Tips for Meshing Your CAD Model for Structural

Analysis
New to engineering simulation or to SimScale? Then meshing might be one of the things you’re
struggling to learn. This article aims to teach you a few tips for meshing your CAD model and
ensuring accurate results of your structural analysis.
Mesh generation (also commonly known as grid generation) is the practice of generating a
polygonal or polyhedral mesh that approximates a geometric domain. Three-dimensional
meshes are required in physical simulations such as finite element analysis (FEA)
or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and need to consist of tetrahedra, pyramids, prisms, or
hexahedra.
At present, SimScale allows the meshing of structures with tetrahedral meshing.
To discover all the structural analysis and CFD features provided by the SimScale cloud-based
simulation platform, download this document.
As shown in Fig. 01 below, all these cases allow for the specification of mesh order—either first
or second. Using a first-order generates a mesh with four-noded tetrahedral elements, while a
second-order creates a mesh with ten-noded tetrahedral elements.

Fig. 01: Meshing options offered by SimScale for structural analysis problems

A general overview is available in the SimScale documentation. In this article, we will discuss
some important points to remember when considering problems related to solid and structural
mechanics. Most of the aspects discussed here are pertinent to both tetrahedral and hexahedral
elements, but the discussion is primarily focused on the tetrahedral mesh.
How to Mesh Solid Bodies for Structural Analysis: Identify
Symmetry
In many problems, it can be helpful to identify some of the symmetries that can exist in
geometries. Using symmetry is one of the common and powerful ways to reduce the size of the
problem. By definition, symmetry exists if there is a symmetry of geometry, loads, and
constraints about a line or plane of symmetry.

Fig. 02: Example of symmetry in solid bodies: A plate with a hole subjected to uniaxial tensile loading (left) and a
cylinder in front-view subjected to radial pressure (right)

As shown in Fig. 02, the symmetry of the object is exploited to create a reduced model for
computation. Nodes are placed along the lines (in 2D) and planes (in 3D) of symmetry. These
nodes placed along the lines/planes of symmetries are constrained for displacement
perpendicular to these lines/surfaces and rotations along the line/surfaces. Considering just a
quarter of the CAD model allows for >75% reduction in the computational effort and time!
Tip 01: Does the CAD model being meshed have any symmetry? The symmetry could be along
a plane or could be along an axis.
Interfaces and Boundaries
Structures could have interfaces and boundaries, such as interfaces between multiple materials,
contact, cracks, etc. Mathematically, the FEM is based on the assumption that the displacements
are continuous inside an element. Interfaces are regions where possible discontinuities, like
cracks, could occur. This means the displacement needs not be continuous. Irrespective of a
jump in displacements, there is a definite jump in the stresses at an interface.
Fig. 03: Meshing for structural analysis in the presence of interfaces: At the interface of two materials (left); when
geometry changes (middle); loading changes (right)

For example, consider the material interface shown in Fig. 03. Here, each material has a
different modulus. In the absence of cracks, the strains at the common nodes are same. Now,
knowing that stress = modulus x strain leads to different stresses on each side of the interface. In
other words, we have a jump in stresses. Such a jump cannot be captured by an element across
which an interface passes. Similarly, other conditions where there cannot be an element across a
boundary include:
 When geometry changes, elements cannot cross these boundaries, and it is
necessary to have nodes at the interface
 When loads change abruptly, nodes need to be present at the interface where
the load suddenly changes
 Nodes need to be present at points where concentrated loads are applied

Automatic meshing algorithms consider the interfaces as long as the CAD model is partitioned
along the interfaces. In general, the automatic tetrahedral mesh works well, but if an element is
overlapping across an interface, then partitioning becomes necessary.
Tip 02: An interface can never pass through an element!
Mesh Refinement and the CAD Model
The automatic mesh generators generally start by creating a surface mesh of triangles. They
further extrapolate by using these triangles to form tetrahedrons in the volume. In many cases,
the shape of tetrahedrons formed inside the volume can get quite distorted, leading to failure of
the mesh generation. This is generally encountered in two cases:
 Complicated CAD geometries
 Geometries with high-aspect ratios

Depending on the geometry of the structure, the CAD model could contain geometries of high
aspect ratios, fillets, etc. In such a situation, it is possible that the ad hoc automatic meshing
might not generate the best meshes. Most often, these small structures are meshed over when
large elements are used, and often the mesh does not conform to the exact geometry. In such
cases, it is best to resort to a priori mesh refinements.

Fig. 04: Mesh refinement of surfaces for improved accuracy in structural analysis solutions. CAD model (left),
areas needing mesh refinement identified in red (middle), mesh incorporating refinement (right)

Fig. 04 demonstrates the ability of SimScale to provide an excellent mesh refinement. The areas
of the CAd model that need refinement can be clearly identified, and the mesh generator ensures
a suitable mesh with refinements.
Tip 03: Mesh refinement for the CAD model is a definite necessity if the structure deals with
parts of significantly different dimensions.
Meshing for Nonlinear Elasticity: Contact Problems
Problems involving linear elasticity is one of the well-researched problems in mechanical
engineering. For all linear elasticity problems, irrespective of mesh sizes, the Newton-
Raphsoniteration will converge in one iteration. However, it is always recommended to perform
a mesh refinement and convergence study to ensure the accuracy of the solution. However, the
same cannot be said when a material nonlinearity (like hyperelasticity, viscoelasticity, and
plasticity) is involved. The problem can be well-posed and a unique solution could exist.
However, the problem might fail to converge if the mesh is not sufficiently fine in regions where
the strong nonlinearity is observed. Here we have provided some tips with regard to contact
problems which are highly nonlinear in nature.
Contact is highly nonlinear in nature and to this day remains a computational challenge for
modeling large deformation contact problems. Thinking of it in simple terms, at a certain time
there is no contact and then suddenly there could be contact. Most problems involving
hyperelasticity are nonlinear but continuous. However, it must be remembered that contact is a
switch or a discontinuity.
Fig. 05: Meshing in contact problems. The aspect ratio between mesh density of master and slave surface.

