Accuracy, Convergence and Mesh Quality

Posted on July 5, 2012 by John Chawner

That statement is counter to what we all know to be true in practice, that a good
mesh helps the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver converge to the correct
answer while minimizing the computer resources expended. Stated differently, most
every decent solver will yield an accurate answer with a good mesh, but it takes the
most robust of solvers to get an answer on a bad mesh.
The crux of the issue is what precisely is meant by a good mesh. Syracuse
Universitys Prof. John Dannenhoffer points out that we are much better at
identifying a bad mesh than we are at judging a good one. Distinguishing good from
bad is clouded by the fact that badness is a black-white determination of whether the
mesh will run or not. (Badness often only means whether there are any negative
volume cells.) On the other hand, goodness is all shades of gray there are good
meshes and there are better meshes.
Neither is goodness all about the mesh. Gone are the days when one could eyeball the
mesh and make a good/bad judgment. Adaptive meshes that are justified by visual
inspection of how much thinner shock waves are in a contour plot of density just do
not make the grade. What matters is how accurately the CFD solution reflects reality.
Therefore, the solvers numerical algorithm and the physics of the flow to be
computed also have to be accounted for in the evaluation of a mesh.
Implicit in the paragraphs above is the idea of judging mesh quality in advance of
computing the CFD solution. There are those who think that a priori mesh quality
assessment is of limited value and that changing the mesh in response to the
developing flow solution (via mesh adaption or adjoint methods or other technology)
is the better way to generate a good mesh and an accurate solution.

Mesh Quality Workshop

Given this state of affairs, it was important to assemble mesh generation researchers
and practitioners to assess the topic of mesh quality. Pointwise participated in the
Mesh Quality/Resolution, Practice, Current Research, and Future Directions
Workshop last summer in Dayton and hosted by the DoD High Performance
Computing Modernization Program (HPCMO) and organized by the PETTT Program
(User Productivity, Enhancement, Technology Transfer and Training) and AIAAs

MVCE Technical Committee (Meshing, Visualization, and Computational

Environments).
The workshop brought together all the stakeholders of mesh quality: CFD
practitioners, CFD researchers, CFD solver code developers (both commercial and
government) and mesh generation software developers. A list of the workshop
presentations is included at the end of this article (References 1a-1i). Hugh
Thornburg from High Performance Technologies wrote an overview of the workshop
(Reference 2) that nicely sums up the current state of affairs:

A mesh as an intermediate product has no inherent requirements and only

needs to be sufficient to facilitate the prediction of the desired result. I interpret

this as the double-negative quality judgment that the grid is not bad.
The mesh must capture the system/problem of interest in a discrete manner

with sufficient detail to enable the desired simulation to be performed. As long

as desired simulation implicitly includes to a desired level of accuracy, this is
a good definition.
Thornburg also acknowledges many practical constraints on mesh generation

such as time allotted for meshing, topology issues for parametric studies, limits
on mesh size due to computational resources, and solver-specific requirements.
Thornburg also offers Simpsons Verdict library (Reference 3) as a de facto reference
that covers most if not all commonly used techniques for computing element
properties.

Users Perspective
The importance of a priori indicators of mesh quality is exemplified by NASAs
Stephen Alter, who defined and demonstrated the utility of his GQ (grid quality)
metric that combines both orthogonality and stretching into a single number. Driven
by the desire to ensure the accuracy of supersonic flow solutions over blunt bodies
computed using a thin layer Navier-Stokes solver, he has established criteria for the
GQ metric that give him confidence prior to starting a CFD solution.
Two aspects of GQ are notable. First, this metrics reliance on orthogonality is closely
coupled to the numerics of the solver TLNS assumptions break down when the grid
lacks orthogonality. Second, use of a global metric aids decision making, or as
Thornburg wrote, A local error estimate is of little use. GQ represents domain
expertise the use of specific criteria within a specific application domain.

Researchers Perspective
Dannenhoffer reported on an extensive benchmark study that involved parametric
variation of a structured grids quality for a 5 degree double-wedge airfoil in Mach 2
inviscid flow at 3 degrees angle of attack. Variations of the mesh included resolution,
aspect ratio, clustering, skew, taper, and wiggle (using the Verdict definitions).
Dannenhoffers main conclusion was very interesting: there was little (if any)
correlation between the grid metrics and solution accuracy. This may have been
exacerbated by the fact that he found it difficult to change one metric without
influencing another (e.g. adding wiggle to the mesh also affected skew) or it may
have been due to the specific flow conditions.
Dannenhoffer also introduced the concept of grid validity (as opposed to grid
quality), which is intended to measure whether the grid conforms to the
configuration being modeled (which in practice it sometimes does not). He proposed
three types of validity checks:
1.

