Nagashima 1999 Node-By-Node Meshless Approach and Its Applications To Structural Analyses

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 46, 341}385 (1999)
NODE-BY-NODE MESHLESS APPROACH AND ITS

APPLICATIONS TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSES
TOSHIO NAGASHIMA*
Nuclear Engineering Systems Department, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc., 2-3-6 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku,
¹okyo 100-8141, Japan
SUMMARY
The meshless method is expected to become an e!ective procedure for realizing a CAD/CAE seamless
system for analyses ranging from modelling to computation, because time-consuming mesh generation
processes are not required. In the present study, a new meshless approach, referred to as the Node-By-Node
Meshless method is proposed, in which only nodal data is utilized to discretize the governing equations,
which are derived using either the principle of virtual work or the Galerkin method. In this method, three
key methodologies are utilized: (i) nodal integration using stabilization terms, (ii) interpolation by the
Moving Least-Squares Method, and (iii) a node-by-node iterative solver. This paper presents the formula-
tion of the proposed method along with numerical results obtained for two-dimensional elastostatic and
eigenvalue problems. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: element-free method; moving least-squares method; nodal integration; iterative solver; elastostatic
analysis; eigenvalue analysis
1. INTRODUCTION
Meshless methods, which do not require time-consuming mesh generations for modelling the
analysis domain, are expected to become a key technology in the next generation of computation
methods. Therefore, several meshless and gridless methods have emerged. For example, SPH,
developed by Lucy [1] and Monaghan [2], is a method based on a Lagrangian formulation.
RKPM, proposed by Liu [3], possesses the advantages of SPH but has been proven to yield more
accurate solutions. Both DEM, proposed by Nayroles [4], and EFGM, proposed by Belytschko
[5], are methods for discretizing weak-formed governing equations using only distributed nodal
data. Finally, FMM proposed by Yagawa [6], is a method used to evaluate local sti!ness and
solve the global system matrix based on node-by-node procedures.
The Element-Free Galerkin Method (EFGM) proposed by Belytschko [5] is one of the most
promising meshless methods. The original EFGM uses integration points in background cells to
discretize the governing equations expressed in weak form. Moreover, EFGM uses the Lagrange
multiplier method to enforce the essential boundary conditions, because the interpolation
function of MLSM does not always match the unit value at each node. From the view of
computational e$ciency, however, EFGM can be improved, as described below.
* Correspondence to: Toshio Nagashima Nuclear Engineering Systems Department, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.,
2-3-6 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8141, Japan. E-mail: nagashim@mri.co.jp
CCC 0029-5981/99/270341}45$17.50 Received 30 April 1997

Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 15 October 1998
342 T. NAGASHIMA
First, the nodal integration method in which integration points to evaluate sti!ness coincide
with distributed nodes is preferable. The nodal integration method simpli"es the data structure
and saves memory when treating non-linear problems, for which the stress component of the
previous calculation step must be held in memory. More precisely, because the total number of
nodes is generally much smaller than the total number of integration points, the nodal integration
method saves computation time and requires less memory to evaluate sti!ness. In addition, the
coe$cient matrices of the discretized system equations lose positive de"niteness due to the
introduction of the Lagrange multiplier method, making application of the Conjugate Gradient
(CG) method, which is commonly utilized in the "eld of FEM, di$cult. Therefore, when solving
large-scale problems using meshless methods, an iterative solution that uses the CG method is
preferable with respect to memory as well as FEM.
In the present study, a new meshless approach referred to as the Node-By-Node Meshless
Method (NBNM) was proposed [7], in which only nodal data is utilized to discretize the governing
equations, which are derived using either the principle of virtual work or the Galerkin method.
In the present paper, the methodology of NBNM and numerical results applied to two-
dimensional elastic analyses, including plane stress and plate problems, are presented. The
proposed NBNM uses MLSM to create the interpolation functions using only distributed nodal
information and discretize the governing equations expressed in weak form as well as EFGM.
However, NBNM has two characteristics, which are not included in the original EFGM. First,
NBNM uses the nodal integration to discretize the governing equations expressed in weak form.
Second, the CG method is applicable for iterative solution because the coe$cient matrices of the
discretized equations have positive de"niteness by introducing the constraint equations for the
nodal freedoms on the essential boundaries.
Using EFGM in conjunction with nodal integration has been studied by Beissel [8]. Beissel
described a method for creating nodal weight and introduced a stabilization term for controlling
spurious deformation modes according to the degradation of nodal integration. The NBNM
proposed in the present paper, however, applies di!erent approaches. Speci"cally, NBNM uses
buckets and interpolation functions to create nodal weight. Moreover, Taylor's expansion and
analytical integration are used to introduce the stabilization terms. Stabilization methods that use
Taylor's expansion have been studied for FEM [9] and for particle methods and RKPM [10] as well.
The present paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the governing equations. Section 3
describes the methodology of NBNM, including the methods used to create nodal weight, evaluate
nodal sti!ness, introduce the stabilization terms and treat the essential boundary conditions.
Section 4 presents the numerical results obtained in the present study, including the examinations of
the CPU time, the computational accuracy, the proposed stabilization method, the convergency in
the iterative solution and practical calculations. Conclusions are presented in Section 5.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The principle of virtual work, which is the governing equation here, is expressed by stress r, strain
e, displacement u, traction t and body force b as follows:
4 de2r d<!1 du2t dS!4 du2b d<"0

(1a)
u "uN on S (1b)
G G
Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 46, 341}385 (1999)
NODE-BY-NODE MESHLESS APPROACH AND ITS APPLICATIONS 343
where <, S and S are the analysis domain, the natural boundary and the essential boundary,

respectively.
In this section, the components of stress r, strain e, and displacement u are shown explicitly for
two-dimensional plane stress problems and plate problems.
2.1. Plane stress problem
The displacement component u is expressed by u(x, y) and v(x, y), which represent the
displacement in the x- and y-directions, respectively, as follows:

u
u" (2)
v
The strain component e is expressed using u and v as follows:
i *u e
g *x g

e g *v g
V
e" e "j f (3)
W
c g *y g
VW g *u# *v g
k *y *x h
Using the constitution equation for isotropic elastic materials in plane stress problems, the
stress component r is expressed as follows:
E lE
0
1!l 1!l

p e
V lE E V
r" p " 0 e (4)
W 1!l 1!l W
q c
VW E VW
0 0
2(1#l)
where E and l represent the Young's modulus and the Poisson's ratio, respectively.
2.2. Plate problem
The displacement "eld treated in the plate problem consists of u(x, y), v(x, y) and w(x, y), which
represent displacement in the x-, y-, and z-directions, respectively. According to the Reissner}
Mindlin plate theory [11], the in-plane displacements u and v, and the lateral displacement w are
expressed as follows:
u"zh (x, y) (5a)
W
v"!zh (x, y) (5b)
V
w"w (x, y) (5c)

where w (x, y) is the lateral displacement of the middle plate, and h and h are the rotational
V W
angles around the x- and y-axis, respectively.
344 T. NAGASHIMA
Therefore, the component of strain e in a plate is expressed as follows:
i *ue *
0 0 z
g *xg *x
i e e g *vg *
V 0 !z 0
g e g *y *x
g g

