When Good Engineers Deliver Bad FEA By: PAUL KUROWSKI President, Acom Consulting,Toronto, Ontario, Canada There

is no doubt that finite-element analysis is getting a bigger role in development projects. One reason is that it helps slash expensive prototype testing. The technology is also seen as another way to improve product integrity. Despite FEA's reputation for accurately pinpointing weak spots in designs, a few faulty assumptions and organizational flaws may render analysis work unusable. For instance, some companies treat FEA as an extension to CAD packages. In fact, it requires specialized training all its own. To better spot lapses in how companies implement FEA, we've tallied a list of hazards and faulty assumptions. Each of the problems cited can have serious consequences. What could possibly go wrong? Most vendors claim their FEA programs are easy to use, implying that almost anybody can become an instant FEA expert. If this is true, why not ask CAD departments to handle FEA, since they already have access to it as a part of their CAD systems? The flaw in this thinking is the assumption that FEA is an extension to CAD. FEA software is getting easier to use, but structural analysis by FE methods definitely is not an extension to CAD. Similarities between CAD and FEA are superficial, and limited at best to geometry. Proficiency in CAD does not assure expertise in FEA, and someone skilled in running an FEA program is not necessarily a good analyst. CAD operators running FE programs often strive for the most accurate representation of geometry because geometry is the prime focus of drafting. Meshing, element type, loads, supports, error estimation, and result analysis get less attention. Another rash assumption is that model accuracy equates with precise geometric representation, and that one can assess model quality based on visual appearance. This is reinforced by vendors pushing their CAD-FEA interfaces for "better geometric accuracy and easy meshing". Also, vendorprovided training often focuses on geometry and other easy CAD-like functions. Unfortunately, FEA is not that easy. Geometric accuracy and impressive color plots do not equate with a good model. Assigning FEA to engineers lacking product experience.... Assigning FEA to engineers lacking product experience produces another

hazard. To produce meaningful FEA results, the analyst must know the principles underlying the finite-element method. The analyst also needs practical experience, a feel for design, and sound engineering judgment. He or she must understand the product as well as its intended work environment. This knowledge is critical for tasks such as deciding which features must be accurately modeled, deleting or simplifying others, determining how to apply loads and restrain the model, analyzing errors, and conveying results back to the designer. Assigning FEA operations to recent graduates produces other problems. Newcomers may not be comfortable interacting with others and withdraw into an isolated world of computer simulations. This situation does not contribute to the learning process that young engineers need nor does it serve the best interests of the engineering department. The question persists: Should design engineers perform FEA themselves or should we have specialized FEA personnel? The best approach is to have design engineers run the analysis because they know the product. Design engineers with proper FEA training could perform analysis interactively while designing, as long as they use software intended for this mode of use. Pro/Mechanica (formerly from Rasna Corp. which is now part of Parametric Technology Corp.) is one example of software that integrates well with design work. More complicated analyses, such as nonlinear problems, can still be farmed out but in tight collaboration with the designer. Too narrow a job description produces another FEA pitfall. Even when there are dedicated personnel for design analysis, the FEA-specialist job description should be abandoned. When FEA is someone's life, that person uses FEA on everything. The technology gets the nod even when hand calculations or physical testing would be faster, less expensive, and more accurate. FEA should be interactively used during design, prototyping, testing, and product follow-up. The FEA analyst should have a hand in those activities as well. Looking for the instant specialist is also a bad policy. Some job ads explicitly ask for experience with particular software, again indicating a superficial, CADlike approach to FEA. Understanding the FE method is more important than specific software commands which are easily learned. Not enough finite-element methods training time produces another hazard. Quite often, the only training comes from software vendors. Such instruction may be superficial and concentrate only on how to run software rather than on understanding FEA. A person eager to use newly acquired software skills and lacking a good grasp of FEA is probably the most dangerous user. How to be a smart FEA shopper Demos and training often portray vendor-supplied software in the most favorable light while simultaneously concealing shortcomings. Here are a few

guidelines for shopping FEA software:

Select software first, then a hardware platform. Ask for references and check them yourself. Ask for a proof of business performance and company history. Insist on a free trial period with full support. Do not trust canned demos, they highlight best features and hide problems. Ask the vendor to prepare a problem from your files. Ask for training along with the software. Train managers on capabilities of FEA and CAE.