Type 1 checks whether cells have positive volumes and faces that do not
intersect each other. Here again is an instance of the Is this grid bad? question.
2.
Type 2 checks whether interior cell faces match uniquely with one other
interior face and whether boundary cell faces lie on the geometry model of the
object being meshed.
3.
Type 3 checks whether each surface of the geometry model is completely
covered by boundary cell faces, whether each hard edge of the geometry is
covered by edges of boundary cell faces, and whether the sum of the boundary
faces areas matches the actual geometry surface area.

Figure 1: A simple demonstration of how a poor mesh from a cell geometry perspective (right) results in lower
discretization error than one with perfect cells (left). From Reference 1c.

Prof. Christopher Roy from Virginia Tech showed a counter-intuitive example (at
least from the standpoint of a priori metrics) that the solution of 2D Burgers

equation on an adapted mesh (with cells of widely varying skew, aspect ratio, and
other metrics) has much less discretization error than the solution on a mesh of
perfect squares. From this example alone, it is clear that metrics based solely on cell
geometry are not good indicators of mesh quality as it pertains to solution accuracy.

Solvers Perspective

The workshop was fortunate to have the participation of several flow solver
developers, who shared details about how their solver is affected by mesh quality.
The common thread among all was that convergence and stability are more directly
affected by mesh quality than solution accuracy.

CFD++
Metacomp Technologies Vinit Gupta cited cell skewness and cell size variation as
two quality issues to be aware of for structured grids. In particular, grid refinement
across block boundaries in the far field where gradients are low has a strong, negative
impact on convergence. For unstructured and hybrid meshes, anisotropic tets in the
boundary layer and the transition from prisms to tets outside the boundary layer also
can be problematic.
Gupta also pointed out two problems associated with metric computations. Cell
volume computations that rely on a decomposition of a cell into tets are not unique
and depend on the manner of decomposition. Therefore, volume (or any measure
that relies on volume) reported by one program may differ from that reported by
another. Similarly, face normal computations for anything but a triangle are not
unique and also may differ from program to program. (This is a scenario we have
often encountered at Pointwise when there is a disagreement with a solver vendor
over a cells volume that turns out to be the result of different computation methods.)

Fluent and CFX

ANSYS Konstantine Kourbatski showed how cell shapes that differ from perfect (dot
product of face normal vector with vector connecting adjacent cell centers) make the
system of equations stiffer slowing convergence. He then introduced metrics,
Orthogonal Quality and two skewness definitions, with rules of thumb for the Fluent
solver. It was interesting to note that the orthogonality measure ranges from 0 (bad)
to 1 (good) whereas the skewness metric is directly opposite: 0 is good and 1 is bad.

Another example of a metric criterion was that aspect ratios should be kept to less
than 5 in the bulk flow. Kourbatski also provided guidelines for the CFX solver.
He also pointed out that resolution of critical flow features (e.g. shear layers, shock
waves) is vital to an accurate solution and that bad cells in benign flow regions
usually do not have a significant effect on the solution.

Kestrel
Kestrel, the CFD solver from the CREATE-AV program, was represented by David
McDaniel from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. At the start, he made two
important statements. First, their goal is to do well with the mesh given to us. (This
is similar to Pointwises approach to dealing with CAD geometry do the absolute
best with the geometry provided.) Second, he notes that mixed-element unstructured
meshes (their primary type) are terrible according to traditional mesh metrics,
despite being known to yield accurate results. This same observation is true for
adaptive meshes and meshes distorted by the relative motion of bodies within a mesh
(e.g. flaps deflecting, stores dropping).
More significantly, McDaniel notes a scary interdependence between solver
discretization and mesh geometry by recalling Mavriplis paper on the drag
prediction workshop (Reference 4) in which two extremely similar meshes yielded
vastly different results with multiple solvers.
To address mesh quality, Kestrels developers have implemented non-dimensional
quality metrics that are both local and global and that are consistent in the sense that
0 always means bad and 1 always means good. The metrics important to Kestrel are
an area-weighted measure of quad face planarity, an interesting measure of flow
alignment with the nearest solid boundary, a least squares gradient that accounts for
the orientation and proximity of neighbor cell centroids, smoothness, spacing and
isotropy.

Figure 2: Using Kestrel one can show a correlation between mesh and solution quality. From Reference 1f.

Differing from Dannenhoffers result, McDaniel showed a correlation of mesh quality

with solution accuracy with the caveat that a well resolved mesh can have poor
quality and still produce a good answer. (In other words, more points always is
better.)

