On this page:
9.6.1 Bad geometry representation
9.6.2 Small details in the model
9.6.3 Building a Sweepable Topology Blend Surfaces Geometry Decomposition Recognizing Nearly Sweepable Regions Forced Sweepability
9.6.4 Resolving Problems with Conformal Assemblies
9.6.5 Contact Surfaces
9.6.6 Determining an Appropriate Merge Tolerance
9.6.7 Determining the Small Feature Size
2022.4+26187-e1209cf7 Apr 14, 2022

9.6 Clean Up the Geometry

Meshing packages have the challenge of dealing with a host of geometry problems. Many of these problems can be generalized as file translation issues. Typically, the geometry used in a meshing package has not been created there but in one of many CAD packages. Exporting these files out of CAD and into a neutral file format (IGES, STEP, SAT) accepted by the meshing software can introduce misrepresentations in the geometry. If the CAD and meshing packages do not support the same file formats, a second translation may be necessary, possibly introducing even more problems.

Another complication caused by file translation is that of tolerances. Some CAD packages see two points as coincident if they are within 1e-3 units, while others use 1e-6. If the meshing software’s tolerance is finer than the CAD package’s, this disparity in tolerance can cause subsequent geometry modification operations in the meshing package to inadvertently create sliver features, which tend to be difficult and tedious to deal with. This tolerance problem also causes misalignment issues between adjacent volumes of assemblies, hindering the sharing of coincident geometry in order to produce a conformal mesh.

Modeling errors caused by the user in the CAD package is another problem that the meshing package has to correct. In the CAD package, the user may not create the geometry correctly, causing some parts to overlap, or introduce small gaps between parts that should touch. Many times these problems are detected in the meshing package at a point when it is not feasible to simply go back into the CAD system and fix the problem, so the meshing package must be capable of correcting it.

Several approaches for addressing the geometry cleanup problem have been proposed in the literature, but they typically provide operations that are automatically applied to the geometry once one or more topology problems have been identified. While very effective in many cases, they generally lack the ability for the user to have control over the resolution of these CAD issues while still maintaining the option for automation. The ITEM environment provides tools to both diagnose these common issues and to provide a list of solutions from which the user may select that will correct the problems.

For the purposes of mesh generation, features in a solid model that should be carefully considered and addressed prior to meshing generally fit in one of four categories:

Being able to recognize when a problem exists and what operations to apply to resolve issues in each of the four categories described above, is indeed an art-form and requires significant experience to become proficient. ITEM will not take the place of an experienced user, but it is intended to offer the user help along the way by detecting potential problems and suggesting solutions they might consider.

9.6.1 Bad geometry representation

As a result of translation errors between CAD representations, errors or differences in the way the geometry is interpreted may occur. Depending on the severity of the problem, sometimes a mesh can be generated even with a less-than perfect geometric representation, however, in most cases, these should be resolved before meshing. Detecting Invalid Geometry

In most cases, bad or invalid topology or geometry definition comes from problems which arise in the CAD translation process. CUBIT’s main geometry kernel, ACIS is used to represent the model if it has been imported using an IGES or STEP format. Translation to and from these neutral formats is frequently the cause of bad geometry. ITEM will use the geometry validation procedures built into the ACIS kernel to detect if there is any bad geometry and will list the entities that may be causing a problem.

Since the validation procedures are specific to ACIS, models that may have been imported from another native format such as Pro/E will not provide this diagnostic. Although this may seem like a severe limitation, importing native formats rarely have bad geometry, since no translation process is necessary.

It is good practice to always check your model for bad geometry before proceeding to other geometry or meshing operations. In some cases, if a webcut or meshing operation fails, the cause is an invalid geometric definition that has not been adequately healed. Resolving bad geometry problems up front, in most cases is essential to obtaining a mesh. On the other hand, if the location of the bad geometry in the model is such that it will not effect subsequent Boolean or decomposition operations, there may be a chance that completely resolving bad geometry is not necessary. Simply ignoring bad geometry that cannot be easily repaired with automatic procedures may be a reasonable solution, provided the user is aware of the potential limitations. Resolving Invalid Geometry

To resolve invalid geometry, ITEM uses the heal procedure built into the ACIS geometry kernel. In almost all cases, this is a fully automatic procedure. Simply selecting the automatic repair button will make the appropriate adjustments to the geometry. This can be done one volume at a time by healing the owning volume, or by healing the full model all at once. If healing was successful, No problems detected should be displayed.

