[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# Re: [femm] Triangulation!

- To: femm@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: [femm] Triangulation!
- From: "you se-ho" <sxy28@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:19:23
- Bcc:

`
To Dear All:`
`Quick thought. triangles approximate a+bx+cy with 3 point on triangles. If we have sqaure or any other shape (more than 3 vertices), then we have more equations then needed (i.e over-determined.) Therefore, if we use square (or rectangles), we waste time. Can this be one of reason? Moreover, when we want to approximate with more than 2nd order, which is better between triangles with more points on them (point between vertices or center of traignles) and square (or triangles etc) when we can fit into shape?`

    Any comment?
    Thanks
    Sincerely,
    Se-HO YOU

> `
> celia lauar wrote:`

>     > David,
>     > Why does FEMM use triangles?
>     > Why not square?
>     > Célia.

> `It's easier to mesh arbitrary shapes with first-order triangles. There are fairly simple,
> closed-form expressions for the element matrices with first order triangles, whereas things can be
> messier with higher-order elements. It's easier to formulate the algorithm for nonlinear problems
> with first-order triangles.`
> `Dave.`
> ``
> `<< dmeeker.vcf >>`

``
``

    _________________________________________________________________
    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: [femm] Triangulation!
    - From: David Meeker <dmeeker@foster-miller.com>

- Prev by Date: Re: [femm] FEMM + MathCad
- Next by Date: RE: [femm] FEMM + MathCad
- Previous by thread: Re: interest about this [femm] FEMM + MathCad
- Next by thread: Re: [femm] Triangulation!
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread