Efficiency enhancement techniques in finite

element analysis: navigating complexity for

agile design exploration
Aun Haider
Institute of Aeronautics and Avionics, Air University Aerospace and Aviation Campus, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to comprehensively explore techniques for reducing solution time in finite element analysis (FEA), addressing the critical
need for expediting computations to facilitate agile design exploration within project timelines.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing from a wide array of literature sources, this paper synthesizes and analyzes various methodologies
used to enhance the efficiency of FEA. Techniques are scrutinized in terms of their applicability, effectiveness and potential limitations.
Findings – The review signifies application of linear assumptions across multiple facets of analysis and delves into matrix order reduction strategies,
geometry simplification, symmetry exploitation, submodeling and mesh attribute control. It reveals how these techniques can effectively reduce
computational burdens while maintaining acceptable levels of accuracy.
Research limitations/implications – While this review provides a comprehensive overview of existing efficiency enhancement techniques in FEA,
it acknowledges inherent limitations of any synthesis-based study. Future research should focus on refining these methodologies.
Practical implications – The insights provided in this paper offer practical guidance for structural engineers and researchers seeking to optimize
FEA workflows. By implementing these techniques, practitioners can expedite solution times and enhance their ability to explore design alternatives
efficiently ultimately leading to cost savings and more robust structures.
Originality/value – This review contributes to the existing literature by offering a comprehensive synthesis of efficiency enhancement techniques in
FEA. By highlighting the originality and value of each discussed methodology, this paper provides a roadmap for future research and practical
implementation in the field of structural engineering.
Keywords Superposition, Mesh generation, CAD simplification, Equivalent elements, Model reduction, Model symmetry, Submodeling,
Linear assumptions, Super element
Paper type Literature review

Introduction Degrees of freedom (DOFs) are the minimum parameters

needed to describe a model’s behavior. The total DOFs in a
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a crucial simulation tool for
numerical model are calculated by multiplying the number of
structural engineers, offering approximate solutions to complex
nodes by the DOFs of each node. This highlights the essential
differential equations, vital for understanding structural
role of DOFs in characterizing structural system behavior
behavior (Lee, 2021). FEA involves discretizing the problem
(Gardezi and Bhutta, 2020).
domain into a mesh, mirroring real-world structures’ responses
The preprocessing stage precedes the solution of a numerical
to loads and boundary conditions (Koutromanos, 2018). It
model, while postprocessing follows. Preprocessing tasks
provides engineers with invaluable insights into design
involve cleaning and simplifying geometry, mesh generation,
performance and integrity.
The fundamental unit of a mesh, known as an element, is material specification and applying loads and boundary
essential for structural simulations (Okereke et al., 2018). conditions. This foundational stage ensures an accurate
Nodes, located at the intersections of neighboring elements, representation of the physical system, laying the groundwork
serve as computation points, with results interpolated across for precise simulations (Shivakumar et al., 2021).
elements. Various types of finite elements (FE) are used, such Postprocessing entails visualizing the numerical solution via
as 1D beam elements for long bodies, 2D shell elements for contour plots showing parameters such as deformation, strain
plate-like structures and 3D elements for complex components and stress. This phase aids in interpreting and communicating
(Carrera et al., 2020). FEA results, offering valuable insights into the behavior and
performance of simulated structures. Preprocessing and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald The author acknowledges support of Air University in writing this review.
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1748-8842.htm
Author contribution: The entire work was carried out by Aun Haider.

Conflicts of interest: The author declares no conflict of interests.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
96/5 (2024) 662–668 Received 26 February 2024
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] Revised 15 April 2024
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-02-2024-0053] Accepted 15 April 2024