Aiming Badly Poorly defined FEA objectives lead to wasted effort. When the analyst receives a project requirement saying only "perform FEA on the control arm," then objectives need work. Goals should cover why the analysis is needed, the expectations, and how results will be used. The perform-FEA syndrome often stems from bureaucratic misunderstanding rather than engineering need for the results. Lack of project monitoring leads to time-and-cost overruns. Standard checks should take place during an FEA project to monitor progress and provide guidance for analysts. This helps the manager follow the project and quickly spot problems. Failing that, mistakes may never be uncovered. No lessons-learned database means mistakes are often repeated. Each project should be well documented so third parties can recreate results long after the analyst is gone. A sample of completed results should be confirmed through testing. Where there are discrepancies, an appendix to the project report should address the problem. Users need to verify results with experiments until they get confidence in the method. An FEA report should be self-explanatory and contain enough information to duplicate analysis results. A good report together with backup, provides sufficient detail for rerunning the analysis without any additional instructions. No real commitment to FEA is an attribute of managers with a short attention span who become disappointed quickly. Building confidence in the method, and accumulating and maintaining in-house expertise, takes years of considerable effort and commitment. Nobody should expect instant savings. Once introduced, FEA is considered an omnipotent method to assure quality designs. But a few unsuccessful application attempts can make people give up not realizing that the discipline failed simply because of lack of a quality assurance system. What FEA reports and backups should do

Audit the work performed Restart the work Provide a basis for executing a modified analyses Provide a basis for training personnel Establish in-house expertise in FEA Provide legal documents when liability is involved

Checkpoints for an FEA project Here are a few check points where the FEA manager should provide guidance to the analyst and designer.

Are the loads, supports, and modeling approach acceptable? Are the mesh and elements appropriate? Is the error value within specified criteria? Do results agree with an independent analysis method?

Here's a test for your manager of analysis The four models in this study represent the same bracket. It is rigidly supported at the back and loaded with uniform pressure applied to the top of the hollow cantilever. Each model produces different results. Which one is correct? One cannot tell, based on an examination of meshes. The answer is hidden in the formulation of each model. Model 1 produces Von Mises stress of 18,000 psi. It uses a first-order solid tetrahedral element which, by design, can only model constant stress within its volume. Knowing that, there are two big problems. First, only one element is placed across the thickness of the plate in bending. This model is not capable of representing bending stress which changes from compressive to tensile across the plate thickness. Consequently, bending stresses are badly represented by constant stress. The second problem is that the elements are highly distorted. Each type of element works well only if it is within specified shape limits. If element distortion is beyond these limits, then numerical procedures used to calculate displacements and stresses return false results. The two problems represent the most common abuse of FEA. Either problem renders this model useless and potentially dangerous, depending on the function of the bracket.

The mesh and results from a finite-element analysis (Model 1 from the accompanying box) show a maximum Von Mises stress of 18,000 psi. By examining only the information here, the user cannot tell if the analysis is finished. Without proper training, FEA easily produces misleading figures. The box shows other analyses for the same bracket. Model 2 produces maximum Von Mises stress of 32,000 psi. The mesh on model 2 is similar to that on model 1 but uses second-order solid tetrahedral elements. These can model linear stress distributions within their volumes. However, the mesh is too coarse to model stress distribution correctly or detect stress concentrations. Some elements are still highly distorted. The maximum Von Mises stress is greatly underestimated again making this model either useless or dangerous.

Results for model 2 show a minimum Von Mises stress of 32,000 psi. Model 3 produces maximum Von Mises stress of 49,000 psi. This model uses second-order solid tetrahedral elements and has enough elements to model stress distributions properly. Elements are also correctly shaped. However, there is no way to know if the mesh is fine enough to produce reliable stress information. Model 3 is a starting point for good analysis but now needs several mesh refinements to examine stress convergence and estimate solution error. Stress will increase with each mesh refinement. Thus, the process of mesh refining and solving the refined model must continue until the increase in stress between two consecutive iterations becomes sufficiently small. Only then can results be accepted as final.

