Mesh those plates properly - simple need but very hard to achieve

[Anonymous]

Hi All,

Please see the figure below. I am using newest 2017 version and I am experiencing issues with something very simple.

Green plate mesh set to 50mm, blue plate mesh set to 25mm. Is it possible to set Sim Mech to get nice and reasonable transition at plates edge? I mean, why it cannot simply divide 50mm by 2 for last mesh layer at edge where it supposed to connect with smaller mesh? In other words, why Sim Mech is not able to create along all edge, mesh connection as it is shown in red rectangle? ... Thanks! (all model shown).

[Anonymous]

Most non-discrete meshers have a degree of "randomness" when transitioning between mesh sizes' that is why you see triangular element appear in your mesh.  You may want to try using the Enhance Surface Mesh tool.

Only other solutions I know of is to use a higher-end discrete mesher or to mesh it manually.  I recall Femap also having some plate meshing tools where you could go through and fix these type of meshes to improve quality and uniformity.

[marwan_azzam]

I'm not sure what the rest of your model looks like but drawing a sketch and using the 2D mesher will get you what you need.

You would need to select an edge (as a construction object) and set the 2D Mesh Divisions.  Part 2 is extruded from Part 1.

See attached archive file.

[Anonymous]

That would only work if the mesh sizes are the same.  If the mesh sizes are different between plates, then some type of size transition has to occur.

IMO, the mesher did a pretty good job.   Looks like everything is matched up.  If you are focused on that attachment region, then you can either add some mesh refinement of perhaps put a rectangular split surface surrounding that edge and keeps its mesh size the lower of the two.

[marwan_azzam]

I'm not sure what you mean by "That would only work if the mesh sizes are the same".

I got the following mesh on my model:

In any case, if the above is too complicated for the user, another thing to try is to:

1. Mesh only the finer (25mm) part (suppress the other part or parts)
2. Select all the nodes on the common edge
3. Add Construction Vertices to those nodes
4. Activate all parts
5. Mesh with the desired sizes (25mm and 50mm)

[Anonymous]

Thanks for involvement.

Clarifying, what I have annotated with red rectangle is the appropriate example, the desirable one. Mesh transition outside this rectangle is wrong for my purposes. Marwan_azzam, in some cases 2D mesher idea might help but this is not the case herein, we have to use CAD models to base on, as such "hand" built mesh is not time-efficient in industrial practical application, not mentioning jeopardized quality assurance aspect due to geometry doublecheck. Surface enhancement meshing and construction vertices does not provide any help. Lets please focus on other possible solutions. I will appreciate your further input, unless there is no solution for this other then use 3rd party mesher, that will be an answer too. Thanks!

[marwan_azzam]

Are you concerned about the mesh transition only around the interface between the two parts or everywhere in the model.  By that I mean what if you still got similar transition but away from where the two parts meet?

[Anonymous]

I think it would be worth to examine both routes you are asking about.

[marwan_azzam]

If you are only concerned about the transition at the interface between the two parts then I suggest creating a set of construction vertices offset 25mm from the common edge in a manner similar to what I describe in my previous post.

I'm not sure how you would get rid of the irregular transitions altogether.  If you post your model I, and other users perhaps, can try different methods.