DISCRETIZATION ERROR:

It is the error introduce by the finite element model. The number of degrees of freedom is
infinite in the mathematical model, but finite in the finite element model. The FEM solution is
influenced by the number of elements used, the number of nodes per element, the nature of element
shape functions, integration rules used with isoparametric element, and other formulation details of
particular elements.

The primary unknown in conventional finite element analysis is the displacement at every node
in the model. The finite elements used in the model have shape functions associated with them that
characterize the resulting displacement field of the physical model. The principal of minimization of
total potential energy is used to obtain the equation in the form of:

[K]{x}={F}, where

[K] = global stiffness matrix

{x} = displacement vector

{F} = force vector

This equation is solved for the unknown displacement vector {x}. The stresses and strains are
then obtained as the first derivative of these displacements. So while the displacement field in the finite
element model is continuous, the stress field in the model is discontinuous. The stress at a node is the
average of the stresses from all the elements attached to that node. This introduces an error in the
magnitude of stress at a node and is referred to as mesh discretization error. The phenomenon of mesh
discretization error is graphically illustrated in figure 1. The coarser the mesh, the greater the potential
for this error.
 Basic FE theory also suggests that for elements that pass the patch test, as you keep refining the
mesh, in the limit, you approach the exact state of stress. Hence, for a very fine mesh, the contribution
to stress at a node from all elements attached to it will be the same, exact value. However, rarely do we
have the luxury of repeated mesh refinement - hence we cannot see the convergence of stress to the
exact value with increasing mesh density. If the mesh is too coarse and the stress gradient too high, the
stress result may not be accurate. It is for this reason that the analyst should look at mesh discretization
error and estimate the error in FE solution.

Finite Element Mesh Refinement

Engineers and scientists use finite element analysis (FEA) software to build predictive computational
models of real-world scenarios. The use of FEA software begins with a computer-aided design (CAD)
model that represents the physical parts being simulated as well as knowledge of the material properties
and the applied loads and constraints. This information enables the prediction of real-world behavior,
often with very high levels of accuracy.

The accuracy that can be obtained from any FEA model is directly related to the finite element mesh
that is used. The finite element mesh is used to subdivide the CAD model into smaller domains
called elements, over which a set of equations are solved. These equations approximately represent the
governing equation of interest via a set of polynomial functions defined over each element. As these
elements are made smaller and smaller, as the mesh is refined, the computed solution will approach the
true solution.
This process of mesh refinement is a key step in validating any finite element model and gaining
confidence in the software, the model, and the results.

The Mesh Refinement Process

A good finite element analyst starts with both an understanding of the physics of the system that is to be
analyzed and a complete description of the geometry of the system. This geometry is represented via a
CAD model. A typical CAD model will accurately describe the shape and structure, but often also
contain cosmetic features or manufacturing details that can prove to be extraneous for the purposes of
finite element modeling. The analyst should put some engineering judgment into examining the CAD
model and deciding if these features and details can be removed or simplified prior to meshing. Starting
with a simple model and adding complexity is almost always easier than starting with a complex model
and simplifying it.

The analyst should also know all of the physics that are relevant to the problem, the materials
properties, the loads, the constraints, and any elements that can affect the results of interest. These
inputs may have uncertainties in them. For instance, the material properties and loads may not always
be precisely known. It is important to keep this in mind during the modeling process, as there is no
benefit in trying to resolve a model to greater accuracy than the input data admits.

A finite element model of a wrench and the computed stresses. The mesh is not shown.

Once all of this information is assembled into an FEA model, the analyst can begin with a preliminary
mesh. Early in the analysis process, it makes sense to start with a mesh that is as coarse as possible a
mesh with very large elements. A coarse mesh will require less computational resources to solve and,
while it may give a very inaccurate solution, it can still be used as a rough verification and as a check
on the applied loads and constraints.

The first few iterations of a mesh refinement study of a wrench, starting with a very coarse mesh.

After computing the solution on the coarse mesh, the process of mesh refinement begins. In its simplest
form, mesh refinement is the process of resolving the model with successively finer and finer meshes,
comparing the results between these different meshes. This comparison can be done by analyzing the
fields at one or more points in the model or by evaluating the integral of a field over some domains or
boundaries.

By comparing these scalar quantities, it is possible to judge the convergence of the solution with
respect to mesh refinement. After comparing a minimum of three successive solutions, an asymptotic
behavior of the solution starts to emerge, and the changes in the solution between meshes become
smaller. Eventually, these changes will be small enough that the analyst can consider the model to be
converged. This is always a judgment call on the part of the analyst, who knows the uncertainties in the
model inputs and the acceptable uncertainty in the results.

Different Mesh Refinement Metrics

Studying convergence requires choosing an appropriate mesh refinement metric. This metric can be
either local or global. That is, the metric can be defined at one location in the model or as the integral of
the fields over the entire model space. An example of a local metric is the displacement or stress at a
point within a structural analysis. An example of a global metric is the integral of the strain energy
density over all domains. Both the stresses and the strain are computed based upon the gradient of the
solution and the displacement field. Gradients of the solution are always computed to one order lower
polynomial approximation.