W g w
g *u *v * *
e"j c f "j # f " 0 !z z h (6)
VW *y *x *x *y V
g c g g *v *w g
h
g WX g * W
g 0
*z *y g
# !1
k c h *y
VX
g *u *w g *
# 0 1
k *z *x h *x
Using equation (6), the component of displacement u utilized for dicretization is expressed as
follows:

w

u" h (7)
V
h
W
Using the constitution equation for isotropic elastic materials, the component of stress p is
expressed as follows:
E lE
0 0 0
1!l 1!l
i p e lE E i e e
V 0 0 0 V
g p g 1!l 1!l g e g
g W g E g W g
r"j q f" 0 0 0 0 j c f (8)
VW 2(1#l) VW
g q g g c g
g WX g cE g WX g
0 0 0 0
k q h 2(1#l) k c h
VX VX
cE
0 0 0 0
2(1#l)
where c, which represents the shear e!ectiveness factor, is 5/6.
3. NODE-BY-NODE MESHLESS METHOD
The node-by-node meshless method utilizes three key methodologies: (i) nodal integration using
stabilization terms, (ii) interpolation by MLSM and (iii) a node-by-node iterative solver. The #ow
chart of these methods is shown in Figure 1. In the proposed meshless method, each computa-
tion process is performed on a node-by-node basis. In this section, the methodologies of the
proposed NBNM are applied to two-dimensional elastic analyses, including plane stress and
plate problems.
Figure 1. Node-by-node meshless method
3.1. Node search using the bucket algorithm
Many of the meshless methods reported previously use node-based interpolation procedures,
and therefore require the nodal index list around each evaluation point to be created in the
calculation process. To perform this process e$ciently, the bucket algorithm is usually used. The
bucket algorithm relates nodes to their corresponding buckets, which have rather simple cell
structures. Because only nodes located in the cells near the target node are examined, the nodal
search procedure can be performed e$ciently and quickly in practical computations.
3.2. Nodal integration
To integrate the weak form of equation (1a), FEM uses the elements, whereas EFGM uses
the background cells. In the EFGM approach, a su$cient number of integration points in the
background cell can guarantee the accuracy of integration over the analysis domain. In the
proposed method, nodal integration, in which the evaluation points coincide with the nodes, is
used to integrate the governing equations. Since it is generally impossible to perform exact
numerical integration using only arbitrary distributed nodes, a rational method of determining
the weight of nodes for nodal integration should be established.
In the method proposed by Beissel [8], nodal weight is determined using the size of the
in#uence radius for MLSM interpolation and the entire area of the analysed region. However,
since in Beissel's method the size of the in#uence radius does not provide adequate information to
estimate the analysed area, the entire area must be determined using an alternate method.
Therefore, the proposed method applies a di!erent approach to determine nodal weight.
The proposed method uses buckets to evaluate the weight of nodes for integration. Further-
more, each bucket is divided into several sub-buckets. If a bucket intersects the boundary of the
domain, all sub-buckets outside the boundary are omitted. The representative area assigned to
346 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 2. Creation of nodal weights
each sub-bucket is divided and scattered over several nodes according to the weight function,
which is determined by the distance between a node and the corresponding sub-bucket centre, as
shown in Figure 2. The area of a sub-bucket is de"ned as A and distributed to the surrounding
G
nodes k (k"1, 2, . . . , N) according to the weight w de"ned by the distance between the centre
GI
of sub-bucket i and node k. The distributed area a is calculated as follows:
GI

,
a "w A w (9)
GI GI G GH
H
where N is the total number of nodes located inside the in#uence domain of the sub-bucket centre
related to the area A .
G
The sub-bucket area is distributed in the nodes located inside the domain of in#uence around
the sub-bucket centre. For a reasonable area distribution, the size of the domain should be
appropriately determined. In the present study, the smallest convex polygon that encloses the
sub-bucket centre is created by collecting the surrounding nodes. The maximum distance among
the vertex nodes d is set according to the radius. In practical application, the support radius

d is multiplied by the scale factor k as follows:
K
d "k;d (10)
K
The total sum of the contribution area a for node k, expressed as = , is used as the nodal
GI I
weight. Therefore, using nodal weight = , the area integration of function F(x, y) de"ned in the
I
analysed domain < can be approximated as follows:
,.
4 F(x, y) dx dy"' F(x, y) d)
'
(11a)
d)"='
'
(11b)
where NP represents the total number of distributed nodes and ) represents the domain around
'
node I.
3.3. Interpolation using M¸SM
A node based interpolation procedure, such as the Moving Least-Squares Method (MLSM), is
used to construct the interpolation functions. In MLSM, using the linear basis for two-dimen-
sional problems, the approximate function uF of the distributed function u is expressed as follows:
uF(x, y)"+1, x, y,2+a, (12)
where +a, is the coe$cient vector.

The coe$cient vector +a, is determined using the stationary conditions of function J, de"ned
by the evaluated point i and the corresponding surrounding nodes k (k"1, 2, . . . , N). Function
J is expressed as follows:
,
J" w (d ) [+1, x , y ,2+a,!u ] (13)
G GI I I I
I
where d represents the distance between the evaluated point i and the surrounding node k,
GI
w represents the weight calculated using d , and u is the value of the distributed function at
G GI I
node k.
The size of the in#uence domain required to determine the support of the weight function is
determined in the same manner used to evaluate the nodal weight.
After +a, is determined using the stationary conditions of J, +a, can be eliminated and
described using equation (12) as follows:
uF(x, y)"[N(x, y)]+u, (14)
where [N(x, y)] and +u, are the matrices containing the locally de"ned interpolation function and
the vector of nodal values, respectively.
In addition, the derivatives of the approximate function uF can be obtained using the derivative
of [N(x, y)]. The MLSM procedures used in the present study are described in detail in [5].
3.4. Evaluation of nodal stiwness
In the proposed method, the global sti!ness matrix is not assembled from "nite elements, but
from the nodal sti!ness evaluated at each node. In other words, the "rst term of equation (1a) is
evaluated approximately, according to equation (11a), as follows:
,.
4 de2r d<"' de2r d)
'
(15)
Using the interpolation procedure of MLSM, the displacement in region ) can be expressed as
'
follows:
u (x, y)"[N (x, y)]+; , (16)

