Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc
Abstract
The present paper summarizes the generalized ®nite element method formulation and demonstrates some of its
advantages over traditional ®nite element methods to solve complex, three-dimensional (3D) structural mechanics
problems. The structure of the stiness matrix in the GFEM is compared to the corresponding FEM matrix. The
performance of the GFEM and FEM in the solution of a 3D elasticity problem is also compared. The construction
of p-orthotropic approximations on tetrahedral meshes and the use of a-priori knowledge about the solution of
elasticity equations in three-dimensions are also presented. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0045-7949/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 2 1 1 - 4
216 C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232
the analysis of orthotropic materials or when one of performance of the GFEM and FEM in the solution
the dimensions of the structural part is much smal- of a representative 3D elasticity problem. The use of p-
ler than the others, are examples in which p-ortho- orthotropic approximations on tetrahedral meshes and
tropic approximations may lead to considerable the use of a-priori knowledge about the solution of the
savings in the number of dof needed to achieve elasticity equations in three-dimensions is also demon-
acceptable accuracy. strated in that section. Finally, in Section 7, major
conclusions of the study are given.
The generalized ®nite element method (GFEM) was
proposed independently by BabusÏ ka and colleagues
[2,3,21] (under the names `special ®nite element
methods', `generalized ®nite element method' and 2. Formulation of generalized ®nite element methods
`®nite element partition of unity method') and by
Duarte and Oden [9±12,25] (under the names `hp In this section, we review the basic ideas behind the
clouds' and `cloud-based hp ®nite element method'). construction of generalized ®nite element approxi-
Several of the so-called meshless methods proposed in mations in a one-dimensional (1D) setting using a 1D
recent years can also be viewed as special cases of the linear ®nite element partition of unity. In Section 2.1,
generalized ®nite element method. Recent surveys on the GFE formulation in an n-dimensional setting is
meshless methods can be found in [6,8]. The key fea- presented. In Sections 5 and 6, we use generalized tet-
ture of these methods is the use of a partition of unity rahedral ®nite elements to discretize 3D problems. For
(PU), which is a set of functions whose values sum to a more detailed discussion on the theoretical aspects of
the unity at each point x in a domain O: The analysis GFE approximations, see Refs. [3,10,21,25] and the
of the performance and computational cost of hp references therein.
clouds, element free Galerkin [7], diuse element [22] Let u be a function de®ned on a domain O R:
and reproducing kernel particle [18] methods can be Suppose that we build an open covering
found in [12]. It was found in that study that the inte-
gration of the stiness matrix in these methods can be [
N
TN foa gN
O oa
considerably more expensive than in traditional hp a1
a1
®nite element methods, depending on the choice of the
partition of unity, the Moving Least Squares PU [17], of O consisting of N supports oa (often called clouds )
being among the most expensive. with centers at x a , a 1, . . . ,N:
The present paper summarizes the ideas behind the Let ua be a local approximation of u that belongs to
GFEM formulation and demonstrates through numeri- a local space wa
oa de®ned on the support oa : It is
cal examples some of the advantages of GFEM over presumed that each space wa
oa , a 1, . . . ,N, can be
traditional FEM for solving complex, 3D structural chosen such that there exists a ua 2 wa
oa that can ap-
mechanics problems. In Section 5, the structure of the proximate well ujoa in some sense. Fig. 1 illustrates the
stiness matrix in the GFEM is compared to the corre- de®nitions given above. In this case, the supports oa
sponding FEM matrix. In Section 6, we compare the are open intervals with centers x a :
ering TN foa gN n
a1 of a domain O R , n = 1, 2, 3. boundary value problem in which the solution pos-
Here, N is the number of vertex nodes in the ®nite el- sesses point or lines of singularities at some parts of
ement mesh. The cloud oa is the union of the ®nite el- the domain. Then we can use the local spaces wa to
ements sharing the vertex node xa : build generalized ®nite element shape functions that
Let wa
oa spanfLia gi2I
a denote local spaces represent these singularities much more eectively than
de®ned on oa , a 1, . . . ,N, where I
a, a 1, . . . ,N, polynomial functions. The construction of these custo-
are index sets and Lia denotes local approximation mized shape functions is discussed in details in Section
functions analogous with the functions ua mentioned 4.
in the previous section. Possible choices for these func- Detailed convergence analysis of the generalized
tions are discussed below. ®nite element method can be found in [11,12,20,21].
