQUAD4 elements perform better on doubly-curved shells like a
sphere.

I only use CQUAD8 elements for highly nonlinear problems, CQUAD4 is my preferred element for linear static
analysis, in general I prefer to split elements (using the H-Method approach) to improve accuracy instead to
use parabolid high-order Shell CQUAD8 elements.

The principal advantage of CQUAD8 elements is that they may be more accurate in curved shell applications
for the same number of degrees of freedom. The disadvantage is that with the addition of the mid-side
node, they are more difficult to mesh for irregular shape structures, but this is not a problem with currently
powerful preprocessings FE programas like NX AdvSim & FEMAP.

In summary, my suggestion in general for linear structural problems (critical for dynamic problems!!, forget
CQUAD8, you will arrive with GBs & GBs of database size results!!) is to use CQUAD4 elements instead
CQUAD8. Check mesh quality using general shell recomendations of minimum mesh size requirement &
mesh distortion and you are done!. Take a look
to http://www.iberisa.com/soporte/femap/shell.htm

Best regards,
Blas.