Results for model 3 show a maximum Von Mises stress of 49,000 psi. Model 4 produces maximum Von Mises stress of 62,000 psi. Unlike the preceding models, this one uses adaptive-order elements or pelements from the Pro/Mechanica code. With p elements, the solution proceeds through several automatic iterations while element order upgrades as needed to satisfy user defined accuracy. In this case, the accuracy gage is less than 5% error on local strain energy, local displacements, and global RMS stress. As a result of the adaptive elements, the analysis solves successfully despite having only one p-element across the plate in bending. Also, p-elements can accept much larger distortion and are easier to use with automatic mesh generation. What resembles a distorted h-element is still a good p-element. The model needs no further work if 5% accuracy is sufficient.

Results for model 4 show a maximum Von Mises stress of 62,000 psi. ISO 9001 sets FEA categories Formal guidelines for an analysis program are found in ISO9001 Document R0013. It also ranks FEA use into three areas. Category 1: Vital Failure will put human life in danger or cause a public disaster. FEA is an integral tool proving product integrity. Products that exemplify this category include aircraft, pipelines, bridges, and dams.

Category 2: Important Failure may put human life in danger or cause serious damage. The product failure may be vital in the sense of Category 1, but FEA is not used exclusively to demonstrate product integrity. Product examples include cars and home appliances. Category 3: Advisory This includes all situations not covered by categories 1 and 2. FEA contributes significantly to product integrity. Failure would cause only financial loss. WHO SHOULD RUN THE ANALYSIS Analysis Category Engineering experience Finite-element experience after formal training 6 months Relevant FEA jobs performed 2 X category 1 under supervisory or 5 X category 2 properly assessed 1 X category 1 or 2 under supervision or 3 X category 3 properly assessed Relevant benchmarks

1. Vital

5 years

2. Important 3. Advisory

2 years 1 year

2 months 1 month

A copy of ISO9001 Document R0013, also titled Quality system supplement to ISO9001 relating to finite element analysis in the design and validation of engineering products, is available from the National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards (NAFEMS), Birniehill East Kilbridge, Glasgow G75 0QU

A process that iterates between design and FEA provides a natural way for engineers to apply analysis. Dead-end FEA, on the other hand perfomed apart from the design process, may end up as a task for its own sake

Software for performing meaningful analysis increasingly shows up on the desktops of design engineers.

FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING STEP BY STEP A finite-element model can be thought of as a system of solid springs. When a load is applied to the structure, all elements deform until all forces balance. For each element in the model, equations can be written relating displacements and forces at the nodes. The element shown here, for example, is a 2D quadrilateral having four nodes. Each node has two degrees of freedom associated with it (displacements in X and Y directions), so that the element has a total of eight degrees of freedom. There must also be a nodal force for each nodal degree, so there are also eight nodal forces for the element. These displacements and forces are identified by a coordinate numbering system for entry the computer program. For example, dxi1 is the deflection in

the X direction for element i at node 1, while dyi1 is the deflection in the Y direction for the same node in the same element. Forces are identified in a similar manner, so that Fxi1 is the force in the X direction for element i at node 1. An equation relating displacements and forces for the element takes the form of basic spring equation, F = kd. For four nodes k11dxi1 + k12dyi1 + k13dxi2 + k14dyi2 + . . . + k18dyi4 = Fxi1 k21dxi1 + k22dyi1 + k23dxi2 + k24dyi2 + . . . + k28dyi4 = Fyi1 k31dxi1 + k32dyi1 + k33dxi2 + k34dyi2 + . . . + k38dyi4 = Fxi2

k81dxi1 + k82dyi1 + k83dxi2 + k84dyi2 + . . . + k88dyi4 = Fyi4 The k factors are stiffness coefficients relating the nodal deflections and forces, and are calculated by the finite-element program from material properties such as Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, and from the element geometry. Thus, in the example, coefficient k13 relates deflection 3 and force 1. If degrees of freedom and nodal forces are consecutively numbered (dxi1 = d1, dyi1 = d2, Fxi1 = F1, Fyi1 = F2, and so forth), the matrix can be renumbered to show how stiffness coefficients relate nodal forces and deflections. When a structure is modeled, individual sets of matrix equations are automatically generated for each element. The elements in the model share common nodes so individual sets of matrix equations can be combined into a global set of matrix equations. This global set relates all the nodal degrees of freedom to the nodal forces, and the nodal degrees of freedom are solved simultaneously from the global matrix. When displacements for all nodes are known, the state of deformation of each element is known. And, when deformation of each element is know, the stress and strain within the element are also known. For simple static analysis, the finite-element method is a two-step process. Nodal displacements are first simultaneously calculated from the element stiffness and the nodal forces, both internal and external. Next, stresses are calculated, generally at the each element's centroid. Because displacements are calculated for only a finite number of points in the structure, the finiteelement method is a numerical approximation rather than an exact solution.