As shown in Fig. 05, meshing can significantly improve solutions for structural analysis
problems involving contact. SimScale currently allows contact where the sliding displacements
are small. For such problems, the mesh ratio between master and slave surfaces must be
optimal. A general rule of thumb is that, at worst, one master element should be less than 2-3
slave elements. Additionally, if one or more surfaces are convex in nature, i.e., has sharp
corners, then it can lead to non-uniqueness of solutions. The normal and tangential vectors are
needed to calculate the distance between the two surfaces along the direction of these vectors. If
a sharp point exists where two normals can be defined, this leads to ambiguity in choosing the
normal vector causing a non-uniqueness.
Tip 04: The mesh ratio between master and slave surface needs to be optimal. Avoid sharp
corners in contact surfaces!

Identify Stress Singularities and Concentrations

Have you ever wondered why airplane windows are not exactly rectangular but are curved?
Some of the first airplanes had rectangular windows, but it was quickly discovered that the sharp
corners lead to stress concentration and crack initiation. Identifying such singular points and
refining the mesh in these areas can lead to more accurate results of the structural analysis.
Firstly, what is a stress singularity? A stress singularity is that point in a mesh where the stresses
do not converge. Theoretically, the stress at this point is infinity, and as the mesh is being
refined, the stress at this point continues to increase. Nevertheless, it is very important to note
that the displacements calculated at these stress singularities remain accurate even though the
actual stress at the point remains questionable. That aside, at a very small distance from the
point, the stresses calculated are accurate.
However, such occurrences are very common in reality, and the user needs to identify these
areas. They are regularly encountered at points where a point load is applied, where there is a
presence of sharp corners, and at points with restrained boundary conditions over a single point,
as shown in Fig. 06. Such occurrences are often seen in welded parts, for example.

Fig.
06: Commonly observed reasons for stress singularities: sharp corners (left); concentrated point loads (right)

It is important to answer the question whether the local phenomenon is of interest. If yes, then
the easiest solution is to refine the mesh near the singularity. If no, a coarse mesh could do the
job. Due to the applicability of the St. Venant Principle, the local stress singularity is lost as one
moves away from the point. Thus, the bulk results obtained are still accurate.
Tip 05: Are there singular points? Both mesh refinement and a coarse mesh are possible ways
depending on the quantity of interest.
Attend The Free FEA Master Class

Locking Effects in Bending Problems

Geometric nonlinearities and locking effects are commonly observed when solid elements are
used for meshing thin structures. This is especially true if they are subjected to bending loads.
This kind of locking is known as “shear locking”. Shear locking should not be confused with the
membrane or volumetric locking effects. Shear locking is observed since the first-order elements
using linear interpolation function for displacement. In other words, displacements are
represented by a linear function and the derivative of a linear function is constant. Thus, the
strains are constant throughout an element. In reality, this is not the case. Such an incorrect
estimation of strain inevitably results in an inaccurate estimation of the strain energy, and the
overall structure exhibits a much larger stiffness. The net displacement of a structure will be
much lower than that observed in the actual structure.
Fig 07: Demonstration of locking effect in a simple cantilever beam. The blue line represents the analytical
solution in the formula; the red line represents the FEM results using first-order elements; the yellow line
represents the structural analysis results using second-order elements.

As shown in Fig. 07, a simple cantilever beam is considered, for which an exact analytical
solution exists. The displacement of the beam is plotted as a function of its length. As evident
from the graph, second-order elements perform very well, predicting a solution to acceptable
standards of errors. In contrast, using first-order elements leads to a complete under-prediction
of the tip displacement.
There are two possible solutions to circumvent this problem:
 Mesh refinement along the thickness by using multiple elements (at least 5+)
 Using a second-order mesh could significantly reduce the locking effect
The downside of the first approach is that it increases the number of elements and significantly
increases the computational size. For example, the beam is 1000 mm in length, 250 mm in
breadth, and 10 mm in thickness; if we had only one element along the thickness, we are looking
at approximately 2500 elements. By refining using the first criterion, the elements left are of a
size of around 2 mm, meaning there are about 312,500 elements. Alternatively, by using the
higher-order element, the 2,500 second-order elements could already solve most of the problem.
Tip 06: If you are dealing with thin structures or with mostly bending problems, a second-order
mesh is a definite yes!
Locking Effects Due to Incompressibility
Yes, again! Volumetric locking is commonly observed due to incompressibility constraints. This
type of locking is known to occur in rubbery materials. It is also important to note that plasticity
is a perfect example of incompressibility. Volumetric locking is addressed in sufficient
detail in the SimScale blog article on modeling elastomeric materials.
Tip 07: Volumetric locking also needs to be considered for plasticity!
The overall tips on meshing your CAD model discussed here are not a comprehensive list of
things to do, but rather provide a general idea of the minimum things to account for while
using FEM for structural analysis problems.

WRITTEN BY
Ajay Harish