' ' '
where [N ] and +; , are the locally determined matrices for MLSM interpolation and the vector
' '
of nodal displacement, respectively.
348 T. NAGASHIMA
Using the "rst derivatives of x and y, the strain in region ) is expressed as follows:
'
e (x, y)"[B (x, y)]+; , (17)
' ' '
where [B ] is the strain}displacement matrix.
'
Moreover, the elastic problem of the stress}strain relation takes the following form:
r "[D]e (18)
' '
where [D] is the matrix of the constitutive law.
Using equations (16)}(18), the terms of virtual work in equation (15) can be approximated as
follows:
,.
4 de2r d<:' +d;',2[k']+;', (19)
where [k ] is the nodal sti!ness locally determined in each region and is expressed as follows:
'
[k ]"
' [B' (x, y)2[D][B' (x, y)] d)
'
(20)
Using equations (19) and (20), the local sti!ness can be calculated in a node-by-node manner.
The integration for traction and body force expressed as the second and third terms of equation
(1a) can be discretized in the same manner.
Finally, equation (1a) is discretized as follows:
+d;,2([K ]+;,!+F,)"0 (21)

%
where +;, and +F, are global displacement and force vectors, respectively.
The global sti!ness matrix is de"ned as follows:
,.
[K ]" [k ] (22)
% '
'
If the right-hand side of equation (20) is evaluated using one-point integration, the nodal
sti!ness [k ] is simpli"ed as follows:
'
[k ]"[B (x , y )]2[D][B (x , y )]= (23)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
In the proposed meshless approach, simpli"ed nodal sti!ness was initially used; however,
undesirable spurious deformations were observed in practical computations. This phenomenon
appears to be due to inaccurate nodal sti!ness derived by nodal integration. Therefore, in order to
improve the accuracy of nodal integration, we can apply stabilization methods that are com-
monly used in FEM [9] and particle methods [10].
Therefore, [B (x, y)] can be expressed using the Taylor's expansion as follows:
'

*[B (x, y)] *[B (x, y)]
[B (x, y)]"[B (x , y )]# ' (x!x )# ' (y!y )#HOT (24)
' ' ' ' *x ' *y '
V'W' V'W'
Substituting the "rst three terms, with the exception of the higher order term of equation (24)
into equation (20) and integrating with respect to the domain ) corresponding to node I, the
'
following equation is obtained:
[k ]"[B (x , y )]2[D][B (x , y )]
' ' ' ' ' ' ' d)
'

*B (x, y)
# [B (x , y )]2[D] '
' ' ' *x
V'W'

*B (x, y) 2
# ' [D][B (x , y )] (x!x ) d)
*x ' ' ' '
V'W' '

*B (x, y)
# [B (x , y )]2[D] '
' ' ' *y
V'W'

*B (x, y) 2
# ' [D][B (x , y )] (y!y ) d)
*y ' ' ' '
V W
' ' '

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y)
# ' [D] '
*x *y
V'W' V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y)
# ' [D] ' (x!x )(y!y ) d)
*y *x ' '
V'W' V'W' '

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y)
# ' [D] ' (x!x ) d)
*x *x '
V'W' V'W' '

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y)
# ' [D] ' (y!y ) d) (25)
*y *y '
V'W' V'W' '
Moreover, if the integrated domain ) is assumed to be a circle for internal nodes, or

'
a fan-shaped region for boundary nodes, the area of which is equal to ) , then the nodal sti!ness
'
matrix that incorporates stabilization terms can be expressed as follows:
[k ]"[B (x , y )]2[D][B (x , y )] =
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

*B (x, y)
# [B (x , y )]2[D] '
' ' ' *x
V'W'
350 T. NAGASHIMA

*B (x, y) 2 R
# ' [D][B (x , y )] (sin h !sin h )
*x ' ' ' 3 $
V'W'

*B (x, y)
! [B (x , y )]2[D] '
' ' ' *y
V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 R
# ' [D][B (x , y )] (cos h !cos h )
*y ' ' ' 3 $
V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y)
# ' [D] '
*x *y
V'W' V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y) R
# ' [D] ' (sin h !sin h )
*y *x 8 $
V'W' V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y) R 1
# ' [D] ' h !h # (sin 2h !sin 2h )
*x *x 8 $ 2 $
V'W' V'W'

*B (x, y) 2 *B (x, y) R 1
# ' [D] ' h !h ! (sin 2h !sin 2h )
*y *y 8 $ 2 $
V'W' V'W'
(26)
where R represents the radius of the circle or fan-shaped region assumed to be in the shape of = ,
'
and h and h represent the angles de"ning the fan-shaped region, as shown in Figure 3. If node
$
I is internal, then h and h are 2n and 0, respectively.
$
R is calculated using the nodal weight = and angles h and h as follows:
' $

2=
'
R" (27)
h !h
$
The "rst term of the right-hand side of equation (26) is equivalent to the simpli"ed nodal
sti!ness shown in equation (23). The second through sixth terms function as the stabilization
terms and improve the accuracy of nodal integration. Therefore, these terms were used for the
estimation of nodal sti!ness in the proposed method.
Figure 3. De"nition of integrated area for stabilization terms
When applying the Reissner}Mindlin plate theory [11] in plate analysis, only the stabilization
terms of nodal sti!ness related to in-plane deformation are introduced, whereas those related to
lateral deformation are not used. Introduction of the stabilization terms related to lateral
deformation may cause shear locking for a thin plate.
3.5. Treatment of the essential boundary conditions
The governing equations (the principle of virtual work) shown in equation (1a) are discretized
as equation (21). The unknown displacement vector +;, should be solved considering the
essential boundary conditions shown in equation (1b). The essential boundary condition should
be carefully enforced for meshless methods that use node-based interpolation procedures, because
the value of the interpolation function on the node does not always match the unit value exactly.
The Lagrange multiplier method (LMM) is used in EFGM, and the authors have previously
used the Penalty Function Method (PFM). The global sti!ness matrix of the analysis model
derived using LMM is not positive de"nite, which would be disadvantageous when applying the
direct solver or the iterative solver commonly used in conventional FEM analysis. Furthermore,
although a positive-de"nite matrix can be obtained using PFM, the condition number of the
system matrix tends to be large because of the penalty number. Thus, PFM is not suitable as an
iterative solver. In the present study, the essential boundary conditions on nodes were strictly
enforced to allow both direct and iterative solvers to be used.
If the essential boundary condition is assigned to the node located on the boundary as shown in
Figure 4, the following equation is derived using MLSM.
c
#c
#c
#c
#c
"h (28)
'' ' '( ( ') ) '* * '+ + '
where
represents the arbitrary degrees of freedom related to the essential boundary conditions,
G
and c and h are coe$cients.
'( '
The number of constrained equations such as equation (28) is equal to the number of nodes,
which are assigned enforced essential boundary conditions.
Variables can be partitioned into two subsets as follows:

