4.6 Article

An Element Free Galerkin Method Based on the Modified Moving Least Squares Approximation

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 1197-1211

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10915-016-0337-z

Keywords

Meshless method; Modified moving least squares; Element free Galerkin; Numerical methods

Funding

  1. SIRF scholarship
  2. University of Western Australia
  3. Australian Research Council [DP120100402, DP160100714]
  4. Raine Medical Research Foundation through Raine Priming Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper demonstrates that the recently developed modified moving least squares (MMLS) approximation possess the necessary properties which allow its use as an element free Galerkin (EFG) approximation method. Specifically, the consistency and invariance properties for the MMLS are proven. We demonstrate that MMLS shape functions form a partition of unity and the MMLS approximation satisfies the patch test. The invariance properties are important for the accurate computation of the shape functions by using translation and scaling to a canonical domain. We compare the performance of the EFG method based on MMLS, which uses quadratic base functions, to the performance of the EFG method which uses classical MLS with linear base functions, using both 2D and 3D examples. In 2D we solve an elasticity problem which has an analytical solution (bending of a Timoshenko beam) while in 3D we solve an elasticity problem which has an exact finite element solution (unconstrained compression of a cube). We also solve a complex problem involving complicated geometry, non-linear material, large deformations and contacts. The simulation results demonstrate the superior performance of the MMLS over classical MLS in terms of solution accuracy, while shape functions can be computed using the same nodal distribution and support domain size for both methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available