Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 12 (1992) 313-318

313

Elsevier
FINEL 273

A performance study of tetrahedral and hexahedral

elements in 3-D finite element structural analysis
A . O . Cifuentes and A. Kalbag
IBM Research Di~,ision, P,O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA

Received March 1992

Revised June 1992
Abstract. This study compares the performance of linear and quadratic tetrahedral elements and hexahedral

elements in various structural problems. The problems selected demonstrate different types of behavior,
namely, bending, shear, torsional and axial deformations. It was observed that the results obtained with
quadratic tetrahedral elements and hexahedral elements were equivalent in terms of both accuracy and CPU
time.

Introduction

Finite element analysis has reached a state of maturity in which 3-D applications are
commonplace. Most analysts, as well as most commercial codes ( M S C / N a s t r a n , Abaqus, etc.),
use solid elements based on the isoparametric f o r m u l a t i o n - - o r variations of i t - - f o r 3-D
analyses [1-4]. For simple geometries, or for applications in which it is possible to build a
mesh " b y hand", analysts have relied heavily on the 8-node hexahedral e l e m e n t - - c o m m o n l y
known as "brick" or " h e x a " [5]. For more complex geometries, however, the analyst must rely
on an automatic (or semi-automatic) mesh generators. In general, automatic mesh generators
produce meshes made of tetrahedral elements, rather than hexahedral elements. The reason
is that a general 3-D domain cannot always be decomposed into an assembly of bricks.
However, it can always be represented as a collection of tetrahedral elements.
As the demand for analyses of more complex configurations has grown, coupled with the
increasing popularity of automatic mesh generators, the need to understand better the
relative merits of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements has become apparent. It is known, for
example, that linear tetrahedral elements do not perform very w e l l - - a s e x p e c t e d - - b e c a u s e
they are constant-strain elements; thus, too many elements are required to achieve a
satisfactory accuracy. What remains unclear, however, is whether brick elements perform
better or worse than quadratic tetrahedra, that is, tetrahedral elements including mid-side
nodes. Specifically, for a given n u m b e r of nodes (or degrees of freedom), the analyst needs to
know under what circumstances it is better to use bricks instead of quadratic tetrahedra. This
amounts to investigating the accuracy and efficiency of such elements under a variety of
problems characterized by different deformation patterns, such as, bending, shear, torsion
and axial behavior.
In addition, if a mesh made of linear tetrahedral elements does not yield a result within
acceptable error, it is useful to know what strategy to follow: (a) decrease the size of the
Correspondence to: A.O. Cifuentes, IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA.

0168-874X/92/$05.00 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

314

A.O. Cifuentes, A: Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

elements while keeping them linear, or (b) make the elements quadratic by introducing
additional (mid-side) nodes.
Previous authors have proposed some useful benchmark tests for individual elements or
simple arrays of elements [6-8]. However, no study comparing tetrahedra with hexahedra in a
more general setting seems to be available. While it is difficult to give a final answer to all the
issues involved, the aim of this study is to shed some light on this problem by investigating the
performance of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in a number of problems that have
known analytical solutions. These findings are expected to be useful for finite elements
analysts.

Method
Four problems that have known solutions have been chosen for this study. Each problem is
dominated by a different deformation pattern.

Problem 1--Bending
Consider a cantilever b e a m oriented in the y-direction and loaded in the z-direction (see
Fig. 1). The b e a m has a rectangular cross-section and it deforms under the action of a load
per unit of length equal to 0.01. The beam dimensions are as follows: L ( l e n g t h ) = 8, b
(width) = 1 and h (height) --- 1. The material properties are: E (Young's modulus) = 1000 and
u (Poisson's ratio) = 0.15. The analytical expression for the vertical displacement at the free
end of the b e a m center-line, including both bending and shear deformations (although
bending is the dominant effect in this case), yields a value of 0.0625 [9].