+
,
[[C ][C ]] K "+h , (29)
K L +
, K
L
Figure 4. Treatment of essential boundary conditions
352 T. NAGASHIMA
where m and n are the number of dependent and independent variables, respectively, from
constrained equations.
The dependent variable +
, can be extracted from equation (29) as follows:
K
+
,"[C ]\(+h ,![C ]+
,) (30)
K K K L L
Before solving the global sti!ness equations shown in equation (21), the dependent variables
are eliminated using equation (30).
3.6. Procedures for eigenvalue analysis
Eigenvalue problems for natural frequency in the "eld of structural analysis are expressed as
follows:
[K ]+<,"u[M ]+<, (31)
% %
where [K ], [M ], +<, and u are the global sti!ness, the global mass, the eigenvector and the
% %
natural circular frequency, respectively.
The global sti!ness [K ] is created using the method described in the previous section.
%
Moreover, the global mass matrix [M ] should be assembled from the local mass matrix [M]
%
de"ned at nodes. Fortunately, in the proposed method, nodal weight was expressed as = for
'
each node prepared. Using these quantities, the global mass matrix [M ] can be expressed
%
directly as follows:

=

[M ]"oh 2 (32)
%
=
,.
where o and h are the mass density and speci"ed thickness, respectively.
Equation (31) can be formulated based on the proposed meshless method and solved using the
simultaneous inverse power method as applied in FEM.
3.7. Node-by-node iterative solver
The simultaneous equations derived by discretizing the governing equations can be solved
using both direct methods, such as the skyline method, and iterative methods, such as the CG
method, as well as FEM.
Though direct methods such as the skyline method are robust methods for solving simulta-
neous equations, they require a huge memory for large-scale problems. Therefore, an iterative
solver is preferable for solving problems that have several degrees of freedom. Even if the
components of the coe$cient matrix are too large to store in the local memory of one processor,
they can be treated using domain decomposition methods [12] that use the local memory of
multiple processors and message passing libraries.
In the proposed method, the CG method was implemented in conjunction with diagonal
scaling as an iterative solver. Two methods are available for holding the components of the
coe$cient matrices when implementing an iterative solver. The "rst involves memorization of
the non-zero terms of the global matrices. The second involves memorizing each partial matrix of
the global matrix. The proposed NBNM adopts the second method. More speci"cally, when
using the CG method for computation, multiplication of the global sti!ness [K ] and the ith
%
iterative vector +;G, is computed as follows:
[K ]+;G,"([k ]+uG,#[k ]+uG,#) ) )#[k ]+uG ,] (33)
% ,. ,.
where [k ] is the nodal sti!ness for node j, and +uG, is a subset of the ith iterative vector related to
H H
nodal sti!ness [k ].
H
As shown in equation (33), the matrix vector multiplication can be performed for each node.
4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
The following sections present numerical examples solved using the proposed NBNM. Section
4.1 shows that the nodal integration method used in NBNM requires less computation time and
memory than EFGM. Section 4.2 describes the e!ects of the proposed stabilization terms for
a one-dimensional problem. In order to examine the accuracy of the proposed method, Section
4.3 compares the solution obtained using the proposed NBNM to the exact solution for the
analysis of a plate with a hole. In Section 4.4, elastostatic and eigenvalue analyses are performed
for a cantilevered rectangular plate, and the e!ects of the stabilization term for controlling
spurious modes are described. The e!ect of the node distribution on the number of iterations to
convergence is investigated in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 presents the practical computation results
obtained for the elastostatic and eigenvalue analyses of a machine part. In addition, the results
obtained using NBNM are compared to those obtained using conventional FEM and/or exact
solutions.
In all of the example analyses, unless stated otherwise, the scale factor k is set to 1)6 and the size
of each bucket is set to be approximately equal to the nominal distance between two nodes.
Buckets located near boundaries are divided into 8;8 sub-buckets and those in the other regions
are divided into 3;3 sub-buckets. A spline-type weight function [5] is used to determine nodal
weight and interpolate by MLSM.
4.1. CPU time required to estimate stiwness
The CPU time required to estimate sti!ness in practice numerical computations was measured
for both EFGM and the proposed NBNM, and the obtained results were compared. Table I
describes the procedures for EFGM and NBNM until the creation of the sti!ness matrices.
Steps 1}4 are common to both methods. In EFGM, after completing Step 4, the sti!ness matrix is
created for each integration point in Step 7. In contrast, in NBNM, the nodal weight, the node list
and the nodal sti!ness are created for each node in Steps 5, 6 and 8, respectively. Because the
procedures for Steps 1}4 are common to both methods, the CPU time for Step 7 for EFGM and
that for Steps 5, 6 and 8 for NBNM were compared. The computation time was measured for
various two dimensional meshless models, shown in Figure 5. The obtained results are shown in
Table II. Computations were performed using a SUN Ultra SPARC 2. In computation, the size of
the background cells or buckets was set to that of the averaged node space, and for EFGM the
number of integration points in each cell was set to 9 (3 points each in the x- and y-directions).
Therefore, the total number of points required for estimating the sti!ness using EFGM is
approximately 9 times that required for NBNM. Although NBNM requires the creation of nodal
weight and a node list, in addition to the estimation of sti!ness, the time required to perform these
354 T. NAGASHIMA
Table I. Processes of EFGM and NBNM
Step Procedure EFGM NBNM
1 Input shape data

2 Create background cells/buckets Common procedure
3 Set integration points in cells/buckets
4 Create node list around each integration point
5 Create nodal weight * t5
6 Create node list around each node * t6
7 Create sti!ness for each intregration point t7 *
8 Create sti!ness for each node * t8
Table II. CPU time for estimating sti!ness
EFGM NBNM Ratio

Number of t7/
Model Problem nodes t7 t5 t6 t8 t5#t6#t8 (t5#t6#t8)
1 Potential 1681 12)9 0)3 0)7 1)6 2)6 5)0

