Computational Mechanics 27 (2001) 378±395 Ó Springer-Verlag 2001

Automatic monitoring of element shape quality in 2-D

and 3-D computational mesh dynamics
P. Z. Bar-Yoseph, S. Mereu, S. Chippada, V. J. Kalro

378
Abstract One of the major problems in ¯uid±structure vibrations of cable suspension bridges, skyscrapers,
interaction using the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian ap- chimneys, arti®cial heart valve devices, offshore and
proach lies in the area of dynamic mesh generation. For aeronautical structures). FSI problems require the con-
accurate ¯uid-dynamic computations, meshes must be current application of computational ¯uid dynamics
generated at each time step. The ¯uid mesh must be re- (CFD), computational structural dynamics (CSD), and
generated in the deformed ¯uid domain in order to ac- computational mesh dynamics (CMD) techniques.
count for the displacements of the elastic body computed The approach presented here pertains to structures that
by the structural dynamics solver. In the elasticity-based undergo large displacements and large rotations due to
computational dynamic mesh procedure, the ¯uid mesh is ¯uid dynamic loads. For such problems, the ¯ow ®eld is
modeled as a pseudo-elastic solid the deformation of affected by structural deformations. As a result, the ¯uid
which is based on the displacement boundary conditions, and structure exhibit a two-way coupling, and it is nec-
resulting from the solution of the computational structural essary to resolve the ¯ow ®eld after each update of the
dynamics problem. This approach has a distinct advantage structural con®guration. The procedure is based on loose
over other mesh-movement algorithms in that it is a very coupling of three ®eld problems: the ¯ow, the elastic body,
general, physically based approach that can be applied to and the mesh-movement ± that is, the CFD, CSD, and
both structured and unstructured meshes. The major CMD procedures.
drawback of the linear elastostatic solver is that it does not We selected the ALE form of the Navier±Stokes equa-
guarantee the absence of severe element distortion. This tions for the ¯uid and the updated Lagrangian formulation
paper describes a novel mesh-movement procedure for for the structure. In problems that involve large dis-
mesh quality control of 2-D and 3-D dynamic meshes placements, the ALE mesh must be adjusted after each
based on solving a pseudo-nonlinear elastostatic problem. update of the structural con®guration. When the structural
An inexpensive distortion measure for different types of displacements are of the same order of magnitude as a
elements is introduced and used for controlling the ele- characteristic length of the ¯ow problem, the mesh-
ment shape quality. The mesh-movement procedure is movement problem becomes extremely complex. The
illustrated with several examples (large-displacement and mesh displacement ®eld is calculated by the solution of a
free-boundary problems) that highlight its advantages in pseudo-elastostatic problem. A mesh-stiffening algorithm
terms of performance, mesh quality, and robustness. It is is necessary to prevent mesh distortions.
believed that the resulting scheme will result in a more To avoid creating inverted elements, others [3±5] have
economical simulation of the motion of complex geome- employed a dynamic mesh generator that uses triangle
try, 3-D elastic bodies immersed in temporally and spa- elements and is based upon the displacements of a net of
tially evolving ¯ows. lineal and torsional springs wherein the spring coef®cient
is inversely proportional to its generalized length. The
1 combination of lineal and torsional springs can signi®-
Introduction cantly improve the robustness of the spring analogy
An understanding of the nature of ¯uid±structure inter- method for 2-D dynamic meshes using triangular elements
action (FSI) is becoming increasingly important for many but cannot be used in the general case, due to the possi-
kinds of ¯ows. Numerous physical phenomena provide bility of distorted quadrilateral, tetrahedron, and hexahe-
examples of ¯uid±structure interaction [1, 2] (e.g., induced dral elements. Moreover, the generated mesh is usually
smoothed by means of Winslow's smoothing scheme [6],
Received 20 April 2000 which clearly indicates that the spring analogy process
cannot, in the general case, create a decent mesh. However,
P. Z. Bar-Yoseph even this smoothing technique may not help to produce
Computational Mechanics Laboratory, decent mesh, because nodal points close to a concave
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, boundary tend to drift outward and may still tangle the
Technion ± Israel Institute of Technology, mesh.
Haifa 32000, Israel
In the present study, this approach to stiffen the mesh
S. Mereu, S. Chippada, V. J. Kalro has been further examined and extended. The extension
FSI Development Group, Fluent Inc., 500 Davis St. Suite 600, involves the use of continuum and truss elements as mesh
Evanston, IL 60201, USA stiffeners, for example, by adding truss elements along the
edges and diagonals of each quadrilateral/hexahedral ele-
ment (to stiffen the element against shear distortions), and
choosing the truss stiffness as inversely proportional to the
distortion measures to increase mesh stiffness. Mesh dis-
tortions can also be controlled through the elements of the
pseudo-elastic matrix (ranging from the most anisotropic
case to the most simpli®ed isotropic case in which Pois-
son's ratio is set to zero for minimal mesh distortions). In
most practical applications, a ®ne mesh is typically re-
quired close to the elastic body. Straightforward use of a
pseudo-isotropic homogeneous media will tend to distort
the small elements in these critical regions. This short-
coming can be overcome by automatically distributing the
material properties in such a way that the elements that are
close to the elastic body are much stiffer than the elements
that are distant from the body. One can use anisotropic
and inhomogeneous material properties, which are de®ned
as inversely proportional to the distortion measures. The
major advantage of this approach is that it is based upon
elastic properties which can be ef®ciently used for con-
trolling the mesh quality through the material response of
the pseudo-elastic media (a physically based approach).
Proper material distribution can considerably reduce the
need for local and/or global remeshing.
Figure 1±1 shows two possible modes of distortion of a
3-node triangle due to: (1) angular distortion ± small and
large vertex angles ((a) ! (b)), and (2) lineal distortion
((a) ! (c), h1  h2 ). For such elements, the amount of
distortion is usually measured by the element aspect ratio,
Fig. 1±1. Shape distortions for 3-node triangular elements
which is de®ned as the ratio of the radii of circumscribed
and inscribed circles.
It can be shown that for a 4-node biquadratic element,
the map is invertible when the quadrilateral is convex.
Element distortions for quadratic quadrilateral elements
can be classi®ed as: aspect ratio, skew, taper, mid-node
and curved-edge distortions. The distortion control pro-
cedures suggested in the literature are restricted to 3-node
triangular and 4-node tetrahedral elements and are not
designed to account for aspect ratio, mid-node and
curved-edge distortions.
379
The four basic modes of distortion for a 4-node quad-
rilateral element are due to (Fig. 1±2):
(1) Large aspect ratio (``highly elongated'' element;
h2 =h1  1).
(2) Very small and large corner angles (``highly skewed''
element).
(3) A nearly triangular shape caused by excessive lineal
distortions (large tapers from two directions; ``near-
triangle'' element; (a) ! (b) ! (c)) or angular dis-
tortions which cause the quadrilateral element to de-
generate to a triangle (element with an internal angle
equal to 180 , the so-called ``triangular quadrilateral'';
(a) ! (d) ! (e)). The element Jacobian determinant
is zero along the two co-linear edges. Moreover, if the
quadrilateral is further deformed then it can have a re-
entrant corner and the Jacobian determinant changes
sign within the element domain.
For higher order elements, such as 6- and 7-node trian-
gular and 8- and 9-node quadrilateral elements, it is also
necessary to ensure that the mid-side nodes and the in-
ternal nodes (in the case of 7- and 9-node elements) are
positioned in a ``safe zone'' wherein node movement nei-
ther deteriorates the solution accuracy, nor causes the
Jacobian determinant to vanish or change sign. For ele-
ments with one curved side only, there are some simple
rules to de®ne the safe zone. There are no rules for more
distorted elements, and numerical checks on the sign of
the element Jacobian determinant are necessary.
The two extra basic modes of distortions of quadratic
elements are due to (Fig. 1±3):
(1) Strongly curved sides ((a) ! (b)).
(2) Off-center nodes ((a) ! (c)).
Fig. 1±2. Shape distortions for 4-node
quadrilateral elements