Problem 2--Shear
Consider a short shear b e a m deforming under a unit distributed load (load per unit of
length) as depicted in Fig. 2. The b e a m is oriented in the y-direction and loaded in the
z-direction. The b e a m dimensions are: L = 1, b = 0.6 and h = 1. The material properties are:
E = 1000 and u = 0.15. The vertical displacement at the free end of the b e a m center-line,
considering both bending and shear deformations (which in this case are dominant) is 0.00538
[10].

Problem 3--Torsion
Consider a b e a m with a square cross-section oriented along the y-axis (see Fig. 3). The
b e a m dimensions are: L = 16, b = 1 and h = 1. Material properties: E = 1000 and u = 0.15.

load per unit

of length

load per unit

...................

of length

-}--~y

[]

longitudinal view

_ _b i

cross

section

Fig. l, Bending problem.

cross
section

longitudinal view

Fig. 2. Shear problem.

A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

315

constrained
in the x and z
direction
torsional
moment

iz

[] h
b

Y
x

~-

..~
cross

longitudinal view

section

Fig. 3. Torsion problem

Displacements in the x- and z-directions are fixed at one end. At the other end, which is free,
a rotation of 0.03 radians is applied (this corresponds to a 0.1146 torsional moment). The
maximum value of the shear stress occurs at the mid-points of the cross-section sides. A
solution based on a series expansion gives a value of 0.551 for the maximum shear stress [11].
This solution allows warping of the cross-section.
Problem 4 - - A x i a l behavior

Consider a short beam

L = 4, b = 1 and h = 1.
volume) = 1. The natural
This problem was chosen

clamped at both ends and oriented in the y-direction (see Fig. 4).
In addition, E = 1000, v = 0.0 and p (mass density per unit of
frequency corresponding to the first axial mode is 3.953 Hz [12].
because it involves a nonuniform axial displacement field.

A n a lyses

The finite element analyses were performed using Abaqus, a general-purpose finite
element code for structural analysis [13]. Three solid elements were tested:
(a) C3D4, a 4-node tetrahedral element. This element was included only for comparison
purposes; its performance was not expected to be good since it is a constant-strain
element. One integration point is used.
(b) C3D10, a second-order 10-node tetrahedral element. In this study, the "intermediate"
nodes were located exactly halfway between the corner nodes. Four integration points are
used.
(c) C3D8, an 8-node isoparametric hexahedral element. This is a trilinear element. In this
case "full" Gauss integration was employed in the stiffness matrix determination. This

.....................................

"

b
L
longitudinal view

cross

section

Fig. 4. Axial vibration problem.

A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

316

means that the Gauss scheme used integrates the stiffness matrix terms exactly if (i) the
material properties are constant throughout the element and (ii) the Jacobian of the
mapping from the isoparametric coordinates to the physical coordinates is constant and
diagonal throughout the element.
Each problem was solved using four different models (four different meshes), described as
follows:
Mesh 1.

This is a regular mesh made of linear tetrahedral elements (C3D4).

Mesh 2. This is a regular mesh made of quadratic tetrahedra (C3D10) obtained by adding
mid-side nodes to Mesh 1. This represents an attempt to improve the accuracy of the results
obtained with the first mesh.
Mesh 3. This mesh corresponds to another attempt to improve the results obtained with
Mesh 1, but in this case decreasing the size of the linear tetrahedra (C3D4). This mesh
obviously has more nodes than the mesh employed in the first model, but exactly the same
number of nodes as Mesh 2. This is to make the second and third model comparable in terms
of the size (same number of degrees of freedom) and therefore address the issue of what
strategy is better if one wants to improve the accuracy of the results given by a mesh of linear
tetrahedra (Mesh 1): to increase the order of the interpolation (Mesh 2) or to reduce the size
of the elements (Mesh 3).
Mesh 4. This is a regular mesh of brick elements. Again, the number of nodes is the same as
in Mesh 2. This is to compare the performance of two meshes with the same number of
degrees of freedom, one made with bricks and the other made with quadratic tetrahedra.
(Notice that nodal coordinates in Mesh 2 coincide with those of Mesh 4).

