Difference between revisions of "Hex vs Tet Mesh Comparisons"
From NAMIC Wiki
m (Update from Wiki) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Objective:''' | '''Objective:''' | ||
| − | * | + | * Comparison of Hexahedral versus Tetrahedral meshing algorithms Orthopaedic applications |
'''Progress:''' | '''Progress:''' | ||
| − | * Currently | + | * Currently evaluating open source tetrahedral meshing algorithms |
| − | * | + | **VTK |
| + | ***Slivers exist in resulting mesh | ||
| + | **[http://www.hpfem.jku.at/netgen/ Netgen] | ||
| + | ***LGPL license | ||
| + | ***Issues have been found regarding invalid memory references | ||
| + | ***Does not always converge to a solution | ||
| + | ***Difficult to specify desired mesh density | ||
| + | **[http://tetgen.berlios.de/ Tetgen] | ||
| + | ***Non commercial license. Commercial license can be purchased | ||
| + | ***Has been used for medical applications including heart, vertebral body, and head meshes | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Performed an initial comparison of hexahedral versus tetrahedral algorithms | ||
| + | **Study included comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral meshing tools | ||
| + | **Evaluated the results based the following criteria | ||
| + | ***Time to generate the mesh | ||
| + | ***mesh quality | ||
| + | ***Results of a static load analysis versus the number of elements | ||
| + | '''Pulbication:''' | ||
| + | *Devries NA, Shivanna KH, Tadepalli SC, Magnotta VA, Grosland NM. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723692/pdf/iowa0029-0048.pdf Ia-FEMesh: anatomic fe models--a check of mesh accuracy and validity]. Iowa Orthop J. 29:48-54, 2009 | ||
'''Key Investigators:''' | '''Key Investigators:''' | ||
| − | * Iowa: Nicole Grosland, Vincent Magnotta | + | * Iowa: Nicole DeVries, Nicole Grosland, Vincent Magnotta |
'''Links:''' | '''Links:''' | ||
| + | *[http://www.ccad.uiowa.edu/mimx Musculoskeletal Imaging, Modeling and Experimentation (MIMX)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Images:''' | ||
| + | [[Image:FEmesh_comparisons.JPG|left|thumb|600px|The von Mises stress distribution for the various meshing techniques: IA-FEMesh (a) hexahedral mesh, (b) NETGEN tetrahedral mesh, and PATRAN (c) hexahedral mesh, (d) tetrahedral mesh with average element length of 1mm, and (e) tetrahedral mesh with average element length of 2mm.]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:23, 20 January 2010
Home < Hex vs Tet Mesh ComparisonsObjective:
- Comparison of Hexahedral versus Tetrahedral meshing algorithms Orthopaedic applications
Progress:
- Currently evaluating open source tetrahedral meshing algorithms
- VTK
- Slivers exist in resulting mesh
- Netgen
- LGPL license
- Issues have been found regarding invalid memory references
- Does not always converge to a solution
- Difficult to specify desired mesh density
- Tetgen
- Non commercial license. Commercial license can be purchased
- Has been used for medical applications including heart, vertebral body, and head meshes
- VTK
- Performed an initial comparison of hexahedral versus tetrahedral algorithms
- Study included comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral meshing tools
- Evaluated the results based the following criteria
- Time to generate the mesh
- mesh quality
- Results of a static load analysis versus the number of elements
Pulbication:
- Devries NA, Shivanna KH, Tadepalli SC, Magnotta VA, Grosland NM. Ia-FEMesh: anatomic fe models--a check of mesh accuracy and validity. Iowa Orthop J. 29:48-54, 2009
Key Investigators:
- Iowa: Nicole DeVries, Nicole Grosland, Vincent Magnotta
Links:
Images:
