Based on the moving least-squares (MLS) approximation, an improved interpolating moving least-squares (IIMLS) method based on nonsingular weight functions is presented in this paper. Then combining the IIMLS method and the Galerkin weak form, an improved interpolating element-free Galerkin (IIEFG) method is presented for two-dimensional potential problems. In the IIMLS method, the shape function of the IIMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function, and there is no difficulty caused by singularity of the weight function. Then in the IIEFG method presented in this paper, the essential boundary conditions are applied naturally and directly. Moreover, the number of unknown coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method is less than that of the MLS approximation; then under the same node distribution, the IIEFG method has higher computational precision than element-free Galerkin (EFG) method and interpolating element-free Galerkin (IEFG) method. Four selected numerical examples are presented to show the advantages of the IIMLS and IIEFG methods.
1. Introduction
In recent years, meshless (or meshfree) method has become very attractive to solve science and engineering problems without meshes. The most important common feature of meshless methods is that its approximation function is constructed entirely based on a set of scattered nodes without employing a mesh. Then some complicated problems, such as the large deformation and crack growth problems in mechanics, can be simulated with the method without the remeshing techniques [1–3].
Many meshless methods have been developed, such as element-free Galerkin (EFG) method [4–8], meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method [9], reproducing kernel particle method (RKPM) [10–13], complex variable meshless method [14–23], meshless manifold method [24–30], the mesh-free reproducing kernel particle Ritz method [31], finite point method (FPM) [32], radial basis functions (RBF) method [33, 34], boundary element-free method (BEFM) [35–40], boundary node method [41], and local boundary integral equation (LBIE) method [42, 43].
Moving least-square (MLS) approximation is an important method to form the shape functions in meshless methods, such as the EFG, LBIE, and MLPG methods. The MLS approximation was firstly introduced by Shepard [44] and then extended by Lancaster and Salkauskas for surface generation problems [45]. The shape function that is formed with MLS approximation can obtain a solution with high precision.
There exists a disadvantage in the MLS approximation in which its shape function does not satisfy the property of Kronecker δ function. Then the meshless methods based on the MLS approximation cannot apply the essential boundary conditions directly and easily. The essential boundary conditions need to be introduced by additional approaches, such as Lagrange multipliers [4] and penalty methods [46]. However, for Lagrange multipliers, the corresponding discrete system will introduce additional unknowns which are not directly associated with the solution themselves. And for penalty methods, the optimal value of penalty factor always affects the accuracy of the final solution.
To overcome this disadvantage, Most and Bucher designed a regularized weight function with a regularization parameter ε, with which the MLS approximation can almost fulfill the interpolation and boundary conditions with high accuracy [47]. Thomas enhanced the regularized weight function to obtain a true interpolation of the MLS approximation [48]. Sergio obtained a special weight function using a normalization based on the Shepard interpolation to fulfill the interpolation [49].
Another possible approach for this disadvantage is the interpolating moving least-squares (IMLS) method presented by Lancaster and Salkauskas [45]. The IMLS method is established based on the MLS approximation by using singular weight functions. The shape function of the IMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function. Thus, the meshless methods based on the IMLS method can apply the essential boundary condition directly without any additional numerical effort. Based on the IMLS method, Kaljević and Saigal [50] presented an improved formulation of the element-free Galerkin (EFG) method, in which the boundary condition is applied directly. Ren simplified the expression of the shape function of the IMLS method and then presented the interpolating element-free Galerkin (IEFG) method and interpolating boundary element-free (IBEF) method for two-dimensional potential and elasticity problems [51–54].
Certainly a disadvantage of the IMLS method is that its weight function is singular at nodes. It complicates the computation of the inverse of the singular matrix, and it causes many difficulties to obtain the derivatives of the approximation function in the IMLS method. To overcome the singularity, Netuzhylov presented the perturbation technique in the IMLS method by using a small positive number ε within the weight function matrix [55]. However, the correct value of number ε is also hard to be given, and it always affects the accuracy of the final solution. Based on the IMLS method, Cheng and so forth improved the interpolating moving least-squares method with nonsingular weight function [56, 57]. However, there exists a complicated function v(x,xI) in the improved method, and the computation of this function needs much CPU time. And then the computing speed of the improved method is lower than that of the IMLS method and MLS approximation.