2 Potential 10 201 71)1 1)7 3)9 9)7 15)3 4)6
3 Potential 40 401 294)9 6)9 14)9 39)6 61)4 4)8
4 Plane stress 40 401 367)1 6)9 14)9 51)0 72)8 5)0
5 Plate 40 401 529)0 6)9 14)9 74)2 96)0 5)5
6 Potential 90 601 681)8 15)6 32)7 87)2 135)5 5)0
7 Plane stress 3811 33)4 0)6 4)7 4)6 9)9 3)4
8 Plate 5403 74)4 0)98 3)66 9)85 14)5 5)1
9 Plane stress 8934 85)5 1)6 6)5 10)9 19)0 4)5
10 Plane stress 20 311 182)4 3)5 10)4 24)9 38)8 4)7
Measured on SUN ultra sparc 2/Unit: s
procedures is relatively short. In other words, t7 is greater than the sum of t5, t6 and t8 in all cases.
The ratio of t7 to the sum of t5, t6 and t8 is generally greater than 4. The potential problem, the
plane stress problem and the plate problem for the same node distribution, in which the DOF per
node are 1, 2 and 3, respectively, were examined for Models 3}5 shown in Figure 5. The greater
the computation time for estimating sti!ness, the higher the ratio of t7 to the sum of t5, t6 and t8
obtained. Because the computation time for estimating sti!ness is very large for non-linear and
three-dimensional problems, this ratio appears to be signi"cant. Therefore, NBNM using nodal
integration is more e$cient than EFGM with respect to computation time. In addition, less
memory is required for computing the sti!ness matrices.
Because a few integration points may degrade the accuracy of the sti!ness estimation. In order
to improve the accuracy of the proposed NBNM, stabilization terms are introduced in NBNM.
The computation time for the stabilization terms is minimal compared to the total time required
to estimate nodal sti!ness. The t8 column in Table II contains the CPU time required for
calculating the stabilization terms for each model.
Figure 5. Meshless models
4.2. Ewects of stabilization terms
The e!ects of the proposed stabilization terms are demonstrated by one-dimensional numerical
integration. First, de"ne the continuous function F(x) on [0, 2] as follows:
F(x)"cos nx (34)
Using the function G(x), the "rst derivative of F(x), the integration is de"ned as follows:

dF(x)
I"

dx

dx" +G(x), dx (35)
356 T. NAGASHIMA
where
dF(x)
G(x), (36)
dx
Next, select three nodes located at x"0, 1, and 2 and generate the curve passing through the
points (0, F(0)), (1, F(1)) and (2, F(2)) using one-dimensional MLSM. In this process, the in#uence
radius is "xed at 1)6. The function obtained using MLSM and the "rst and second derivative of
this function are compared with the exact functions in Figures 6(a)}6(c). Although the second
derivative contains errors at x"0)0 and 2)0, a relatively good approximation can be obtained. In
addition, Figure 6(d) shows the integrated function G(x). Numerical values obtained for each
node are shown in Table III.
The estimation of integral I is attempted by numerical integration using the points x"0, 1,
and 2. Because = , = and = , which represent the weights for these three integration points, are

equal to 0)5, 1)0, and 0)5, respectively, a simple estimation of the integration is obtained as follows:
I"G(0)= #G(1)= #G(2)=

"(!0)06983467);0)5#0;1)0#0)06983467;0)5
"0)004877 (37)
The result of the simple integration does not match the exact solution, and the integrated
value is approximately 0)05 per cent of the exact value. If F(x) is deformation, then G(x) and the
integration I are the strain and strain energy, respectively. In other words, in the simple
integration, the deformation mode, the half wavelength of which is shorter than the node space,
does not contribute to the sti!ness. Therefore, simple integration interprets deformation modes
similar to F(x) as zero eigenvalue modes, despite the fact that F(x) does not appear to display rigid
body motion.
However, using the proposed stabilization term, the integration is performed as follows:

dG(0) dG(1)
I" G(0)# x dx# G(1)# (x!1) dx
dx dx

dG(1)
# G(2)# (x!2) dx
dx

dG(0) dG(0)
" G(0);0)5#2G(0)
dx

x dx#
dx

x dx

dG(1) dG(1)
# G(1);1)0#2G(1)
dx

(x!1) dx#
dx

(x!1) dx

dG(2) dG(2)
# G(2);0)5#2G(2)
dx

(x!2) dx#
dx

(x!2) dx
"2;+(!0)06983467);0)5#2;(!0)06983467);(!3)982843);0)125,
#8)318171;0)08333
"5)9097 (38)
Figure 6. Functions for the one-dimensional tests: (a) function F(x); (b) function G(x); (c) dG(x)/dx; and (d) G(x)*G(x)
358 T. NAGASHIMA
Table III. Numerical solution at integrated points for the one-dimen-

sional tests
Coordinate x F(x) G(x)"dF(x)/dx dG(x)/dx
0)0 0)921876 !0)06983467 !3)982843

1)0 !0)8496260 0)0 8)318171
2)0 0)921876 0)06983467 !3)982843
The integrated result is approximately 60 per cent of the exact solution; however, nodal
integration using stabilization terms can account for the the contribution of F(x), even though the
simple nodal integration cannot give appropriate results, as shown in equation (37).
4.3. Analysis of a square plate with a hole
To verify the accuracy of the proposed NBNM, the two-dimensional elastic problem (plane
stress problem), for which the exact solution is obtained, is solved for a model having the same
node distribution using NBNM and the results are compared with the exact solution and the
solutions obtained using FEM. The in"nite plate with a hole shown in Figure 7 (Young's
modulus: 21 000 kgf/mm, Poisson's ratio: 0)3) was adopted. This problem was solved using
EFGM [5]. In a practice computation, the zooming model (a quarter model), for which the stress
boundary conditions are determined using the exact solution, is analysed. The analysis models
are shown in Figure 8. Three types of meshless models, N1 (number of nodes: 320), N2 (number of
nodes: 1259), and N3 (number of nodes: 4000) are used. In addition, three types of FEM models,
F1 (number of nodes: 320, number of elements: 300), F2 (number of nodes: 1259, number of
elements: 1200), and F3 (number of nodes: 4886, number of elements: 9491), are used for
comparison. In NBNM analysis, two types of computation, one of which includes the stabiliz-
ation terms, the other of which does not, were performed. Linear triangle elements are used in the
FEM analysis.
To perform a quantity comparison between the numerical solutions and the exact solution, the
L2 displacement error norm is de"ned as follows:

DN" (u,3+!u#6!2)2(u,3+!u#6!2) d) (39)

Furthermore, the energy error norm is de"ned as follows:

