Abstract

The concepts of solution error and optimal mesh in adaptive finite element analysis are revisited. It is shown that the correct evaluation of the convergence rate of the error norms involved in the error measure and the optimal mesh criteria chosen are essential to avoid oscillations in the refinement process. Two mesh optimality criteria based on: (a) the equal distribution of global error, and (b) the specific error over the elements are studied and compared in detail through some examples of application.

Abstract

This work presents a methodology based on the use of adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) techniques in the context of shape optimization problems analyzed by the Finite Element Method (FEM). A suitable and very general technique for the parametrization of the optimization problem using B-splines to define the boundary is first presented. Then, mesh generation using the advancing front method, the error estimation and the mesh refinement criteria are dealt with in the context of a shape optimization problems. In particular, the sensitivities of the different ingredients ruling the problem (B-splines, finite element mesh, design behaviour, and error estimator) are studied in detail. The sensitivities of the finite element mesh coordinates and the error estimator allow their projection from one design to the next, giving an “a priori knowledge” of the error distribution on the new design. This allows to build up a finite element mesh for the new design with a specified and controlled level of error. The robustness and reliability of the proposed methodology is checked out with some 2D examples.

Abstract

In this paper some adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) strategies for finite element analysis of structural problems are discussed. Two mesh optimality criteria based on the equal distribution of: (a) the global error, and (b) the specific error over the elements are studied. It is shown that the correct evaluation of the rate of convergence of the different error norms involved in the AMR procedures is essential to avoid oscillations in the refinement process. The behaviour of the different AMR strategies proposed is compared in the analysis of some structural problems.