Good Solid Modeling, Bad FEA By: PAUL KUROWSKI President, Acom Consulting,Toronto, Ontario, Canada Solid modeling is great for visualizing ideas but it's often misapplied in finiteelement analysis. One of the latest methods of slashing development time is to use the 3D models that CAD users create as a basis for finite-element analysis. In a perfect world, performing finite-element analysis on these models directly, rather than recreating data for this purpose, lets analysts concentrate more on analysis and less on syntax. Solids appear to be a wise choice as a basis for FEA because FE meshing can sometimes take place directly on CAD geometry without modifications. The literature abounds with examples of engineers doing exactly this. In real life, however, the interface between 3D CAD and FEA is seldom that simple. Solid CAD geometry almost always requires extensive modifications before it is suitable for meshing with finite elements. There also are occasions when solid CAD geometry is completely inappropriate for finite-element models. Successful interfacing requires time, care, and an understanding of inherent limitations. A few practical examples demonstrate why using unmodified CAD geometry for FEA can lead to erroneous results.

There was no user intervention in generating a cooling-fin model built with h-elements. Unfortunately, default settings of an automatic mesh generator placed only one element across the fin thickness at the base

The meshed model produces meaningless and potentially dangerous results. Maximum averaged Von Mises stress equals 10,600 psi.

where one would expect the highest stresses. To make matters worse, elements at the fin base are poorly shaped. Part 2: A Cooling Fin Consider the task of examining stresses at the vertical base of a horizontal cooling fin after applying bending loads to its edge. The CAD geometry for the fin and a portion of the base plate are exported to an FEA program as a solid and meshed using default parameters in the automesher. An accompanying illustration shows the meshed model and resulting contour plot. But the mesh is not suitable for analysis and results are erroneous. What went wrong? Automeshing is a purely geometric function. The mesh generator simply fills up the available space with elements because it knows nothing about the expected stress pattern. As a result, it places one or two elements across the fin thickness, many of them poorly shaped by a lack of depth. Considering the kind of elements used (second-order subparametric h-elements), one or even two elements are insufficient to model stress distribution where the fin meets the base. The mesh is incapable of modeling the stress pattern that will develop in the real structure. This is not a fault of the automesher. Even the best automatic mesh generators provide no assurance of a good mesh. It's the analyst's responsibility to make sure the mesh can model a stress pattern according to the laws of mechanics. Several elements are required across the thickness to accurately model bending. However, meshing with greater density would call for a large number of small elements making a prohibitively large FE model. This means the solid CAD geometry is practically unsuitable for meshing with solid h-elements. Furthermore, insisting on solid CAD geometry locks analysts into using solid elements. The only choice short of running a huge model is to use p-elements which can model bending even with only one element across the fin thickness. However, p-elements produce a problem which was masked before by the low density of helements. The CAD-produced geometry contains reentrant corners, those with more than 180 internal angles, without fillets. A theoretically infinite stress occurs at the corners. P-elements try to model these stresses by increasing the polynomial order of their shape functions. The results reported by a p-element model with singularity depends on the user-required accuracy. As users request greater solution accuracy, the solver responds by increasing the p-order used by elements around the corner. The model reports higher stresses with each increase in p-order. This continues until the solver assigns the highest p-order allowed. Should the user reduce the element size, the situation still repeats itself. Stress in reentrant corners will never converge to a finite value. In fact, results reported by the model in the illustration are close to results from a shell model discussed later only by coincidence. Had the user employed smaller p-elements or requested a lower convergence error, or both, the model would have reported much higher stresses. Users must modify CAD-supplied geometry to deal with the inherent sensitivity of p-elements to singularities. For example, users may decide to add small fillets which would always exist in the real structure. The illustration Fin with fillets shows results from a p-element model with added