If auto repair does not successfully repair the geometry, you may want to try additional options available in Cubit for healing. See the Cubit documentation for a complete description of additional healing options.

9.6.2 Small details in the model

The small feature removal area of ITEM focuses on identifying and removing small features in the model that will either inhibit meshing or force excessive mesh resolution near the small feature. Small features may result from translating models from one format to another or may be intentional design features. Regardless of the origin small features must often be removed in order to generate a high quality mesh.

ITEM will recognize small features that fall in four classifications:

  1. small curves

  2. small surfaces

  3. narrow surfaces

  4. surfaces with narrow regions

These operations may involve either real, virtual or a combination of both types of operations to remove these features. A virtual operation is one in which does not modify the CAD model, but rather modifies an overlay topology on the original CAD model. Real operations, on the other hand directly modify the CAD model. Where real operations are provided by the solid modeling kernel upon which Cubit is built, virtual operations are provided by Cubit’ CGM (Tautges, 00) module and are implemented independently of the solid modeling kernel. The following describes the diagnostics for finding each of the four classifications of small features and the methods for removing them. Small Curves

Diagnostic: Small curves are found by simply comparing each curve length in the model to a user-specified characteristic small curve size. A default epsilon ( e) is automatically calculated as 10 percent of the user specified mesh size, but can be overridden by the user.

Solutions: ITEM provides three different solutions for eliminating small curves from the model. The first solution uses a virtual operation to composite surfaces. Two surfaces near the small curve can often be composited together to eliminate the small curve as shown in Figure 519, image (a).

The second solution for eliminating small curves is the collapse curve operation. This operation combines partitioning and compositing of surfaces near the small curve to generate a topology that is similar to pinching the two ends of the curve together into a single point. The partitioning can be done either as a real or virtual operation. Figure 519, image (b) illustrates the collapse curve operation.

The third solution for eliminating small curves is the remove topology operation. This operation can be thought of as cutting out an area around the small curve and then reconstructing the surfaces and curves in the cut-out region so that the small curves no longer exist. (Clark, 07) provides a detailed description of the remove topology operation. This operation has more impact on the actual geometry of the model because it redefines surfaces and curves in the vicinity of a small curve. The reconstruction of curves and surfaces is done using real operations followed by composites to remove extra topology introduced during the operation. Figure 519, image (c) shows the results using the remove topology operation.

Figure 519: "Three operators used for removing small curves (a) composite; (b) collapse curve; (c) remove topology" Small and Narrow Surfaces

ITEM also addresses the problem of small and narrow surfaces. Both are dealt with in a similar manner and are described here.

Diagnostic: Small surfaces are found by comparing the surface area with a characteristic small area. The characteristic small area is defined simply as the characteristic small curve length squared or e2.

Narrow surfaces are distinguished from surfaces with narrow regions by the characteristic that the latter can be split such that the narrow region is separated from the rest of the surface. Narrow surfaces are themselves a narrow region and no further splits can be done to separate the narrow region. Figure 520 shows examples of each. ITEM provides the option to split off the narrow regions, subdividing the surface so the narrow surfaces can be dealt with independently.

Narrow regions/surfaces are also recognized using the characteristic value of e. The distance, di from the endpoints of each curve in the surface to the other curves in the surface are computed and compared to e. When di< e other points on the curve are sampled to identify the beginning and end of the narrow region. If the narrow region encompasses the entire surface, the surface is classified as a narrow surface. If the region contains only a portion of the surface, it is classified as a surface with a narrow region.

Figure 520: Two cases illustrating the difference between surfaces with narrow regions and narrow surfaces

Solutions: ITEM provides four different solutions for eliminating small and narrow surfaces from the model. The first solution uses the regularize operation. Regularize is a real operation provided by the solid modeling kernel that removes unnecessary/redundant topology in the model. In many cases a small/narrow surface’s definition may be the same as a surface next to it and therefore the curve between them is not necessary and can be regularized out. An example of regularizing a small/narrow surface out is shown in figure 521.

Figure 521: When the small surface's underlying geometric definition is the same as a neighbor the curve between them can be regularized out.