In this paper, based on the MLS approximation and IMLS method, an improved interpolating moving least-squares (IIMLS) method with nonsingular weight functions is presented. Compared with the IMLS method presented by Lancaster and Salkauskas, the weight function used in the IIMLS method is nonsingular at any points, and any weight function used in the MLS approximation can be chosen as the weight function of the IIMLS method. Then the IIMLS method can overcome the difficulties caused by singularity of the weight function as in the IMLS method. Compared with the shape function of MLS approximation, the shape function of the IIMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function. Then, the meshless method based on the IIMLS method can apply the essential boundary condition directly and easily without any additional approaches. And the number of unknown coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method is less than that in the trial function of the MLS approximation. Then fewer nodes are needed in the local influence domain in the IIMLS method than in the MLS approximation. Therefore, under the same node distribution, the IIMLS method has higher computational precision than the MLS approximation.
Based on the IIMLS method and the Galerkin weak form, an improved interpolating element-free Galerkin (IIEFG) method is presented for two-dimensional potential problems. Compared with the conventional EFG method, the essential boundary conditions in the IIEFG method are applied naturally and directly. As there are fewer coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method than that in the MLS approximation, fewer nodes are selected in the entire domain in the IIEFG method than in the conventional EFG method; then under the same node distribution, the IIEFG method has higher computational precision than element-free Galerkin (EFG) method and interpolating element-free Galerkin (IEFG) method. Four selected numerical examples are presented to show the advantages of the IIMLS and IIEFG methods.
2. The Improved Interpolating Moving Least-Squares Method
The improved interpolating moving least-squares (IIMLS) method is presented in this section based on nonsingular weight functions.
Suppose p1(x)≡1, p2(x),…,pm(x) be given basis functions. In order to let the shape function of the IIMLS method, which can apply any nonsingular weight function used in the MLS approximation, satisfy the property of Kronecker δ function, we firstly generate a set of new local basis functions from these given basis functions.
Let ρI denote the radius of the domain of influence of node and let sI=mI(x)∥x-xI∥, where mI(x)=m(x-xI)∈Cl(Ω) satisfying mI(x)>0 for ∥x-xI∥<ρI and mI(x)=0 for ∥x-xI∥≥ρI. For a given point x∈Ω, let
(1)p~i(x-)x=pi(x-)-∑I=1nv(x,xI)pi(xI),i=1,2,…,m,
where x- is the point in the local approximation of x,xI(I=1,2,…,n) are the nodes with domains of influence that cover the point x, and
(2)v(x,xI)=sLαsI-α1+sLα∑J=1,J≠LnsJ-α,
where the parameter α is an even positive integer and sL denotes the distance from x to the closest support node whose domain of influence covers x.
The function v(x,xI) in this paper is easier than the corresponding function in [56, 57]. Then the improved method in this paper has high computing speed. The function v(x,xI)∈Cl(Ω) and satisfies
v(xI,xJ)=δIJ;
∑I=1nv(x,xI)=1,∀x∈Ω;
0≤v(x,xI)≤1,∀x∈Ω, and v(x,xI)=0 if and only if x=xJ and J≠I;
∂v(xI,xJ)/∂x=0.
And then a local function is proposed by performing the same transformation to u(x); that is,
(3)u~(x-)x=u(x-)-∑I=1nv(x,xI)u(xI).
Next the approximation function of the new local function u~(x-)x is obtained with the MLS approximation with the new local basis functions.
A local approximation function of u~(x-)x is defined as
(4)u~h(x-)x=∑i=1mp~i(x-)xa~i(x),
where a~i(x) are the unknown coefficients of the new basis.
From (2), we have
(5)∑I=1nv(x,xI)=∑I=1nsLαsI-α1+sLα∑J=1,J≠LnsJ-α=1.
Then there exists
(6)p~1(x-)x≡1-∑I=1nv(x,xI)=0.
Then
(7)u~h(x-)x=∑i=2mp~i(x-)xa~i(x).
