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)

Thanks

Hi,

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

Regards!

Hi,

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

Thanks

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?
Thanks!

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.

_
c.

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.
_
c.

@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)

2 Likes

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