380
Fig. 1±3. Shape distortions for 8- and 9-node quadrilateral
elements
For 7-node triangle and 9-node quadrilateral elements there
is another mode of distortion caused by the position of the
interior node (the off-centroid mode of distortion).
Allowable restrictions for the internal angles depend on the
solution gradients and the order of the elements under
consideration. Quadratic elements are usually less sensitive
to angular distortion than linear and bilinear elements.
Three-dimensional elements have some deformation
modes that are similar to the planar elements and some-
times the distortion limits outlined above are checked on
each face. Generally speaking, this is not a recommended
procedure, because 3-D elements can have a huge volu-
metric distortion which may not be indicated by the de- 1. Initialize CFD, CSD, and CMD solvers.
formations of the faces (for example, a tetrahedral element 2. Begin outer time loop (for transient problem) or itera-
can be collapsed to a planar element through shrinking its
altitude to zero, creating the so-called ``sliver'' elements,
while the faces are undergoing minimal shape distortions).
In addition, a warpage (lack of ¯atness) distortion mode is
also possible. Warping occurs when the nodes of a quad-
rilateral face of a hexahedral element do not all lie in the
same plane (Fig. 1±4). Warpage distortion can be mea-
sured as the ratio of the distance of a fourth node from the
plane of the ®rst three, Dd^j , to the minimum distance
between the nodal points (one can also measure the war-
page angle between the normals of two intersected planes).
Clearly, any element can exhibit more than one of these
distortion modes. Some of the above measures of element
distortion ± such as aspect ratio, taper, and skew ± can also
Fig. 1±4. Warpage distortion
be quanti®ed in terms of the Jacobian of the transforma-
tion [7, 8]. Checking the value of the Jacobian at selective
positions in the element (usually at integration points)
may be misleading, however, because it may not give a
clear indication on the element distortion (for example, a
4-node quadrilateral element can have a re-entrant corner
and yet the minimum value of the Jacobian at the Gauss
points may be still positive).
In Sect. 2 of this paper, a new scalar distortion measure
is introduced and used for controlling element distortions
against all the above geometric distortions.
Figure 1±5 shows a schematic description of the prob-
lem domain of interest, where S X…t† is the domain occu-
pied by the moving elastic body and bounded by S C; F X…t†
is the moving spatial domain upon which the ¯uid is
described; and W C…t† ˆ F C \ S C is the wetted surface; u
and u ^ are the ¯uid and mesh velocities, respectively.
In this paper, the following loose coupling strategy has
been used:
tion loop (for steady state problems).
 CFD:
 Impose initial and boundary conditions (on u C, r C
and m C) and transfer compatibility conditions (on
W
C).
 Use the ALE form of the Navier±Stokes equations to
solve for the ¯uid velocity and pressure ®elds in
F
X…t†.
3. Calculate the traction vector at the wetted surface, W t,
that constitutes the mechanical boundary conditions for
the CSD problem (load projection).
 CSD:
 Apply external loads and ¯uid traction (load
transfer).
Fig. 1±5. Schematic description of the
problem domain
  Impose initial and boundary conditions (on S C). where R^ is the mesh position vector and t and t n indicate,
 Use the UL approach to solve for the elastic body respectively, the current and reference con®gurations. The
displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors. mesh deformation can be referred to either the initial mesh
4. Calculate displacement ®eld at the wetted surface, and location (t n ˆ 0, in which case d ^ is the total mesh dis-
update the surface location (surface tracking). placement) or to the last calculated solid body con®gura-
 CMD: tion (where d ^ is the incremental displacement). For details,
 Select the proper mesh dynamic measures. see Sect. 2.2.3.
 Solve for the vector of increments in the nodal point On the boundary of the ¯uid domain, the mesh dis-
positions of the previous mesh, Pi . The structural placement and velocity are imposed according to the
incremental displacements, due to the change in its following boundary conditions (Fig. 1±5):
con®guration (Bi ! Bi‡1 ), are imposed at the wetted ^ ˆ 0; u
d ^ ˆ 0; on u C^ (Eulerian mesh) …3† 381
surface.
 Update the mesh geometry. ^
n ˆ 0; u
d ^
nˆu ^ (Slipping mesh)

n; on sl C
 Calculate the mesh velocity ®eld. …4†
5. End outer time or iteration loop.
^ ˆ W d;
d  u ^ ˆ Wu
; on W C ^ (Lagrangian mesh† …5†
As noted above, the loose coupling strategy employs sep-
arate solution strategies for the ¯uid, solid, and mesh- The ALE mesh domain can either be included in, or be
movement problems. The treatment of the ¯uid domain ^  F X), and C
identical to the ¯uid domain (X ^ and F C may
for FSI problems is identical to that for other CFD prob- not be the same geometrically, nor in terms of the different
lems that involve moving boundaries. FIDAP [9] employs types of boundary conditions which may be imposed along
the ALE formulation for such problems. The CSD proce- each boundary (Fig. 2±1); The vector n is the unit normal
dure is based on the classical UL procedure (for details, see vector to the boundary.
[10]). Our CMD procedure is described fully in the next The following remarks concerning (1) are noteworthy:
section. Section 3 presents examples of automatically
generated meshes and Sect. 4 outlines our main conclu- Remark 1: It is expected that a less distorted mesh may be
sions. obtained when the Dirichlet type boundary conditions (3)
The computational mesh algorithms presented in this are replaced by appropriate sliding boundary conditions
paper have been incorporated in the CFD code FIDAP [9]. (4). For problems involving a smooth boundary, this type
The various mesh-movement procedures described in this of boundary condition allows the whole ¯uid mesh to
paper may be optionally invoked by the user for the move and to adapt itself according to the solid displace-
solution of a wide range of FSI problems. ments, or to experience a rigid body motion when the solid
can be considered as a rigid body ± for example, the case
2 of a pinned valve, where a Lagrangian sliding mesh ap-
Computational mesh dynamics (CMD) proach probably represents the best approach. Limiting
The pseudo-elastostatic problem can be de®ned as follows: the size of the ALE domain, X, ^ is apparently attractive,
Calculate the displacements for a pseudo elastic domain because only a small part of the ¯uid domain needs to be
adapted (Fig. 2±1; [11]). However, in all the cases that we
^d
K ^ˆ0 …1† have investigated, the mesh motion restrictions imposed
^ is the by the no-slip boundary conditions (even when X ^ ˆ F X),
where the ``cap'' indicates a mesh related value. K
pseudo stiffness matrix and d ^ is the mesh displacement yield meshes that are too distorted. Therefore, the no-slip
vector de®ned by boundary condition is not recommended.
Remark 2: The problem is well de®ned provided that the
^ ˆ R…t†
d ^ ^ n†
R…t …2† transformation remains well de®ned, and the nodes