The m-1 unknown coefficients a~i(x), i=2,3,…,m, can be obtained by using the weighted least-square method. By the similar derivation as in [56], we have
(8)a~(x)=A~-1(x)B~(x)u,
where
(9)a~T(x)=(a~2(x),a~3(x),…,a~m(x)),uT=(u(x1),u(x2),…,u(xn)),A~(x)=P~T(x)W(x)P~(x),B~(x)=P~T(x)W(x)(E-V(x)),W(x)=[w(x-x1)0⋯00w(x-x2)⋯0⋮⋮⋱⋮00⋯w(x-xn)],P~(x)=[p~2(x1)xp~3(x1)x⋯p~m(x1)xp~2(x2)xp~3(x2)x⋯p~m(x2)x⋮⋮⋱⋮p~2(xn)xp~3(xn)x⋯p~m(xn)x],V(x)=[v(x,x1)v(x,x2)⋯v(x,xn)v(x,x1)v(x,x2)⋯v(x,xn)⋮⋮⋱⋮v(x,x1)v(x,x2)⋯v(x,xn)]n×n,
and E is an n×n identity matrix.
Then the approximation function of u(x) can be obtained as
(10)uh(x)=𝚽T(x)u=∑I=1nΦI(x)u(xI),
where 𝚽(x) is a matrix of shape function
(11)𝚽T(x)=(Φ1(x),Φ2(x),…,Φn(x))=vT(x)+gT(x)A~-1(x)B~(x),(12)vT(x)=(v(x,x1),v(x,x2),…,v(x,xn)),(13)gT(x)=(g2(x),g3(x),…,gm(x)),(14)gi(x)=pi(x)-∑I=1nv(x,xI)pi(xI).
Equation (11) is the shape function of the IIMLS method, and then the IIMLS method is presented.
From properties of the function v(x,xI), the shape function of the IIMLS method certainly satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function; that is,
(15)ΦI(xJ)=δIJ.
The linear combination of the basis functions can be exactly reproduced with the IIMLS method; that is, if we let
(16)u(x)=β1p1(x)+β2p2(x)+⋯+βmpm(x),
where β1,β2,…,βm are arbitrary constants, there exists
(17)uh(x)=u(x).
Compared with the MLS approximation, the shape function of the IIMLS method can satisfy the property of Kronecker δ function, and then the meshless method based on the IIMLS method can apply the essential boundary conditions directly. From (7), it can also be seen that the number of the unknown coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method is less than that in the trial function of the MLS approximation. Therefore, we can select fewer nodes in the meshless method based on the IIMLS method than that based on the MLS approximation. Hence, under the same node distribution, the IIMLS method has higher computational precision than the MLS approximation.
Compared with the IMLS method presented by Lancaster and Salkauskas, the nonsingular weight function is used in the IIMLS method. Then any weight function used in the MLS approximation can also be used in the IIMLS method. Then the IIMLS method can overcome the difficulties caused by the singularity of the weight function as in the IMLS method.
3. The Improved Interpolating Element-Free Galerkin Method
In this section, combining the IIMLS method and Galerkin weak form of the potential problems, the improved interpolating element-free Galerkin (IIEFG) method for the two-dimensional potential problems is presented. Since the shape function of the IIMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function, the IIEFG method can apply the essential boundary conditions directly and easily.
Consider the following two-dimensional Poisson’s equation:
(18)∇2u(x)+b(x)=0,x=(x1,x2)∈Ω,
with boundary conditions of the Dirichlet type, that is,
(19)u(x)=u-(x),x∈Γu,
or the Neumann type, that is,
(20)q(x)=∂u(x)∂n=q-(x),x∈Γq,
where u(x) is an unknown function, b(x) is a known function, n is the unit outward normal to the boundary Γ, and u- and q- are, respectively, the prescribed values of the function u(x) and its normal derivative over the boundary Γ. Notice that Γ=Γu∪Γq.
The Galerkin weak form of (18)–(20) is
(21)∫Γqδu(x)q-(x)dΓ-∫Ωδ(∇u)T∇udΩ+∫Ωδu(x)b(x)dΩ=0,
where
(22)∇u=(∂u∂x1,∂u∂x2)T=(u,1,u,2)T.
We employ nt nodes in the domain Ω, and the union of their compact support domains ΩI, I=1,2,…,nt, must cover the whole domain Ω.
From the IIMLS method, the unknown potential u(x) at arbitrary field point x in the domain Ω can be expressed as
(23)u(x)=𝚽T(x)u=∑I=1nΦI(x)u(xI),
where n is the number of nodes whose compact support domains cover the point x.
