The Generalized Nite Element Method: An Example of Its Implementation and Illustration of Its Performance

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 2000; 47:1401–1417
The generalized nite element method: an example of its

implementation and illustration of its performance
T. Strouboulis1 , K. Copps1;∗;† and I. Babuska2

1 Department of Aerospace Engineering; Texas A&M University; College Station; TX 77843-3141; U.S.A.
2 Texas Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics; University of Texas at Austin;
Austin; TX 78712; U.S.A.
SUMMARY
The generalized nite element method (GFEM) was introduced in Reference [1] as a combination of the
standard FEM and the partition of unity method. The standard mapped polynomial nite element spaces
are augmented by adding special functions which re ect the known information about the boundary value
problem and the input data (the geometry of the domain, the loads, and the boundary conditions). The special
functions are multiplied with the partition of unity corresponding to the standard linear vertex shape functions
and are pasted to the existing nite element basis to construct a conforming approximation. The essential
boundary conditions can be imposed exactly as in the standard FEM. Adaptive numerical quadrature is used
to ensure that the errors in integration do not aect the accuracy of the approximation. This paper gives an
example of how the GFEM can be developed for the Laplacian in domains with multiple elliptical voids and
illustrates implementation issues and the superior accuracy of the GFEM versus the standard FEM. Copyright
? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: generalized nite element method; hybrid; meshless; meshfree; numerical integration
1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper we give an example of the design of the generalized nite element method (GFEM).
As our model problem, we employ the Laplacian in domains with multiple inclusions or voids.
The GFEM is an extension of the standard nite element method in the sense that it allows
us to incorporate into the basis of the approximation any special functions which are known to
∗ Correspondence to: K. Copps, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-3141, U.S.A.
† E-mail: kc@isc.tamu.edu
Contract=grant sponsor: U.S. Army Research Oce; contract=grant number: DAAL03-G-028

Contract=grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract=grant numbers: MSS-9025 110, DMS-91-20877, DMS-95-01841
Contract=grant sponsor: Texas Advanced Research Program; contract=grant number: TARP-71071
Contract=grant sponsor: U.S. Oce of Naval Research; contract=grant numbers: N00014-96-1-0021, N00014-96-1-1015,
N00014-90-J-1030
CCC 0029-5981/2000/081401–17$17.50 Received 18 November 1998