Fig. 2±1. ALE mesh domain

 movement is a continuous, adaptive process. Using the
classic linear elasticity approach may result in an ill-con-
ditioned problem indicating that the mesh is too distorted
and the transformation is not unique any more.
System (1) can be rewritten in a partitioned form as
    
FF ^
K FW ^
K F^ 0
d ˆ …6†
WF ^
K WW ^
K W
^ 0
d
where the overbar indicates a prescribed value. And after 2.1
imposing boundary conditions (5), we obtain
382 FF ^ F ^ ^
^ Wd
K d ˆ FW K …7† shape of the element is examined and monitored by its
which shows that the ¯uid mesh motion is driven by the distortion can be monitored through choosing the material
elastic body motion. This equation, together with the other and structural measures for each element belonging to the
^ and W C†, is solved for the
boundary conditions (on u C, sl C
F^
¯uid mesh displacements, d. Note that the solver devel-
oped for the CSD problem is also used here for generating 2.1.1
the mesh.
Remark 3: In practical applications, the mesh must be
regenerated many times. Hence, it is important that the
CMD process be computationally ef®cient. It is not nec-
essary to solve the pseudo-elastostatic problem accurately,
because only a rough mesh distribution is needed (i.e., the
fully converged solution is not needed, therefore a low
error tolerance can be set. It is also possible to assign
different stiffening properties to different ALE mesh sub-
domains for initial stiffening of the mesh to prevent local
distortions. The success of this process strongly depends
on the user's expertise, may cause numerical dif®culties
(Sect. 3.3), and can be more expensive and less robust than
the proposed mesh-movement strategy.
The primary disadvantage of linear elasticity for ALE
mesh motion is that arti®cial stresses are created when one
section of the mesh rotates with respect to another section.
This rotation can cause undesirable mesh distortion.
Moreover, the linear approach cannot prevent a mesh
from tangling. To create a mesh that can undergo large
deformations and rotations, a nonlinear ALE constitutive
equation based on a pseudo-nonlinear material rule can be
employed [12]. The material properties can be used to
control the distortion of the mesh. For example, one can
also use anisotropic and inhomogeneous material prop-
erties, which will be inversely proportional to the distor-
tion measures. The major advantage of this approach is
that it is based upon elastic properties which can be ef®-
ciently used for controlling the mesh quality through the
material response of the pseudo media (a simple physically
based approach). Proper material distribution can con-
siderably reduce the need for local and/or global reme-
shing. It should be noted that the main characteristic of
this stiffening approach is that the mesh stiffens with in-
creasing mesh displacement, which results in a substantial
decrease in mesh distortion. With this approach howev-
er,FF K ^ (either due to materially
^ is a nonlinear function of d
or geometric or both materially and geometric nonlin-
earities).
Non-convex straight edge elements are not admissible
in any ®nite-element mesh. Moreover, any excessive geo-
metric distortions of elements (very obtuse and/or acute
interior angles, high aspect ratio, edge/surface curvature)
should be minimized, because they can cause singularities
in the Jacobian of the transformation, ill-conditioned
stiffness matrix, and very poor ¯ux estimates. Particular
care should be taken to avoid or minimize mesh distortion
in regions where ¯ux gradients are large and accuracy is
important.
Element shape quality
The quality of the element is assured by its shape. The
internal angles and its curvature distortion. The mesh
given mesh.
Distortion measure strategy
For invertibility of the mapping, it is necessary that the
sign of the element Jacobian determinant, J^ei , remains
unchanged and does not vanish at any point in the element
domain, X ^ i . Hence, a general distortion measure of X
^ i can
e e
be devised by computing the ratio of the element quality to
its reference value
~i ˆ U
^ i =U
^0
Ue e e …8†
^ i , may be taken to be
In Eq.(8), the shape quality index, U e
the reciprocal of the minimum value of the element
Jacobian determinant of the transformation, J^ei , thus
" # 1


^i
U ˆ min J^ei …9†
e
^i
X e
and it is assumed that the numbering of the nodes is such
that the element Jacobian determinant is positive.
Searching for the minimum value of J^ei can be expensive
in the general case, and computing its values at the inte-
gration points can be very misleading, because positive
values may be obtained in cases where the element's in-
ternal angle can be equal to or greater than 180 . An al-
ternative approach is to assign different stiffness
properties to different elements by eliminating the element
Jacobian determinant when the integrals of the element
stiffness matrix are evaluated. This is equivalent to stiff-
ening Young's modulus by the reciprocal of the element
Jacobian determinant. This approach is inexpensive but
does not guarantee the absence of severe element distor-
tion, because, unlike Eq. (9), it does not scale Young's
modulus by the minimum value of the element Jacobian
determinant.
The procedure described below is designed to avoid all
types of element distortion (that is, aspect ratio, skew,
angular, mid-node, and curved-edge distortions). It
requires only one scalar element quality measure …U ~ e † for
volumetric, angular and curvature distortions, rather
than the ®ve different metric measures described in [7].
The resulting element distortion measures are inexpen-
sive and have been implemented for all types of elements
that are supported in FIDAP [9], and can be described as
follows:
3-node element
Three-node triangular elements, such as that shown in
Fig. 2±2a, constitute the basic 2-D cell for evaluating the
distortion of an entire group of 2-D continuum elements.
For 3-node elements, the element distortion measure is
de®ned as the element aspect ratio, thus
^e ˆ U
U ^ D ˆ RD …10†
rD
Here, RD is the radius of the smallest circumscribed circle,
rD is the radius of the largest inscribed circle, and the Fig. 2±3. Quadrilateral elements. a 4-node quadrilateral element;
b 8- and 9-node quadrilateral elements 383
element aspect ratio is calculated by
RD sD l1 l2 l3
ˆ …11† minant of the transformation. Again, there are restrictions
rD 4A2D on the side nodal points positions if the map is to remain
p
where AD ˆ sD …sD l1 †…sD l2 †…sD l3 † is the area of invertible and the solution accuracy is not to deteriorate.
triangle D; sD ˆ 12 …l1 ‡ l2 ‡ l3 † is the semi-perimeter; and For triangular elements with two straight sides and one
li ; i ˆ 1; 2; 3 are the lengths of the triangle sides. curved side, there are some criteria about the position of
the side-node. The element Jacobian determinant is posi-
6- and 7-node elements tive when the side-node is positioned within a certain safe
The procedure described above can be used with straight- zone. For an arbitrary curved triangle, there are no criteria
sided (sub-parametric) elements where the mid-nodes can in the literature, therefore, a more general approach for
be placed at their natural positions. However, when the monitoring curved-sided elements is required. In order to
element sides are curved, the amount of curvature should use the same approach as before, namely having contin-
be monitored to avoid deterioration of the solution accu- uous function which allows automatic monitoring of the
racy and also to ensure a one-to-one mapping. For 6- and position of the non-vertex nodes, the following distortion
7-node curved-sided elements, such as that shown in function is suggested
Fig. 2±2b, several procedures can be used. For example: 
/^J ˆ 1=j j > 0 …13†
1. Monitor angular distortions as if the element were a 1 otherwise
straight-sided element (this procedure is applied on the
reference straight-edge element based on the three where j ˆ 1 jjDdi‡1 i‡1
J jj=rJ ; DdJ is the radius vector from
cords; Fig. 2±4a). the reference position of the side-node to its actual posi-
tion (Fig. 2±4a); and rJ  eJ LJ is the radius of the largest
or
2. Subdivide each element into three triangle sub-elements
Di , i = 1, 2, 3, where D1 ˆ Df1;2;6g , D2 ˆ Df2;3;4g ,
D3 ˆ Df4;5;6g (Fig. 2±2b). This may also partially moni-
tor curved-edge distortions. For each triangular sub-
element, the element distortion, U ^ Di , is computed from
(10) and the element distortion measure is de®ned by
the norm
" #1=p
X
3
p
^e ˆ
U ^ Di
U …12†
iˆ1