Suppose that the ®nite element shape functions, ja , Several a-priori error estimates along with numerical
are linear functions and that experiments demonstrating their accuracy can also be
found in those works. Below, we summarize the main
Ppÿ1
oa wa
oa a 1, . . . ,N, a-priori error estimate for the generalized ®nite element
method.
where Ppÿ1 denotes the space of polynomials of degree Suppose that the partitions of O into ®nite elements
less or equal to p ÿ 1: The generalized ®nite element which form the partition of unity satisfy the usual
shape functions of degree p are de®ned by [21,25] regularity assumptions in two and three dimensions,
and, in one dimension, the ratio between the lengths of
FNp fai ja Lia , a 1, . . . ,N, i 2 I
a
1 neighboring elements is bounded. We denote
linear approximations (there is no need, for example, ku ÿ uhp kE
O RC@ E
a, h, p, u A
2
a1
of using high-order constraints as done in traditional
hp ®nite element methods).
where the constant C is independent of u, h, p.
There are many situations in which the solution of a
boundary value problem is not a smooth function. In
these situations, the use of polynomials to build the
approximation space, as in the FEM, may be far from 3. Quadratic GFE shape functions for tetrahedral
optimal and may lead to poor approximations of the elements
solution u unless carefully designed meshes are used.
In the GFEM, we can use any a-priori knowledge In this section, quadratic GFE shape functions for
about the solution to make better choices for the local tetrahedral elements are de®ned and analyzed. The
spaces wa : For example, in Section 6, we solve a issue of linear dependence of GFE shape function and
C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232 219
how to solve the resulting positive semi-de®nite system tition of unity functions ja , a 1, 2, 3, 4: However, as
of equations are also discussed. we demonstrate below, this is not sucient to avoid
Quadratic GFE shape functions for tetrahedral el- linear dependencies.
ements are built from the product of trilinear tetrahe-
dral shape functions and linear monomials as follows Theorem 1. Let St and S~t be as de®ned above. Then
(i)
x ÿ x a y ÿ ya z ÿ za
ja 1, , , a 1, . . . ,N
2
ha ha ha
spanfSt g span 1, x, y, z, x 2 , xy, xz, y2 , yz, z2 P2
where ja , a 1, . . . ,N, are standard trilinear Lagran- (ii)
gian tetrahedral shape functions (e.g., Refs. [4,5,32]),
xa
x a , ya , za are the coordinates of the node a, ha is span S~t span 1, x, y, z, x 2 , xy, xz, y2 , yz,
the diameter of the largest ®nite element sharing the
node a and N is the number of nodes in the mesh. z2 ,x 3 ,x 2 y,x 2 z,y3 , y2 x, y2 z, z3 , z2 x, z2 y, xyz P3
This transformation is used to minimize round-o
errors. For details see, for example, Refs. [10,11].
In the notation of Section 2.1 we have
x ÿ x a y ÿ ya z ÿ za Proof. In order to simplify the notation, we consider
wa spanfLia g span 1, , ,
ha ha ha here the case in which the basis functions, Lia , of wa
are given by {1, x, y, z }. Therefore, in this case,
a 1, . . . ,N
St ja 1, x, y, z a 1, 2, 3, 4
Consider now the case of a tetrahedral element t with,
for example, nodes x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 : Then the GFE quad- Since ja , a 1, 2, 3, 4, are trilinear tetrahedral shape
ratic shape functions for this element are given by functions, there exist constants axa , aay , aza , a 1, 2, 3,
4, such that 8x 2 t,
x ÿ x a y ÿ ya z ÿ za
St ja 1, , , a 1, 2, 3, 4
ha ha ha X
4
ja
x 1
3
a1
Each quadratic tetrahedral element has therefore six-
teen shape functions (instead of ten as in classical
FEMs). It should be noted that all shape functions are X
4
associated with the vertices of the element as in a lin- axa ja
x x
4
ear element and there is no need for the concept of an a1
di, j
X
4 X
4 Ti, j q
j a x x ja x K~ i, j
a1 a1
Then
Using Eq. (4) and the above
Ku f
10
X
4 X
4
The above transformation leads to a stiness matrix
j a x ÿ axa ja 0
a1 a1 whose diagonal entries are equal to 1. This scaled
matrix is then perturbed as follows
and similarly for the terms y and z. Therefore, the KE K EI, E > 0, Ii, j di, j
dimension of a basis of spanfSt g is less or equal to 13.