Then we have
(24)∇u=∇𝚽T(x)u=∑I=1n∇ΦI(x)u(xI)≡BTu,
where
(25)BT=[Φ1,1(x)Φ2,1(x)⋯Φn,1(x)Φ1,2(x)Φ2,2(x)⋯Φn,2(x)].
Substituting (23) and (33) into (21) yields
(26)∫Γqδ(𝚽T(x)u)q-(x)dΓ-∫Ωδ(BTu)T(BTu)dΩ+∫Ωδ(𝚽T(x)u)b(x)dΩ=0.
Then it follows from (26) that
(27)∫ΓqδuT·𝚽(x)q-(x)dΓ-∫ΩδuTBBTudΩ+∫ΩδuT𝚽(x)b(x)dΩ=0;
that is,
(28)δuT[∫Γq𝚽(x)q-(x)dΓ-(∫ΩBBTdΩ)uhhhhh+∫Ω𝚽(x)b(x)dΩ∫Γq𝚽(x)q-(x)dΓ]=0.
Because the nodal test function δu is arbitrary, the final discretized equation is obtained as
(29)∫Γq𝚽(x)q-(x)dΓ-(∫ΩBBTdΩ)u+∫Ω𝚽(x)b(x)dΩ=0;
that is,
(30)Ku=F,
where
(31)KIJ=∫Ω∇ΦIT·∇ΦJdΩ,FI=∫ΓqΦIq-(x)dΓ+∫ΩΦIb(x)dΩ.
The shape function of the IIMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function, and then the essential boundary conditions can be applied directly. Substituting the boundary conditions of (19) into (30) directly, we can obtain the unknowns at nodes by solving (30).
Compared with the conventional EFG method based on the MLS approximation, the IIEFG method based on the IIMLS method can apply the essential boundary conditions directly and easily. And the number of the unknown coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method is less than that in the trial function of the MLS approximation. Hence, under the same node distribution, the IIEFG method has higher computational precision.
Compared with the IEFG method based on the IMLS method presented by Lancaster and Salkauskas, the IIEFG method applies the nonsingular weight function. Then the IIEFG method can overcome the difficulties caused by the singularity of the weight function as in the IEFG method. Then the IIEFG method also has higher computational precision.
4. Numerical Examples
The weight function plays an important role in the IIMLS method. Any weight function used in the MLS approximation can also be used in the IIMLS method. Then the cubic spline weight function, that is,
(32)w(x-xI)≡w(r)={23-4r2+4r3,r≤12,43-4r+4r2-4r33,12<r≤1,0,r>1,
is used in the present analysis. Here
(33)r=dIρI,dI=∥x-xI∥.
And the mI(x) is also chosen to be the cubic spline weight function.
4.1. Examples of the IIMLS Method
In this section, two numerical examples are presented to show the advantages of the IIMLS method of this paper. In our examples, the interpolating approximation function uh(x) is constructed from a given function u(x) with the IIMLS method. Let ρ=max1≤I≤ntρI, and the linear basis function is used in these examples of this section. Define the error norm
(34)e(ξ)=1K∑I=1K[∂(ξ)[uIh-uI]]2∑I=1K[∂(ξ)uI]2,
where K is the number of nodes investigated, ξ is a scalar constant and ∂(ξ)u=(dξ/dxξ)u in the one-dimensional space, and ξ=(i,j) is a multi-index and ∂(ξ)u=(∂i+j/∂x1i∂x2j)u in the two-dimensional space.
The first example is considered in the one-dimensional space, and the given function is chosen to be u(x)=sinxln(x+1),Ω=[0,2π].
The numerical values of u(x) obtained with the MLS approximation and IIMLS method are shown in Figure 1 under regular and irregular node distributions, where the irregular node distribution is generated by adding a random perturbation on the regular node distribution. And the corresponding first derivatives are shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that the numerical results of the IIMLS method are in good agreement with the exact ones.
u(x) obtained with the MLS and IIMLS methods under the regular and irregular node distributions.
The derivatives of u(x) obtained with the MLS and IIMLS methods under the regular and irregular node distributions.
The error norms e(0) of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the regular and irregular node distributions are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. It is shown that the shape functions of the IMLS and IIMLS methods all satisfy the property of Kronecker δ function.
The error norms e(0) of u(x) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the regular node distribution.
The error norms e(0) of u(x) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the irregular node distribution.
