Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 12 (1992) 313-318 313

Elsevier

FINEL 273

A performance study of tetrahedral and hexahedral

elements in 3-D finite element structural analysis
A . O . Cifuentes and A. Kalbag
IBM Research Di~,ision, P,O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA

Received March 1992

Revised June 1992

Abstract. This study compares the performance of linear and quadratic tetrahedral elements and hexahedral
elements in various structural problems. The problems selected demonstrate different types of behavior,
namely, bending, shear, torsional and axial deformations. It was observed that the results obtained with
quadratic tetrahedral elements and hexahedral elements were equivalent in terms of both accuracy and CPU
time.

Introduction

Finite element analysis has reached a state of maturity in which 3-D applications are
commonplace. Most analysts, as well as most commercial codes ( M S C / N a s t r a n , Abaqus, etc.),
use solid elements based on the isoparametric f o r m u l a t i o n - - o r variations of i t - - f o r 3-D
analyses [1-4]. For simple geometries, or for applications in which it is possible to build a
mesh " b y hand", analysts have relied heavily on the 8-node hexahedral e l e m e n t - - c o m m o n l y
known as "brick" or " h e x a " [5]. For more complex geometries, however, the analyst must rely
on an automatic (or semi-automatic) mesh generators. In general, automatic mesh generators
produce meshes made of tetrahedral elements, rather than hexahedral elements. The reason
is that a general 3-D domain cannot always be decomposed into an assembly of bricks.
However, it can always be represented as a collection of tetrahedral elements.
As the demand for analyses of more complex configurations has grown, coupled with the
increasing popularity of automatic mesh generators, the need to understand better the
relative merits of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements has become apparent. It is known, for
example, that linear tetrahedral elements do not perform very w e l l - - a s e x p e c t e d - - b e c a u s e
they are constant-strain elements; thus, too many elements are required to achieve a
satisfactory accuracy. What remains unclear, however, is whether brick elements perform
better or worse than quadratic tetrahedra, that is, tetrahedral elements including mid-side
nodes. Specifically, for a given n u m b e r of nodes (or degrees of freedom), the analyst needs to
know under what circumstances it is better to use bricks instead of quadratic tetrahedra. This
amounts to investigating the accuracy and efficiency of such elements under a variety of
problems characterized by different deformation patterns, such as, bending, shear, torsion
and axial behavior.
In addition, if a mesh made of linear tetrahedral elements does not yield a result within
acceptable error, it is useful to know what strategy to follow: (a) decrease the size of the

Correspondence to: A.O. Cifuentes, IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA.

0168-874X/92/$05.00 © 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

314 A.O. Cifuentes, A: Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

elements while keeping them linear, or (b) make the elements quadratic by introducing
additional (mid-side) nodes.
Previous authors have proposed some useful benchmark tests for individual elements or
simple arrays of elements [6-8]. However, no study comparing tetrahedra with hexahedra in a
more general setting seems to be available. While it is difficult to give a final answer to all the
issues involved, the aim of this study is to shed some light on this problem by investigating the
performance of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in a number of problems that have
known analytical solutions. These findings are expected to be useful for finite elements
analysts.

Method

Four problems that have known solutions have been chosen for this study. Each problem is
dominated by a different deformation pattern.

Problem 1--Bending
Consider a cantilever b e a m oriented in the y-direction and loaded in the z-direction (see
Fig. 1). The b e a m has a rectangular cross-section and it deforms under the action of a load
per unit of length equal to 0.01. The beam dimensions are as follows: L ( l e n g t h ) = 8, b
(width) = 1 and h (height) --- 1. The material properties are: E (Young's modulus) = 1000 and
u (Poisson's ratio) = 0.15. The analytical expression for the vertical displacement at the free
end of the b e a m center-line, including both bending and shear deformations (although
bending is the dominant effect in this case), yields a value of 0.0625 [9].