The second solution for removing small/narrow surfaces uses the remove operation. Remove is also a real operation provided by the solid modeling kernel. However, it differs from regularize in that it doesn’t require the neighboring surface(s) to have the same geometric definition. Instead the remove operation removes the specified surface from the model and then attempts to extend and intersect adjacent surfaces to close the volume. An example of using the remove solution is shown in figure 522.

Figure 522: The remove operation extends an adjacent surface to remove a small surface

The third solution for removing small/narrow surfaces uses the virtual composite operation to composite the small surface with one of its neighbors. This is very similar to the use of composites for removing small curves. An example is shown in figure 523.

Figure 523: Composite solution for removing a narrow surface

The final solution for removing small/narrow surfaces uses the remove topology operation (Clark, 07). The remove topology operation behaves the same as when used for removing small curves in that it cuts out the area of the model around the small/narrow surface and replaces it with a simplified topology. In the case of a small surface where all of the curves on the surface are smaller than the characteristic small curve length, the small surface is replaced by a single vertex. In the case of a narrow surface where the surface is longer than the characteristic small curve length in one of its directions, the surface is replaced with a curve. The remove topology operation can be thought of as a local dimensional reduction to simplify the topology. The remove topology operation can also be used to remove networks of small/narrow surfaces in a similar fashion. Examples of using the remove topology solution to remove small/narrow surfaces are shown in figure 524 and figure 525.

Figure 524: Remove topology solution for removing a narrow surface

Figure 525: Remove topology solution for removing a network of narrow surfaces

9.6.3 Building a Sweepable Topology

The hex meshing problem presents a number of additional challenges to the user that tetrahedral meshing does not. Where a good quality tetrahedral mesh can generally be created once small features and imprint/merge problems have been addressed, the hexahedral meshing problem poses additional topology constraints which must be met.

Although progress has been made in automating the hex meshing process, the most robust meshing algorithms still rely on geometric primitives. Mapping [Cook, 82] and sub-mapping [Whiteley, 96] algorithms rely on parametric cubes and sweeping[Knupp, 98; Scott, 05] relies on extrusions. Most real world geometries do not automatically fit into one of these categories so the topology must be changed to match the criteria for one of these meshing schemes. ITEM addresses the hex meshing topology problem through four primary diagnostic and solution mechanisms.

  1. Detecting blend surfaces

  2. Detecting and suggesting decomposition operations

  3. Recognizing nearly sweepable topologies and suggesting source-target pairs

  4. Detecting and compositing surfaces to force a sweep topology Blend Surfaces

Blend surfaces are common in solid model meshing problems. A blend surface, also known as a fillet or chamfer, is problematic for sweeping algorithms which have trouble assigning vertex types on blend surfaces. While blend surfaces present a challenge for meshing applications, there are many tools within ITEM to help guide the user through possible solutions.

Diagnostic: Blend surfaces are detected by looping over the curves on a surface and examining the angles, surface normals, and curvature of curves and adjacent surfaces.

Solutions: The current solution to blend surfaces is to remove the surface and attempt to extend adjacent surfaces to fill in the gap. An example of blend surfaces that have been removed is shown below. This is useful for models which can be simplified without losing important topology.

Figure 526: A volume which has been simplified by removing blend surfaces. Geometry Decomposition

Automatic decomposition has been researched and tools have been developed which have met with some limited success [Lu,99 , Staten,05]. Automatic decomposition requires complex feature detection and sub-division algorithms. The decomposition problem is at least on the same order of difficulty as the auto-hex meshing problem. Fully automatic methods for quality hexahedral meshing have been under research and development for many years [Blacker,93 , Folwell,98 , Price,95]. However, a method that can reliably generate hexahedral meshes for arbitrary volumes, without user intervention and that will build meshes of an equivalent quality to mapping and sweeping techniques, has yet to be realized. Although fully automatic techniques continue to progress [Staten,06], the objective of the proposed environment is to reduce the amount of user intervention required while utilizing the tried and true mapping and sweeping techniques as its underlying meshing engine.

Instead of trying to solve the all-hex meshing problem automatically, the ITEM approach to this problem is to maintain user interaction. The ITEM algorithms determine possible decompositions and suggest these to the user. The user can then make the decision as to whether a particular cut is actually useful. This process helps guide new users by demonstrating the types of decompositions that may be useful. It also aids experienced users by reducing the amount of time required to set up decomposition commands.