The error norms e(1) of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the regular and irregular node distributions are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. It is shown that the rates of convergence of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods are almost the same, and the error of the IIMLS method is less than that of the IMLS method. Hence, the IIMLS method has higher precision.
The error norms e(1) of the first derivative of u(x) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the regular node distribution.
The error norms e(1) of the first derivative of u(x) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the irregular node distribution.
The second example is considered in the two-dimensional space, and the given function is u(x1,x2)=ex1sinx2, (x1,x2)∈Ω=[0,3]×[0,3].
Under 21×21 regular and irregular node distributions, the numerical results of u and u,2 at x2=3 with the MLS approximation and IIMLS method are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The irregular node distribution is generated by adding a random perturbation on the regular node distribution. It can also be seen that the numerical results of the IIMLS method are all in good agreement with the exact ones.
u(x1,x2) at x2=3 obtained with the MLS and IIMLS methods under regular and irregular node distributions.
u,2 at x2=3 obtained with the MLS and IIMLS methods under regular and irregular node distributions.
Under 11×11, 16×16, 21×21, and 26×26 irregular and regular node distributions, the error norms e(0,0) of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. It is again evident that the shape functions of the IMLS and IIMLS methods all satisfy the property of Kronecker δ function.
The error norms e(0) of u(x1,x2) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the regular node distribution.
The error norms e(0) of u(x1,x2) obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the irregular node distribution.
Under 11×11, 16×16, 21×21, and 26×26 regular node distributions, the error norms e(1,0) of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods are shown in Figure 11. Then by adding a random perturbation on the regular node distribution, the corresponding error norms e(1,0) under irregular node distribution are shown in Figure 12. It is shown that the rates of convergence of the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods are almost the same. However, the error of the IIMLS method is less than that of the IMLS method and MLS approximation. Again, the IIMLS method has high precision.
The error norms e(1,0) of u,1 obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under regular node distribution.
The error norms e(1,0) of u,1 obtained with the MLS, IMLS, and IIMLS methods under the irregular node distribution.
4.2. Examples of the IIEFG Method
Two examples are selected to demonstrate the advantages of the IIEFG method for two-dimensional potential problems. The results obtained with the IIEFG method of this paper for these examples are compared with that obtained with the EFG and IEFG methods and analytical solutions. Define the error norm
(35)eT=1K∑I=1K[[TIh-TI]]2∑I=1K[TI]2,
where K is the number of nodes and TIh and TI are, respectively, the numerical and analytical solutions at nodes.
The third example considered is a temperature field of a rectangular plate governed by Laplace’s equation
(36)∇2T=∂2T∂x12+∂2T∂x22=0,0<x1<5,0<x2<10.
The boundary conditions are
(37)T(x1,0)=0,0<x1<5,T(0,x2)=0,0<x2<10,T(x1,10)=100sin(πx110),0<x1<5,∂T(5,x2)∂x1=0,0<x2<10.
The analytical solution for the temperature of this problem is
(38)u(x1,x2)=100sin(πx1/10)sinh(πx2/10)sinh(π).
The linear basis function is used for analysis. When 6×11 regular node distribution is employed as shown in Figure 13(a), the temperatures T at x1=3 obtained with the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are shown in Figure 14. Then employing the irregular node distribution as shown in Figure 13(b), which is generated by adding a random perturbation on the regular node distribution, the temperatures T at x1=3 are shown in Figure 15, and the absolute errors at the inner nodes are shown in Figure 16. It is evident that the IIEFG method in this paper has higher computational precision than the EFG and IEFG methods.
Node distribution.
Regular
Irregular
T at x1=3 obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the regular node distribution.
T at x1=3 obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the irregular node distribution.
Absolute errors of T at the inner nodes obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the irregular node distribution.
Employing 5×9, 7×13, 9×17, and 11×21 regular node distributions, the error norms eT of temperature obtained with the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are shown in Figure 17. The average CPU times needed to furnish these results by using the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are respectively 10.95 s, 11.39 s, and 11.04 s. Then by adding a random perturbation on the regular node distribution, the error norms eT under the irregular node distribution are shown in Figure 18, and the average CPU times spent with the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are, respectively, 10.87 s, 11.47 s, and 11.09 s. It can be seen that the IIEFG method has higher computational precision.
Error norms eT of T obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the regular node distribution.
