Skip to main content
Log in

Worst case mesh quality in the target matrix optimization paradigm

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When considering mesh quality improvement and optimization via node movement, a particularly important goal is to attempt to improve the worst quality in the mesh when that quality is unacceptable. Standard mesh optimization methods often do not address worst case quality and can make it worse. Three fundamental methods for addressing worst case quality in mesh optimization by node movement have appeared in the literature: (1) a shifted barrier approach by Barrera et. al. (Math Comput Simul 46(2):87–102, 1998), (2) a pseudo-barrier approach by Escobar et. al. (Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 192:2775–2787, 2000), and (3) another barrier approach by Garanzha et. al. (In: IMR 2021-29th international meshing roundtable, 2021). The first two result in ‘simultaneous untangle-optimizers’ while the last addresses worst case quality in terms of the maximum value of the optimization metric. In terms of mesh optimization within the Target Matrix Optimization Paradigm (TMOP), worst case quality is defined by two quantities: the maximum value of the optimization metric (\(\max \mu\)) and the minimum value of the local volume (\(\min \tau\)), both computed over the mesh sample points. In the present paper we show that the methods by the three authors cited above can be applied to the TMOP metrics and used on both linear and high-order element meshes. Unfortunately, the first two methods increase \(\max \tau\) but do not address \(\max \mu\). The third method addresses \(\max \mu\), but fails to address \(\min \tau\). Using a composition of functions approach, the present work creates new compound metrics that simultaneously increase \(\min \tau\) and decrease \(\max \mu\). This goal can also be accomplished by a two-stage optimization procedure in which the first stage untangles the initial mesh and the second stage decreases \(\max \mu\). Although none of these methods provide a guarantee that the worst case quality will be improved to the point that the quality becomes acceptable, it is shown by numerical examples that they can be very effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some simple theoretical tests exist for elements such as triangular or quadrilateral elements with linear maps.

  2. The index k indicates a particular TMOP metric and \(T = A W^{-1}\), with A the mesh Jacobian at a sample point and W the corresponding target matrix.

  3. Our optimization code terminates when the maximum nodal distance-moved over the sample points is less than an input tolerance, tol. Thus, the code does not terminate when \(\min \tau\) becomes positive, nor should it with the SUO methods.

  4. Since in TMOP the word ‘composite’ is reserved for metrics which have the form \(\mu = (1-\gamma ) \mu _a + \gamma \, \mu _b\), we shall call metrics formed by the composition of functions ‘compound’ metrics.

References

  1. Barrera-Sanchez P, Tinoco-Ruiz J (1998) Smooth and convex grid generation over general plane regions. Math Comput Simul 46:87–102 (H)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Brackbill J, Saltzman J (1981) Adaptive zoning for singular problems in two dimensions. J Comput Phys 46:342–368

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Brewer M, Freitag L, Knupp P, Leurent T, Melander D (2003) The Mesquite mesh quality improvement toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 12th intl. meshing roundtable, Sandia National Laboratories, pp 239–250

  4. Castillo J (1991) A discrete variational grid generation method. SIAM J Sci Comput 12:454–468

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Delanaye M, Hirsch C, Kovalev K (2003) Untangling and optimization of unstructured hexahedral meshes. Comput Math Math Phys 43:807–814

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dobrev V, Knupp P, Kolev T, Mittal K, Tomov V (2019) The target-matrix optimization paradigm for high-order meshes. SIAM J Sci Comput 41(1):B50–B68

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dvinsky A (1991) Adaptive grid generation from harmonic maps on Riemannian manifolds. J Comput Phys 95(2):450–476

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Escobar J, Rodriguez E, Montenegro R, Montero G, Gonzalez-Yuste J (2003) Simultaneous untangling and smoothing of tetrahedral meshes. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 192:2775–2787

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Freitag L (2001) Local optimization-based untangling algorithms for quadrilateral meshes. In: Proceedings of the 10th intl. meshing roundtable, Sandia National Laboratories, pp 397–406

  10. Freitag L, Plassman P (2000) Local optimization-based simplicial mesh untangling and improvement. Int J Numer Methods Eng 49:109–125

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Garanzha V, Kudryavtseva L, Utyuzhnikov S (2014) Variational method for untangling and optimization of spatial meshes. J Comput Appl Math 269:24–41

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Garanzha V, Kaporin I, Kudryavtseva L, Protais F, Ray N, Sokolov D (2021) On local invertibility and quality of free-boundary deformations. In: International meshing roundtable

  13. Gargallo-Peiro A, Roca X, Sarrate J (2014) A surface mesh smoothing and untangling method independent of the CAD parameterization. Comput Mech 53(4):587–609

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang W, Russell R (2011) Adaptive moving meshes. In: Applied mathematical sciences series, vol 174. Springer, New York

  15. Ivanenko S (1999) Harmonic mappings. Handbook of grid generation. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knupp P (2001) Hexahedral and tetrahedral mesh untangling. Eng Comput 17(3):261–268

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Knupp P (2008) Remarks on mesh quality. In: AIAA 2008-933, proceedings 46th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting

  18. Knupp P (2012) Introducing the Target Matrix Paradigm for mesh optimization via node movement. Eng Comput 28(4):419–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Knupp P (2019) Target formulation and construction in mesh quality improvement, LLNL-TR-795097. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, p 94. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1571722

  20. Knupp P (2020) Metric type in the target-matrix mesh optimization paradigm, LLNL-TR-817490. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1782521-metric-type-target-matrix-mesh-optimization-paradigm

  21. Liseikin V (1999) Grid Generation Methods. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez E, Nigro N, Storti M (2008) Simultaneous untangling and smoothing of moving grids. Int J Numer Methods Eng 76:994–1019

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Remacle J, Toulorge T, Lambrechts J (2013) Robust untangling of curvilinear meshes. In: Proceedings of the 21st intl. meshing roundtable. Springer, Berlin, pp 71–83

  24. Steinberg S, Roache P (1986) Variational grid generation. Num Methods PDEs 2:71–96

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Toulorge T, Geuzaine C, Remacle J, Lambrechts J (2013) Robust untangling of curvilinear meshes. J Comput Phys 254:8–26

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson J, Thames F, Mastin C (1974) Automatic numerical grid generation of boundary-fitted curvilinear coordinates for field containing any number of arbitrary two-dimensional bodies. J Comput Phys 15:299–319

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Vachal P, Garimella R, Shashkov M (2004) Untangling of 2D meshes in ALE simulations. J Comput Phys 196:627–644

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Winslow A (1967) Numerical solution of the quasilinear Poisson equations in a non-uniform triangle mesh. J Comput Phys 2:149–172

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang Y, Bajaj C, Xu G (2009) Surface smoothing and quality improvement of quadrilateral/hexahedral meshes with geometric flow. J Commun Num Methods Eng 25(1):1–18

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank members of the ETHOS team: Veselin Dobrev, Tzanio Kolev, Ketan Mittal, and Vladimir Tomov.

Funding

Support provided by the ETHOS project, LLNL Subcontract B648806.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Knupp.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knupp, P. Worst case mesh quality in the target matrix optimization paradigm. Engineering with Computers 38, 5695–5711 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-022-01753-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-022-01753-z

Keyword

Navigation