What's the best way to mesh these breps together?

I want a consistent mesh for these two shapes, whereas now I have two independent meshes.

Any advice welcome.

breps.gh (40.3 KB)



Try to use Brep join comand to join both breps and then use Triremesh comand to make a mesh from both joined breps.



Couldn’t [brep] join them, seemed to be the problem!


It isn’t possible because the brep and the surface don’t share naked edges where they meet.

What’s the solution here? How to I build these surfaces so that they can be meshed together?

Did you try to split a brep with the other brep then join?

Indeed, I did. Maybe here the issue is caused by three surfaces intersecting at a single edge, i.e., a non-manifold edge?

1 Like

In my opinion, your goal of getting one “consistent mesh” from this brep and surface is pointless, because it would be an invalid mesh with non-manifold edges. Meshes are meant to be either surfaces or solids.

The highlighted, orange edges are non-manifold in the example above, which is super bad news.

What would be possible is to reconstruct the two n.u.r.b.s objects as two distinct meshes with matching topologies.

1 Like

Hi @James_Whiteley,

you can try NonmanifoldMerge but be aware that it causes many commands to fail as it is not clear where the inside and outside is.


It will come back to bite him in the ass later.

1 Like

Absolutely. That’s why i linked to the helpdoc which also gives that information.

it seems the mesher does not complain and does what the user asks for.

@clement thanks for the advice, I will give it a try.

@diff-arch the goal is FEA, similar to analysis of a stiffened cylinder, hence the geometry. I wonder how others managed it, e.g., in the image below.

Here’s how I would do it. Joining the meshes is optional.

breps-rev.gh (80.8 KB)


@diff-arch works well, and thank you, I learnt a lot going through your script