Error norms eT of T obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the irregular node distribution.
The fourth example considered is a temperature field of an annulus plate with inner radius r1 and outer radius r2 governed by Laplace’s equation [58]:
(39)∇2u=∂2u∂x12+∂2u∂x22=0.
Due to the symmetry of the model, only a quarter of the problem domain is modeled as shown in Figure 19. In the polar coordinate system (r,θ), the boundary conditions are
(40)u(r,θ)=T1cos(4θ),onr=r1,u(r,θ)=T2cos(4θ),onr=r2,∂u(r,θ)∂θ=0,onθ=0,θ=π2,
where T1 and T2 are given parameters.
Node distribution.
Regular
Irregular
The analytical solution is
(41)u(r,θ)=r14r24r28-r18[T2(r4r14-r14r4)-T1(r4r24-r24r4)]cos(4θ).
The parameters are taken as r1=5, r2=10, T1=50, and T2=100 in the computation. The regular and irregular node distributions that are used for the solution of this example are shown in Figure 19. Then the numerical solutions under the regular node distribution at r=7.5 are shown in Figure 20, and the average CPU times for obtaining the solutions with the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are, respectively, 0.81 s, 1.16 s, and 0.80 s. Under the irregular node distribution, the temperatures along the arc r=7.5 and r=9.5 are shown in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. The average CPU time with the irregular node distribution is almost equal to that with the regular node, and their average CPU times of the IIEFG, EFG, and IEFG methods are, respectively, 0.81 s, 1.17 s, and 0.80 s. It can be seen that the IIEFG method has higher efficiency than the EFG method. And from these figures, it can also be observed that the IIEFG method in this paper has higher computational precision than the EFG and IEFG methods.
u at r=7.5 obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the regular node distribution.
u at r=7.5 obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the irregular node distribution.
u at r=9.5 obtained with the EFG, IEFG, and IIEFG methods under the irregular node distribution.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, based on the MLS approximation, the IIMLS method is presented. The shape function of the IIMLS method satisfies the property of Kronecker δ function. Then the meshless method based on the IIMLS method can apply the essential boundary condition directly and easily. Moreover, the number of unknown coefficients in the trial function of the IIMLS method is less than that in the trial function of the MLS approximation. Then fewer nodes are needed in the local influence domain in the IIMLS method. Therefore, the IIMLS method has high computational precision. Compared with the IMLS method presented by Lancaster and Salkauskas, the weight function in the IIMLS method is nonsingular, and any weight function in the MLS approximation can be chosen as the weight function of the NMLS method. Then IIMLS method can overcome the difficulty caused by singularity of the weight function as in the IMLS method.
Based on the IIMLS and EFG methods, an IIEFG method for two-dimensional potential problems is presented. In the IIEFG method, the weight function is not singular, and the essential boundary conditions are applied naturally and directly. And there are fewer coefficients in the IIMLS method than in the MLS approximation; fewer nodes are needed in the entire domain in the IIEFG method formed from the IIMLS method than in the conventional EFG method. Then under the same node distribution, the IIEFG method in this paper has higher computational precision than the EFG and IEFG methods.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 11171208), Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project (no. S30106), and the Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo (no. 2013A610103).