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 18 May 1999
1402
T. STROUBOULIS, K. COPPS AND I. BABUSKA
approximate well the solution locally. These special functions are pasted into the standard FEM
basis of mapped polynomials by employing a partition of unity method [2]. For the example case
considered here, namely the Laplacian in two dimensions in domains with several elliptical voids,
we will employ the special harmonic basis functions corresponding to the problem of the elliptical
void in the innite medium. In Reference [1] we gave examples of the GFEM for domains with
reentrant corners and cracks and employed the eigenfunctions for the problem of the innite wedge
as our special functions. Here, we address only the linear elliptic problem in order to illustrate
the main points in the implementation. For non-linear problems, there will be some changes,
specically, we would use solution-dependent special functions in the approximation space.
The idea of incorporating special functions which re ect the local character of the solution in
the approximation is not new. The idea has had a resurgence in the newer Tretz and ‘hybrid’
methods. For example, see the T-element method of Jirousek and Wrobleski [3], or the commer-
cially available analysis package Procision developed by Apanovitch [4]. One, of course, could
include the special functions as global basis functions in the approximation, and then there is
no diculty with ensuring the conformity of the approximation. This global approach, however,
destroys the banded structure of the stiness matrix and for this reason it was never adopted
in practical computations. In order to be able to use the special functions only locally, various
methods which use formulations dierent than the standard ‘displacement’ formulation have been
employed, e.g. the method of Lagrange multipliers, the discontinuous Galerkin method [5], etc.
The problem with such approaches is that the question of the stability cannot be easily resolved,
and the implementation of such methods requires major changes to existing nite element codes.
Recently, there has been increasing interest in the so-called meshless or meshfree methods. The
objective of these methods is the construction of an approximation without employing a mesh,
in order to facilitate the solution of problems in complex domains, or domains with propagating
cracks by avoiding the construction of a mesh. The functions which are used to form the basis
of the approximation are associated with points which are ‘sprinkled’ at selected locations in the
domain. The support of these functions, or the support of associated radial weight functions, is
often circular disks (or spheres in three dimensions) that cover the domain. Let us mention, for
example, the RKPM [6], the EFG method [7] and the h–p clouds method [8; 9]. There are two
main diculties with meshless methods. First, essential boundary conditions must be imposed as
a constraint to the approximation by employing a penalty method or the method of Lagrange
multipliers, see also Reference [10] and this could lead to signicant complications including loss
of stability. And second, the necessary numerical integration of the approximation functions over
circles and spheres and their intersections is dicult to implement and may require exorbitant
amounts of computer resources to obtain suciently accurate values of the integrals.
The algorithm for numerical integration is the most important issue in the implementation of
meshfree methods. Dolbow and Belytschko [11] addressed the numerical quadrature for meshfree
methods that use radial weight functions. They suggest for 2D a quadrature over a partition
of rectangular cells, or bounding boxes (aligned with the local support of weight functions and
their intersections). This algorithm allows some control over the errors due to integration and the
resulting accuracy of the solution, however, the domain must still be partitioned into a union of
rectangles (background mesh). Their conclusion is that accurate integration for radial support and
complex domains with this technique is a formidable task and may be impossible. They further
suggest the use of tensor product weight functions, which result in rectangular support, rather
than weights with radial support, making the task of dening the background integration mesh
easier.
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 2000; 47:1401–1417
THE GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 1403
It is for these reasons that we advocate the GFEM. The GFEM is a more sensible approach for
achieving the goals of both the hybrid methods and the meshless methods without much of the
associated diculties. In the GFEM, the pasting of the special functions into the approximation is
done by a simple multiplication of the special functions with the vertex ‘hat’ functions (formed
by the linear or bilinear nite element shape functions) as in the partition of unity methods of
Babuska and Melenk [12–14; 16; 17]. The pasting is done without the need of using constraints
imposed by either the penalty method or the method of Lagrange multipliers. The use of ten-
sor product bilinear hat functions parallels to use of the ‘weight’ function in other meshfree
methods. The GFEM includes the classical FEM as a special case, and the essential boundary
conditions can be imposed exactly as in the FEM. Because the GFEM is a direct extension of
the standard FEM, its stability (the satisfaction of the inf–sup condition) follows exactly as in
the FEM. Further, the GFEM uses the FE mesh for needed numerical integration, but that does
not prevent cracks or other features from crossing through element boundaries. Allowing do-
main boundaries or material interfaces to move and cross through elements allows the GFEM
to tackle problems in which the standard FEM requires remeshing to avoid mesh entanglement.
Of course, some care must be taken to control the errors in the numerical integration, however,
it does not signicantly aect either the complexity or the performance of the method.
Following this introduction, in Section 2, we review the construction of the GFEM approxi-
mation. In Section 3 we discuss the use of both analytically known functions and numerically
constructed special functions for general use in the GFEM. Section 4 details numerical quadrature
algorithms for the GFEM, and in Section 5, we demonstrate the power of the GFEM for creating
highly accurate numerical solutions using minimal computer resources.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF THE GFEM APPROXIMATION
We will let
⊂ R2 , be a bounded domain with boundary @
= D ∪ N , D ∩ N = ∅. And we
will employ the mixed boundary value problem for the Laplacian as our model problem, namely,
u = 0 on
u =0 on D (1)
@u
=g on N
@n
We will then employ the variational formulation of (1), namely,
def
Find uEX ∈ S 1D = {u ∈ H 1 (
) | u| D = 0} such that
Z Z
∇uEX · ∇v = gv; ∀v ∈ S 1D (2)
N
where H 1 (
) is the space of functions with square integrable derivatives in
.
Let = {j }nj elem
= 1 be a nite element mesh, which is the partition of the domain into non-
overlapping elements j , namely
nS
elem