Diagnostics: The current diagnostic for determining whether a volume is mappable or sweepable is based upon the autoscheme tool described in [White,00]. Given a volume, the autoscheme tool will determine if the topology will admit a mapping, sub-mapping or sweeping meshing scheme. For volumes where a scheme cannot be adequately determined, a set of decomposition solutions are generated and presented to the user.

Solutions: The current algorithm for determining possible cut locations is based on the algorithm outlined in [Lu,99] and is described here for clarity:

This relatively simple algorithm detects many cases that are useful in decomposing a volume. Future work will include determining symmetry, sweep, and cylindrical core decompositions. These additional decomposition options should increase the likelihood of properly decomposing a volume for hexahedral meshing.

Figure 527 shows an example scenario for using this tool. The simple model at the top is analyzed using the above algorithm. This results in several different solutions being offered to the user, three of which are illustrated here. As each of the options is selected, the extended cutting surface is displayed providing rapid feedback to the user as to the utility of the given option. Note that all solutions may not result in a volume that is closer to being successfully hex-meshed. Instead the system relies on some user understanding of the topology required for sweeping. Each time a decomposition solution is selected and performed, additional volumes may be added, which will in turn be analyzed by the autoscheme diagnostic tool. This interactive process continues until the volume is successfully decomposed into a set of volumes which are recognized as either mappable or sweepable.

Figure 527: ITEM decomposition tool shows 3 of the several solutions generated that can be selected to decompose the model for hex meshing Recognizing Nearly Sweepable Regions

The purpose of geometry operations such as decomposition is to transform an unmeshable region into one or more meshable regions. However, even the operations suggested by the decomposition tool can degenerate into guesswork if they are not performed with a specific purpose in mind. Without a geometric goal to work toward, it can be difficult to recognize whether a particular operation will be useful.

Incorporated within the proposed ITEM environment are algorithms that are able to detect geometry that is nearly sweepable, but which are not fully sweepable due to some geometric feature or due to incompatible constraints between adjacent sections of geometry. By presenting potential sweeping configurations to the user, ITEM provides suggested goals to work towards, enabling the user to make informed decisions while preparing geometry for meshing.

Unlike the decomposition solutions presented in the previous section, the purpose of recognizing nearly sweepable regions is to show potential alternative source-target pairs for sweeping even when the autoscheme tool does not recognize the topology as strictly sweepable. When combined with the decomposition solutions and the forced sweepability capability described later, it provides the user with an additional powerful strategy for building a hexahedral mesh topology.

Diagnostics: In recognizing nearly sweepable regions, the diagnostic tool employed is once again the autoscheme tool described in [White, 00]. Volumes that do not meet the criteria defined for mapping or sweeping are presented to the user. The user may then select from these volume for which potential source-target pairs are computed.

Solutions: The current algorithm for determining possible sweep configurations is an extension of the autoscheme algorithm described in [White, 00]. Instead of rejecting a configuration which does not meet the required sweeping constraints, the sweep suggestion algorithm ignores certain sweeping roadblocks until it has identified a nearly feasible sweeping configuration. The suggestions are presented graphically, as seen in figure 528. In most cases, the source-target pairs presented by the sweep suggestion algorithm are not yet feasible for sweeping given the current topology. The user may use this information for further decomposition or to apply solutions identified by the forced sweepability capability described next. The sweep suggest algorithm also provides the user with alternative feasible sweep direction solutions as shown in figure 528. This is particularly useful when dealing with interconnected volumes where sweep directions are dependent on neighboring volumes.

Figure 528: (a) ITEM displays the source and target of a geometry that is nearly sweepable The region is not currently sweepable due to circular imprints on the side of the cylinder (b) Alternative feasible sweep directions are also computed. Forced Sweepability

In some cases, decomposition alone is not sufficient to provide the necessary topology for sweeping. The forced sweepability capability attempts to force a model to have sweepable topology given a set of source and target surfaces. The source-target pairs may have been identified manually by the user, or defined as one the solutions from the sweep suggestion algorithm described above. All of the surfaces between source and target surfaces are referred to as linking surfaces. Linking surfaces must be mappable or submappable in order for the sweeping algorithm to be successful. There are various topology configurations that will prevent linking surfaces from being mappable or submappable.

Diagnostics: The first check that is made is for small curves. Small curves will not necessarily introduce topology that is not mappable or submappable but will often enforce unneeded mesh resolution and will often degrade mesh quality as the mesh size has to transition from small to large. Next, the interior angles of each surface are checked to see if they deviate far from 90 multiples. As the deviation from 90 multiples increases the mapping and submapping algorithms have a harder time classifying corners in the surface. If either of these checks identify potential problems they are flagged and potential solutions are generated.