Problem 2--Shear
Consider a short shear b e a m deforming under a unit distributed load (load per unit of
length) as depicted in Fig. 2. The b e a m is oriented in the y-direction and loaded in the
z-direction. The b e a m dimensions are: L = 1, b = 0.6 and h = 1. The material properties are:
E = 1000 and u = 0.15. The vertical displacement at the free end of the b e a m center-line,
considering both bending and shear deformations (which in this case are dominant) is 0.00538
[10].

Problem 3--Torsion
Consider a b e a m with a square cross-section oriented along the y-axis (see Fig. 3). The
b e a m dimensions are: L = 16, b = 1 and h = 1. Material properties: E = 1000 and u = 0.15.

load per unit

1 of length

z load per unit

~ of length
Y
................... -}--~y [] b _ _b i
b
L ~ cross
L
cross section
longitudinal view section longitudinal view
Fig. l, Bending problem. Fig. 2. Shear problem.
 A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis 315

constrained
in the x and z
direction

torsional
iz moment

[] h
Y b
x ~- L ..~
cross
longitudinal view section Fig. 3. Torsion problem

Displacements in the x- and z-directions are fixed at one end. At the other end, which is free,
a rotation of 0.03 radians is applied (this corresponds to a 0.1146 torsional moment). The
maximum value of the shear stress occurs at the mid-points of the cross-section sides. A
solution based on a series expansion gives a value of 0.551 for the maximum shear stress [11].
This solution allows warping of the cross-section.

Problem 4 - - A x i a l behavior
Consider a short beam clamped at both ends and oriented in the y-direction (see Fig. 4).
L = 4, b = 1 and h = 1. In addition, E = 1000, v = 0.0 and p (mass density per unit of
volume) = 1. The natural frequency corresponding to the first axial mode is 3.953 Hz [12].
This problem was chosen because it involves a nonuniform axial displacement field.

A n a lyses

The finite element analyses were performed using Abaqus, a general-purpose finite
element code for structural analysis [13]. Three solid elements were tested:
(a) C3D4, a 4-node tetrahedral element. This element was included only for comparison
purposes; its performance was not expected to be good since it is a constant-strain
element. One integration point is used.
(b) C3D10, a second-order 10-node tetrahedral element. In this study, the "intermediate"
nodes were located exactly halfway between the corner nodes. Four integration points are
used.
(c) C3D8, an 8-node isoparametric hexahedral element. This is a trilinear element. In this
case "full" Gauss integration was employed in the stiffness matrix determination. This

..................................... y h "

cross
L
section
longitudinal view Fig. 4. Axial vibration problem.
316 A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

means that the Gauss scheme used integrates the stiffness matrix terms exactly if (i) the
material properties are constant throughout the element and (ii) the Jacobian of the
mapping from the isoparametric coordinates to the physical coordinates is constant and
diagonal throughout the element.
Each problem was solved using four different models (four different meshes), described as
follows:

Mesh 1. This is a regular mesh made of linear tetrahedral elements (C3D4).

Mesh 2. This is a regular mesh made of quadratic tetrahedra (C3D10) obtained by adding
mid-side nodes to Mesh 1. This represents an attempt to improve the accuracy of the results
obtained with the first mesh.

Mesh 3. This mesh corresponds to another attempt to improve the results obtained with
Mesh 1, but in this case decreasing the size of the linear tetrahedra (C3D4). This mesh
obviously has more nodes than the mesh employed in the first model, but exactly the same
number of nodes as Mesh 2. This is to make the second and third model comparable in terms
of the size (same number of degrees of freedom) and therefore address the issue of what
strategy is better if one wants to improve the accuracy of the results given by a mesh of linear
tetrahedra (Mesh 1): to increase the order of the interpolation (Mesh 2) or to reduce the size
of the elements (Mesh 3).

Mesh 4. This is a regular mesh of brick elements. Again, the number of nodes is the same as
in Mesh 2. This is to compare the performance of two meshes with the same number of
degrees of freedom, one made with bricks and the other made with quadratic tetrahedra.
(Notice that nodal coordinates in Mesh 2 coincide with those of Mesh 4).