= j and j ∩ k = ∅; ∀j 6= k (3)
j=1
1404
In the examples, we will employ regular meshes of curvilinear quadrilateral elements; by regular
mesh we mean that the intersection of the boundaries of any two elements, @j ∩ @k , is either
pFEM
empty, a vertex, or an entire element edge for both j and k . We will let S ⊆ S 1D be the nite
element space which corresponds to the mesh and elements of degree pFEM , namely
pFEM
= {v ∈ S 1D | v| ◦ F−1 ∈ Ŝ pFEM }
def
S (4)
where Ŝ pFEM is the space of bi-pFEM shape functions over the master square ,
ˆ and F : ˆ 7→ , is
the mapping of the master square ˆ onto the element , which is constructed using the blending
function method [18]. We will denote by uFEM the standard nite element approximation of uEX ,
pFEM
corresponding to S , namely the solution of the problem:
pFEM
Find uFEM ∈ S such that
Z Z
pFEM
∇uFEM · ∇v = gv; ∀v ∈ S (5)
N
Here we could have also considered meshes with irregular connections and elements of various
degrees.
Let us now recall the denition of a partition of unity, (see Reference [2]):
Denition 2.1 (C0 Partition of unity subordinate to the nite covering {!i }). Let
⊂ R2 and
{!i }ni=1 (n¡∞) be an open covering of
, and assume that the functions !i , (i = 1; : : : ; n)
are such that
P !i
!i ∈ C 0 (
) and supp(!i ) ⊂ ! i ∀i with (x) = 1; ∀x ∈
(6)
i
and
CG
k!i kL∞ 6C∞ ; k∇!i kL∞ 6 (7)
diam(!i )
Then we will say that {!i }ni=1 is a C 0 partition of unity subordinate to the covering {!i }ni=1 .
Let { j!i }nfun(!

j=1
i)
be the set of the special functions associated with !i . We will now introduce
the enriched nite element space

pFEM
S GFEM = S S ; {!i }npatch
i=1 ; {!i }npatch
i=1 ; { j!i }nfun(!
j=1
i)
(8)
by
( )
P nfun(!
npatch P i) !i !i pFEM
S GFEM
= v∈S 1
D
|v=w + ai j ; w ∈ S (9)
i=1 j=1
Below, we will employ

S
!i =
def def
!i = !i(1) = and Xi (10)
∈
Xi ∈@
where Xi is the ith vertex of the mesh, and

Xi is the corresponding piecewise bilinear basis.
Let us now give an example of how the functions j!i will be chosen in the example of the
Figure 1. An elliptical void inside the domain

with contour lines indicating the geometry of the
conformal mapping for all points P 0 (x0 ; y0 ) = Q(P(x; y)). The mapping is used to evaluate the series
of handbook solutions in the patch spaces, (n) i from Equation (15), on the master circle. The special
functions in (n)
i are harmonic in both coordinate systems and satisfy the appropriate imposed Dirichlet
or Neumann boundary condition.
GFEM considered here. Consider the case that the domain has M internal elliptical voids
m ,
m = 1; : : : ; M , each with the boundary m = @
m , as shown in Figure 1, and assume that the
Neumann condition,
∇u · n| m = g (11)
or the homogeneous Dirichlet condition,
u| m = 0 (12)
is imposed. Let !i(n) be the n-layer patch around a vertex Xi , namely

 
S  S 
!i(n) =  0  (13)
0
⊆ !i(n−1) ∈
@∩@0 6=∅
Figure 2 shows examples of !i(1) and !i(2) .

P
Let j;(i)m be functions such that the expansion uEX = j; m j;(i)m is rapidly convergent in the
neighborhood of m . We will then let
(
P
(n) P
M pm
(n) (i)
i = = m j; m j; m j;(i)m = 0 in R2 −
m
m=1 j=1
(i) (i)
and either ∇ j; m · n| m = g or j; m | m
= 0;
)
(n)
(n)
m = 1 if m ⊆ !i else (n)
m =0 (14)
1406
Figure 2. The 1- and 2-layer patches for the vertex Xi , on a standard nite element mesh.
Here we will let