Results

The four problems described before were solved using the four different meshes. The
analyses were performed on an IBM RISC/6000 workstation using Abaqus. The models were
setup with Foxi, a geometric modeler that has a parametric solid object representation and is
integrated with an automatic mesh generator and an Abaqus preprocessor [14]. Regular
meshes were employed in all cases. In each case, the error was computed by comparing the
result given by the finite element model against the analytical solution.
Tables 1-4 summarize the results. The nomenclature is as follows: N is the number of
nodes in the mesh (including mid-side nodes when quadratic tetrahedra are used); E is the

Table 1
Results for Problem 1 (bending)

Mesh
Mesh
Mesh
Mesh

1
2
3
4

Ax

Ay

Az

Ra
x 10 -2

Error
(%)

225
1225
1225
1225

576
576
4608
768

51
105
290
106

0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25

0.333
0.333
0.1666
0.1666

0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25

3.822
6.210
5.334
6.264

38.9
0.7
14.7
0.2

a R represents the vertical displacement at the end of the beam center line. The analytical solution gives
R = 6.254 X 10 -2.

A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

317

Table 2
Results for Problem 2 (shear)

Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4

Ax

Ay

Az

Ra
x l 0 -3

Error
(%)

768
4805
4805
4805

2700
2700
21600
3600

176
687
1840
589

0.3
0.3
0.15
0.15

0.0666
0.0666
0.0333
0.0333

0,0666
0,0666
0.0333
0.0333

4.687
4.808
4.739
4.756

12.8
9.2
11.8
11.5

a R represents the vertical displacement at the end of the beam center line. The analytical solution gives
R = 5.375 10- 3.

Table 3
Results for Problem 3 (torsion)

Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4

Ax

Ay

Az

Ra

Error
(%)

153
825
825
825

384
384
3072
512

46
79
294
80

0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25

1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25

0.3859
0.5799
0.4736
0.5300

30.0
5.2
14.1
3.8

R represents the maximum shear stress on the cross section of the beam. The analytical solution gives R = 0.5511.

Table 4
Results for Problem 4 (axial vibration)

Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4
a

nx

Ay

Az

Ra

Error
(%)

425
2673
2673
2673

1536
1536
12288
2048

153
595
1488
499

0.25
0.25
0.125
0.125

0.25
0.25
0.125
0.125

0.25
0.25
0.125
0.125

3.947
3.945
3.951
3.951

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

R represents the fundamental frequency (Hz) for axial vibrations. The analytical solution gives R = 3.953.

n u m b e r of e l e m e n t s in the mesh; A x , A y , Az d e n o t e the n o d e spacing in the x-, y- a n d

z - d i r e c t i o n (in m e s h e s m a d e of q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a , the spacing is d e t e r m i n e d by the
distance b e t w e e n c o r n e r nodes); a n d T d e n o t e s the total C P U time in seconds.

Discussion
T h e m a i n goal of this analysis was to investigate the p e r f o r m a n c e of h e x a h e d r a l e l e m e n t s
versus q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a u n d e r similar conditions. This has b e e n achieved by c o m p a r i n g
the results given by M e s h 2 a n d M e s h 4. T h e location of the n o d e s is identical in both meshes.
T h u s , the n u m b e r of active d e g r e e s of f r e e d o m is exactly the same. This is necessary to m a k e
a m e a n i n g f u l c o m p a r i s o n . I n addition, the e l e m e n t aspect ratio in b o t h m e s h e s is e q u i v a l e n t
(the ratio b e t w e e n the n o d e spacing in the x-, y- a n d z - d i r e c t i o n is the same in b o t h meshes).
It c a n be observed that the resuls o b t a i n e d with bricks a n d q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a , in t e r m s
of b o t h accuracy a n d C P U time, are roughly equivalent. This is significant b e c a u s e it indicates
that analysts who rely o n a u t o m a t i c m e s h g e n e r a t o r s (which in g e n e r a l g e n e r a t e m e s h e s m a d e
of t e t r a h e d r a l e l e m e n t s ) do n o t have a d i s a d v a n t a g e c o m p a r e d to those analysts who use