1
EN" (r,3+!r#6!2)2(e,3+!e#6!2) d) (40)
2

In practice, the above equation is evaluated by discretizing for nodes. The relationships
between the scale factor k, which determines the size of the in#uence radius, and the L2
Figure 7. Analysis of an in"nite plate with a hole (plane stress problem)
360 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 8. Analysis models
displacement and energy error norms are shown in Figure 9. Generally, large k yields a small
error norm. In these analyses, if k is greater than 1)6, the error norm of the results obtained using
NBNM can be held to within that obtained using FEM. As k increases, the number of nodes
included in MLSM interpolation increases and the cost of computation may grow large.
Therefore, the scale factor is set to 1)6 for the NBNM computation performed in the present
study.
If the scale factor k is set to 1)6, the relationships between the size of node space h and the
L2 displacement and energy error norms, are shown in Figure 10. NBNM is shown to be
Figure 9. Scale factor vs. L2 Displacement and energy error norm
more accurate than FEM using three-node triangular linear elements. Furthermore,
NBNM without stabilization has worse convergency than both NBNM with stabilization and
FEM.
The numerical results obtained for the displacements in the x- and y-direction and the stresses
p , p and q at all nodes were compared with the exact solution, and the results are shown in
V W VW
Figure 11 for Models N2 and F2. Meshless analyses were performed in two ways, i.e. with and
362 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 10. Node space vs. L2 Displacement and energy error norm
without the stabilization terms. The results of the displacements obtained using these calculation
methods show fairly good agreement with the exact solution; however, errors for stresses were
found in the numerical solutions obtained using NBNM and FEM. However, the results obtained
using NBNM in conjunction with the stabilization terms have the same order of accuracy as
those obtained using FEM. The results obtained using NBNM without stabilization terms yield
large errors for some nodes. The distribution of normal stress in the x-direction along the y-axis
Figure 11. Di!erences between FEM and NBNM analyses: (a) displacement by NBNM; (b) displacement by NBNM
without stabilization; (c) displacement by FEM; (d) stress by NBNM; (e) stress by NBNM without stabilization; (f ) stress
by FEM
364 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 12. Distribution of normal stress in the x-direction: (a) stress distribution by N1 and F1; (b) stress distribution by
N2 and F2; (c) stress distribution by N3 and F3
calculated using FEM and NBNM were also compared to the exact solution and are shown in
Figure 12 for three models. The results of NBNM with stabilization and those of FEM are in
good agreement with the exact solution; however, those of NBNM without stabilization have
a signi"cant error.
Figure 13. Analysis of a cantilevered rectangular plate
366 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 15. Results of plane stress analysis
4.4. Analysis of a rectangular plate
Elastostatic and structural eigenvalue analysis were performed using NBNM and FEM for
a cantilevered rectangular plate (Young's modulus: 21 000 kgf/mm, Poisson's ratio: 0)3, thick-
ness: 1)0 mm, mass density: 8)0;10\ kgf s/mm), shown in Figure 13. Both analyses were used
to treat the plane stress problem and plate problem. The analysis models are shown in Figure 14.
The coarse model N4 (number of nodes: 63) and the "ne model N5 (number of nodes: 306) were
used for NBNM analysis. For comparison, the coarse model F4 (number of nodes: 63, number of
elements: 40) and the "ne model F5 (number of nodes: 306, number of elements: 250) were also
subjected to FEM analysis. In the NBNM analysis, computation was performed both with and
without the stabilization terms. In the FEM analysis, four-node isoparametric elements are used.
Figure 16. Results of plate analyses
In particular, a plate element based on the MITC formulation by Dvorkin [13] was used for plate
analysis.
4.4.1 Elastostatic analysis. The plate stress analysis is performed for an in-plane load and the
plate analysis is performed for a transverse load. For the in-plane shear load, the displacement
distribution in the x- and y-direction along the x-axis is shown in Figure 15(a) for the coarse
models and Figure 15(b) for the "ne models. Agreement between the results of FEM and NBNM
with stabilization was obtained. However, the analysis of the coarse model using NBNM without
stabilization revealed smaller deformation than that of FEM. Moreover, for the lateral shear
load, the displacement distribution in the z-direction along the x-axis is shown in Figure 16(a) for
the coarse models and Figure 16(b) for the "ne models. Fairly good agreement was obtained
between FEM and NBNM. For loads that produce rather simple deformations, good results were
obtained using NBNM even without introducing the stabilization terms.
368 T. NAGASHIMA
Table IV. Natural frequency of a rectangular plate: Plane stress problem (in-plane mode)
Coarse node distribution Fine node distribution

N4 and F4 N5 and F5
NBNM NBNM
without without
Mode NBNM stabilization FEM NBNM stabilization FEM
1 926)10 1016)48 870)1 844)19 857)01 830)31

2 5484)11 5938)44 5198)52 5051)21 5117)68 4979)09
3 12 831)88 9701)93 12 829)92 12 827)60 12 826)16 12825)78
4 14 201)32 12 826)61 13 640)26 13 258)21 13 392)42 13 110)92
5 25 290)04 15 048)68 24 685)38 23 992)82 24 142)77 23 817)59
6 37 750)18 20 850)54 37 476)98 36 432)15 28 204)95 36 308)01
7 38 320)59 26 047)23 38 378)47 38 436)43 30 588)69 38 436)1
8 50 818)64 26 347)58 51 322)07 49 937)19 31 147)93 49 957)8
9 63 283)70 32 919)43 63 584)88 63 901)16 36 498)66 63 916)69
10 63 994)48 37 615)64 65 731)25 64 085)90 38 389)82 64 347)67
Unit: Hz
Spurious mode observed
4.4.2. Structural eigenvalue analysis. The eigenvalue analyses for in-plane structural vibra-
tions were performed for coarse models (N4 and F4) and "ne models (N5 and F5), for which
the eigenvalues were calculated up to the 10th mode. The calculated natural frequencies
are shown in Table IV. Moreover, eigenmode by NBNM analysis are shown in Figures 17}20.
The modes calculated using NBNM without stabilization terms are shown in Figures 18
and 20. Spurious modes were observed even for the "ne node distribution. The stabilization
terms enable spurious modes such as those shown in Figures 17 and 19 to be completely
eliminated.
The eigenvalue analysis of lateral structural vibrations was performed using coarse models
(N4 and F4) and "ne models (N5 and F5). The eigenvalues were calculated up to the 10th mode.
The calculated natural frequencies are shown in Table V. Moreover, eigenmodes obtained using
NBNM analysis are shown in Figures 21}24. The modes calculated using NBNM without the
stabilization terms are shown in Figures 22 and 24. Spurious modes were observed even for the
"ne node distribution. The introduction of the stabilization terms reduces the number of spurious
modes when using the coarse model; however, spurious modes are not completely eliminated, as
shown in Figure 21. At present, a more precise model is required, in which spurious modes are
never induced over the range of the objective frequency. For this problem, NBNM analysis using
the "ne model could be used to eliminate the spurious modes up to the 10th mode, as shown in
Figure 23.
4.5. Convergency of iteration by CG method
One characteristic of the proposed NBNM is that the discretized equations are solved using the
constraint equations in which the nodal value on the essential boundary satis"es a prescribed
Figure 17. In-plane eigenmode for the coarse model by NBNM with stabilization
condition. Such a procedure enables the mathematical property of the system equation to be
maintained as positive de"nite if rigid body motions are constrained. Therefore, the discretized
equations can be solved iteratively using the Conjugate Gradient (CG) method as well as
conventional FEM. In this computation, the positive-de"nite state of the discretized equations
was con"rmed numerically and the convergency for the iterative solution was investigated.
The two-dimensional plane stress problem (Young's modulus: 21 000 kgf/mm, Poisson's ratio:
0)3) shown in Figure 25 was solved using the two meshless models, which posses the same number
of nodes (number of nodes: 359), shown in Figure 26. Model A was created by generating nodes
regularly inside the analysed region de"ned by CAD data.
Model A was modi"ed to Model B using the smoothing procedure described in [14]. As shown
in Figure 26, the node space near the boundary is natural and smooth for Model B. NBNM
analysis was performed by using the CG method in conjunction with diagonal scaling. The
convergence of the iterative solution can be determined if the ratio norm of the residual vector to
370 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 18. In-plane eigenmode for the coarse model by NBNM without stabilization
that of the load vector is smaller than 1)0;10\. For both models the results obtained using the
CG method yield the same results as those obtained using the direct method (the skyline method).
The process of convergence is shown in Figure 27, which shows that the number of iterations for
Model B is less than that for Model A. In order to con"rm the di!erence in convergency between
Models A and B, the condition number of the discretized system equations are estimated. All
eigenvalues are solved using the Jacobi method and the ratio of the maximum eigenvalue to the
minimum eigenvalue are calculated. The number of iterations and the condition number are
shown in Table VI. Because diagonal scaling is utilized as pre-conditioning in the practice
computations the eigenvalues and the condition number are shown for the scaled system
equation. Therefore, the positive de"niteness of the system equations is con"rmed. Moreover, the
condition number of the equations for Model B is smaller than that for Model A. Because
a smaller condition number yields a smaller iteration number, these results can be used to
Figure 19. In-plane eigenmode for the "ne model by NBNM with stabilization
examine the convergency in iterative calculation. Furthermore, smoothing appears to be required