But The matrix KE is positive de®nite and hence non-singu-
lar. The solution u to the system (10) is then computed
X
4 X
4 using the following sequence:
axa
ja y y axa ja yx
a1 a1 u0 Kÿ1
E f
X
4 X
4 Let e0 u ÿ u0 then
aay
ja x ÿ axa
ja y 0
a1 a1
KE e0 ' Ke0 Ku ÿ Ku0 r0
therefore
and similarly for the terms zx and zy. Therefore, the
dimension of a basis of spanfSt g is less or equal to 10. e0 Kÿ1
E r0
But from Eq. (8) the dimension of this set is greater or
equal to 10. This proves (i). The proof of (ii) follows Compute
the same steps. X
iÿ1
ri e0 ÿ Kej
The linear dependencies that appear above are a j0
consequence of the fact that both, the partition of
unity and the basis of the local spaces wa , are poly-
nomial functions. BabusÏ ka and colleagues [15,29] have ei Kÿ1
E ri
rlj nh i
2
u
xj2
r, y k ÿ Q
j 2 lj 2 1 sin lj 2 y
2G
o
ÿ lj 2 sin lj 2 ÿ 2 y
rlj nh i
1
rlj nh i
2
1 j1 >
> rlj
l1 , lj jr2 : cos l
j 3 y j 2, 4, 6, . . .
2 2 2G
E u^
s
s ÿ1
xj
x, Z, z uxj T1
x, Z, z
k 3 ÿ 4n G
2
1 n
u^
s
s ÿ1
Zj
x, Z, z uZj T1
x, Z, z s 1, 2 j 1, . . . ,M
where E is the Young's modulus and n is the Poisson's
u^ zj3
x, Z, z u
s ÿ1
zj T1
x, Z, z
ratio. This assumes a state of plane strain which is a
good approximation for the stress state in the neigh-
ÿ
borhood of a straight edge in three-dimensions. For Tÿ1
1 :
x, Z, z 4 r, y, z
0
12
points close to the vertex of the edge the stress state is
more complex (see for example Refs. [14,23]). 8 q 9
The parameters Q
1
2 > 2 2 >
j and Qj are given by 8 9 >> x Z >
> >
>
<r = >
< > =
1 y arctan Z
13
cos lj 1 ÿ 1 a=2 sin l ÿ 1 a=2 : 0; >
Q
j 1 ÿ ÿL
j 1
j
z >
>
> x > >
>
>
>
: >
;
cos lj 1 1 a=2 sin lj 1 1 a=2 z
u~
s ^
s
Zj
x, y, z u
ÿ1
Zj T2
x, y, z s 1, 2 j 1, . . . ,M
where
u~
zj3
x, y, z u^ Zj3 Tÿ1
2
x, y, z
l
s
j ÿ1
L
s
j s 1, 2
l
s 1 Tÿ1
2 :
x, y, z 4
x, Z, z
14
j
Fig. 4. Tetrahedral mesh used to investigate the structure of the stiness matrix in GFEMs.
8 9 8 9
> > > the stiness matrix in the GFEM compares to that of
>
> u
s
x >
> >
> u~
s
x >
>
>
>
<
xj >
= >
<
xj >
= the corresponding FEM matrix. More speci®cally,
s
s
uyj
x R2 u~ Zj
x s 1, 2 j 1, . . . ,M given a mesh, we analyze how the size and sparsity of
>
> >
> >
> >
> the two matrices compare. In the case of linear ap-
>
> >
> >
> >
>
: uzj
x ;
3 : u~
x ;
3
zj proximations, the two matrices are of course identical.