A simple finite element model of a loaded plate with a hole. Symmetry is used to reduce the model size,
and several different metrics can be defined to study mesh refinement.

While choosing a metric, it is important to remember that different metrics will have different
convergence behavior. This is illustrated in the figure below, showing different meshes being used to
solve the same FEA model. These meshes differ in terms of the element size and are compared in terms
of the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) within the model. The DOF is related to the number
of nodes, the computational points that define the shape of each finite element. The computational
resources required to solve an FEA model are directly related to the number of DOF.

From the figure below, it appears as if certain metrics converge faster than others, but it is important to
keep in mind that the rate of mesh convergence for a particular problem statement is dependent upon
which mesh refinement technique is used.
Convergence of a global metric (top), a local metric based upon the solution field (center), and a local
metric based upon the gradient of the solution (bottom) with 10.000000e+0rror bars compared to the
most refined solution. The same meshes were used for the three cases.

Different Mesh Refinement Techniques

When it comes to mesh refinement, there is a suite of techniques that are commonly used. An
experienced user of FEA software should be familiar with each of these techniques and the tradeoffs
between them.

Reducing the Element Size

Reducing the element size is the easiest mesh refinement strategy, with element sizes reduced
throughout the modeling domains. This approach is attractive due to its simplicity, but the drawback is
that there is no preferential mesh refinement in regions where a locally finer mesh may be needed.
The stresses in a plate with a hole, solved with different element sizes.

Increasing the Element Order

Increasing the element order is advantageous in the sense that no remeshing is needed; the same mesh
can be used, but with different element orders. Remeshing can be time consuming for complex 3D
geometries or the mesh may come from an external source and cannot be altered. The disadvantage to
this technique is that the computational requirements increase faster than with other mesh refinement
techniques.

The same finite element mesh, but solved with different element orders.

Global Adaptive Mesh Refinement

Global adaptive mesh refinement uses an error estimation strategy to determine the point in the
modeling domain where the local error is largest. The FEA software then takes this error estimation and
uses the information to generate an entirely new mesh. Smaller elements are used in regions where the
local error is significant, and the local error throughout the model is considered. The advantage here is
that the software will do all of the mesh refinement. The drawback is that the user has no control over
the mesh. As such, excessive mesh refinement may occur in regions that are of less interest, regions
where a larger local error is acceptable.

G
lobal adaptive mesh refinement changes the element sizes in a nonuniform manner.

Local Adaptive Mesh Refinement

Local adaptive mesh refinement differs from global adaptive mesh refinement in that the error is
evaluated only over some subset of the entire model space, with respect to a specific metric. For
example, it is possible to refine the mesh such that stresses at the boundary of a hole are more
accurately resolved. This meshing strategy will still remesh the entire model with the objective of
reducing the error in one region. If a logical and desirable local metric exists with respect to which
mesh can be refined, the local adaptive approach is superior to global adaptive mesh refinement.

Local adaptive mesh refinement with respect to the stresses at a point.

Manually Adjusting the Mesh

The most labor intensive approach is for the analyst to manually create a series of different finite
element meshes based upon the physics of the particular problem and an intuition as to where finer
elements may be needed. For 2D models, a combination of triangular and quadrilateral elements can be
used. In the case of 3D models, a combination of tetrahedral, hexahedral (also called bricks), triangular
prismatic, and pyramidal elements can be used. While triangular and tetrahedral elements can be
utilized to mesh any geometry, the quadrilateral, hexahedral, prismatic, and pyramidal elements are
helpful when the solution is known to vary gradually along one or more directions. By elongating, or
shrinking, elements in certain directions, the mesh can be tuned to the variation in the fields.

A manually created mesh of a plate with a hole. Varying sizes of triangular and elongated quadrilateral
elements are used.

The manual meshing approach requires the most experience and a working understanding of the finite
element method and the physics being solved. However, when done correctly, the savings on time and
resources can be significant.
Manual mesh refinement of a wrench using different element types.

Time-Domain and Frequency-Domain Meshing

Along with all of the above techniques, additional considerations should be kept in mind when meshing
problems that have time-varying loads. A model with nonlinear material responses or arbitrary time-
varying excitations would need to be solved in the time domain. On the other hand, if the applied
excitation is of a single frequency or a range of known frequencies and the material properties are
linear, then it is preferred for the modeling to take place in the frequency domain. There are additional
mesh refinement strategies for each of these cases.

Time-Adaptive Mesh Refinement

Time-adaptive mesh refinement remeshes the model at distinct time intervals and considers an error
estimate of the solution at each interval as the metric by which to remesh the model. This is useful
when the regions requiring good mesh resolution move over time.

Time-adaptive mesh refinement of a model of a rising bubble solved with a two-phase flow model. The
finite element mesh is finer around the phase boundary.

Wavelength-Adaptive Mesh Refinement

When modeling in the frequency domain, both the range of excitation frequencies and the material
properties are known ahead of time. Thus, it is possible to predict the wavelength in all modeling
domains. The element size must be sufficiently smaller than the wavelength, such that the element
polynomial basis functions resolve the waves.
Microwave waveguide with a dielectric load (cutout view). Wavelength adaptive mesh refinement alters
the element size based upon the frequency and material properties.