662
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

postprocessing stages collectively form a comprehensive Techniques to reduce solution time

workflow in numerical modeling and analysis (Heikkinen et al.,
Application of linear assumptions
2018).
Nonlinear analysis is inherently more computationally
Real-world problems often involve complex multiphysics
demanding than linear analysis, as it accounts for nonlinear
phenomena and nonlinearities in geometry, material properties
behavior in material properties, boundary conditions and loads
and boundary conditions (Chandrupatla and Belegundu,
(Srikarun et al., 2021). While accurate representation often
2021). Solution time in structural analysis is directly
requires including these nonlinearities, many moderately
proportional to the model size, typically large in such
simulations, making the solution phase time-consuming and nonlinear problems have been adequately solved using linear
computationally expensive (Simons et al., 2019). Equation (1) approximation in finite element method (FEM). Applying
represents equilibrium in structural analysis at each node by linearity in FEM implies:
sets of second-order linear differential equations:
 Rate of loading is slow that dynamic effects are negligible.
 Hooke’s law remains valid.
€ ðtÞ 1 C X_ ðtÞ 1 KX ðtÞ ¼ F ðtÞ
MX (1)
 Applied forces are conservative in nature.
 Constraints remain same during analysis.
where M, C and K [ R (n x n) are mass, damping and stiffness
 Resultant deformation is small enough that no change in
matrices of full model, respectively; X, € X_ and X are configuration takes place.
acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors of full model To mitigate deviations resulting from linear assumptions,
under applied force vector F on model, respectively. n is total appropriate safety factors are used (Ghannadi and Kourehli,
DOFs of system which is generally very large number. Full 2018). When safety factors are reasonable, errors in the linear
model is reduced through model reduction which involves solution are considered negligible.
coordinate transformation
Plane stress and plane strain modeling
X ðtÞ ¼ TZ ðtÞ (2)
Plane stress and plane strain modeling are common
idealizations used in structural analysis. Plane stress applies
where T [ R (n x m) is coordinate transformation matrix which
when there is no stress component normal to the plane of
is independent of time and Z(t) [ R (m  n) is reduced order
action, suitable for analyzing sheet metal parts, plastic
coordinates. Differentiating (2) with respect to time gives:
components and thin-walled pressure vessels (Palve et al.,
X_ ðtÞ ¼ T Z_ ðtÞ (3) 2019). Figure 1 shows plane stress modeling of mating spur
gears. Plane strain occurs when all strains happen in a single
plane, applicable to long structures like underground pipes
€ ðtÞ ¼ T X
X € ðtÞ (4) and dams (Mahmood and Abdulrazzaq, 2020). Figure 2
shows pane strain modeling of dam structure. Both methods
Substituting (2) through (4) in (1) and multiplying both sides use 2D thin shell elements for meshing planar surfaces,
by transpose of transformation matrix T gives equation (5) providing rapid insight into local stresses compared to full
which presents equilibrium condition for reduced model. 3D models.
Although size of reduced model is much smaller than full
model, i.e. m  n, reduced model replicates dynamic Simplification of CAD model
characteristics of full model: A CAD model serves as a template for mesh generation in FEA
€ ðtÞ 1 C R Z_ ðtÞ 1 K R Z ðtÞ ¼ F R ðtÞ (Heikkinen et al., 2018). Geometric features of the model
MR Z (5)
influence mesh quality, which, in turn, affects solution accuracy
where MR, CR and KR [ (m x m) are mass, damping and
stiffness matrices, respectively, of reduced order model under Figure 1 Plane stress modeling of spur gears
equivalent force vector FR. These matrices are defined as:

MR ¼ T T MT; C R ¼ T T CT;

K R ¼ T T KT; F R ¼ T T F (6)

To expedite solution time in FE models, reducing the model

size and total DOFs is crucial (Fan et al., 2018). This paper
aims to elucidate techniques for decreasing model size without
sacrificing accuracy, primarily in the preprocessing phase
(Marinkovic and Zehn, 2019). The resultant reduction in
solution time enables more agile design exploration within
project timelines and often improves the numerical model’s
definition. Implementing these techniques expedites analyses
and refines the structural system’s numerical representation
(Beuchler and Rösch, 2023).

663
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

Figure 2 Plane strain modeling of dam Submodeling

In many cases, conducting a detailed stress analysis of a specific
structural component within a larger assembly, such as a rib
within an aircraft wing, is necessary. Analyzing the entire wing
can be computationally expensive, so a local model (e.g. the
rib) is isolated and analyzed separately under the given loading
conditions. The solution of the coarse global model provides
boundary constraints for the detailed local model, facilitating a
more focused analysis. This process, known as submodeling or
domain modeling, allows for finer resolution of the local model
without additional computational cost. Figure 4 illustrates the
conceptual application of sub-modeling for analyzing the local
model (Cianniello et al., 2022).