Results

The four problems described before were solved using the four different meshes. The
analyses were performed on an IBM RISC/6000 workstation using Abaqus. The models were
setup with Foxi, a geometric modeler that has a parametric solid object representation and is
integrated with an automatic mesh generator and an Abaqus preprocessor [14]. Regular
meshes were employed in all cases. In each case, the error was computed by comparing the
result given by the finite element model against the analytical solution.
Tables 1-4 summarize the results. The nomenclature is as follows: N is the number of
nodes in the mesh (including mid-side nodes when quadratic tetrahedra are used); E is the

Table 1
Results for Problem 1 (bending)

N E T Ax Ay Az Ra Error
x 10 -2 (%)
Mesh 1 225 576 51 0.5 0.333 0.5 3.822 38.9
Mesh 2 1225 576 105 0.5 0.333 0.5 6.210 0.7
Mesh 3 1225 4608 290 0.25 0.1666 0.25 5.334 14.7
Mesh 4 1225 768 106 0.25 0.1666 0.25 6.264 0.2
a R represents the vertical displacement at the end of the beam center line. The analytical solution gives
R = 6.254 X 10 -2.
 A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / Tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis 317

Table 2
Results for Problem 2 (shear)
N E T Ax Ay Az Ra Error
x l 0 -3 (%)
Mesh 1 768 2700 176 0.3 0.0666 0,0666 4.687 12.8
Mesh 2 4805 2700 687 0.3 0.0666 0,0666 4.808 9.2
Mesh 3 4805 21600 1840 0.15 0.0333 0.0333 4.739 11.8
Mesh 4 4805 3600 589 0.15 0.0333 0.0333 4.756 11.5
a R represents the vertical displacement at the end of the beam center line. The analytical solution gives
R = 5.375 × 10- 3.

Table 3
Results for Problem 3 (torsion)
N E T Ax Ay Az Ra Error
(%)
Mesh 1 153 384 46 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.3859 30.0
Mesh 2 825 384 79 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5799 5.2
Mesh 3 825 3072 294 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.4736 14.1
Mesh 4 825 512 80 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5300 3.8
R represents the maximum shear stress on the cross section of the beam. The analytical solution gives R = 0.5511.

Table 4
Results for Problem 4 (axial vibration)
N E T nx Ay Az Ra Error
(%)
Mesh 1 425 1536 153 0.25 0.25 0.25 3.947 0.2
Mesh 2 2673 1536 595 0.25 0.25 0.25 3.945 0.2
Mesh 3 2673 12288 1488 0.125 0.125 0.125 3.951 0.1
Mesh 4 2673 2048 499 0.125 0.125 0.125 3.951 0.1
a R represents the fundamental frequency (Hz) for axial vibrations. The analytical solution gives R = 3.953.

n u m b e r of e l e m e n t s in the mesh; A x , A y , Az d e n o t e the n o d e spacing in the x-, y- a n d

z - d i r e c t i o n (in m e s h e s m a d e of q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a , the spacing is d e t e r m i n e d by the
distance b e t w e e n c o r n e r nodes); a n d T d e n o t e s the total C P U time in seconds.

Discussion

T h e m a i n goal of this analysis was to investigate the p e r f o r m a n c e of h e x a h e d r a l e l e m e n t s

versus q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a u n d e r similar conditions. This has b e e n achieved by c o m p a r i n g
the results given by M e s h 2 a n d M e s h 4. T h e location of the n o d e s is identical in both meshes.
T h u s , the n u m b e r of active d e g r e e s of f r e e d o m is exactly the same. This is necessary to m a k e
a m e a n i n g f u l c o m p a r i s o n . I n addition, the e l e m e n t aspect ratio in b o t h m e s h e s is e q u i v a l e n t
(the ratio b e t w e e n the n o d e spacing in the x-, y- a n d z - d i r e c t i o n is the same in b o t h meshes).
It c a n be observed that the resuls o b t a i n e d with bricks a n d q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a , in t e r m s
of b o t h accuracy a n d C P U time, are roughly equivalent. This is significant b e c a u s e it indicates
that analysts who rely o n a u t o m a t i c m e s h g e n e r a t o r s (which in g e n e r a l g e n e r a t e m e s h e s m a d e
of t e t r a h e d r a l e l e m e n t s ) do n o t have a d i s a d v a n t a g e c o m p a r e d to those analysts who use
318 A.O. Cifuentes, A. Kalbag / "Fetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D analysis

