# Node and elements in data check **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [February 6, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574 "2025-02-06T16:44:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Iacobellis88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de0a6/32.png) [@Iacobellis88](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Iacobellis88)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/1 "2025-02-06T16:44:39Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/0/0cf0ca4ad9212c76b3c611170420d7520d9b310a.png) hello everyone, when i run a simulation, I dont understand why the node and elements that i see in the datacheck (picture) are much more than real number of nodes and elements that are in the model(physical nodes) ---
**Author:** ![jbr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecccb3/32.png) [@jbr](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/jbr)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 5:46pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/2 "2025-02-06T17:46:12Z")
Check your numbering and if there are any gaps… ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 6:15pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/3 "2025-02-06T18:15:50Z")
Normally, I would associate it with expansion to solids but there are no 1D and 2D elements according to this screenshot. ---
**Author:** ![xyont](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/xyont/32/3553_2.png) [@xyont](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/xyont)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 8:43am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/4 "2025-02-07T08:43:46Z")
probably these models are plane stress or any 2D element with three dof’s per node, it’s being expanded to 3D solid element internally with MPC generated in Z directions. ---
**Author:** ![Iacobellis88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de0a6/32.png) [@Iacobellis88](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Iacobellis88)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 9:18am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/5 "2025-02-07T09:18:20Z")
My model is formed by 4 components in C3D10 and a lot of contacts. But the total nodes are 800.000 nodes. Indeed in the screenshot that I send you 19.000.000 nodes. ---
**Author:** ![Iacobellis88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de0a6/32.png) [@Iacobellis88](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Iacobellis88)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 9:18am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/6 "2025-02-07T09:18:40Z")
My model is formed by 4 components in C3D10 and a lot of contacts. But the total nodes are 800.000 nodes. Indeed in the screenshot that I send you 19.000.000 nodes ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 9:23am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/7 "2025-02-07T09:23:56Z")
> [@Iacobellis88](#): > > a lot of contacts Contact elements could also be counted, maybe that’s why the number is so large. ---
**Author:** ![vicmw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/6de8d8/32.png) [@vicmw](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/vicmw)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 9:37am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/8 "2025-02-07T09:37:04Z")
Don’t worry about it. Those numbers are called “estimated upper bounds” because they’re not the actual numbers. CCX seems to use the space for nodes to store other types of data too but they don’t go into the system matrix so it doesn’t matter. In allocation.f, it looks like ways to increase the reported number of nodes includes: MPCs 1D and 2D elements KINEMATIC \*PRE-TENSION SECTION C3D8I \*BOUNDARY \*RIGIDBODY COMPOSITE \*RADIATE There could be other things too. ---
**Author:** ![xyont](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/xyont/32/3553_2.png) [@xyont](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/xyont)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 9:48am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/9 "2025-02-07T09:48:36Z")
well it’s quadratic tetrahedral element C3D10 actually, interesting since a screenshot given show the number integration point as eight instead of four. Is this user element from somewhere, not default in distribution? ---
**Author:** ![Iacobellis88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de0a6/32.png) [@Iacobellis88](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Iacobellis88)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 10:09am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/10 "2025-02-07T10:09:32Z")
it is standard element c3d10 as in Abaqus ---
**Author:** ![Iacobellis88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de0a6/32.png) [@Iacobellis88](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Iacobellis88)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 10:20am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/11 "2025-02-07T10:20:54Z")
However, it looks very strange. I run a simulation with a model of 2.5mil of nodes and 40 contacts and it works. While for this model formed by 800.000 nodes (there are also more contacts and pretension) I have and error memory ---
**Author:** ![vicmw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/6de8d8/32.png) [@vicmw](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/vicmw)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 6:12pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/node-and-elements-in-data-check/2574/13 "2025-02-07T18:12:09Z")
How many nodes in the biggest \*PRE-TENSION SECTION? That generates MPCs that might include all face nodes in an equation which would lead to a dense part of the system matrix (n^2 nonzeros). Otherwise, I would try deleting features like that without reducing the true node count to see what affects the reported upper bound node count and memory error.