(i)
1; m = am ln rm
(i)
2k; m = R(zmk + bm zm−k ); (i)
2k+1; m = I (zmk + cm zm−k );
k = 1; : : : ; pm (15)
√
where zm = rm [cos(m ) + I sin(m )], and I = −1, where (rm , m ) is the polar coordinate system
associated with the mth void, and where the constants (am , bm and cm ) are selected to satisfy
either the applied Neumann or homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on m .
The resulting GFEM approximation reads
!
P
npatch P i ) (i) (i)
nfun(! nP
FEM
uGFEM = i aj j + bk ˜k (16)
i j k
Note that the standard FE functions, i and ˜k , can be constructed using the shape functions
on the master element. The special functions j(i) , however, are typically expressed in terms of
physical coordinate system on the actual domain.
The superior performance of the GFEM is based on the following result,
Pnfun(!j )
Theorem 2.1. If there exists a i = j=1 a(i)
j j
(i)
∀i; such that
P
kuEX − i kU(!i ) 6C
2 2 2
(17)
i
then

uEX − P i 6C (18)
i
i U(
)
Here C is a constant which is independent of , uEX , and the i ’s, but depends on the minimal
angle of the elements k ∈ . Theorem 2.1 was rst proved in Reference [19], then elaborated on
in References [2; 12–14].
Figure 3. An example of a square domain with three voids and some of the options provided by the GFEM
for constructing the approximation: (a) A traditional FEM mesh which respects the geometry, (b) A regular
mesh of squares which intersects the voids, (c) A distorted mesh which intersects the voids.
Note that in the GFEM, the local basis has only to include the constant in order to reproduce
the constant solution. The meshless Reproducing Kernel methods, see for example [15], instead
emphasize reproducibility of higher order polynomial solutions. The GFEM allows arbitrary func-
tions to form the higher-order spaces of the basis beyond the constant, these functions can be
specically chosen according to the local character of the solution and need not represent the full
polynomials up to some order.
The GFEM aords both great exibility in meshing the domain, and ease of adding patch
spaces to selected vertices. Let us assume that the goal is to solve the Laplacian on a domain
with three internal voids as shown in Figure 3, which illustrates three options for selecting the
meshes. Option (a) employs meshes which respect the voids, while options (b) and (c) employ
meshes which cover the voids. In (b) and (c), a special quadrature algorithm must be used in the
elements which intersect the voids.
1408
Figure 4. A schematic example which shows the exibility of the GFEM compared with the standard FEM.
The GFEM can represent local changes in the geometry by changing the special functions instead of using
local remeshing.
3. HANDBOOK PROBLEMS
The GFEM allows the employment of special functions for each special feature of a domain,
like voids, inclusions, cracks, corners, etc. to be added to the approximation without changing the
underlying mesh that discretizes the domain, see Figure 4. The special functions which will also
be called ‘handbook’ solutions may be known analytically or may be computed numerically. In
the standard FEM, the mesh must: (1) Represent the geometry and changes in material properties
and (2) be suciently rened to deliver the desired accuracy. The GFEM can achieve these goals
through the choice of the special functions to be included in the approximation and can easily
modify the approximation to account for local changes in the geometry and the material properties.
Given a problem, a large database of special functions can be computed and stored in the
preprocessing phase of the computation. Each special function can be parameterized and cataloged
according to: its geometry, the type of dierential equation, and boundary conditions. Figure 5
provides a schematic example of the construction of a series of handbook solutions for the case
of a set of three voids. For each handbook function j(i) to be computed, there is a problem to
be solved on a slightly larger domain around the feature with a unique set of Neumann boundary
conditions that satisfy the consistency condition.
4. ELEMENT INTEGRATION ALGORITHMS
In the standard FEM, the approximation is constructed by elementwise mapped polynomial func-
tions and the evaluation of the element integrals is done by a Gauss quadrature of a suciently
high order (q × q degree product rule in 2D) over each element. In the GFEM, however, the
use of Gauss quadrature is not practical for two reasons: (1) The entries of the stiness matrix
and the load vector are integrals over complex geometries, e.g. an element partially intersected by
one or several voids, and (2) The integrals involve products of derivatives of special functions
which may be rough or singular. If care is not taken to control accuracy of these integrals, the
accuracy of the GFEM may degrade, as it will be shown in the examples below. The accuracy
of the integrals can be controlled by using two types of adaptive quadrature algorithms which
deal with the two types of diculties mentioned above. In the case of singular functions around
cracks and re-entrant corners, which was discussed in Reference [1], other types of quadrature are
needed.
Figure 5. An example which illustrates the problem involved in the computation of the special functions for
an array of three voids: The special functions are obtained by solving a series of Neumann problems with
appropriate boundary conditions.
Figure 6. The model problem consists of the square domain [−1; 1] × [−1; 1] including three elliptical voids
with zero ux boundary conditions, and outer boundary loaded by constant unit ux.
Let us now discuss the two types of adaptive integration in the context of a model problem.
Consider the problem illustrated in Figure 6, consisting of the square domain [−1; 1] × [−1; 1],
which includes three elliptical voids, with radii rmin , rmax and center c as follows:
(i) rmin = 0:05; rmax = 0:5; c = (−0:25; 0:375), 45 degree angle of orientation,
(ii) rmin = rmax = 0:1875; c = (0:25; −0:375),
(iii) rmin = rmax = 0:09375; c = (0:8125; 0:5625).
Homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions are imposed on the boundary of the voids, and
at the outer boundary a non-homogeneous Neumann boundary condition with g = ∇u · n where
1410
Figure 7. Example of meshes with elements which cover at least partially one or several voids and the meshes
of subelements employed in the numerical quadrature.
u(x; y) = x−y is applied. We distinguish two types of elements in a mesh, elements that cover
voids, and those that do not. Note that depending on n (the number of layers employed in the
approximation) an element without voids may still include special functions for one or several
voids. We will use two dierent adaptive quadrature algorithms in an element depending on the
element type.
4.1. Integration for elements covering features

