Error Indicator Output

The finite element discretization of a model domain results in an approximation to the exact solution for all but trivial analyses. To aid you in understanding the extent and spatial distribution of the discretization error in a finite element solution, Abaqus/Standard provides a set of error indicator output variables. Ideally, error indicator output variables should be supplemented by other techniques, such as a mesh refinement study, to gain confidence that discretization error is not significantly degrading the ability of the finite element analysis to make useful predictions.

Abaqus/Standard determines error indicator variables based on the difference between a smoothed and unsmoothed distribution of the base solution, using a smoothing technique such as the patch recovery technique of Zienkiewicz and Zhu, (1987). The smoothing calculations occasionally noticeably increase analysis time. If you find that adding an error indicator output request significantly increases analysis time, strategies for reducing this effect include reducing the output frequency and limiting the output request to a particular region of interest. Computations for most error indicator variables only occur just prior to writing the error indicator variable to the output database, so reducing the output frequency will tend to reduce the computation time; however this is not the case for the element energy density error indicator, because contributions to this error indicator are accumulated each increment regardless of whether this error indicator is output for a given increment.

When you request element error indicator output, the request should only apply to elements supported for error indicator output.

The patch recovery technique used to compute element error indicator variables assumes that the solution should be continuous over the element set specified. Abaqus/Standard confirms that your error indicator output specification is consistent with this assumption by checking section property references within the error indicator domain and issues a warning message if the elements in the provided element set refer to distinct section definitions. You can safely ignore this warning if the sections are identical in their properties.

Viewing contour plots of a base solution variable and corresponding error indicator variable side-by-side can provide a useful perspective on the solution accuracy. For example, if the base solution is expressed in units of stress, the corresponding error indicator is also expressed in units of stress. Figure 1 shows contour plots of CPRESS and CPRESSERI for an analysis of a sphere pressed into a rigid plate. These plots can be interpreted as follows:

• The contact pressure solution is quite accurate near the center of the active contact region, where the contact pressure is largest, because the error indicator is a small fraction of the base solution in that region.

• The contact pressure solution is less accurate near the perimeter of the active contact region, where local variations in the contact pressure solution are largest (but the contact pressure is significantly less than the maximum value), because the error indicator is quite large compared to the base solution in that region.

The analyst may judge that the level of mesh refinement is adequate if the maximum contact pressure is of primary interest in such a case. Local mesh refinement would be needed to accurately predict the maximum contact pressure if the active contact region was significantly smaller than that shown in Figure 1.

Contour plots of CPRESS and CPRESSERI for contact between a deformable sphere and a rigid plate.

An error indicator tends to give a crude, non-conservative approximation of the deviation from the exact solution if the mesh is coarse relative to local solution variations or the exact solution to the problem posed involves a stress singularity. The following qualitative interpretations of error indicator results exceeding approximately 10% of base solution results are often appropriate:

• “Significant potential for solution inaccuracy exists in this region.”

• “The mesh may be too coarse to give a good estimate of solution error in this region.”

• “Perhaps a stress singularity exists at this corner.”

You can use corresponding error indicator and base solution variables, $c_e$ and $c_b$, respectively, to compute a field of local, normalized error indicators:

where ${\widehat{c}}_e$ is a normalized error measure. For example,

provides a percentage form of the Mises stress-based error indicator; however this normalized error measure may not be particularly useful, because it:

• will tend to draw attention to regions where base solution values are small, which typically are not critical regions of a design; and

• will have divide-by-zero issues where the base solution value is zero.

Other normalization approaches, such as normalizing based on a global norm of the base solution variable or a constant value that you choose (such as the maximum value of the base solution allowed in a design), may be more effective.