One of the dif®culties in dealing with curved elements

arises from the vanishing of the element Jacobian deter-

Fig. 2±2. Triangle elements. a 3-node triangle element; Fig. 2±4. Curved-edge and mid-node distortions a Curve-sided
b 6- and 7-node triangle elements triangle; b Curve-sided quadrilateral
 circle inscribed in the safe zone of the Jth side-node; LJ is curacy does not deteriorate. Here, the procedure used in
the corresponding cord length; and eJ is a preset param- (13) has been implemented.
eter. The distortion measure equation for a curved-sided
element is therefore modi®ed to include curvature control.
4-node tetrahedron element
And for 6-node elements, it can be written as
" # The 4-node tetrahedron element (Fig. 2±5a) is considered
X3
p X 3  p 1=p the basic 3-D cell for evaluating 3-D continuum elements.
^e ˆ
U ^ Di ‡
U /^J …14† For 4-node tetrahedral elements, the element distortion
iˆ1 Jˆ1 measure is de®ned as the element aspect ratio

^e ˆ U
U ^ T ˆ RT  lmax …17†
4-node quadrilateral element rT rT
384 To compute the element distortion measure, 4-node
quadrilateral elements, such as that shown in Fig. 2±3a, are where lmax is the maximum edge length, RT is the radius of
subdivided into four overlapping triangular sub-elements: the smallest circumscribed sphere and rT is the radius of
D1 ˆ Df1;2;4g , D2 ˆ Df1;2;3g , D3 ˆ Df2;3;4g , D4 ˆ Df1;3;4g . The the largest inscribed sphere, and is calculated as
element distortion measure is de®ned by the norm rT ˆ 3V=S …18†
" #1=p
X
4
p where V is the tetrahedron volume, S is tetrahedron sur-
U ^Q ˆ
^e ˆ U ^ Di
U …15† face area, and is calculated as
iˆ1
4 q
X
Sˆ …si …si li;1 †…si li;2 †…si li;3 †† …19†
Remark 4: Note that this distortion measure is quite iˆ1
general since it covers all modes of distortions (Fig. 1±2).
Yet, it allows having moderate anisotropic meshes. and


si ˆ li;1 ‡ li;2 ‡ li;3 =2 …20†
8- and 9-node quadrilateral elements
It can be shown that with linear triangle and bilinear and li;j are the three edges of the ith face.
quadrilateral elements, the necessary condition for a one-
to-one mapping is that no internal angle should be equal 10-node tetrahedron element
to or greater than 180 . In higher order isoparametric el- For 10-node tetrahedral curved-sided elements, such as
ements, it is also necessary to ensure that the side-nodes that shown in Fig. 2±5b, several procedures can be used.
are positioned within a safe zone (e.g., for quadratic ele- For example:
ments, the side-nodes should be positioned in the ``middle 1. Monitor angular distortions as if the element were a
third'' of the distance between adjacent corners). plane face element (this procedure is applied on the
The 4-node element procedure described above can be reference 4-plane face element (the one drawn in
used also with straight-sided (sub-parametric) elements Fig. 2±7a, with dotted lines)).
where the mid-nodes can be placed at their natural posi-
tions. For 8- and 9-node curved-sided elements, such as or
that shown in Fig. 2±3b, several procedures can be used. 2. Use the corner nodes in conjunction with the corre-
For example: sponding three adjacent side-nodes to create 4-node,
1. Monitor angular distortions as if the element were a straight-sided tetrahedral sub-elements (e.g., the tetra-
straight-sided element (this procedure is applied on the hedral element shown in Fig. 2±5b). This may also help
reference straight edge element based on the four cords; to partially control the element face curvature. For each
^ T , is
tetrahedral sub-element, the element aspect ratio, U
Fig. 2±4b). i
calculated from Eq. (17) and the element distortion
or measure is de®ned by the norm
2. Subdivide each element into four non-overlapping
quadrilateral sub-elements (to also partially monitor the
element distortion against curved-edge and mid-node
distortions which must be small as compared to the
corresponding side length, LJ ): Q1 ˆ Qf1;2;9;8g ,
Q2 ˆ Qf2;3;4;9g , Q3 ˆ Qf9;4;5;6g , and Q4 ˆ Qf8;9;6;7g (Fig. 2±
3b). For each 4-node quadrilateral sub-element, the el-
ement distortion, U ^ Qi , is computed from (15) and the
element distortion measure is de®ned by the norm
" #1=p
X
4
p
^e ˆ
U ^ Qi
U …16†
iˆ1
Again, there are restrictions on the side-nodes positions
if the map is to remain invertible, and the solution ac- Fig. 2±5. Tetrahedron elements (a, b) 4-node tetrahedron
 385

Fig. 2±6. Hexahedral elements a 8-node hexahedron; b 27- node

hexahedron

" #1=p
X
4
p Fig. 2±7. Curved three-dimensional elements a Curved tetra-
^e ˆ
U ^ Ti
U …21† hedron; b Curved hexahedron
iˆ1
The edge nodes can be monitored in a manner analo-
gous to that used in two dimensions with curved-sides Dd^J , to the minimum distance between the nodal points
(Eq. 13) to monitor the side-node positions which also (Fig. 1±4) and uses the same approach as suggested in
control the curvature of the faces (Fig. 2±7a). (13).