Solutions: If linking surface problems are identified ITEM will analyze the surface and generate potential solutions for resolving the problem. Compositing the problem linking surface with one of its neighbors is a current solution that is provided. ITEM will look at the neighboring surfaces to decide which combination will be best. When remedying bad interior angles the new interior angles that would result after the composite are calculated in order to choose the composite that would produce the best interior angles. Another criterion that is considered is the dihedral angle between the composite candidates. Dihedral angles close to 180 are desirable. The suggested solutions are prioritized based on these criteria before being presented to the user. Figure 1 shows an example of a model before and after running the forced sweepability solutions. The top and bottom of the cylinder were chosen as the source and target surfaces respectively.

Figure 529: Non-submappable linking surface topology is composited out to force a sweepable volume topology

9.6.4 Resolving Problems with Conformal Assemblies

Where more than a single geometric volume is to be modeled, a variety of common problems may arise that must be resolved prior to mesh generation. These are typically a result of misaligned volumes defined in the CAD package or problems arising from the imprint and merge operations in the meshing package. ITEM addresses some of the same problems by allowing the option for user interaction as well as full automation using the CAD geometry representation. The proposed environment utilizes two main diagnostics to detect potential problems: the misalignment check, and the overlapping surfaces check. Associated with both of these are solutions that are specific to the entity and from which the user may preview and select to resolve the problem. Resolving Misaligned Volumes with Manage Gaps/Overlaps Tool

The Manage Gaps/Overlaps Tool within the geometry cleanup area of ITEM allows the user to quickly search an assembly for gaps and overlaps between assembly components. The search criteria for gaps is a tolerance specified by the user and defines the maximum gap between components to look for. A gap angle can also be specified which specifies how "parallel" two entities must be to be considered in the gap check. The overlap check simply asks Cubit to see if any of the volumes are overlapping and doesn’t require a tolerance from the user. The results are displayed in a list of pairs of volumes. The user can right-click on these pairs and tell Cubit to draw the pair. A useful graphical depiction of the gap or overlap will be displayed. When the user clicks on a pair in the list a set of solutions for fixing the gap or overlap will also be displayed below in a separate list. The user can select a solution and click the "Execute" button to execute it. The gap solutions are either a surface "tweak" operation and the overlap solution can be either a tweak operation or a Boolean operation to remove the overlap. This tool provides a powerful way to quickly work through the assembly and fix gaps and overlaps.

Figure 530: Resolving Misaligned Volumes with Near Coincident Vertex Checks

The near coincident vertex check or misalignment check is used to diagnose possible misalignments between adjacent volumes. This diagnostic is performed prior to the imprint operation in order to reduce the sliver surfaces and other anomalies which can occur as a result of imprinting misaligned volumes. With this diagnostic, the distance between pairs of vertices on different volumes are measured and flagged when they are just beyond the merge tolerance. The merge tolerance, T, is the maximum distance at which the geometry kernel will consider the vertices the same entity. A secondary tolerance, Ts, is defined where Ts > T which is used for determining which pairs of vertices may also be considered for merging. Pairs of vertices whose distance, d is T < d > Ts are presented to the user, indicating areas in the model that may need to be realigned. The misalignment check should also detect small distances between vertices and curves on adjacent volumes.

When pairs of vertices are found that are slightly out of tolerance, the current solution is to move one of the surfaces containing one vertex of the pair to another surface containing the other vertex in the pair. Moving or extending a surface is known as tweaking.

Figure 531: Example of a solution generated to correct misaligned volumes using the tweak operator

The result of this procedure will be a list of possible solutions that will be presented to the users. They can then graphically preview the solutions and select the one that is most appropriate to correct the problem. Correcting Merge Problems

The merge operation is usually performed immediately following imprinting and is also subject to occasional tolerance problems. In spite of correcting misalignments in the volume, the geometry kernel may still miss merging surfaces that may occupy the same space on adjacent volumes. If volumes in an assembly are not correctly merged, the subsequent meshes generated on the volumes will not be conformal. As a result, it is vital that all merging issues be resolved prior to meshing. The ITEM environment provides a diagnostic and several solutions for addressing these issues.