Dimension reduction of model

While physical models are inherently three-dimensional, FE
simulations often use 1D or 2D elements for satisfactory
(Valeš and Kala, 2018). To improve computational results. Dimension reduction of solid models can significantly
performance, 3D models are often idealized by simplifying reduce model size with improved mesh quality and reasonably
features, such as suppressing noncritical details and replacing accurate results (Bird et al., 2021).
fillets and chamfers with square edges. This simplification 1D elements are suitable for modeling linear geometries such
depends on factors such as part dimensions and applied loads as long shafts, beams and columns, while 2D plate/shell
(Buric and Marjanovic, 2018). Fasteners and weldments in elements represent thin 3D structures such as sheet metal parts
assemblies are commonly simplified as continuous load- and printed circuit boards (Carrera and Scano, 2024). In
bearing members, represented by 1D beam elements, to reduce addition, 2D approximation is used for prismatic solid parts.
solution time (Atak, 2020). Figure 5 depicts a mid-surface model extracted from a 3D solid
model, where 2D FE are used for meshing (Guo et al., 2021).

Symmetry Figure 4 Application of submodeling

Symmetry in models is used to substantially reduce problem
domain, requiring symmetry in geometry, loads, constraints and
material properties. This technique reduces total DOFs of
model. Dynamic response of a full structure comprises
symmetric and anti-symmetric mode shapes. However,
symmetric models eliminate anti-symmetric modes, rendering
them unsuitable for modal and buckling analyses (Scutaru et al.,
2020). Figure 3 illustrates various types of symmetry used for
reducing model size:
 mirror symmetry for mechanical components;
 axisymmetry for cylinders and pressure vessels (Mohamed,
2018);
 repetitive symmetry; and
 cyclic symmetry for turbomachinery (Kozak et al., 2020).

Figure 3 Types of symmetry

Figure 5 Mid surface abstraction

664
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

Equivalent finite elements Figure 6 Model reduction

Various commercially available FE codes provide equivalent
elements for streamlining assembly modeling and applying
complex boundary conditions:
 Mass elements represent the mass of rigid components
within an assembly, such as engine blocks, display tubes
and pumps/motors, without affecting stiffness and
damping characteristics (Nguyen, 2019).
 Spring elements couple or connect DOFs, providing
accurate boundary conditions for individual parts (Al
Sahlani et al., 2018).
 Damper elements provide dashpot damping for dynamic
models, representing external damping devices (Kuchak
et al., 2020).
 Rigid elements, also known as rigid links or multipoint
constraints, connect DOFs between nodes, allowing the
attachment of parts or application of forces without
associated mechanisms (Pore et al., 2021).
 Contact elements model interaction between mating
parts, providing stiffness in compression and separation
and preventing mutual penetration. They can also
introduce static and dynamic friction coefficients,
reducing DOFs and solution time (Lone et al., 2019).

Model reduction of self-repeating structure

Model reduction of a large assembly with self-repeating units
has been used to significantly reduce DOFs and solution time
of model (Ghannadi and Kourehli, 2018). First step is to divide
large assembly into m identical repeating units called unit cells.
One-unit cell is isolated from the large model through system
mass and stiffness matrices. Model reduction method is applied
to unit cell matrices. Finally, reduced order unit cell is copied
(m1) times to form reduced full size assembly with equivalent
dynamics. Figure 6 illustrates the concept of model reduction
of self-repeating structure (Romeo and Schultz, 2020).

Super elements
Super elements are used to represent individual components
within an assembly, such as seat, engine and chassis in an Figure 7 Super elements for car frame
automobile. Figure 7 illustrates car frame elements represented
by super elements (Sher et al., 2020). The remaining assembly,
excluding super elements, is referred to as residual structure.
Loads and boundary conditions are applied to the complete
assembly containing super elements to obtain the static and
dynamic response of the structure (Ali et al., 2022). Super
elements significantly enhance computational efficiency with
good accuracy.