Let be an element which covers, at least partially, one or several voids and let
;sub nsub
= {!k
sub }k = 1 (19)
be a subdivision of into subelements which approximate the geometry of the feature, see Figure 7,
followed by additional renement of the subelements that contribute the major part of the error
in the computed integral. Here we use the ‘trapezoidal’ quadrature in subelements intersecting
the feature boundary, and a higher-order quadrature, e.g. the cubic ‘Simpson’s’ rule, for all other
subelements.
Algorithm 4.1 (Globally adaptive quadrature for elements crossing features). Assume that the
goal is to compute the integral
Figure 8. A larger integration tolerance, rel , greatly degrades the accuracy of the approximate solu-
tion when the special functions are used. Here the GFEM approximation with pm = 1 and a 2-layer
approximation was employed.
Z
I[f] = f

Begin: Let nsub = 1; !1; sub = .
Initial do l = 1 to m (where m is a positive integer)
Subdivision: For each subelement intersecting the boundary of a void;
!k; sub ∩ m 6= ∅; subdivide it into four subelements !j(k)
; sub
.
; sub ; sub
Dene level(!j(k) ) = level(!k ) + 1; j = 1; : : : 4.
end do
Initial For all subelements !k; sub intersecting the void boundary
use the “trapezoidal” rule with
Estimate: extrapolation to estimate the value of the integral over the
region I!; sub and the error E!; sub
k k
(2-norm of the vector of errors).
For all other !k; sub in the element;
use the cubic “Simpson” rule (or a suitable higher order rule)
and extrapolation to get I!; sub and the error E!; sub .
k P k
Compute the estimate of the total integral I = I!; sub .
P k
Compute the estimate of the error E = E!; sub .
k
Control: do while |I|E 2 ¿ rel
Find the maximum error in all subelements,
Emax = maxk (E!; sub ).
k
Process Regions: Divide the subelement(s) that attain Emax .
Update: Recompute value of global integral I and the error E.
end do
1412
Figure 9. An example which shows the eect of the accuracy of the numerical quadrature on the accuracy
of the computed solution. The contours of the error, measured in the relative modulus of the ux for the
regular mesh pm = 1, 2-layer GFEM h = 12 and NDOF = 63. (a) rel = 0:1, (b) rel = 0:01, and (c) rel = 0:001.
The results obtained for rel = 0:001 are practically identical with those corresponding to exact integration.
4.2. Integration for elements not intersecting features

For all elements which support special functions, the DCUHRE algorithm (see Reference [20]) will
be used which provides an approximation of the integral of a vector function I[f] over the master
element rectangle. This algorithm uses a globally adaptive strategy with the same quadrature rule,
of polynomial degree 7–13, for all the subregions and integrands. The algorithm uses directional
renement of the subregions, i.e., it divides selected subregions into two pieces along the coordinate
axes where the integrand has the largest fourth divided dierence.
4.3. Dependence of global accuracy on the numerical integration