bricks. In o t h e r words, the t r i l i n e a r brick e l e m e n t - - a l o n g - t i m e favorite o f m a n y finite

e l e m e n t p r a c t i c i o n e r s - - a p p e a r s n o t to have a s u b s t a n c i a l a d v a n t a g e c o m p a r e d to t h e q u a d r a t i c
tetrahedron.
A s e c o n d conclusion is c o n c e r n e d with w h a t is t h e best a p p r o a c h to t a k e if a m o d e l m a d e
o f l i n e a r t e t r a h e d r a d o e s not give satisfactory results ( M e s h 1). T h e s e analyses ( M e s h 2 versus
M e s h 3) suggest that, in g e n e r a l , it s e e m s b e t t e r to i n c r e a s e t h e o r d e r of the e l e m e n t s r a t h e r
t h a n refining t h e m e s h with s m a l l e r l i n e a r e l e m e n t s . E x c e p t for P r o b l e m 4, in which M e s h 2
a n d M e s h 3 give a p p r o x i m a t e l y the s a m e result, t h e q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a do b e t t e r t h a n the
l i n e a r t e t r a h e d r a , for t h e s a m e n u m b e r o f nodes. In t e r m s of C P U time, t h e a d v a n t a g e of
q u a d r a t i c t e t r a h e d r a is m o r e c l e a r - - t h e r e is a t h r e e f o l d penalty, in all cases, for using l i n e a r
t e t r a h e d r a . T h i s is b e c a u s e M e s h 3 i n c l u d e s m a n y m o r e e l e m e n t s t h a n M e s h 2 a n d conse-
q u e n t l y the C P U t i m e r e q u i r e d to g e n e r a t e the stiffness m a t r i x a n d m a s s m a t r i c e s increases,
as d o e s the t i m e for solving t h e r e s u l t i n g l i n e a r system o f e q u a t i o n s .

References

[1] B.M. IRONS, "Engineering applications of numerical integration in stiffness methods", J. Am. Inst. Aeronaut.
Astronaut. 4 (ll) pp. 2035-2037, 1966.
[2] I.C. TAIG, "Structural analysis by the matrix displacement method", English Electric Aviation, Report SO-17,
1961.
13] J. ERGATOUDIS, B. IRONS and O.C. ZIENKIEWICZ,"Curved isoparametric quadrilateral elements for finite
element analysis", Int. J. Solids Struct. 4, pp. 31-42, 1968.
[4] R.D. COOK, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, Wiley, New York, 2nd edn., Chap. 5, 1981.
[5] T.J.R. HUGHES, The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Section 3.5, 1987.
[6] R.L. TAYLOR,J.C. SIMo, O.C. ZIENKIEW1CZand A.C. CHAN, "The patch test: A condition for assessing finite
element convergence", Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 22 (l) pp. 39-62, 1986.
[7] J. ROBINSON, "Single element test for aspect ratio sensitivity of solids", Finite Element News, pp. 26-32,
February 1986.
[8] G.P. BAZELEY, Y.K. CHEUNG, B.M. IRONS and O.C. ZIENKIEWICZ,"Triangular elements in plate bending
--Conforming and non-conforming solutions", Proc. 1st Conf. on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, pp. 547-576. 1968.
[9] J.P. DEN HARTOG, Strength of Materials, Dover Publications, New York, 1961.
[10] S. TIMOSHENKOand D.H. YOUNG, Elements of Strength of Materials, Van Nostrand, New York, 1968.
[11] S. TIMOSHENKOand J.N. GOODIER, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
[12] R.D. Bt.Evms, Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979.
[13] Abaqus Users' Manual, Version 4.8, Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1989.
[14] L.R. NACKMAN,unpublished IBM Research internal report, 1992.