Proper mesh generation

Shape, order and size of elements significantly impact mesh size
and quality (More and Bindu, 2015), thus dictating solution
time:
 hex elements often yield quicker solutions and greater
accuracy with fewer elements compared to Tet elements  element size directly impacts solution time: larger sizes
(Schneider et al., 2022); reduce nodes, speeding up solutions, while smaller sizes
 second-order elements with midside nodes yield lower increase accuracy. Balancing accuracy and efficiency
element counts and reduced solution times compared to involve using finer meshes in high-stress areas and coarser
first-order elements (Liu et al., 2022); ones elsewhere;

665
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

 optimizing both time and accuracy (Eisenträger et al., Figure 8 Stages for application of techniques
2020); and
 frequent mesh operations can inflate node/element IDs,
leading to a higher stiffness matrix order with many zero
entries. Sequentially numbering nodes and elements
mitigates this, reducing the stiffness matrix order
(Sorgente et al., 2022).

Min set of boundary conditions

Boundary conditions applied during FEA should closely match
physical conditions of the model. However, these boundary
conditions are often approximations. Insufficient boundary
conditions can result in rigid body motion of model, while over-
constraining the model can introduce unrealistic deformation
or stress values by imposing unrealistic stiffness. Therefore,
selecting a minimal set of boundary conditions is desirable to
prevent rigid body motion and reduce solution time, as fewer
matrix inversions are required with this minimal set of
constraints (Wu et al., 2020).

Superposition
Superposition is a technique where loads are added linearly for a
solution with the same constraints. In this method, linear static
analysis of the FEM is conducted with representative unit load
cases, each analyzed separately under the same constraints.
Subsequently, the results are scaled or superimposed to obtain
the response for any combination of loads without needing to
rerun analyses. Superposition finds extensive application in the
aerospace industry, particularly for linear elastic analyses
required across a vast range of load cases within the aircraft flight
envelope (Pham and Weijermars, 2020).

Discussion
This review paper emphasizes versatility of techniques applied at
different stages of FEA. From selectively neglecting geometric Experience and judgment are highlighted as crucial factors in
and material nonlinearities to making assumptions such as plane successful application of these techniques. The paper advocates
stress and plane strain, these strategies collectively lead to a for their simultaneous utilization to achieve a synergistic
mathematical model with reduced solution time and, reduction in solution time without significantly impacting
importantly, negligible compromise on result accuracy. result accuracy. The emphasis on error validation and a
Idealization of geometry is discussed as a critical step in threshold of no more than 5% deviation between full and
improving mesh quality. Notably, both individual components reduced models may be enforced.
and entire assemblies can benefit from simplification and Despite the advancements discussed, the review identifies
decimation of noncritical features. Use of lower-dimensional several open research issues. Absence of standard test cases to
elements (1D or 2D) and equivalent FE for mass, stiffness and assess the performance of these techniques is a notable gap.
damping characteristics provides a powerful means of achieving Developing a basic test set would provide a benchmark to gauge
model reduction without sacrificing accuracy. Techniques such time-saving efficiencies achieved through application of these
as using rigid elements, contact elements and model reduction techniques. The review underscores the need for established
for large assemblies contribute to a streamlined representation, metrics to estimate errors in solutions of reduced models
reducing unknown DOFs while maintaining control over mesh developed through these techniques. Such metrics would be
attributes. invaluable for analysts seeking to understand the reliability and
In recognizing that applied loads and boundary conditions accuracy of their simplified models. While the techniques
are often nonlinear, the paper suggests a nuanced approach. discussed undoubtedly reduce solution time, there is a call for
While steady-state results may be of interest, the consideration more explicit indicators or metrics to showcase the time-saving
of these environmental conditions as linear provides a practical benefits for analysts implementing these simplification
means of simplifying the analysis. The principle of techniques.
superposition is introduced as a useful tool for scaling and Addressing these research gaps would not only refine the
combining results, particularly in scenarios where linear elastic existing techniques but also contribute to establishment of best
analysis suffices. These techniques can be applied at different practices, making these time-saving strategies more accessible
stages of FEA, as depicted in Figure 8. and robust in diverse engineering applications. Moreover, it