However, for higher degree elements the corresponding
T
where R2
Rÿ12 : matrices can be quite dierent. To illustrate, consider
The construction of customized GFE shape func- the mesh of tetrahedral elements shown in Fig. 4. The
tions using singular functions as de®ned above, follows structures of the stiness matrices corresponding to
the same approach as in the case polynomial type ten-node quadratic tetrahedral ®nite elements and
shape functions. The singular functions are multiplied four-node quadratic generalized ®nite element, as
by the partition of unity functions ja associated with de®ned in Eq. (2), are compared in this section.
nodes near an edge. In the computations of Section 6, The tetrahedral mesh shown in Fig. 4 is composed
the following singular functions are used in the con-
struction of customized GFE shape functions
u
x1
1
, u
y11 , u
z13 , u
x1
2
, u
y12 , u
z23
Fig. 6. Non-zero entries of the stiness matrix for the mesh shown in Fig. 4: (a) matrix structure for ten-node quadratic tetrahedral
elements; (b) matrix structure for generalized quadratic tetrahedral elements as de®ned in Eq. (2).
of 30 elements and 24 vertex nodes. Fig. 5 shows the is assumed to be linearly elastic with Young's modulus
structure of the stiness matrix for this mesh with lin- E = 1,000,000 PA and Poisson's ratio n 0:3: The
ear tetrahedral elements. The matrix has 72 rows and following observations can be made:
819 non-zero entries (represented by the black part of 1. In the case of classical ®nite elements, the non-zero
the picture). Fig. 6(a) shows the structure of the sti- pattern of the matrix changes substantially when the
ness matrix when ten-node ®nite elements are used. approximation is enriched from p = 1 to p = 2.
The matrix has 297 rows and 7,857 non-zero entries. If This is due to the fact that new nodes along the
generalized quadratic ®nite element approximations are edges of the tetrahedral elements must be created.
used, a stiness matrix is obtained with the structure As discussed in Section 2, the p enrichment of the
shown in Fig. 6(b). The matrix structure for the approximation in the GFEM does not require the
GFEM is seen to be simpler than that of the FEM. creation of new nodes and therefore the structure of
The GFE matrix has 288 rows and 12,672 non-zero the matrix is unchanged with p enrichment, as is
entries. These data are shown on Table 1. The table observed by comparing Figs. 5 and 6(b). It is also
also contains the number of ¯oating point operations observed that there are several adjacent columns in
required for the numerical factorization of the matrices the matrix shown in Fig. 6(b) with exactly the same
and the computed strain energy when the model is number of non-zero entries. Several modern linear
®xed at the left end and a uniform pressure T solvers can take advantage of this type of structure
0:0, ÿ 1:0, 0:0 is applied at the right tip. The material to improve the performance of the factorization
Table 1
FE and GFE results for the cantilever beam shown in Fig. 4a
a
The beam is ®xed at the left and a uniform pressure T
0:0, ÿ 1:0, 0:0 is applied at the right tip.
C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232 225
process. One example is the Boeing sparse linear sol- associated with the shape function. In the GFEM,
ver [28] which is used in our implementations. we have only vertex nodes which are, in general,
2. The number of equations, for the same mesh and shared by more elements than edge, face and bubble
the same degree of approximation, is smaller in the nodes used in high order ®nite elements. In the next
GFEM than in the FEM (288 versus 297 equations). section, we demonstrate that the structure of the
This seems to be somewhat contradictory with the GFEM matrices, combined with the fact that for
fact that a quadratic generalized tetrahedral element the same mesh and order of approximation their
has 16 shape functions instead of 10 as in the classi- dimensions are smaller in the GFEM than in the
cal FEM. However, in the GFEM all the dof are as- FEM, more than compensate for their having more
sociated with vertex nodes which are shared by non-zeros before factorization. Our numerical exper-
several elements (especially in a tetrahedral mesh) iments show that the factorization time is, for the
and therefore the assembled system of equations class of problems and meshes analyzed, much smal-
will in general be smaller than in the classical FEM ler for the GFEM.
where some nodes are shared by less elements. The
ratio between the number of elements and the num-
ber of nodes for the mesh shown in Fig. 4 is 30/24
= 1.25 which is quite low. In more realistic meshes,
this ratio can be much larger, and consequently, the 6. Analysis of a structural component using GFE
dierence between the dimensions of the stiness methods
matrix in the FEM and GFEM is much more pro-
nounced. One illustrative example is given in the In this section, we analyze the structural part shown
next section. in Fig. 7 using traditional FE and GFE methods. The
3. The number of non-zeros in the stiness matrix for mesh used has 15,527 tetrahedral elements and 3,849
the GFEM is substantially larger than in the corre- vertex nodal points. The mesh and problem size are
sponding matrix for the FEM (12,672 versus 7,857). representative of those used in, e.g., automotive and
This is a consequence of the fact that the support of aerospace industry. The large ratio of the number of
the higher order shape functions in the GFEM is elements and number of nodes is typical for this class
larger than the one in the classical FEM. The sup- of problems.
