There are a number of techniques for meshing complex domains for Finite Element Analysis. They generally fall into two categories: Structured vs. Unstructured. For structured meshes, basically the entire mesh can be mapped directly to a 3D array of XYZ coordinates, whereas unstructured grids cannot. There is a good description of the classifications with ...
While the other guys explained the theoretical framework behind meshing, the practice is markedly different and it is not at all automatic in industries where quality of mesh is of utmost importance given that finite element analysis results cover a great deal of the product development process.
Let's first understand how meshing is done:
Meshing for ...
Certain geometries can benefit from polyhedral elements or elements with edge degrees of freedom. I can think of three main developments in that direction:
1) Voronoi cell finite elements, e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045794994904359
2) Isogeometric elements, e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
It really depends a lot on your model and types of loads but here are some generalities:
Shell elements usually require a lot less computational work than solid elements. This means that you can achieve reliable results with much fewer elements and within a fraction of the time. The rule-of-thumb is to use 1-D (Beams) or 2-D (shells) elements as much as ...
According to ISO 4156-1:2005, the following definitions apply:
fillet root spline
spline having a tooth or space profile in which the opposing flanks are connected to the root circle (Dei or Die) by a single fillet.
3.7 flat root spline
spline having a tooth or space profile in which each the opposing flanks are connected to the root circle (Dei or Die) ...
Fillet root splines have a smooth curve between adjacent teeth and the root diameter, flat root splines may not and will have a flat portion of tooth space between teeth. Fillet root teeth provide better bending strength and thus higher load capacity.
The spline in your picture appears to be a fillet root, although the pressure angle looks a lot higher than ...
You can convert it from a graphic body to a mesh body (use the command search at the top right of the screen), and then you can use the Boolean tools to affect it using other mesh bodies.
You will not be able to "sketch on the face", since by their very definition, mesh bodies are made up of vertices, not faces. Native solidworks objects (BREP) are ...
Bottom Line is that either can be used successfully if properly applied.
The most appropriate has to do with:
the application and (e.g. symmetries in geometry vs. irregular shapes and loads)
what you are aiming to get out of the analysis. (e.g. just a single value for the entire structure, or looking at more detail at locations with problems).
The main ...
Depending on the context, mesh topology is the cell or mesh density and how it changes across the whole calculation field.
To get detail then the computational area is divided into cells - more cells means better detail / results but at a cost of more calculations ie it takes longer.
So, engineers look to “target” extra cells in areas of importance or ...
I solved my problem. I refined the mesh. Part of the problem was the high aspect ratio of my cells, because my tube is very thin in comparison to the length. I have solved the problem laminar and then take this as a starting value for my turbulence model. My results are physical now and the flow is fully developed some time after the expansion. Thanks to ...
(1) Is it partly automatic?
Yes, it is. And it could be totally automatic.
(2) Should you have to define the points and connectivities by hand in some cases?
No, except in a classroom homework. By the way, it is called node and element.
(3) What are the most commonly used criteria to ensure the mesh will fulfill the expectation of the customer?
I'm assuming that your equation is only used to define the spacing from an end to the middle, after which you mirror it.
Instead of dx1, write L / N, where L is the total length. Now you have
x(i) = (L / N) * r ^ x(i-1)
...and when you change N, your x(i)s will also scale. I don't think you want r to be a function of N.
Let me know if this helps!
I figured it out. First right click your mesh in the project tree and then click "Clear Generated Data". Then, right click, say your "Node Move", there should be a "Delete", click "Delete", then right click your "Mesh Edit" and there should also be a "Delete", click that.
I modeled a vertical axis turbine back in 2010 in a two dimensional rotating reference frame in OpenFOAM with good results. I am not up to date with the new tools available, but you want to make sure that your geometry is in fact rotating according to the model (perhaps your periodic boundaries are handling this for you).
I used gmsh (http://geuz.org/gmsh/) ...