STAR-CCM+
Alan Muellers presentation on CD-adapcos STAR-CCM+ solver began by pointing
out that mesh quality begins with CAD geometry quality and manifests as either a
low quality surface mesh or an inaccurate representation of the true shape. This
echoes Dannenhoffers grid validity idea.
After introducing a list of their quality metrics, Mueller makes the following
statement, Results on less than perfect meshes are essentially the same (drag and
lift) as on meshes where considerable resources were spent to eliminate the poor
cells in the mesh. Here we note that the objective functions are integrated quantities
(drag and lift,) instead of distributed data like pressure profiles. After all, integrated
quantities are the type of engineering data we want to get from CFD.
This insensitivity of accuracy to mesh quality supports Muellers position that poor
cell quality is a stability issue. Accordingly, the approach with STAR-CCM+ is to be
conservative opt for robustness over accuracy. Specifically, they are looking for
metrics that will result in division by zero in the solver. Skewness as it effects
diffusion flux and linearization is one such example.

Meshers Perspective

Dr. John Steinbrenner and Nick Wyman shared Pointwises perspective on solutionindependent quality metrics by taking a counter-intuitive approach. You would think
that a mesh generation developer would promote the efficacy of a priori metrics. But
the error in a CFD solution consists of geometric errors, discretization errors, and
modeling errors. Geometric errors are similar to points made by Dannenhoffer and
Mueller about properly representing the shape. Modeling errors come from
turbulence, chemical, and thermophysical properties. Discretization involves
degradation of the solvers numerics. The discretization error is driven by coupling
between the mesh and the solvers numerical algorithm.

Figure 3: This table summarizes the mesh quality metrics available in Pointwise. From Reference 1h.

Therefore, although Pointwise can compute and display many metrics, it is important
to note that many of them lack a direct relationship to the solvers numerics and
accordingly they are only loose indicators of solution accuracy. On the other hand,
these metrics are convenient to compute, can address Dannenhoffers grid validity
issue, and provide a mechanism for launching mesh improvement techniques. They
also form the basis of a users ability to develop domain expertise metrics that
correlate to their specific application domain.

Conclusions
1.

CFD solver developers believe mesh quality affects convergence much more
than accuracy. Therefore, the solution error due to poor or incomplete
convergence cannot be ignored.
2.
One researcher was able to show a complete lack of correlation between mesh
quality and solution accuracy. It would be valuable to reproduce this result for
other solvers and flow conditions.
3.
Use as many grid points as possible (Dannenhoffer, McDaniel). In many cases,
resolution trumps quality. However, the practical matter of minimizing compute

time by using the minimum number of points (what Thornburg called an

optimum mesh) means that quality still will be important.
4.
A priori metrics are valuable to users as an effective confidence check prior to
running the solver. It is important that these metrics account for cell geometry
but also the solvers numerical algorithm. The implication is that metrics are
solver-dependent. A further implication is that Dannehoffers grid validity checks
be implemented.
5.
There are numerous quality metrics that can be computed, but they are often
computed inconsistently from program to program. Development of a common
vocabulary for metrics would aid portability.
6.
Interpreting metrics can be difficult because their actual numerical values are
non-intuitive and stymie development of domain expertise. A metric vocabulary
should account for desired range of result numerical values and the meaning of
bad and good.

References
1.

Workshop presentations
A.
Stephen Alter, NASA Langley, A Structured-Grid Quality Measure
B.
John Dannehoffer, Syracuse University, On Grid Quality and Validity
C.
Christopher Roy, Virginia Tech, Discretization Error
D.
Vinit Gupta, Metacomp Technologies, CFD++ Perspective on Mesh
Quality
E.
Konstantine Kourbataski, ANSYS, Assessment of Mesh Quality in
ANSYS CFD
F.
David McDaniel, University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Kestrel/CREATE-AV Perspective on Mesh Quality
G.
Alan Mueller, CD-adapco, A CD-adapco Perspective on Mesh Quality
H.
John Steinbenner and Nick Wyman, Pointwise, Solution Independent
Metrics
I.
Presentations from the Mesh Quality Workshop are available by email
request to pettt-requests@drc.com.
2.
Thornburg, Hugh J., Overview of the PETTT Workshop on Mesh
Quality/Resolution, Practice, Current Research, and Future Directions, AIAA
paper no. 2012-0606, Jan. 2012.
3.
Stimpson, C.J. et al, The Verdict Geometric Quality Library, Sandia Report
2007-1751, 2007.
4.
Mavriplis, Dimitri J., Grid Quality and Resolution Issues from the Drag
Prediction Workshop Series, AIAA paper 2008-930, Jan. 2008.

5.

Roache, P.J., Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid

Dynamics Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 29, 1997, pp. 123-160.
6.
Knupp, Patrick M., Remarks on Mesh Quality, AIAA, Jan. 2007.