An overlapping surface check is performed to diagnose the failed sharing of topology between adjacent volumes. In contrast to the misalignment check, the check for overlapping surfaces is performed after the imprinting and merging operations. The overlapping surface check will measure the distance between surfaces on neighboring volumes to ensure that they are greater than the merge tolerance apart. Pairs of surfaces that failed to merge and that are closer than the merge tolerance are flagged and displayed to the user as potential problems.

A test for nonmanifold curves and vertices is also performed after imprinting and merging to find geometry that was not merged correctly. The test for nonmanifold curves is looking for curves that are merged, but do not share merged surfaces. Similarly, the test for nonmanifold vertices is looking for merged vertices that do not share any merged curves. Another test for floating volumes is performed to identify volumes that are not attached to any other entities.

If imprinting and merging has been performed and a subsequent overlapping surface check finds overlapping surface pairs, the user may be offered three different options for correcting the problem: force merge, tolerant imprint of vertex locations and tolerant imprint of curves.

If the topology for both surfaces in the pair is identical, the force merge operation can generally be utilized. The merge operation will remove one of the surface definitions in order to share a common surface between two adjacent volumes. Normally this is done only after topology and geometry have been determined to be identical, however the force merge will bypass the geometry criteria and perform the merge. Figure 2 shows a simple example where the bounding vertices are identical but the surface definitions are slightly different so that the merge operation fails. Force merge in this case would be an ideal choice.

Figure 532: Example where the merge operation will fail, but force merge will be successful

The force merge operation is presented as a solution where a pair of overlapping surfaces are detected and if any of the following criteria are satisfied:

Individual vertices may need to be imprinted in order to accomplish a successful merge. The solution of imprinting a position x,y,z onto surface A or B is presented to the user if the following criteria is met

Figure 533: Curve on surface A was not imprinted on surface B due to tolerance mismatch. Solution is defined to detect and imprint the curve

In some cases one or more curves may not have been correctly imprinted onto an overlapping surface which may be preventing merging. This may again be the result of a tolerance mismatch in the CAD translation. If this situation is detected a tolerant imprint operation may be performed which will attempt to imprint the curve onto the adjacent volume. Figure 3 shows an example where a curve on surface A is forced to imprint onto surface B using tolerant imprint, because it did not imprint during normal imprinting. The solution of a curve of surface A to be imprinted onto surface B may be presented to the user if all 3 of the following conditions are satisfied:

9.6.5 Contact Surfaces

A contact surface is two surfaces which overlap, but are not merged. In a physical sense, this could represent two surfaces which come in contact with each other, as opposed to two surfaces which merely form a partition for meshing purposes. It is easy using the ITEM interface to identify and select contact surfaces in your model. Simply select surfaces in the graphics window and press the "Add" button on the ITEM interface. The contact surfaces will be shown in the window.

To remove a contact surface from the list, right click on the surface and select "Not a Contact Surface" from the context menu to remove that specific surface, or "Remove all contact surfaces" to remove all contact surfaces. Several other visualization tools are also available from the context menu including Zoom, Fly-in, Draw, List, Locate, etc.

9.6.6 Determining an Appropriate Merge Tolerance

Determining the appropriate merge tolerance for a model can be essential for creating conformal meshes on some models. The merge tolerance is a value that identifies at which distance different entities can be considered the same entity. Many entities will fail to merge because of widespread geometry tolerance or alignment problems that are either too difficult, time-consuming or even impossible to resolve. Specifying a merge tolerance that is larger than these small discrepancies allows the user to account for geometry that is misaligned. But specifying a merge tolerance that is too large can combine features the user wishes to keep, and possibly corrupt the model. The ideal merge tolerance should be smaller than the smallest feature, but larger than the biggest gap or misalignment that cannot be resolved. Since it is not always a simple task to determine either of these features, the ITEM workflow provides a diagnostic tool designed to guide the user to find the small misalignments that may lead to merge problems. It then presents possible solutions to fix these problems, or the ability to change the merge tolerance to ignore them. Opening the Merge Tolerance Panel

To open the merge tolerance tool from the ITEM Wizard, click on Prepare Geometry->Connect Volumes->Imprint and Merge. Then click on the button with three dots next to the Merge Tolerance input field.

Figure 534: How to open the merge tolerance panel

The merge tolerance panel is shown in the following image.