8-node hexahedral elements 27-node hexahedral elements

For 8-node hexahedral elements, such as that shown in For 27-node hexahedral curved-sided elements, such as
Fig. 2±6a, each element is subdivided into eight non- that shown in Fig. 2±6b, several procedures can be used.
overlapping, 4-node tetrahedral sub-elements ± For example:
Ti ; i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; 8 ± for example, T1 ˆ Tf1;2;3;5g . 1. Monitor angular distortions as if the element were a
For each tetrahedral sub-element, the element aspect plane face element (this procedure is applied on the
ratio is computed from Eq. (17) and the element distortion reference 6-plane element (the one drawn in Fig. 2±7b
measure is de®ned by the norm with dotted lines)).
" #1=p
X
8
p or
^e ˆ
U ^ Ti
U …22†
iˆ1
2. Subdivide each element into eight non-overlapping 8-
node hexahedral sub-elements, Hi , i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; 8 ± for
In hexahedrons, a warping distortion is possible: the four example H1 ˆ Hf1;2;10;11;4;5;13;14g . This may also control
nodes of a quadrilateral face are usually not coplanar; that the element edge and face curvatures. For each
is, a typical quadrilateral face is warped. For such ele- hexahedron, the element aspect ratio, U ^ Hi , is com-
ments, accuracy declines as the amount of warping in- puted, and the element distortion measure is de®ned
creases. Warping may not be obvious during mesh by the norm
generation and the software should check for warping and " #1=p
stiffen the mesh if it is excessive. The procedure to control X8
p
the element warpage distortion is based on the ratio of the ^e ˆ
U ^ Hi
U …23†
distance of a fourth node from the plane of the ®rst three, iˆ1


The positions of the edge nodes can be monitored in a E^ie ˆ E^0 ^x†f U~i …24†
e
manner analogous to that used for planar elements with where f is a given function which may depend on the
curved sides to monitor the side-nodes (Fig. 2±7b). The type of the element, U ~ i is the normalized measure of
e
face-node positions are monitored by applying the same element quality, and E^0 …^x† is the initial Young's
procedure used for controlling the warpage of the cor- modulus distribution in X. ^
ner nodes.  Global and local inhomogeneous material ±
Unfortunately, the equation of the element Jacobian Young's modulus of each element in the mesh is
determinant of the transformation is so complicated that it calculated as
is impossible to obtain any indication from it on how to Xnen
monitor the shape of the curved surface. Therefore, the E^ie ˆ Nk …^x†E^0 …^xk †f …/~ik † …25†
386 safe zone radius is left as a free parameter. kˆ1

where /~ikis the pointwise distortion measure at the

2.2 kth nodal point; nen is the number of element nodes
Mesh stiffening strategy and f stands for a given material model.
2.2.1 In the present study, only the ®rst approach has been
Stiffening algorithm implemented. The power-law model is used where Young's
The stiffening algorithm can be summarized as follows: modulus varies as a power-law function of the normalized
measure of element quality:
1. Set i = 0.

2. Generate an initial ®nite-element mesh by the appli- ~ i c^
E^ie ˆ E^0 …^x†f U …26†
e
cation of numerical grid generation methods. ^
and c is a preset positive factor which may depend on the
3. Compute the initial element quality, element type and distortion mode.
^ 0 ; e ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; nel , (where nel is the total number of
U e
elements in a given mesh) according to the corre- Remark 5: The higher the value of the distortion measure,
sponding element distortion equation

and the initial the stiffer the element (i.e., a quadrilateral cannot be
mesh quality, P Q^ ˆ maxe U
0
^0 .
e transformed to a triangular quadrilateral, because the
4. Set i = i+1. value of Young's modulus of the later element is in®nite).
5. Compute the normalized measure of element quality,
~i ˆ U
U ^ i =U
^ 0 ; e ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; nel , which provide a measure
e e e Remark 6: It should be clear that the formulation of the
of the quality of the elements generated. Using such an mesh-movement problem is unique up to the chosen
algorithm, a distortion index of 1 (e.g., stiffening function and element quality measure. Other
~ 0  1; e ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; nel ) indicates an element which
U pseudo-material constitutive equations can be set up for
e
has not yet been deformed. This distortion index mea- monitoring the element shape. The generated mesh is
sures the amount of distortion the element has under- strongly dependent on the speci®c constitutive equation
gone. and the measure of distortion used in the remeshing
6. Compute the normalized

0 measure of mesh quality, process. This approach can be generalized to pseudo-an-
Pi ~
Q ˆ maxe U ^ i =P Q. ^ isotropic material behavior.
e
7. Compute the elastic properties of the pseudo-elastic
material according to Eq. 26. Solve for the vector of Remark 7: There is a need to scale the distortion measures
increments in the nodal point positions of the previous because a constant factor, which is uniformly applied for
mesh, Pi . The structural incremental displacements, all the elements in the mesh, has no effect on the mesh.
due to the change in its con®guration (Bi ! Bi‡1 ), are Moreover, using the initial mesh distortion measures
imposed at the wetted surface and the ¯uid loads are (without scaling) will cause the mesh to be too stiff from
appropriately relaxed (Remark 8). the very beginning and the mesh will be deformed locally
8. Go to step 4, and advance the time step or iteration only (close to the solid body). Scaling may also avoid
index. having numerical dif®culties due to ill-conditioned prob-
lems. Hence, the element distortion measures have to be
The mesh regularity is de®ned as follows: A mesh is reg-
scaled down with respect to the initial mesh, so that only
ular if P Q~  Q;
 8i where Pi is the assemblage of ele-
i

the relative distortion will cause the pseudo-material to

ments at the ith level of the mesh movement, and Q is a
stiffen according to Eq. (26).
®xed positive value.