fillets. Alternatively, when looking only for the highest stress, one might analyze a 2D plane strain slice from the middle of the fin, as it appears in the close-up. Of course, this requires modifying the CAD geometry. Another way around the problem of singularities is to recreate the geometry in the FEA program for use with shell elements as in the illustration Fins from shells. Let the geometry consist of planes located in the mid thickness of the original solids. Planes are easily meshed with shell elements which model bending well. Part 3: Building Better FEA Models Experienced practitioners suggest following several guidelines when using a CAD-FEA interface. Decide whether solid elements are the right approach. Solution times may be prohibitively long when models contain enough solid element to generate an adequate solution. Solids should not be the first modeling choice just because they are automatically generated. Avoid the approach when solid elements produce overly large models or ones violating laws of mechanics. A better choice is to use finite-element geometry designed for shell elements. Delete features of no structural significance. These features unnecessarily complicate the model. Defeaturing can take place either in a CAD package by producing FEA-oriented geometry or in FEA software by modifying the original CAD part. Deciding which details can be deleted or simplified requires careful engineering judgment. Use structure symmetry when possible. Models can be significantly simplified when structure, loads, and boundary conditions show symmetry. The simplification requires modifying the original CAD geometry. Nevertheless, a simplified model is usually well worth the effort. Estimate where to refine the mesh. An automatic mesh generator does not know where the mesh should be dense to account for expected stress concentrations. When left alone, it generates a mesh with element size dictated only by the characteristic dimensions of CAD geometry or by an automesher's default settings. A default mesh can produce misleading or dangerous results when, for example, a wall in bending is modeled with one solid element. The situation is less dramatic with self-adaptive p-elements because a single p-element is capable of modeling higher-order stress distributions. Always check the mesh. Don't accept degenerated elements. Closely inspect automatically generated meshes and the default settings of your mesh generator. Automatic mesh generators tend to produce poor meshes when users request too few elements. Unfortunately, this is a common situation when users select an element size that is too large or when users struggle to limit model size. A good h-element mesh commonly requires many elements. Consider p-elements for automatic mesh generators. P-elements have adaptability built in and need less judgment for sizing elements. An automatic mesh generator makes no judgments. It is more likely to generate an acceptable p-element mesh than one of helements. Experience indicates that a good h-element mesh comes from "fiddling" with

generator settings and requires several trials. Often, creation of a good p-element mesh can take place with little need for user input. Also, an effective p-element mesh can be created manually without a mesh generator. Create models with convergence analysis in mind. You can't estimate the accuracy of results without convergence analysis. Meaningful results should also include an error analysis. H-element mesh should be designed with regard to further refinement. Pelements tend to be easier on users because convergence comes automatically in the process of iterative solutions. When following the above recommendations, one may find it is still advantageous to create FEA-oriented geometry in CAD or to recreate the geometry in the FEA software.

Filletless fin The p-element model of the cooling fin also uses solid CAD geometry. The maximum averaged Von Mises stress is 24,600 psi. But because of a singularity (the sharp corner between fin and base), maximum stress would have gone much higher (to infinity) had the user refined the mesh, or requested lower convergence error, or both.

Fin with fillets The p-element model of the cooling fin with fillets eliminates the singularity of the sharp corner and produces a maximum averaged Von Mises stress of 28,500 psi.

Fin in 2D Another solution to the

singularity problem would be to model only the fillet area. The 2D plane strain model of the middle slice from the cooling fin reports 26,200 psi of averaged Von Mises stress. Part 3:

How Maximum Von Mises Stresses Compare Fins from Shells How maximum Von Mises stresses compare Model Using Using CAD geometry "as CAD is" and solid p-elements geometry "as is" and solid helements 10,600 24,600 psi psi, error from a 5% unknown* convergence error and singularity** 28,500 psi from a 10% convergence error with added fillet** The 2D plane strain model No interference. Model and shell helements generated in FE package width="2%">24,900 psi averaged stress and 27,300 psi nonaveraged. Error is unknown* 74,000 psi averaged stress. Unknown error width="2%">Not suitable for analysis with shell elements

Cooling fin

26,200 psi from a 10% convergence error** Not suitable for analysis as a 2D model not suitable for analysis as a 2D model

Elbow

50,600 psi 72,100 psi at 5% with convergence error ** unknown error*

Butterfly Difficult to 35,700 psi from 10% valve model convergence error* plate with solid helements

*Error analysis with h-elements requires several runs with increasingly refined mesh **Convergence on local displacements, local strain enrgy, and global RMS stress ***Convergence on local displacement and local strain energy Fins from shells