666
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

would foster a deeper understanding of the trade-offs between Chandrupatla, T. and Belegundu, A. (2021), Introduction to
solution time and accuracy, allowing engineers to make more Finite Elements in Engineering, Cambridge University Press,
informed decisions in their analyses. Cambridge.
Cianniello, V., De Caprio, V. and D’Auria, D. (2022), “Global
Conclusion to local FEA validation for complex geometries:
submodelling technique applied to mechanical structures”,
Reducing solution time in FEA can be achieved through a Ground-Based and Airborne Instrumentation for
variety of techniques. The crux of these methods lies in Astronomy Quebec, SPIE.
understanding that, by decreasing unknown DOFs, solution Eisenträger, S., Atroshchenko, E. and Makvandi, R. (2020),
time can be notably diminished. Application of these “On the condition number of high order finite element
techniques requires a delicate balance of accuracy and methods: influence of P-Refinement and mesh distortion”,
computational cost, allowing for their simultaneous utilization Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 80 No. 11,
to achieve a synergetic reduction in solution time. This p. 289.
synergistic approach is particularly valuable in multiphysics Fan, Y., Zhou, C., Laine, J., Ichchou, M. and Li, L. (2018),
simulations. Reduction in solution time not only contributes to “Model reduction schemes for finite element method using
computational efficiency but also holds the key to unlocking full free modes of a unit cell”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 197
exploration of design space within the constraints of project No. 2, pp. 42-43.
timelines. With quicker turnaround times, engineers and Gardezi, S.A.R. and Bhutta, M.M.A. (2020), “Structure
analysts gain the flexibility to assess a broader range of design optimization and analysis of power transmission towers”,
scenarios, leading to more informed decision-making within Technical Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 39-40.
stringent project constraints. Ghannadi, P. and Kourehli, S.S. (2018), “Investigation of
In summary, judicious application of techniques to reduce accuracy of different finite element model reduction
unknown DOFs in FEA, guided by experience and judgment, techniques”, Structural Monitoring and Maintenance, Vol. 5
not only optimizes solution time but also empowers analysts to No. 3, pp. 417-421.
navigate intricate design space effectively. Benefits of Guo, Q., Yao, W. and Li, W. (2021), “Constitutive models for
accelerated solution times can be realized without structural analysis for the finite element analysis: a review of
compromising accuracy and reliability of the results, ultimately recent practices”, Composite Structures, Vol. 260 No. 11,
enhancing overall efficiency of engineering analysis process. p. 67.
Heikkinen, T., Johansson, J. and Elgh, F. (2018), “Review of
CAD-model capabilities and restrictions for finite element
References
analysis”, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 15 No. 4,
Al Sahlani, A., Khashan, M.K. and Khaleel, H.H. (2018), pp. 509-510.
“Design and analysis of coil spring in vehicles using finite Koutromanos, I. (2018), Fundamentals of Finite Element
elements method”, International Journal of Mechanical and Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Production Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, p. 615. Kozak, N., Xu, F. and Rajanna, M.R. (2020), “High-fidelity
Ali, Z., Arqam, M. and Qureshi, W.A. (2022), “Application of finite element modelling and analysis of adaptive gas turbine
super-element technique in finite element analysis of stator-rotor flow interaction at off-design conditions”,
aerostructures”, International Conference on Applied Journal of Mechanics, Vol. 36 No. 5, p. 595.
Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), Bhurban IEEE. Kuchak, A.J.T., Marinkovic, D. and Zehn, M. (2020), “Finite
Atak, A. (2020), “Experimental determination and numerical element model updating–case study of a rail damper”, Nt’l J.
modelling of the stiffness of a fastener”, Materials Testing, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 73 No. 1, p. 27.
Vol. 62 No. 12, p. 1215. Lee, H.-H. (2021), Finite Element Simulations with Ansys
Beuchler, S. and Rösch, A. (2023), “Recent advances in finite Workbench, SDC Publications, KS.
element methods”, Computational Methods in Applied Liu, W.K., Li, S. and Park, H.S. (2022), “Eighty years of the
Mathematics, Vol. 23 No. 4, p. 813. finite element method: birth, evolution, and future”, Archives
Bird, G.D., Gorrell, S.E. and Salmon, J.L. (2021), of Computational Methods in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 6,
“Dimensionality-reduction-based surrogate models for real- p. 431.
time design space exploration of a jet engine compressor Lone, A.S., Kanth, S.A., Jameel, A. and Harmain, G. (2019),
blade”, Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 118 No. 4, “A state of art review on modelling of contact type
p. 77. nonlinearities by finite element method”, Materials Today:
Buric, M. and Marjanovic, D. (2018), “A tool for idealization of Proceedings, Vol. 18, pp. 3462-3463.
CAD models”, 15th International Design Conference. Mahmood, D.N. and Abdulrazzaq, O.A. (2020), “Stress
Carrera, E. and Scano, D. (2024), “Finite elements based on analysis of buried pipeline using finite element method”,
Jacobi shape functions for the free vibration analysis of Journal of University of Babylon for Engineering Sciences,
beams, plates, and shells”, Mechanics of Advanced Materials Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 11-14.
and Structures, Vol. 31 No. 1, p. 4. Marinkovic, D. and Zehn, M. (2019), “Survey of finite element
Carrera, E., Pagani, A. and Augello, B. (2020), “Popular method-based real-time simulations”, Applied Sciences,
benchmarks of nonlinear shell analysis solved by 1D and 2D Vol. 9 No. 14, p. 2775.
finite elements”, Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Mohamed, A.F. (2018), “Finite element analysis for stresses in
Structures, Vol. 27 No. 13, p. 98. thin-walled pressurized steel cylinders”, International Journal