2.2.2 2.2.3
Nonlinear material stiffening Solution procedures
A nonlinear constitutive equation can be used for the Equation (1) can be rewritten as
pseudo-elastic behavior, which can be based on one of the


^ R…t
K ^ R…t
^ n †; E ^ m† d ^ˆ0 …27†
following approaches:
 Global inhomogeneous/local homogeneous material where t n , t m are two time different reference levels. Note
± Young's modulus of each element in the mesh is that the present approach can also be interpreted as one in
calculated as which a reference mesh in a reference ALE domain, X…t ^ m †,
is mapped invertibly to a dynamic mesh in the current
^
ALE domain, X…t†, by an elastostatic transformation.
The options are:
1. Linear elasticity based on small displacement only
(m = n = 0).
2. Mesh stiffening based on coordinate stiffening only
(m = 0; n = last outer iteration or time level).
3. Mesh stiffening based on material stiffening with ref-
erence to the initial mesh, P0 (n = 0; m = last outer
iteration or time level).
4. Mesh stiffening based on material stiffening with ref-
erence to the previous mesh, Pi (n = m = last outer
iteration or time level).
For the pseudo-elastostatic meshing procedures with and
without stiffening, option (4) and (1), respectively, have
been implemented.
Remark 8: For steady problems, whenever the structure is
exposed to large displacements and/or rotations, the pro-
jection of the ¯uid load is explicitly relaxed via
W^i‡1 i‡1
t ˆ a^W ti ‡ …1 a^†W ti‡1 , where W^t is the relaxed
¯uid traction and a^ is the load relaxation factor which is
used to slow the whole iterative process. This allows
gradual generating of the ®nal mesh and yields the most
decent mesh possible. Note that the ®nal mesh depends
strongly on the computational path.
2.2.4
Spring analogy
The spring analogy approach to stiffen the mesh has been
further extended through the use of continuum and truss
elements as mesh stiffeners ± e.g., adding truss elements
along the edges and diagonals (to stiffen the element
against shear distortions) of each quadrilateral or hexa-
hedral element, and choosing the truss stiffness as in-
versely proportional to the distortion measures to increase
mesh stiffness (see Fig. 2±8).
The stiffness of each diagonal and each edge truss ele-
ment is calculated according to the speci®c element quality
measure. The following possibilities have been tested in
FIDAP (for 4-node quadrilateral element only): (a) stiff-
ened truss grid only (``spring analogy''), (b) quadrilateral
mesh stiffened through the elastic material properties only,
and (c) quadrilateral mesh stiffened through the elastic
material properties, as well as through adding truss ele-
Fig. 2±8. Quadrilateral element with its six truss stiffeners ==
truss element; Ð Quadrilateral side
ments along the edges and diagonals of all elements (a and
b). Note that in each option, the updated geometry of the
mesh is used; namely the mesh is also naturally stiffened
through updating the element geometry. Our experience
indicates that option (b) is superior to the other options,
because it yields the most decent mesh and yet both robust
and simple. It is the only approach that has been further
developed, implemented and presented herein.
3
Applications
387
In this section, we present several examples to demon-
strate the performance of the mesh-movement scheme
developed based on the methodology discussed in the
previous sections. The material properties of the pseudo-
elastic media are Young's modulus, E^0 = 1, and Poisson's
ratio, m^ ˆ 0:3. Displacement boundary conditions are re-
quired for the solution of the mesh-movement problem
(Eqs. (3)±(5)). In the present examples, slip boundary
conditions (4), are set for all external boundaries of the
problem (except when Lagrangian boundary conditions
are prescribed). This allows the greatest possible freedom
for the nodes to adjust to the movement of the structure.
In order for the stiffening procedure to be effective, the
mesh deformation must occur gradually. To ensure grad-
ual mesh deformation in cases of large displacements and
large rotations, the transfer of the ¯uid loads should be
relaxed (Remark 8). The maximum norm has been used to
calculate the element distortion measure (e.g., in Eq. (15),
p ! 1).
All numerical tests presented in this section were per-
formed with FIDAP [9] on a Sun Ultra 10 Ax (360 MHz)
workstation.
3.1
Example 1 ± piston-driven drop evolution
In this problem, a piston moves through a chamber with a
uniform velocity in the z direction, thereby forcing ¯uid
through an aperture on the opposite side of a chamber
(Fig. 3±1).
Fig. 3±1. Piston-driven drop evolution ± problem description
388
Fig. 3±2. Piston-driven drop evolution ± initial mesh
Fig. 3±3. Piston-driven drop evolution ± free-surface movement
The displacement boundary conditions on the external
boundaries are set such that mesh nodes are free to slide
along the boundary but are not allowed to separate from
the boundary. That is, mesh displacement perpendicular
to the boundary is speci®ed as zero. Moreover, some nodal
points along the mesh boundary have zero displacements
as boundary conditions (for example, nodal point B does
not move during the whole mesh-movement process). The
mesh is created using 4-node quadrilateral elements. The
mesh is stiffened with a factor of 2. The initial mesh is
shown in Fig. 3±2. Fig. 3±3 shows the evolution of the
drop shape at different times in the case of zero gravity.
Fig. 3±4 shows the mesh at t = 0.200. In this case, the
stiffening factor of 2 preserves the integrity of the mesh
throughout the mesh-movement process ± thereby dem-
onstrating that an elasticity-based mesh-movement
scheme can be suitable for problems involving large mesh
deformations.
In the example presented here, the boundary AB
(Fig. 3±1) of the entity of elements that are next to the
Fig. 3±4. Piston-driven drop evolution ± mesh at
t ˆ 0:200 …^
c ˆ 2†
Fig. 3±5. Piston-driven drop evolution ± mesh at t ˆ 0:05
(without mesh stiffening, c^ ˆ 0†
aperture is stiffened and from a certain point onward in
the mesh-movement process, it is automatically stiffened
and ®nally locked to avoid exposing those elements to
excessive distortion. When elasticity meshing with no
stiffening is employed, the elements near the tip of the
aperture become stretched and badly deformed. At some
point (Fig. 3±5), these elements fold onto themselves, and
the process must be terminated.
Even though some authors prefer to control the grid
orthogonality while using different meshing procedures
(e.g., [13]), the only limitation on node movement in the
present implementation is the convexity of the elements.
Even so, the results show that the mesh tends to deform
such that the resulting mesh is similar in quality to an
orthogonal mesh (see also Sect. 3.2.2).
3.2
Bending of a 2-D flexible blade
This problem involves a ¯ow in which a ¯exible blade is
present. The ¯ow is assumed to be two-dimensional. Fluid
Fig. 3±6. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± problem description

389

Fig. 3±8. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (4-node

elements, s E ˆ 600; c^ ˆ 0; a^ ˆ 0:95†

Fig. 3±7. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± initial structured mesh

based on 4-node elements

with a uniform inlet velocity pro®le enters the ¯ow domain

on the left. The longitudinal axis of the blade is oriented
perpendicular to the direction of ¯uid ¯ow. Figure 3±6
illustrates the ¯ow domain geometry for this problem.