The same shell model reports Another solution to CAD nonaveraged maximum Von geometry is to replace it with a Mises stress of 27,300psi. shell model based on geometry created in an FEA program. Maximum averaged Von Mises stress is 24,900 psi. Part 5: A Primer on H and P-Elements H-elements are preprogrammed by code developers to model certain stress patterns within the element volume. First-order elements, for example, assume constant stress across the element while second-order elements model a linear stress variation within its volume. When engineers intend to model complex stress patterns, they must use many h-elements to approximate the pattern with simple constant or linear "blocks". The solution accuracy using h-elements requires solving several models with increasingly refined meshes. P-elements are less restrictive and can assume different orders. In Pro/Mechanica, one example of a p-element code, polynomial order can advance from two to nine until the iterative solver decides further upgrading of element order is unnecessary and the solution has reached the user specified accuracy. Solutions using p-elements come complete with error estimation and users need not perform their own convergence analysis.

A mesher has filled a 90 thin-wall elbow with solid tetrahedral h-elements. Only one element is located across the wall

The mesh for the elbow solved to a maximum averaged Von Mises stress of 50,600 psi.

thickness and all elements have poor aspect ratios. Part 6: Singularities Point to Problems Anything that results in a theoretically infinite stress constitutes a singularity. Causes include simplifications of geometry, such as modeling corners instead of fillets. A load or support applied to a point of infinitesimal size also produces a singularity in the model. Granularity in the h-method may "overlook " a singularity. For example, when an h-element sits in the vicinity of a sharp reentrant corner, it will report high, but finite, stress. A p-element, on the other hand, attempts to model infinite stresses until it hits its design limit which is the highest allowable p order. Therefore, the p-method requires more precise geometry, loads, and supports to avoid a potential for infinite stresses. As general guideline, fillets should be modeled in place of sharp reentrant corners, and loads and supports should be applied to finite areas rather than to abstract, infinitesimally small points.

Manually generated solid p-elements for the elbow reports stress of 72,100 psi.

The same elbow modeled with shell elements built in an FEA package reports a maximum averaged Von Mises stress of 74,000 psi, which is more in agreement with the p-element model.

Part 7: Other Examples Another illustration of difficulties is where a mesher has filled a thin-walled elbow with solid tetrahedral h-elements. This mesh reveals the same fundamental flaws of previous models: only one element placed across the wall and their lack of depth make them poorly shaped. As in the first example, the mesh generator simply filled up the available space with elements. The automesher has no information on the expected stress patterns and cannot decide how

many layers of elements should be placed across the wall. Users must make sure the finiteelement mesh is capable of doing what it is asked. With one element across the wall thickness the meshed elbow cannot possibly model the bending which produces the predominant stress. As before, there are several solutions. One would be to mesh the model with a few solid pelements. However, it may be more efficient to model the elbow with shell elements even though it means recreating geometry by hand. A butterfly valve plate illustrates another difficulty. It's meshed with h-elements to study the stress distribution around the generous fillets transitioning from the central shaft to side plates. The tetrahedral mesh in the illustration has been produced using unmodified CAD geometry. For the same reasons as before, the model is unusable for analysis. In fact, particulars of the butterfly geometry would require many small h-elements resulting in a large time-consuming model. In this case, the valve plate does not lend itself to modeling with shell elements. The only practical choice is to use p-elements. Results shown are based on automatically generated p-elements. All three examples demonstrate how unmodified CAD geometry may lead to errors in FEA results. Cases where CAD-produced geometry can be used directly for FEA are relatively rare. CAD geometry represents shapes from real life while FEA often requires abstract geometry geared toward analysis. Structurally insignificant details are deleted, thin walls replaced by infinitely thin shells and, in case of symmetry, whole portions of a structure are removed from the finite-element model geometry. It often turns out that, by the time the model is properly prepared, there is little resemblance between CAD geometry and FEA geometry. Attempts to use CAD geometry directly for FEA often result in huge and expensive models or, worse, in models violating basic laws of mechanics. Implementation of automeshing with pelements offers less need for analyst judgment and is more likely to produce an acceptable mesh.

The butterfly valve plate has been meshed with helements. This mesh is unsuitable for analysis.

Results of analysis of butterfly valve meshed with p-elements.