Hi,
I have a plastic bag carrier prototype model designed on Fusion360 and want to do a static stress simulation on it.
However, whenever I try to run a test, it always ends up failing. The message says:
Meshing error!
Phase: Surface meshing.
Description: Face boundary
I am not sure what the message really means and what is required to solve it.
Any help or advice will be much appreciated, thank you in advance!
Hi @suzuk13237 . Welcome to the Fusion forum.
Sorry for the long message. The outcome is good (I got the model to mesh), but the explanation is maybe not so good 🤔 (pure guesswork).
The message "Meshing error! Phase: Surface meshing. Description: Face boundary." indicates that a face was not able to be meshed. When you select the rectangular "balloon" showing the error, Fusion highlights the problem that it was having problems with.
I discovered that body 6 could be meshed by itself, and body 8 could be meshed by itself, but together the two bodies could not be meshed. This usually indicates that the bodies have an interference that is causing a problem with the meshing. Strangely, Fusion's "Simplify > Inspect > Interference" was encountering some error and would not indicate if there is an interference or not.
Without knowing why the mesh failed but knowing where it fails, I took a guess that the meshing problem is that "large" surfaces can something have problems meshing. The face shown below (and the matching face on body 😎 is the face with the issue. The area is not large, but because it is a continuous loop around the entire model, it is "long". By using the Simplify environment and splitting the face, I was able to get the model to mesh. It took a couple of splits, some of which may not be necessary, but at least it meshes. See the attached model "Bag Holder Model split faces.f3d", Simulation Model 1, Study 5. (Simulation Models 2 and 3 are just tests to confirm that the parts will mesh individually. You can delete those two models.)
I used a mesh size of 1.5 mm. That might be a little smaller than necessary, but you might want to use it since it works! You will notice a few faces on body 8 where the mesh is much finer. I do not have any explanation for that. It is probably faster to not worry about the finer mesh and run the analysis. The time it would take to try alternatives will not be made up by having fewer elements. (The alternative is to split the "long" face that wraps around the outside of body 8. I suspect that two or more smaller regions will mesh with the 1.5 mm mesh size instead of the smaller mesh that was produced.)
John