port of a shape functions (in the FEM or GFEM) is The material is assumed to be linearly elastic with
equal to the union of all elements sharing the node Young's modulus E = 100,000 PA and Poisson's ratio
Table 3
Generalized ®nite elements results using p-orthotropic approximations built on a tetrahedral mesh
px , py , pz 1 + 0, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 1 + 1, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1
used in the construction of the GFE shape functions in in Eq. (16). These functions are built from the product
the x, y, z directions, respectively. Therefore, if only of the trilinear tetrahedral shape functions and the ®rst
the partition of unity is used as a basis, we have p = 1 terms of the mode I, II and III asymptotic expansions
+ 0, 1 + 0, 1 + 0. For the shape functions de®ned in of the elasticity solution in the neighborhood of an
Eq. (18) we have p = 1 + 1, 1 + 0, 1 + 0. This dis- edge. At the vertex of those edges the elasticity sol-
cretization is used to illustrate that in the GFE it is ution is more complex than along the edges (see for
possible to build p-orthotropic approximations regard- e.g., Refs. [14,23]). This feature is ignored in the calcu-
less of the underlying ®nite element mesh used. This lations to be described: the same set of shape functions
choice is also motivated by the fact that the geometry, are used at all nodes located along the Edges 1 and 2.
material properties, and boundary conditions of the The enrichment of these nodes is justi®ed by the fact
problem do not change substantially in the z-direction. that a large fraction the error is near those elements.
In the second GFE discretization, the shape func- Fig. 8 shows the error indicators computed for the
tions de®ned in Eq. (2) are used. In our notation, this ®nite element discretization with p = 1. The error indi-
discretization is of degree p = 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1, cators are computed using the element residual method
i.e., it is a quadratic approximation in all directions (see, for example, Ref. [1] and the references therein)
(see Theorem 1). The GFE discretizations have dof implemented in PhlexSolids [27]. Fig. 9 shows the error
only at the vertices of the tetrahedral elements (four indicators on the boundary faces of the elements with
dof for each component of the solution in the case of error indicators larger than 50% of the largest element
the quadratic discretization). That is, there are no dof error indicator. It is observed that only a small frac-
along the edges or in the interior of the element. The p tion of the elements carries at least 50% of the total
= 1 + 1, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 discretization has 23,094 dof error and that the elements on Edges 1 and 2 are
(exactly twice the linear discretization) and a relative among them.
error in the energy norm of 26.6%. The quadratic The distribution of the error in the domain can also
GFE discretization has 46,188 dof which is only 60% be analyzed by considering the following sets of ®nite
of the number of dof in the ®nite element discretiza- elements:
tion. The total CPU time for the factorization of the
resulting system of equations is 2,062.1 s, which is Set 0 all elements in the mesh,
about 25% smaller than in the case of quadratic ®nite Set 1 elements connected to one of the two vertices
elements. The relative error in the energy norm for this of Edge 1,
discretization is 16.0% which is about 23.5% larger Set 2 elements connected to the Edge 1 but not con-
than in the case of quadratic ®nite elements. nected to one of its vertices,
The GFE results are summarized in Table 3. The Set 3 elements connected to one of the two vertices
quadratic GFEM discretization leads to a smaller sys- of Edge 2,
tem of equations than comparable FEM. However, the Set 4 elements connected to the Edge 2 but not con-
GFEM matrix has about 16% more non-zero entries nected to one of its vertices,
than the FEM counterpart before factorization. None- Set 5 elements connected to one of the rims of the
theless, being a smaller matrix with a more favorable roles where displacement boundary condition
sparse structure, the GFEM matrix can be factorized is applied,
using about 24% less ¯oating point operations. Set 6 elements not in Sets 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
6.1. Modeling of singularities using special functions The following quantities were computed using the
classical ®nite element discretization with p = 1 and p
Polynomial approximations, as used in the FE and = 2. The sum of the error,
GFE discretizations described above, can not eciently
approximate the solution in the neighborhood of geo- !1=2
X
metric edges, such as Edges 1 and 2 shown in Fig. 7. ea : kei k2E Set a 0, . . . ,6
19
However, asymptotic expansions of the elasticity sol- i2Ia
ution in the neighborhood of such edges are well
known and the GFE framework allows a straightfor-
the average error,
ward inclusion of these asymptotic ®elds in the GFE
approximation spaces, as described in Section 4. This 0X 11=2
approach is demonstrated in the solution of the pro- kei k2E
@ i2Ia A
blem represented in Fig. 7. eÅ a : a Set a 0, . . . ,6
20
The same GFE discretizations described previously card I
are used, but the nodes located along the Edges 1 and
2 are enriched with the GFE shape functions de®ned and the normalized average error,
228 C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232
Fig. 8. Error indicators computed for the ®nite element discretization with p = 1.