3.2.1
Example 2 ± free stream Fig. 3±9. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (mesh in
The boundary conditions at the bottom are of the sym- tip region) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 600; c^ ˆ 0; a^ ˆ 0:95†
metric type. A zero normal velocity boundary condition is
applied at the upper boundary of the ¯ow domain (i.e., the
x-velocity component is free on top and bottom bound-
aries). The Reynolds number to be considered here is 100.
Figure 3±7 shows the initial structured mesh.
The purpose of this example is to expose the structure
to large displacement (by choosing unrealistically small
values of Young's modulus for the blade) and, by so doing,
to examine the capability of elasticity-based mesh-move-
ment procedures to generate decent meshes. Without
mesh stiffening, the nodal points in elements near to the
blade tip lag behind the nodes at the tip itself and even-
tually tangle the mesh (Fig. 3±8). Figure 3±9 shows the
mesh in the region surrounding the blade tip.
With proper stiffening and load relaxation, the mesh
can adapt itself to large displacement of the beam (Fig. 3±
10). Figure 3±11 shows the mesh in the region surrounding
the blade tip.
Mesh stiffening preserves the mesh quality, thereby al-
lowing for larger structural displacements. With no mesh Fig. 3±10. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (4-node
stiffening, the quality of the mesh is poor and it is only elements; s E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 2; a^ ˆ 0:95†
390
Fig. 3±11. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (mesh in Fig. 3±13. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± unstructured mesh (mesh
tip region) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 2; a^ ˆ 0:95†
Fig. 3±12. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (mesh in Fig. 3±14. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± unstructured mesh
tip region) (7-node elements; s E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:95†
possible to solve the problem with Young's modulus
higher than 600. With stiffening it was possible to reduce
Young's modulus to 200 and still get decent quality mesh.
It should be noted that there is a limit as to how
much larger the displacements can be. Very large
displacements cannot be simulated without global/local
remeshing.
The same problem was solved with 7-node triangle
elements. Figure 3±12 shows the mesh in the region sur-
rounding the blade tip. The initial mesh, which is based on
a ``rectangular'' mesh composed of triangular elements, is
deformed into a mesh of curved ``quadrilateral'' elements
composed of curved triangular elements (the curvature of
the corresponding ``diagonals'' can be controlled through
monitoring the positions of the side-nodes).
The main advantage of the mesh-movement scheme
described in this paper is that it works well with un-
structured meshes. When elasticity meshing with no
stiffening is employed, the tip elements are badly
in tip region) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 600; c^ ˆ 0; a^ ˆ 0:98†
(4-node elements; s E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:98†
deformed at moderate blade displacements (Fig. 3±13).
When mesh stiffening is used, decent meshes are obtained
even when the blade is exposed to large displacements
(Figs. 3±14 and 3±15). Notice the improved mesh at the
blade tips in Fig. 3±15 as compared to Fig. 3±13.
3.2.2
Example 3 ± flow involving a free surface
The physical description of the initial problem domain for
this case is identical to that of the previous case. This
example differs from the previous example only in that the
upper boundary of the problem domain is de®ned as a free
surface (where the inlet node displacement is set to zero
and the boundary condition at the outlet is that the contact
angle is equal to 90 ). The boundary condition at the
bottom is taken as zero velocity. Note that in this case,
gravity is not included. The mesh generated with 4-node
elements is plotted in Figs. 3±16 and 3±17. The mesh based
on 9-node elements is plotted in Fig. 3±18. Here, the result
 391

Fig. 3±15. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± unstructured mesh (mesh Fig. 3±17. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (mesh
in tip region) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:98† in tip region) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 60; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:98†

Fig. 3±16. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (free Fig. 3±18. Bending of a ¯exible blade ± structured mesh (mesh
surface) (4-node elements; s E ˆ 60; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:98† in tip region) (9-node elements; s E ˆ 60; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:98†

of the automatic control of the mid-side nodes is clearly

shown.

3.3
Example 4 ± bimetallic strip in a heated fluid
In this example, thermal deformation affects a strip com-
posed of two metals that possess differing thermal ex-
pansion coef®cients. At a given reference temperature, the
bimetallic strip is in a strain-free condition. When the
temperature differs from the reference temperature, the
difference in thermal expansion characteristics between Fig. 3±19. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± problem description
the two metals causes a bending moment, which deforms
the strip and, in turn, affects the velocity and pressure
®elds. Figure 3±19 shows the geometry for this example. cients for the lower and upper plates are 9  10 5 … C† 1
The problem con®guration consists of a ¯ow channel and 5  10 6 … C† 1 , respectively. The no-stress reference
where a bimetallic strip is located. The strip is composed temperature for the bimetallic strip is 20  C. An air stream
of two plates ± aluminum (lower) and graphite (upper) ± at a constant temperature of 250  C (this unrealistic value
of equal thickness (0.1), and its longitudinal axis is aligned has been used for checking the mesh quality only) ¯ows
with the direction of ¯ow. The thermal expansion coef®- past the strip. The Reynolds number for the ¯owing air
392
Fig. 3±20. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± initial mesh
Fig. 3±21. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± initial mesh, tip
region
stream is 300. (Note: In order to simplify the problem, all
¯uid properties are treated as constant.)
Figures 3±20 and 3±21 show the initial mesh for this
example. Figure 3±20 shows the mesh for the entire
problem domain. Figure 3±21 is an annotated plot that
shows the mesh near the downstream tip of the bimetallic
strip, including the regions of the problem domain de®ned
as ``solid1'', ``solid2'', ``¯uid1'', and ``¯uid2''.
The bimetallic strip is simulated as a cantilevered beam,
the initial longitudinal axis of which is aligned with the
inlet velocity streamlines. The beam consists of two re-
gions ± ``solid1'' and ``solid2'' (see Fig. 3±21, above), rep-
resenting the upper and lower plates of the strip. The
mesh-movement aspects of this problem are speci®ed as
follows: each region of the ¯uid mesh is assigned its own
elasticity modulus value. By assigning different values of
the elasticity modulus to different regions of the ¯uid
mesh, it is possible to minimize the mesh distortion in
localized areas of the mesh. In this example, the ¯uid
region is de®ned as consisting of two separate entities ±
Fig. 3±22. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± entire mesh
Fig. 3±23. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± mesh in tip region
(with an initially stiffened slab of elements)
``¯uid1'' and ``¯uid2'' (see Fig. 3±21) ± and each is stiff-
ened independently by means of property de®nitions for
their respective elasticity moduli and Poisson's coef®-
cients. The elasticity modulus for ``¯uid1'' and ``¯uid2'' are
1 and 1000, respectively. These speci®cations ensure that
the deformation of the ``¯uid2'' region is greatly mini-
mized, thus preventing elements in the immediate prox-
imity of the beam from experiencing deformation much
greater than that of the rest of the mesh.
Figures 3±22 and 3±23 show mesh plots for the de-
formed con®guration. Figure 3±22 shows the entire mesh.
Figure 3±23 shows the mesh in the region surrounding the
tip of the bimetallic strip. When the elasticity modulus for
``¯uid2'' has been set to 1 and no stiffening is used, the
resulting mesh is tangled (Fig. 3±24).
Instead of splitting the ¯uid mesh into two subdomains
having different pseudo-material properties, one can let
the mesh-movement process automatically generate the
mesh. Some of the results are shown in Fig. 3±25. Figure
3±26 shows the mesh in the region surrounding the tip of
 the bimetallic strip. Increasing the stiffening factor can
increase the ``bending'' of the mesh. However, in this case,
more decent meshes could have been obtained with better
initial meshes as can be seen in the previous examples. It is
noteworthy that the total CPU time consumed by the au-
tomatic mesh-movement procedure, for this speci®c case
only, is by about 55% less than that consumed by initially
stiffening one slab of elements (due to a signi®cant in-
crease in the number of iterations needed for solving the
linearized pseudo-elastostatic problem in that case).
393
3.4
Example 5 ± bending of a 3-D flexible blade
Consider a blade anchored at the bottom and rear sides
(the shaded areas in Fig. 3±27) and twisted by the ¯uid
load. This is a 3-D analog of the previously discussed 2-D
problem. The purpose of this example is to test 3-D ele-
ments against 3-D distortions. The mesh is based on 27-
Fig. 3±24. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± mesh in tip region
(^
c ˆ 0) node hexahedral elements. The deformed blade is shown
in Fig. 3±28. Plotting different mesh entities from different
view angles shows the deformed mesh (Figs. 3±29±3±32).
Despite the blade distortion, the resulting mesh is con-
sidered adequate.