318

A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / "Fetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

bricks. In o t h e r words, the t r i l i n e a r brick e l e m e n t - - a l o n g - t i m e favorite o f m a n y finite

e l e m e n t p r a c t i c i o n e r s - - a p p e a r s n o t to have a s u b s t a n c i a l a d v a n t a g e c o m p a r e d to t h e q u a d r a t i c
tetrahedron.
A s e c o n d conclusion is c o n c e r n e d with w h a t is t h e best a p p r o a c h to t a k e if a m o d e l m a d e
o f l i n e a r t e t r a h e d r a d o e s not give satisfactory results ( M e s h 1). T h e s e analyses ( M e s h 2 versus
M e s h 3) suggest that, in g e n e r a l , it s e e m s b e t t e r to i n c r e a s e t h e o r d e r of the e l e m e n t s r a t h e r
t h a n refining t h e m e s h with s m a l l e r l i n e a r e l e m e n t s . E x c e p t for P r o b l e m 4, in which M e s h 2
a n d M e s h 3 give a p p r o x i m a t e l y the s a m e result, t h e q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a do b e t t e r t h a n the
l i n e a r t e t r a h e d r a , for t h e s a m e n u m b e r o f nodes. In t e r m s of C P U time, t h e a d v a n t a g e of
q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a is m o r e c l e a r - - t h e r e is a t h r e e f o l d penalty, in all cases, for using l i n e a r
t e t r a h e d r a . T h i s is b e c a u s e M e s h 3 i n c l u d e s m a n y m o r e e l e m e n t s t h a n M e s h 2 a n d conseq u e n t l y the C P U t i m e r e q u i r e d to g e n e r a t e the stiffness m a t r i x a n d m a s s m a t r i c e s increases,
as d o e s the t i m e for solving t h e r e s u l t i n g l i n e a r system o f e q u a t i o n s .

References
[1] B.M. IRONS, "Engineering applications of numerical integration in stiffness methods", J. Am. Inst. Aeronaut.
Astronaut. 4 (ll) pp. 2035-2037, 1966.
[2] I.C. TAIG, "Structural analysis by the matrix displacement method", English Electric Aviation, Report SO-17,
1961.
13] J. ERGATOUDIS, B. IRONS and O.C. ZIENKIEWICZ,"Curved isoparametric quadrilateral elements for finite
element analysis", Int. J. Solids Struct. 4, pp. 31-42, 1968.
[4] R.D. COOK, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, Wiley, New York, 2nd edn., Chap. 5, 1981.
[5] T.J.R. HUGHES, The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Section 3.5, 1987.
[6] R.L. TAYLOR,J.C. SIMo, O.C. ZIENKIEW1CZand A.C. CHAN, "The patch test: A condition for assessing finite
element convergence", Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 22 (l) pp. 39-62, 1986.
[7] J. ROBINSON, "Single element test for aspect ratio sensitivity of solids", Finite Element News, pp. 26-32,
February 1986.
[8] G.P. BAZELEY, Y.K. CHEUNG, B.M. IRONS and O.C. ZIENKIEWICZ,"Triangular elements in plate bending
--Conforming and non-conforming solutions", Proc. 1st Conf. on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, pp. 547-576. 1968.
[9] J.P. DEN HARTOG, Strength of Materials, Dover Publications, New York, 1961.
[10] S. TIMOSHENKOand D.H. YOUNG, Elements of Strength of Materials, Van Nostrand, New York, 1968.
[11] S. TIMOSHENKOand J.N. GOODIER, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
[12] R.D. Bt.Evms, Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979.
[13] Abaqus Users' Manual, Version 4.8, Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1989.
[14] L.R. NACKMAN,unpublished IBM Research internal report, 1992.