Let us now demonstrate that accurate integration of entries in the stiness matrix and force vector
is necessary for controlling the accuracy of the approximate solution uGFEM . We considered the
Figure 10. The gradient of the exact solution uEX which was obtained using the standard FEM with pFEM = 6
on the mesh shown with h = 18 , 768 elements, and 28 078 degrees of freedom.
model problem shown in Figure 6, and the meshes shown in Figure 3(b). Figure 8 shows the
h-convergence of the relative error in the energy norm for tolerances rel = 0:1, rel = 0:01, and
rel = 0:001.
Figure 9 depicts the pointwise error in the modulus of the gradient for the pm = 1, 2-layer
GFEM on the h = 12 mesh, for integration tolerances rel = 0:1, rel = 0:01, and rel = 0:001. Note
the tolerance rel = 0:1, rel = 0:01 are not sucient for controlling the accuracy of the computed
solution. On the other hand, the tolerance rel = 0:001 is sucient. Let us note that in these results
we employed as exact solution the GFEM approximation with pm = 4, and 2-layers on the same
mesh.
5. PERFORMANCE OF THE GFEM
We will now compare the accuracy of two dierent versions of the GFEM versus the accuracy
of the standard FEM. For the comparison we will employ the model problem shown in Figure 6.
We will consider the case in which the voids are meshed, and the case in which the mesh covers
the voids.
5.1. Meshes constructed around the voids

In the rst kind of GFEM approximation, the mesh is constructed around the voids as shown in
Figure 3(a). In this case we can use either the standard FEM or the GFEM which employs the
harmonic functions corresponding to the voids in n-layers around them. For purposes of compar-
ison on these meshes, we employed as the exact solution the one shown in Figure 9. Figure 10
shows the contour of the error in the gradient for four dierent choices of the approximation.
1414
Figure 11. The accuracy of the standard FEM versus the accuracy of the GFEM for meshes constructed
around the voids. Contours of the error, measured in the relative modulus of the gradient for (a) standard
FEM pFEM = 1, h = 14 , 838 degrees of freedom; (b) standard FEM pFEM = 3, h = 12 , 484 degrees of free-
dom; (c) GFEM pm = 1, 1-layer approximation, h = 1, 67 degrees of freedom; (d) GFEM pm = 1, 2-layer
approximation, h = 12 , 208 degrees of freedom.
From the results shown in Figure 10, we conclude that the GFEM can achieve much higher ac-
curacy for the same number of degrees of freedom than the standard FEM on standard FEM
meshes.
5.2. Meshes which cover the voids

