2002Computer Modeling in Engineering & SciencesRequires access

The Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Method: A Simple \& Less-costly Alternative to the Finite Element and Boundary Element Methods

Satya N. Atluri, Shengping Shen

Open publisher page 473 citations

Abstract

A comparison study of the efficiency and ac- curacy of a variety of meshless trial and test functions is presented in this paper, based on the general concept of the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method. 5 types of trial functions, and 6 types of test functions are explored. Different test functions result in different MLPG methods, and six such MLPG methods are pre- sented in this paper. In all these six MLPG methods, absolutely no meshes are needed either for the interpo- lation of the trial and test functions, or for the integration of the weak-form; while other meshless methods require background cells. Because complicated shape functions for the trial function are inevitable at the present stage, in order to develop a fast and robust meshless method, we explore ways to avoid the use of a domain integral in the weak-form, by choosing an appropriate test function. The MLPG5 method (wherein the local, nodal-based test function, over a local sub-domain Ω s (or Ω te) centered at a node, is the Heaviside step function) avoids the need for both a domain integral in the attendant symmetric weak-form as well as a singular integral. Convergence studies in the numerical examples show that all of the MLPG methods possess excellent rates of convergence, for both the unknown variables and their derivatives. An analysis of computational costs shows that the MLPG5 method is less expensive, both in computational costs as well as definitely in human-labor costs, than the FEM, or BEM. Thus, due to its speed, accuracy and robustness, the MLPG5 method may be expected to replace the FEM, in the near future.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A comparison study of the efficiency and ac- curacy of a variety of meshless trial and test functions is presented in this paper, based on the general concept of the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method. 5 types of trial functions, and 6 types of test functions are explored. Different test functions result in different MLPG methods, and six such MLPG methods are pre- sented in this paper. In all these six MLPG methods, absolutely no meshes are needed either for the interpo- lation of the trial and test functions, or for the integration of the weak-form; while other meshless methods require background cells. Because complicated shape functions for the trial function are inevitable at the present stage, in order to develop a fast and robust meshless method, we explore ways to avoid the use of a domain integral in the weak-form, by choosing an appropriate test function. The MLPG5 method (wherein the local, nodal-based test function, over a local sub-domain Ω s (or Ω te) centered at a node, is the Heaviside step function) avoids the need for both a domain integral in the attendant symmetric weak-form as well as a singular integral. Convergence studies in the numerical examples show that all of the MLPG methods possess excellent rates of convergence, for both the unknown variables and their derivatives. An analysis of computational costs shows that the MLPG5 method is less expensive, both in computational costs as well as definitely in human-labor costs, than the FEM, or BEM. Thus, due to its speed, accuracy and robustness, the MLPG5 method may be expected to replace the FEM, in the near future.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 473 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A comparison study of the efficiency and ac- curacy of a variety of meshless trial and test functions is presented in this paper, based on the general concept of the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method. 5 types of trial functions, and 6 types of test functions are explored. Different test functions result in different MLPG methods, and six such MLPG methods are pre- sented in this paper. In all these six MLPG methods, absolutely no meshes are needed either for the interpo- lation of the trial and test functions, or for the integration of the weak-form; while other meshless methods require background cells. Because complicated shape functions for the trial function are inevitable at the present stage, in order to develop a fast and robust meshless method, we explore ways to avoid the use of a domain integral in the weak-form, by choosing an appropriate test function. The MLPG5 method (wherein the local, nodal-based test function, over a local sub-domain Ω s (or Ω te) centered at a node, is the Heaviside step function) avoids the need for both a domain integral in the attendant symmetric weak-form as well as a singular integral. Convergence studies in the numerical examples show that all of the MLPG methods possess excellent rates of convergence, for both the unknown variables and their derivatives. An analysis of computational costs shows that the MLPG5 method is less expensive, both in computational costs as well as definitely in human-labor costs, than the FEM, or BEM. Thus, due to its speed, accuracy and robustness, the MLPG5 method may be expected to replace the FEM, in the near future.

Key concepts: Regularized meshless method, Heaviside step function, Petrov–Galerkin method, Meshfree methods, Finite element method, Applied mathematics, Singular boundary method, Mathematical optimization

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Method: A Simple \& Less-costly Alternative to the Finite Element and Boundary Element Methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens