The advantage of a flexible system is that even new approaches to problems that at first sight are not immediately connected with partial differential equations can be tested without great effort. One of these themes is the adaptation of a mesh respectively the reorganization of it in case of bad conditioned elements. The problem that is addressed to is as follows:
The presented method is a mixture of an adaptive local mesh refinement and coarsement using an error estimation and a moving mesh based on artificially introduced forces into an elastomechanical model depending on the geometry of the element. With AMIGOS as rapid prototyping system it was possible to reduce the rather complex elastomechanical differential equations used for relaxation to a very simple equation system that remains linear even in case of large displacements.
The first approach was, to optimize the angles of a single element by using linear elasticity and internal forces which are chosen to be proportional to the angles of the belonging element (Fig. 4.18).
For the elastomechanical equations the displacement vector
= = = ^{ . }  (4.21) 
has to be calculated in dependence of the stress tensor .
In case of general linear elastic behavior, the relationship between
stresses and strains are of the form
= D^{ . }(  ) +  (4.22) 
The nodal forces were defined as
=  (4.23) 
The amount of forces is calculated in dependence of the angle of an element at node i
F_{i} = 0  (4.25) 
Unfortunately this attempt results in a nonlinear formulation depending on the actual state of the angles of a single element and therefore calculation time increases significantly. Furthermore, the parameter k of (4.24) is essential for convergence and can not be set to a satisfying general value suitable for any grid. Nevertheless, the first results were very promising and due to the dualism of mechanics (on the one hand high nodal stresses where displacement is not possible, e.g. boundary corners, and on the other hand total relaxation where the system has enough freedom to move) the expected effect of grid relaxation was clearly recognizable. To increase the freedom of the system even at the boundaries the only restriction required is to preserve the geometry. This can be achieved by moving boundary conditions as shown in Fig. 4.19.
Due to the fact that the relaxation should be independent of the
material, and shear stress is not the aim of interest the mechanical
equations can be reduced drastically. All we are looking for is an
energetic minimum of the whole system which is equivalent to the
vanishing of all inner forces artificially imprinted into the system,
just the geometry must be preserved. It turned out that this can be
satisfied easily by forces compressing a single element minimizing the
volume of each element. The forces have to be oriented along the edges
with the condition
F_{i} = 0  (4.26) 
per element like in the first attempt. Because of pinned boundary
conditions (geometry preservation) the triangles do not collapse. Due
to the introduced forces each point moves towards its local optimum
depending on the connectivity to other element points
(Fig. 4.20). Furthermore the minimum volume does
not depend on the mechanical behavior since the compression always
tends towards zero volume. The resulting degenerated equation system can
be written as
= k^{ . }  (4.27) 
As a global result a stiffness matrix can be found where the total internal forces are minimized. The simplified model is linear and independent of the parameter k, since the optimum is always the same, no matter how strong the artificial compression forces are.
Unfortunately, there are some external influences to be considered. On the one hand, the boundary itself has less freedom in movement. This represents a massive bad influence on the optimum, which leads to the fact that sometimes a surface retriangulation might be necessary. But in most cases boundary conditions, where surface points are allowed to move along the edge, are sufficient to reach high quality grids (Fig. 4.19). On the other hand internal connectivities of elements can not be changed and therefore it sometimes leads to a deviation of the optimum (e.g. consider a point with a high number of connected elements  the optimum results in numerically bad triangles). A local retriangulation seems to be the only solution for this problem.
Nevertheless, since the influence mechanisms are quite simple, a mesh can also be extracted from an orthogrid by splitting each rectangle into two triangles. As first example the interface between oxide and silicon of an oxidizing block is calculated using a level set method to distinguish between the two materials. The corresponding grid is adapted to the moving interface. During recalculation of the grid, using adaptive hierarchical split methods [Lei95] (Fig. 4.21), any concentration on the grid can be fitted and because of relaxation the resulting grid degradation is minimized by implicit smoothing (Fig. 4.22). The fact that a hierarchical adaptation which supports both, refinement and coarsement, is used is essential, otherwise the adaptation of a quantity would result in a missfitted adaptation due to grid movement.
The second example (Fig. 4.23) shows a similar calculation as in example one, but now the relaxation criterion is modified to adapt the interface with a changing orientation instead of a global relaxation. Thus the relaxation of rectangles smoothly changes from total relaxation to nonrelaxation.

The advantage of this method is, that it can immediately be used for three dimensions without any modifications. A simple a priori local adaptation allows to optimize local angles, which is essential in three dimensions. The third example (Fig. 4.24 and Fig. 4.25) shows an interface of oxygen and silicon adapted with the mesh relaxation method where the accuracy could be preserved with the advantage to reduce the number of meshpoints in comparison to nonrelaxation methods.