Table 4
Average error indicators for several sets of elements when classical ®nite elements with p = 1 and 2 are useda
Set a) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a a
The quantities ea , eÅ a and eÅ are de®ned in Eqs. (19), (20) and (21), respectively.
C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232 229
Fig. 9. Error indicators on the boundary faces of the elements with error indicators larger than 50% of the largest element error in-
dicator.
Table 5
Generalized ®nite elements results using p-orthotropic approximations and singular shape functions at nodes along Edges 1 and 2
px , py , pz 1 + 0, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 1 + 1, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1
a eÅ a
eÅÅ : a0
Set a 0, . . . ,6
21 Table 7
eÅ Computed strain energy and discretization error for various
choices of quadrature. The rules with 4,11,24 and 45 points
are Keast [16] quadrature rule). (the others are tensor product
where ei is the error on the element i, Ia denotes an
Gaussian quadrature rule. The discretization used is GFE
index set for the Set a and k kE denotes the energy
with p = 1 + 0, 1 + 0, 1 + 0 and singular functions at
norm. The results are shown on Table 4. nodes along Edges 1 and 2
It is observed that the average error eÅ a for the el-
ements along Edges 1 and 2 (Sets 1, 2, 3, 4) is con- Num. Int. Pts. Strain energy kekE= kukE
siderably larger than the average error on the whole
domain (Set 0). In addition, those elements represent 4 2.458 221 212 0.323 301 264
only a small fraction of the total number of elements 11 2.437 851 048 0.334 580 503
in the mesh, which justi®es our choice of using custo- 24 2.436 257 160 0.335 447 063
mized singular shape functions only along those edges. 45 2.436 024 790 0.335 573 210
216 2.436 094 921 0.335 535 142
The results for the enriched GFE discretizations are
343 2.435 938 998 0.335 619 772
shown in Table 5. It is observed that the addition of
512 2.435 846 523 0.335 669 954
the singular functions along the Edges 1 and 2 729 2.435 777 180 0.335 707 578
increases the total number of dof by only 396. This is 1000 2.435 739 019 0.335 728 282
only 1% more dof in the case of the GFE discretiza- 1331 2.435 710 261 0.335 743 883
tion with p = 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1 which increases 1728 2.435 684 414 0.335 757 904
the solution time by only 4.5%. The eect of this
enriched shape functions on the discretization error,
however, is quite noticeable. They lead to a decrease of puted strain energy and relative discretization error
about 30% in the discretization error for GFE with p kejE= kukE for the GFE discretization p = 1 + 0, 1 +
= 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1. We also investigate the eect 0, 1 + 0 enriched with singular functions along Edges
of additionally enriching the nodes connected to Edges 1 and 2 as a function of the number of integration
1 and 2 by a ®nite element and located at the boundary points used in the elements with nodes carrying singu-
of the part. The results for this discretization are lar functions. The rules with 4, 11, 24 and 45 points
shown in Table 6. It is observed that the eect of this are Keast [16] quadrature rules and the others are ten-
additional enrichment is not substantial. sor product Gaussian quadrature. The discretization
The enrichment of the GFE discretization with error is computed using the reference value (17) for the
singular functions leads to the issue of numerical inte- exact strain energy. Based on these computations, and
gration of these functions. In this work, our main goal the fact that we use discretizations with an error of
is to investigate the bene®ts of adding these functions more than 5%, we employ tensor product Gaussian
in terms of controling the discretization error. A su- quadrature with 1000 points on the elements with
ciently high quadrature rule was used on the elements nodes carrying singular functions. A more computa-
with nodes carrying singular functions. The order of tionally ecient approach is, of course, to use adaptive
the quadrature rule was chosen so that the numerical integration on those elements and set the tolerance of
integration errors were small enough to not aect the the numerical integration according to the required ac-
computed discretization errors. Table 7 shows the com- curacy of the approximate solution.