The second kind of GFEM employs meshes which cover the voids as shown in Figures 3(b) and
3(c). Figure 11 depicts the error in the modulus of the gradient, for the cases pm = 1, pm = 2, and
Figure 12. The accuracy of the GFEM for meshes overlapping the voids. The contours of the error, measured
in the relative modulus of the gradient on regular and distorted meshes with the 2-layer approximation.
(a) Distorted mesh pm = 1, h = 1 approximation, 49 degrees of freedom; (b) Distorted mesh pm = 2, h = 1
approximation, 91 degrees of freedom; (c) Regular mesh pm = 1, h = 12 approximation, 63 degrees of freedom;
(d) Regular mesh pm = 2, h = 12 approximation, 117 degrees of freedom.
2-layer approximation on the regular meshes of squares and the distorted meshes. The exact error
was obtained using the GFEM on the same mesh with pm = 4, and 2-layer approximation as uEX .
From the results shown in Figure 12 we can see that relatively high accuracy can be obtained
using a very small number of degrees of freedom when compared with the standard FEM. Note,
especially the low error in the gradient near the tips of the elliptical void.
1416
6. CONCLUSIONS
The GFEM can be designed to achieve the goals of both the ‘hybrid’-type methods and the
meshless methods. In particular: (a) The GFEM can easily incorporate special functions that
approximate the exact solution locally well. (b) The GFEM can be used on meshes which cover
parts of the boundary of the domain. (c) The GFEM is free of the diculties with numerical inte-
gration and the application of Dirichlet boundary conditions associated with the meshless methods,
(d) The GFEM can be easily incorporated into the existing FEM codes, with the addition of some
specialized code required if material or domain boundaries are allowed to cross through elements.
Note that the problem of the control of the quadrature error is the major pitfall of the so called
meshless methods. In a future paper, we will address the problem of the a posteriori estimation
of the error and the numerical generation of the special functions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work of T. Strouboulis and K. Copps was supported by the U.S. Army Research Oce under Grant
DAAL03-G-028, by the National Science Foundation under Grant MSS-9025110, by the Texas Advanced
Research Program under Grant TARP-71071, and by the U.S. Oce of Naval Research under Grants N00014-
96-1-0021 and Grant N00014-96-1-1015.
The work of I. Babuska was supported by the U.S. Oce of Naval Research under Grant N00014-90-J-1030
and by the National Science Foundation under Grants DMS-91-20877 and DMS-95-01841.
The support of Drs Dick Lau and Luise Couchman of the ONR to both senior authors is greatly appreci-
ated.
REFERENCES
1. Strouboulis T, Babuska I, Copps K. The design and analysis of the generalized nite element method. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1998; to appear.
2. Babuska I, Melenk JM. The partition of unity method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1997; 40:727–758.
3. Jirousek J, Wrobleski A. T-elements: state of the art and future trends. Archives of Computational Methods in
Engineering, State of Art Reviews 1996; 3:323– 435.
4. Apanovitch V. The Method of External Finite Element Approximation. Minsk, 1991, ISBN 5-339-00597-6.
5. Oden JT, Babuska I, Baumann CE. A discontinuous hp nite element method for diusion problems. Journal of
Computational Physics 1998; 146:1–29.
6. Liu WK, Jun S, Li S, Adee J, Belytschko T. Reproducing kernel particle methods for structural dynamics. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1995; 38:1655–1679.
7. Belytschko T, Krongauz Y, Organ D, Fleming M, Krysl P. Meshless methods: an overview and recent developments.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1996; 139:3– 48.
8. Duarte CAM, Oden JT. hp clouds—An hp meshless method. Numerical Methods for Partial Dierential Equations
1996; 12:673–705.
9. Liszka TJ, Duarte CAM, Tworzydlo WW. hp-Meshless cloud method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 1996; 139:263–288.
10. Krongauz Y, Belytschko T. Enforcement of essential boundary conditions in meshless approximations using nite
elements. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1996; 131:133–142.
11. Dolbow J, Belytschko T, Numerical integration of the Galerkin weak form in meshfree methods. Computational
Mechanics 1999; 23:219–230.
12. Melenk JM. nite element methods with harmonic shape functions for solving Laplace’s equation. M.A. Thesis;
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1992.
13. Melenk JM. On generalized nite element methods. Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Maryland, College Park, 1995
(Advisor: I. Babuska).
14. Babuska I, Melenk JM. The partition of unity nite element method: Basic theory and applications. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1996; 139:289–314.
15. Li S, Liu WK. Synchronized reproducing Kernel Interpolant via multiple Wavelet expansion. Computational Mechanics
1998; 21:28– 47.
16. Melenk JM, Babuska I. Approximation with harmonic and generalized harmonic polynomials in the partition of unity
method. Computer Assisted Mechanics and Engineering Sciences 1997; 4:607–632.
17. Oden JT, Duarte CAM, Zienkiewicz OC. A New Cloud Based hp Finite Element Method. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1998; 153:117–126.
18. Szabo BA, Babuska I. Finite Element Analysis. New York, 1991; 107–111.
19. Babuska I, Caloz G, Osborn J. Special nite element methods in a class of second order elliptic problems with rough
coecients. SIAM Numerical Analysis 1994; 31:945–981.
20. Berntson J, Espelid TO, Genz A. An adaptive algorithm for the approximate calculation of multiple integrals. ACM
Transactions on Mathematical Software 1991; 17:437– 451.

The Generalized Nite Element Method: An Example of Its Implementation and Illustration of Its Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Generalized Nite Element Method: An Example of Its Implementation and Illustration of Its Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 2000; 47:1401–1417