cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Hybrid Meshes

Hybrid Meshes

Hello all together,

 

to speed up the simulation, hybrid meshes would be advantageous.

 

For example Sigmasoft takes voxal meshes and this mesh is more tolerat of CAD problems. The calculation time for a compled Mould is very fast.

 

To decrease the preparation time and  computation time hybrid meshes can help.

 

It would be possible to simulat very large models in 3D.

 

Greeting Michael

5 Comments
harald_goetz
Collaborator

Thinking of large tools to mesh (large means many parts, many contact surfaces), I don´t care about voxels, tets or hexameshes.

As a user I simply want to set a parameter and I´m eager to get a fast solution.

I assume that the mesher in Moldflow is a 3rd party mesher (maybe from Distene?) -> but beside a good mesher Moldflow also needs better usability in the regard of moldmeshing. Not only easier, but also faster AND reliable.

 

That is the ecpection. I´m curious when it will happen.

 

Kind regards

Harald

raalteh
Community Manager
Status changed to: Comments Requested
Hi Michael and Harald, My personal goal is to remove 'meshing' as a skill we have to teach the user in order to get fast and reliable answers. And we do spend time every release to improve the meshing and the solvers, but this is certainly not a 'done' problem. I do want to provide a little context though. 1) Voxelation provides a very fast and robust mesh generation path. We actually developed what is probably one of the fastest voxel meshers available for other reasons, so we are very familiar with the technology. We did not develop it to replace our normal meshes as as there it comes with very significant sacrefices in appearance and run times (you generate very very large meshes). 2) Within Moldflow we can generate several different mesh types, and each works a bit differently, and depending on the starting geometry type, the meshing path may be different (this expalins why meshing on an STL or a Solid CAD model will give you different meshes on the same gemoetric part). Within the meshers there are typically a few steps that predeed or follow the 'mesh generation' like mesh imprinting and matching. These post meshing steps can take significant time compared to the brute mesh generation, but in the end pay back in better analysis results. For some pieces of some meshing paths we license technology (not Distine 🙂 ), but very significant pieces were developed internally and are continued to be developed. 3) In the last few releases (since 2013 I believe) we have improved the tolerance of the solver for dealing with meshes that are not pristine and perfect. Appart from this being a good idea, there is simply no way that we can guarantee that the initial starting geometry is good enough to create a pristine mesh. More work still needs to be done, but I have seen many customers spending too much time fixing the meshes up perfection, whereas the 'default' mesh would have given nearly the same analysis result. 4) Lastly, I agree that the meshing controls in Moldflow could use an overhaul. It's not as interactive as you would hope it would be. Thank you for your valuable input on this topic.
Jacky1187
Participant

Hello,

 

i think that finite volume method is very fast in computation of filling, packing and cooling. For this we need voxel meshes.

Warpage need tetra elements to calculate the correct warpage but from voxel mesh it can split to tetra meshes. This is one reason why i think that hybrid meshes are a very interesting option.

 

Greeting Michael

raalteh
Community Manager

Voxel and brick meshes have been used for molding simulation have been used for Injection molding simulation at various points in time. Although the mesh generation is extremly robust and fast, it's very hard to retain a accurate solution and have good control over the mesh quality. All but one have of the provides have abandoned brick or voxel based solving.

 

As a very simple example you can take a flat plate (assume it's flat in the XY plane), mesh it, run a simulation. Then take the exact same mesh, rotate it by 45 degress (around the x axis), them mesh it again (the voxels will now have to build the flat plate along the 45 degree slope, which would require very small voxel sizes to form a reasonable approximation, then run an analysis. Then analysis results for the exact same part will probably be different and the second case will have run much longer.

So, voxel meshing has its own issues.

 

As a side comment: Within the Moldflow dev. team we actually developed one of the fastest voxel meshers for a different application. and we are very familiat with the technology.

mayur_dhumal
Advocate

I agree with hanno on this!

Project falcon uses voxel technology.Every technology has its own limitations! Still there is always a EDGE to come closer to desireness.

I just wanted to state that in coming future Voxel mesh will be a key to roustness, fast result generation, we just have to take care that this technology can made useful in warpage anlaysis to solve the mesh generate / repair time.

 

Thanks,

Mayur

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report