Paras,

I am working on homogenization of particulate nano-composites and thus have to solve the finite deformation quasistatics problem on different microstructures, such as one shown in the attachment pic-1.png.

In order to automate the generation of (2D & 3D) meshes for microstructures comprising of randomly distributed filler particles of arbitrary radius, we employ a self-written python code using GMSH for mesh generation. The setup works well for 2D but for 3D, the resulting mesh (left) culminates in irregularities in the stress contour as compared to that obtained with a structured mesh (right) as can be seen from the attachment pic-2.png. Due to the random spatial distribution and arbitrary size of particles, unstructured mesh appeared as the feasible option.

In order to verify that the cause of such irregularities is the mesh and not our solver (based on deal.ii), we tested the mesh in Abaqus and similar irregularities were observed, cf. pic-3.png. Refining the mesh does not help either.

That suggests that you are doing something wrong. I don't know what exactly the problem is, and in particular how you assign material properties to cells, but we know from theory that the finite element solution must converge to the exact solution if you just refine the mesh often enough. If it doesn't for you, then something is amiss.

This does not say anything about the *absolute level of accuracy*. I would not be surprised if for a mesh like the one you show (in which pretty much every hexahedron is poorly shaped), the solution is less than for the corresponding tetrahedal mesh. But if you refine it a couple of times, you should get a more accurate solution. Is this not the case?


Has anyone else working with unstructured Hex meshes, observed similar issues? Any clues on how to deal with this issue or on other tools (preferably open source) which one could use for generating better meshes in 3D would be of great help.

The quality of meshes matters for the absolute level of error. The hex meshes you get by subdividing tets are generally quite poor, though I know of people who are using these routinely and report that they nevertheless get good accuracy. A better approach is certainly to see if you can find ways to *directly* create hex meshes. gmsh can do this to some degree. For the sphere you show, deal.II can also generate a high-quality mesh itself.

Best
 W.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth          email:                 bange...@colostate.edu
                           www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/

--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see 
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dealii/814bb2bb-94d2-0dbc-43cc-4e4a1151518c%40colostate.edu.

Reply via email to