ZhangZ.LiewK. M.ChengY.LeeY. Y.Analyzing 2D fracture problems with the improved element-free Galerkin method20083232412502-s2.0-3834910498610.1016/j.enganabound.2007.08.012LiewK. M.RenJ.ReddyJ. N.Numerical simulation of thermomechanical behaviours of shape memory alloys via a non-linear mesh-free Galerkin formulation2005637101410402-s2.0-2084443415610.1002/nme.1320LiD.BaiF.ChengY.LiewK. M.A novel complex variable element-free Galerkin method for two-dimensional large deformation problems2012233–23611010.1016/j.cma.2012.03.015MR2924016ZBL1253.74106BelytschkoT.LuY. Y.GuL.Element-free Galerkin methods199437222925610.1002/nme.1620370205MR1256818ZBL0796.73077Ju-FengW.Feng-XinS.Rong-JunC.Element-free Galerkin method for a kind of KdV equation20101962-s2.0-7795359328610.1088/1674-1056/19/6/060201060201ZhangZ.LiD.-M.ChengY.-M.LiewK. M.The improved element-free Galerkin method for three-dimensional wave equation201228380881810.1007/s10409-012-0083-xMR2950238ZBL0796.73077ZhangZ.WangJ. F.ChengY. M.LiewK. M.The improved element-free Galerkin method for three-dimensional transient heat conduction problems201356815681580ZhangZ.HaoS. Y.LiewK. M.ChengY. M.The improved element-free Galerkin method for two-dimensional elastodynamics problems201337121576158410.1016/j.enganabound.2013.08.017MR3124864AtluriS. N.ZhuT.A new meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) approach in computational mechanics199822211712710.1007/s004660050346MR1649420ZBL0932.76067ChenL.ChengY. M.Reproducing kernel particle method with complex variables for elasticity2008571110MR2415775ChenL.ChengY. M.Complex variable reproducing kernel particle method for transient heat conduction problems2008571060476055MR2492810ZBL1187.80046ChenL.ChengY. M.The complex variable reproducing kernel particle method for elasto-plasticity problems20105359549652-s2.0-7795314956910.1007/s11433-010-0186-yChenL.ChengY.-M.The complex variable reproducing kernel particle method for two-dimensional elastodynamics20101992-s2.0-7864933877110.1088/1674-1056/19/9/090204090204ChengY. M.PengM. J.LiJ. H.The complex variable moving least-square approximation and its application2005376719723MR2223274ChengY. M.LiJ. H.A meshless method with complex variables for elasticity2005541044634471MR2201966ZBL1202.74163ChengY.LiJ.Complex variable meshless method for fracture problems200649146592-s2.0-3364465300910.1007/s11433-004-0027-yLiewK. M.FengC.ChengY.KitipornchaiS.Complex variable moving least-squares method: a meshless approximation technique2007701467010.1002/nme.1870MR2307709ZBL1194.74554PengM.LiuP.ChengY.The complex variable element-free Galerkin (CVEFG) method for two-dimensional elasticity problems2009123673852-s2.0-7795316267810.1142/S1758825109000162PengM.LiD.ChengY.The complex variable element-free Galerkin (CVEFG) method for elasto-plasticity problems20113311271352-s2.0-7864944557410.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.025BaiF.-N.LiD.-M.WangJ.-F.ChengY.-M.An improved complex variable element-free Galerkin method for two-dimensional elasticity problems20122122-s2.0-8485734499010.1088/1674-1056/21/2/020204020204BaiF.-N.LiD.-M.WangJ.-F.ChengY.-M.An improved complex variable element-free Galerkin method for two-dimensional elasticity problems20122122-s2.0-8485734499010.1088/1674-1056/21/2/020204020204ChengY. M.LiR. X.PengM. J.Complex variable element-free Galerkin (CVEFG) method for viscoelasticity problems2012219090205ChengY. M.WangJ. F.LiR. X.The complex variable element-free Galerkin (CVEFG) method for two-dimensional elastodynamics problems2012441250042LiS. C.ChengY. M.Meshless numerical manifold method based on unit partition2004364496500LiS. C.ChengY. M.Numerical manifold method and its applications in rock mechanics2004344446454LiS.ChengY.WuY.-F.Numerical manifold method based on the method of weighted residuals20053564704802-s2.0-1744436976510.1007/s00466-004-0636-3LiS. C.LiS. C.ChengY. M.Enriched meshless manifold method for two-dimensional crack modeling20054432342482-s2.0-2954444019910.1016/j.tafmec.2005.09.002LiS.-C.ChengY.-M.LiS.-C.Meshless manifold method for dynamic fracture mechanics2006559476047662-s2.0-33750033641GaoH. F.ChengY. M.Complex variable numerical manifold method for elasticity2009414480488MR2589292GaoH.ChengY.A complex variable meshless manifold method for fracture problems201071558110.1142/S0219876210002064MR2646928ZBL1267.74124ChengR. J.LiewK. M.Analyzing two-dimensional sine-Gordon equation with the mesh-free reproducing kernel particle Ritz method2012245-24613214310.1016/j.cma.2012.07.010MR2969191OñateE.IdelsohnS.ZienkiewiczO. C.TaylorR. L.A finite point method in computational mechanics. Applications to convective transport and fluid flow199639223839386610.