so as not to enlarge the condition number of the system equations for iterative solutions.
The relationship between the number of iterations until convergence and the scale factor k,
which determines the size of the in#uence domain, was investigated. The results for Model B are
shown in Figure 28. Large values of k can reduce the total number of iterations. However, because
the size of k a!ects the size of the nodal sti!ness matrices related to the computational e$ciency,
the scale factor should be determined carefully.
4.6. Analysis of a machine part
Elastostatic and eigenvalue analyses for a machine part designed by CAD, shown in Figure 29,
were performed using NBNM. For the elastostatic analysis, plane stress analysis was performed
372 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 20. In-plane eigenmode for the "ne model by NBNM without stabilization
for an in-plane load. For the eigenvalue analysis, natural frequency and eigenmodes were
calculated for both plane stress and plate problems. The NBNM model (number of nodes: 5000)
and FEM model (number of nodes: 5403, number of triangle elements: 10,248) are shown in
Figure 30.
4.6.1. Elastostatic analysis. The elastostatic plane stress analysis of the machine part was
performed for an in-plane load. Stress distributions of the calculated von Mises stresses are shown
in Figure 31. Fairly good agreement between these methods appears to have been obtained.
However, as shown in Figure 32, the FEM result shows a slight, unnatural #uctuation in the
distribution of von Mises stresses along cross-sections A}A and B}B, as shown in Figure 29. In
contrast, a smoothed stress distribution is obtained using NBNM. This is one advantage of
meshless methods such as NBNM that use node-based interpolation.
Table V. Natural frequency of a rectangular plate: plate problem (lateral mode)
Coarse node distribution Fine node distribution

N4 and F4 N5 and F5
NBNM NBNM
without without
Mode NBNM stabilization FEM NBNM stabilization FEM
1 85)20 84)86 83)3 84)05 83)65 83)29

2 528)14 523)91 521)78 525)88 522)89 521)66
3 1348)06 967)32 1321)82 1469)99 1459)58 1461)39
4 1456)10 1339)89 1464)49 1557)09 1553)22 1542)45
5 2785)90 1434)83 2884)67 2874)13 2847)98 2867)41
6 4051)35 2469)44 3979)42 4694)48 4677)73 4650)21
7 4092)60 2727)07 4805)94 4736)42 4680)71 4748)61
8 4552)35 4018)65 6679)46 7045)20 4825)46 7108)5
9 6441)06 4264)09 7254)63 7900)06 6030)90 7825)85
10 6772)12 4480)11 9452)00 9783)36 6765)28 9950)3
Unit: Hz
spurious mode observed
4.6.2. Structural eigenvalue analysis. The natural frequencies for in-plane and lateral vibration
were calculated up to the sixth mode using both NBNM and FEM. The natural frequencies
calculated using NBNM with/without stabilization terms and those calculated using FEM are
shown in Table VII for in-plane vibration and in Table VIII for lateral vibration. Fairly good
agreement was obtained between all three methods. The spurious mode did not occur for the six
modes examined even if the stabilization terms were omitted. The eigenmodes calculated using
NBNM with the stabilization terms are shown in Figure 33 for in-plane vibration and in Figure
34 for lateral vibration. Adequate mode shapes were obtained using only the node distribution
and NBNM.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In the present paper, the NBNM method was proposed. The NBNM method discretizes the
governing equations using the principle of virtual work and the Galerkin method, for which only
the node distributions in the analysed domain are used. The proposed method was used to solve
two-dimensional elastostatic and eigenvalue analyses, including plane stress and plate problems.
The following conclusions were obtained in the present study:
(1) To perform nodal integrations, a more general method of creating nodal weights using
buckets and the weight function of MLSM was proposed.
(2) The CPU time required to estimate the discretized sti!ness using NBNM was compared to
that required when using EFGM. NBNM, which uses the nodal integration, was found to have
a higher computational e$ciency.
374 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 21. Lateral eigenmode for the coarse model by NBNM with stabilization
(3) A stabilization method by which the nodal sti!ness is estimated using the "rst-order Taylor
expansion and analysed integration as a means of compensating for the degradation of accuracy
caused by nodal integration. Example problems were solved in order to demonstrate the
e!ectiveness of the proposed stabilization method. In the computation for the plate analysis
based on the Reissner}Mindlin plate theory, the stabilization terms should be introduced only for
the sti!ness related to in-plate deformation and not for that related to lateral deformation. If the
stabilization terms are introduced when estimating the sti!ness for lateral deformation, the
solution may lock for a thin plate.
Figure 22. Lateral eigenmode for the coarse model by NBNM without stabilization
(4) In the eigenvalue analysis of the cantilevered rectangular plate, spurious modes were
sometimes observed for NBNM without the stabilization terms. The introduction of the pro-
posed stabilization terms can control spurious modes. Spurious modes can be eliminated
completely for plane stress analysis. In addition, although not all spurious modes can be
eliminated for plate analysis, increasing the number of distributed nodes can control these
spurious modes.
(5) The numerical results obtained using NBNM, including displacements and stresses,
were compared with those obtained using FEM and/or exact solutions. In particular, the L2
376 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 23. Lateral eigenmode for the "ne model by NBNM with stabilization
displacement and energy error norms were used to compare the numerical results to the
corresponding exact solutions for the problem of a plate with a hole. NBNM was found to be
more accurate than conventional FEM using three-node triangle elements.
(6) A procedure was proposed in which the constraint equations for nodal freedoms on the
essential boundary are used instead of the Lagrange multiplier method. Using this procedure for
the essential boundary conditions, the positive de"niteness of the coe$cient matrices of the
discretized system equations can be preserved if the rigid body deformations are constrained.
Therefore, the CG method, which solves the positive-de"nite symmetric matrices iteratively, can
Figure 24. Lateral eigenmode for the "ne model by NBNM without stabilization
be applied. The positive-de"niteness of the coe$cient matrices was con"rmed in the example
problems, for which the model size was relatively small, and all of the eigenvalues were solved.
Moreover, the total number of iterations until convergence may increase if the node distribution
is not given properly.
The proposed NBNM was demonstrated to be applicable as an e!ective meshless method.