Fig. 3±25. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± mesh in tip region Fig. 3±27. Bending of a ¯exible plate ± problem description
(^
c ˆ 6)

Fig. 3±26. Bimetallic strip in a heated ¯uid ± mesh in tip region Fig. 3±28. Blade deformation only (27-node elements;
s
(mesh in tip region) (^c ˆ 6) E ˆ 200; c^ ˆ 4; a^ ˆ 0:91†
394
Fig. 3±29. Mesh deformation (two entities next to the blade)
Fig. 3±30. Mesh deformation (one mesh entity adjacent to the
blade)
4 mesh arrangement, and the physical problem description.
Concluding remarks
This paper describes a novel mesh-movement procedure
for mesh quality control of 2-D and 3-D dynamic meshes.
The algorithm is based on solving a pseudo-nonlinear
elastostatic problem and involves an inexpensive measure
of element quality. The mesh-movement procedure is ap-
plied for the same mesh topology as in the r-re®nement
®nite-element procedures. It is illustrated with several
examples that highlight its advantages in terms of per-
formance, mesh quality, and robustness. The proposed
method has proven effective in preventing a mesh from
tangling in all the practical applications that we have been
investigating. We believe that the resulting scheme will
result in a more economical simulation of the motion of
complex geometry of three-dimensional elastic bodies
immersed in temporally and spatially evolving ¯ows.
It has been shown that the amount of degradation of the
solution accuracy (the ¯ux predictive capability can be
signi®cantly affected by the element geometric distortion),
Fig. 3±31. Mesh deformation (another mesh entity adjacent to
the blade)
Fig. 3±32. Mesh deformation (mesh entities facing the blade tip)
caused by a given distortion, varies with the element type,
For example, aspect ratio matters little if the local gradi-
ents of the solution are small. In our case, the mesh quality
is solely based on the geometric distortion and is inde-
pendent of the ®nite-element solution of the ¯uid ®eld.
The only limitation on mesh movement is the shape
quality of the elements. During the mesh-movement pro-
cess, error indicators may be used to move the mesh to-
wards regions where the solution is changing signi®cantly.
In future studies, the present approach will be extended to
include an error indicator that is proportional to the nu-
merical error of the ¯ow solution in the stiffening process
[14±16]. This type of moving ®nite element (r-re®nement)
can also be extended to include local mesh re®nement (r-h
re®nement), and the present study is another step in that
direction.
The incremental loading method has been extensively
used in nonlinear solid mechanics and has also been used
here through relaxing the ¯uid loads which are trans-
ferred to the solid. Alternatively, the initial Young's
modulus of the real solid structure can be considerably
higher than the ®nal one; namely, for steady state solu-
tions, the procedure will gradually soften the solid until
the ®nal deformed mesh will be reached. If the incre-
ments are suf®ciently small, convergence at each stiffness
level is assured.
We have shown that a nonlinear ALE constitutive
equation based on a pseudo-isotropic and inhomoge-
neous material properties can be employed to create a
mesh which can undergo large deformations and rota-
tions. Material properties can be used to monitor the
distortion of the anisotropic meshing. A pseudo neo-
Hookean anisotropic material behavior can also be used
to provide more ¯exibility in controlling the mesh
movement.
While an elastostatic solver can handle moderately large
mesh displacements, it is still the responsibility of the user
to decide when the mesh has become too distorted and
requires further remeshing. Global remeshing procedures
become necessary when the mesh deforms greatly, as can
be the case when following complete valve motion from a
fully open to a completely closed position.
While the above suggested improvements may postpone
mesh distortion, none of them can rectify a mesh which
was initially too distorted or poorly designed.
The proposed approach, presented here for ®nite ele-
ments, can be equally well implemented in ®nite volumes
codes.
The above suggested improvements give plethora of
possible modi®cations for future development. We believe
that the suggested approaches presented here to improve
mesh topology during solution of FSI problems, provides a
strong infrastructure upon which modi®cations can be
applied.
References
1. Blevins RB (1977) Flow-Induced Vibration. Van Nostrand
2. Morand HJP, Ohayon R (1995) Fluid Structure Interaction.
Wiley, New York
3. Batina JT (1990) Unsteady Euler airfoil solutions using un-
structured dynamic meshes. AIAA J. 28: 1381±1388
4. Poly¯ow 3.5 User's Manual, June 1996
5. Farhat C, Degand C, Koobus B, Leoinne M (1998) Torsional
springs for two-dimensional dynamic unstructured ¯uid
meshes. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 163: 231±245
6. Blom FJ, Leyland P (1998) Analysis of ¯uid±structure inter-
action by means of dynamic unstructured meshes. ASME
Trans., J. Fluid Eng. 120: 792±798 395
7. Robinson J (1987) CRE method of element testing and the
Jacobian shape parameters. Eng. Comput. 4: 113±118
8. Yuan KY, Huang YS, Pian TTH (1994) Inverse mapping and
distortion measures for quadrilaterals with curved bound-
aries. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 37: 861±875
9. FIDAP 8.5 Update Manual, July 1999
10. Bathe KJ (1996) Finite Element Procedures. Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey
11. Nomura T, Hughes TJR (1992) An arbitrary Lagrangian±
Eulerian ®nite element method for interaction of ¯uid and
rigid body. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 95: 115±138
12. Jacquotte OP (1998) A mechanical model for a new grid
generation method in computational ¯uid dynamics. Com-
put. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 66: 323±338
13. Brackbill JU, Saltzman JS (1982) Adaptive zoning for singular
problems in two dimensions. J. Comput. Phys. 46: 342±368
14. Nakahashi K, Deiwert GS (1987) Self-adaptive grid method
with application to airfoil ¯ow. AIAA J. 25: 513±520
15. Ait-Ali-Yahia D, Habashi WG, Tam A, Vallet M-G, Fortin M
(1996) A directionally adaptive methodology using an edge-
based error estimate on quadrilateral grids. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Fluids 23: 673±690
16. Buscaglia GC, Dari EA (1997) Anisotropic mesh optimization
and its application in adaptivity. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
40: 4119±4136