Figure 535: The Merge Tolerance Diagnostic Panel Estimating Merge Tolerance with Small Feature Size

Since the merge tolerance must be smaller than the smallest feature in the mesh, the best place to start is by finding the smallest feature and using that value to create an estimate for the merge tolerance. To find the smallest feature, click on the small button with three dots next to the input box for Small Features.

Note: The small feature checks will not find misalignments between different volumes- it will only list vertex-vertex pairs and vertex-curve pairs on the same volume. The small feature size is used on the merge tolerance panel to find an initial estimate for the merge tolerance.

After determining the smallest feature size, click on the Estimate Merge Tolerance button to come up with a rough estimate for the merge tolerance. It is important to note that this is only an estimate. After an initial estimate is made, it can be fine tuned using the Fine Tune Merge Tolerance tool. Fine Tuning the Merge Tolerance

In the fine tune merge tolerance area, the user may search for vertex-vertex, vertex-curve, and vertex-surface pairs that are within user-specified ranges. This includes checks between entities on different volumes. This allows the user to determine if the merge tolerance he/she has determined will capture all of the merges he/she intends. The user can check/uncheck which pairs to search for and what range to look in. The results from the search will show up in the window below and the user can select the results, right click on it, and choose Draw with Volumes to zoom into that pair of features. For vertex-vertex pairs there may be tweak solutions presented to the user in the list box below for fixing the problems. Setting the Merge Tolerance

The Apply button next to Estimated Merge Tolerance edit field is used to take the estimated merge tolerance and use it to set the merge tolerance in Cubit by issuing the Merge Tolerance <val> command.

9.6.7 Determining the Small Feature Size

The smallest feature size is a value that represents the size of the smallest detail in the volume that the user wants to include in the final mesh. Any details that are smaller than this size should be removed from the model before completing the other steps of the meshing process. Small details can result from a variety of different reasons. Sometimes the model contains excessive detail that the user does not need. Other times, small features such as extra curves are created during import to account for a mismatching topology. Still other times, the small features are the result of webcutting or other decomposition methods. Ideally there should be a minimum threshold at which the user decides to keep all features above the given size, and remove the rest. The smallest feature size is used for other diagnostic tools, so selecting an appropriate feature size is important for other steps in the mesh generation process.

After the Find Small Features button is pressed, Cubit lists the 10 closests vertex-vertex and vertex-curve pairs. The pairs are listed in the display window from smallest to largest. To see more pairs, change the search parameter in the input box. To visualize each pair, the user can right click on a feature and select the Draw Pair with Volumes option. After determining the smallest feature size the user can enter it in the edit field at the bottom of the panel and it will be used in later calculations. The user can also right click on one of the pairs in the list and choose Use as smallest feature to populate the edit field at the bottom of the panel. Why doesn’t the list include small gaps between volumes?

The smallest feature check is only searching over vertex-vertex and vertex-curve pairs in the same volume. Small gaps and misalignments are not included in this list. The purpose of the small feature diagnostic panel is to search for features that need to be removed prior to meshing. A feature is an entity such as a small curve or sliver surface that exists on a single volume which must be resolved by the mesh. A gap or misalignment is two entities that should be coincident, but are not, due to translation or other problems. Gaps and misalignments may not hinder mesh generation on a given volume, but they do prevent proper imprinting and merging.

The imprint/merge, merge tolerance, and overlapping volume panels contain diagnostics that check for misalignment problems. The purpose of those diagnostics is to enable imprinting and merging of a volume with small misalignments.

Note: The smallest feature size is used as a metric on the merge tolerance page, but it is only used to get an initial estimate for the merge tolerance. Small feature size and merge tolerance represent different metrics, and should not be confused.

In figure 536, the small feature size diagnostic finds small features with lengths of 0.707, 0.15 and 0.25. The user may decide that the smallest feature he or she wishes to keep is the one at the 0.25 size. If he sets the small feature size to 0.25, the other features will be flagged as small curves and surfaces on the Small Features page. They can then be removed using tweaking and other geometry clean-up commands. If he sets the small feature size to 0.707, none of the features will be flagged as small features.

In addition to the features shown, this model contains two vertices that are slightly misaligned due to geometry translation problems. The nearly coincident vertices are not listed on the small features list because the vertices lie on different volumes. To find these near coincident vertices, the user would use the merge tolerance panel.

Figure 536: Small Features and Overlap on a Model