667
 Efficiency enhancement techniques Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aun Haider Volume 96 · Number 5 · 2024 · 662–668

of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, mechanical elastic systems”, Boundary Value Problems,
pp. 201-202. Vol. 2020 No. 1, p. 4.
More, S.T. and Bindu, R. (2015), “Effect of mesh size on finite Sher, R.J., Irfan-ul-Hassan, M., Ghafoor, M.T. and Qayyum,
element analysis of plate structure”, International Journal of A. (2020), “Analysis and design of box girder and T-beam
Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, Vol. 4 No. 3, bridge using super elements”, Mehran University Research
p. 181. Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 39 No. 3,
Nguyen, T.Q. (2019), “Finite element analysis in automobile pp. 453-465.
design”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Shivakumar, S., Kudagi, V.S. and Talwade, P. (2021),
Publications, Seattle. “Applications of finite element analysis in dentistry: a
Okereke, M., Keates, S. and Okereke, M. (2018), “Finite review”, Journal of International Oral Health, Vol. 13 No. 5,
element mesh generation. Finite element applications: a p. 415.
practical guide to the FEM”, Process, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 165. Simons, T.A., Ong, J., Lucas, R., Rouet, F.-H., Grimes, R.,
Palve, S., Sahu, P.K. and Bm, S. (2019), “Review of analytical Gulyeruz, E., Dawson, J. (2019), “Reducing the time-to-
and finite element analysis of spur gears”, International solution for finite element analysis of gas turbine engines”,
AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum.
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6 No. 2,
Sorgente, T., Biasotti, S. and Manzini, G. (2022), “Role of
pp. 2465-2467.
mesh quality and mesh quality indicators in finite element
Pham, T. and Weijermars, R. (2020), “Solving stress tensor
method”, Advances in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 48
fields around multiple pressure-loaded fractures using linear
No. 1, p. 3.
superposition method”, Applied Mathematical Modelling,
Srikarun, B., Songsuwan, W. and Wattanasakulpong, N.
Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 418.
(2021), “Linear and nonlinear static bending of sandwich
Pore, T., Thorat, S.G. and Nema, A.A. (2021), “Review of
beams with functionally graded porous core under different
contact modelling in nonlinear finite element analysis”, distributed loads”, Composite Structures, Vol. 276 No. 11,
Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 47 No. 24, p. 36. p. 538.
Romeo, R. and Schultz, R. (2020), “Model reduction of self- Valeš, J. and Kala, Z. (2018), “Mesh convergence study of solid
repeating structures with applications to metamaterial modeling”, FE model for buckling analysis”, AIP Conference, AIP
Structural Dynamics & Experimental Techniques, Springer, Bern. Publishing LLC.
Schneider, T., Hu, Y. and Gao, X. (2022), “A large-scale Wu, W., Owino, J. and Al-Ostaz, A. (2020), “Applying
comparison of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements for finite periodic boundary conditions in finite element analysis”,
element analysis”, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 41 SIMULIA Community Conference, MI Dassault Systemes.
No. 3, pp. 1-14.
Scutaru, M.L., Vlase, S. and Marin, M. (2020), “New Corresponding author
analytical method based on dynamic response of planar Aun Haider can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

668