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19961130)39:22<3839::AID-NME27>3.0.CO;2-RMR1417792ZBL0884.76068DehghanM.TatariM.Determination of a control parameter in a one-dimensional parabolic equation using the method of radial basis functions20064411-121160116810.1016/j.mcm.2006.04.003MR2256958ZBL1137.65408DaiB. D.ChengY. M.Local boundary integral equation method based on radial basis functions for potential problems2007562597603MR2309608ZBL1150.31300ChengY. M.ChenM. J.A boundary element-free method for linear elasticity2003352181186ChengY.PengM.Boundary element-free method for elastodynamics20054866416572-s2.0-3364466025110.1360/142004-25LiewK. M.ChengY.KitipornchaiS.Boundary element-free method (BEFM) for two-dimensional elastodynamic analysis using Laplace transform20056412161016272-s2.0-2834444246410.1002/nme.1417LiewK. M.ChengY.Complex variable boundary element-free method for two-dimensional elastodynamic problems200919849–523925393310.1016/j.cma.2009.08.020MR2557480ZBL1231.74502PengM.ChengY.A boundary element-free method (BEFM) for two-dimensional potential problems2009331778210.1016/j.enganabound.2008.03.005MR2466280ZBL1160.65348ChengY.LiewK. M.KitipornchairS.Reply to ‘Comments on Boundary element-free method (BEFM) and its application to two-dimensional elasticity problems20097810125812602-s2.0-6544913274310.1002/nme.2544ZhangJ.TanakaM.MatsumotoT.Meshless analysis of potential problems in three dimensions with the hybrid boundary node method20045991147116610.1002/nme.904MR2036302ZBL1048.65121AtluriS. N.SladekJ.SladekV.ZhuT.Local boundary integral equation (LBIE) and it's meshless implementation for linear elasticity20002521801982-s2.0-0033885238DaiB.ChengY.An improved local boundary integral equation method for two-dimensional potential problems2010224214362-s2.0-8345520797010.1142/S1758825110000561ShepardD.A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly spaced pointsProceeding of the 23rd ACM National Conference1968517524LancasterP.SalkauskasK.Surfaces generated by moving least squares methods19813715514115810.2307/2007507MR616367ZBL0469.41005ZhuT.AtluriS. N.A modified collocation method and a penalty formulation for enforcing the essential boundary conditions in the element free Galerkin method199821321122210.1007/s004660050296MR1633725ZBL0947.74080MosttT.BucherC.A Moving Least Squares weighting function for the Element-free Galerkin Method which almost fulfills essential boundary conditions20052133153322-s2.0-28044450607MostT.BucherC.New concepts for moving least squares: an interpolating non-singular weighting function and weighted nodal least squares20083264614702-s2.0-4364910493810.1016/j.enganabound.2007.10.013VerardiS. L. L.MachadoJ. M.ShiyouY.The application of interpolating MLS approximations to the analysis of MHD flows20033912117311872-s2.0-004301325910.1016/S0168-874X(02)00163-4KaljevićI.SaigalS.An improved element free Galerkin formulation1997401629532974MR1461997ZBL0895.73079RenH.-P.ChengY.-M.ZhangW.An improved boundary element-free method (IBEFM) for two-dimensional potential problems20091810406540732-s2.0-7035051016210.1088/1674-1056/18/10/002HongpingR.YuminC.WuZ.An interpolating boundary element-free method (IBEFM) for elasticity problems20105347587662-s2.0-7795316758210.1007/s11433-010-0159-1RenH.ChengY.The interpolating element-free Galerkin (IEFG) method for two-dimensional potential problems201236587388010.1016/j.enganabound.2011.09.014MR2880734RenH.ChengY.The interpolating element-free Galerkin (IEFG) method for two-dimensional potential problems201236587388010.1016/j.enganabound.2011.09.014MR2880734NetuzhylovH.Enforcement of boundary conditions in meshfree methods using interpolating moving least squares20083265125162-s2.0-4364908830310.1016/j.enganabound.2007.10.010WangJ. F.SunF. X.ChengY. M.An improved interpolating element-free Galerkin method with a nonsingular weight function for two-dimensional potential problems2012219090204WangJ.WangJ.SunF.ChengY.An interpolating boundary element-free method with nonsingular weight function for two-dimensional potential problems2013106135004310.1142/S0219876213500436MR3056497SelvaduraiA. P. S.2000Berlin, GermanySpringer