Another important issue is the eect of the enrich-
ment with singular functions on the condition number
Table 6 of the stiness matrix. Estimates of the condition num-
Generalized ®nite elements results using singular functions at
ber are shown in Tables 5 and 3. It can be observed
nodes along Edges 1 and 2 and at nodes connected to these
edges by a ®nite element and located at the boundary of the
that the enrichment with singular functions of the
part nodes along Edges 1 and 2 has no detrimental eect
on the conditioning of the stiness matrix. The enrich-
px , py , pz 1 + 1, 1 + 1, 1 + 1 ment with singular functions does not lead to linear
dependences as in the case of polynomial enrichment.
Build K, F(CPU, s) 1,276.36 This last case is discussed in Section 3.
Number of equations 47,448
Number of non-zeros K 3,646,476
Num. Fact. K(CPU, s) 2,072.94 (34.5 min) 7. Conclusions
Num. Float. Pt. Op. 6.043e+10
MFlops 29.15
Strain energy 2.712 563 9
The key feature of the Generalized Finite Element
kekE= kukE 0.108 959 8 Method is the use of a partition of unity to build
the approximation spaces. This partition of unity
C.A. Duarte et al. / Computers and Structures 77 (2000) 215±232 231
mulas. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and tational and applied mechanics. Barcelona, Spain:
Engineering 1986;55:339±48. International Center for Numerical Methods in
[17] Lancaster P, Salkauskas K. Surfaces generated by mov- Engineering, CIMNE, 1997. p. 302±21.
ing least squares methods. Mathematics of Computation [25] Oden JT, Duarte CA, Zienkiewicz OC. A new cloud-
1981;37(155):141±58. based hp ®nite element method. Computer Methods in
[18] Liu WK, Jun S, Zhang YF. Reproducing kernel particle Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1998;153:117±26.
methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods [26] Oden JT, Duarte CAM. Solution of singular problems
in Engineering 1995;20:1081±106. using hp clouds. In: Whiteman JR, editor. The math-
[19] Melenk JM. Finite element methods with harmonic ematics of ®nite elements and applications 96. New
shape functions for solving laplace's equation. Master's York, NY: Wiley, 1982. p. 35±54.
thesis, University of Maryland, 1992. [27] PHLEXSolids. Computational Mechanics Company,
[20] Melenk JM. On generalized ®nite element methods. www.comco.com.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1995. [28] The Boeing extended mathematical subprogram library.
[21] Melenk JM, BabusÏ ka I. The partition of unity ®nite el- Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA, USA.
ement method: basic theory and applications. Computer [29] Strouboulis T, BabusÏ ka I, Copps K. The design and
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering analysis of the generalized ®nite element method.
1996;139:289±314. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
[22] Nayroles B, Touzot G, Villon P. Generalizing the ®nite Engineering 2000;81(1±3):43±69.
element method: diuse approximation and diuse el- [30] Szabo BA, Babuska I. Computation of the amplitude of
ements. Computational Mechanics 1992;10:307±18. stress singular terms for cracks and reentrant corners. In:
[23] Nazarov SA, Plamenevsky BA. Elliptic problems in Cruse TA, editor. Fracture Mechanics: Nineteenth
domains with piecewise smooth boundaries. Berlin: Symposium, ASTM STP 969, 1988, pp. 101±124.
Walter de Gruyter, 1994 volume 13 of De Gruyter [31] Barna Szabo, Babuska Ivo. Finite element analysis. New
Expositions in Mathematics. York: Wiley, 1991.
[24] Oden JT, Duarte CA. Clouds, cracks and fem's. In: [32] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. In: 4th ed. The ®nite el-
Reddy BD, editor. Recent developments in compu- ement mehtod, vol. I. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.