Although the proposed method was applied only to two-dimensional analyses of plane stress and
plate problems, this method can be expanded to curved shells in three-dimensional space by
378 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 25. Plane stress problem
combining NBNM with the mapping method [15]. Because only distributed nodes
in the analysed domain are required for meshless analysis, the analysis model can be
easily generated from the shape information extracted from CAD data. Meshless methods such as
NBNM are useful for treating complicated models in three dimensions, which cannot be
Figure 26. Node distribution for convergence tests
Figure 27. Residual vs. Number of iterations
380 T. NAGASHIMA
Table VI. Number of iterations and condition number
Number of Max. Min. Condition

Model iterations eigenvalue eigenvalue number
Model A 587 5)4032e#00 3)4761e!07 1)5544e#07

Model B 390 4)2556e#00 2)1520e!06 1)9775e#06
Figure 28. Relationship between convergency and scale factor k
Table VII. Natural frequency of in-plane mode
NBNM
without
Mode NBNM stabilization FEM
1 906)50 902)96 909)09

2 1640)04 1627)99 1639)45
3 4426)57 4404)81 4434)00
4 9932)99 9902)99 9944)57
5 11226)98 11102)07 11209)39
6 17516)87 17460)02 17522)44
Unit: Hz
Figure 29. Analysis of a machine part
accomplished using automatic mesh generation. Therefore, in the future, the proposed NBNM
will be applied to three-dimensional problems. If the expression for the three-dimensional region
is given properly, the applicability of the proposed NBNM can be expanded easily to three-
dimensional problems.
Furthermore, in future studies, the proposed method will be applied to solve incremental
analyses that are based on the updated Lagrangian formulation, such as rigid plastic analysis.
The estimation of sti!ness for these analyses should be performed at each incremental step;
therefore, the computational algorithm for nodal integration should be very e!ective.
382 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 31. Distribution of von Mises stress for plane stress analysis
Figure 32. Distribution of stress on: (a) Section A-A; (b) Section B-B
Table VIII. Natural frequency of lateral mode
NBNM
without
Mode NBNM stabilization FEM
1 50)94 50)70 50)73

2 72)41 72)15 72)25
3 256)36 255)08 255)40
4 518)29 517)01 517)64
5 781)00 777)63 777)20
6 874)50 871)25 872)34
Unit: Hz
384 T. NAGASHIMA
Figure 34. Lateral eigenmode for the machine part
Figure 33. In-plane eigenmode for the machine part
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Professor Genki Yagawa of the University of Tokyo and Professor
Hiroshi Okuda of the Yokohama National University for their useful suggestions and discussions.
REFERENCES
1. Lucy L. A numerical approach to the testing of the "ssion hypothesis. A. J. 1977; 82:1013}1024.
2. Monaghan, JJ. An introduction to SPH. Computational Physics and Communication 1988; 48:89}96.
3. Liu WK, Jun S, Zhang YF. Reproducing kernel particle methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids 1995; 20:1081}1106.
4. Nayroles B, Touzot G, Villon P. Generalizing the "nite element method: di!use approximation and di!use elements.
Computational Mechanics 1992; 10:307}318.
5. Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L. Element-free Galerkin methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 1994; 37:229}256.
6. Yagawa G, Yamada T. Free mesh method: a new meshless "nite element method. Computational Mechanics 1996;
18:383}386.
7. Nagashima T. Node-by-node meshless approach and its application to elastostatic and eigenvalue analyses. Proced-
ings of the ICES97, 1997; 906}911.
8. Beissel S, Belytschko T. Nodal integration of the element-free Galerkin method. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 1996; 139:49}74.
9. Liu WK, Ong JS, Uras RA. Finite element stabilization matrices*a uni"cation approach. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1985; 53:13}46.
10. Liu WK, Chen Y, Jun S, Chen JS, Belytschko T, Pan C, Uras RA, Chang CT. Overview and applications of the
reproducing kernel particle methods. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering State of the Art Reviews 1996;
3:3}80.
11. Mindlin RD. In#uence of rotary inertia and shear of #exural motion of isotropic elastic plates. Journal of Applied
Mechanics 1951; 18:31}38.
12. Papadrakakis M. Parallel Solution Methods in Computational Mechanics. Wiley: New York, 1997.
13. Dvorkin EN, Bathe KJ. A continuum mechanics based four-node shell element for general nonlinear analysis.
Engineering Computations 1984; 1:77}88.
14. Nagashima T. Development of a CAE system based on the node-by-node meshless method. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering (accepted).
15. Noguchi H. Application of element free Galerlin method to analysis of Mindlin type plate/shell problems. Proceedings
of the ICES97, 1997; 918}923.

Nagashima 1999 Node-By-Node Meshless Approach and Its Applications To Structural Analyses

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

Nagashima 1999 Node-By-Node Meshless Approach and Its Applications To Structural Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 46, 341}385 (1999)

NODE-BY-NODE MESHLESS APPROACH AND ITS

CCC 0029-5981/99/270341}45$17.50 Received 30 April 1997

4 de2r d<!1 du2t dS!4 du2b d<"0

2.1. Plane stress problem

2.2. Plate problem

Therefore, the component of strain e in a plate is expressed as follows:

3. NODE-BY-NODE MESHLESS METHOD

Figure 1. Node-by-node meshless method

3.1. Node search using the bucket algorithm

3.2. Nodal integration

Figure 2. Creation of nodal weights

3.3. Interpolation using M¸SM

uF(x, y)"+1, x, y,2+a, (12)

where +a, is the coe$cient vector.

uF(x, y)"[N(x, y)]+u, (14)

3.4. Evaluation of nodal stiwness

u (x, y)"[N (x, y)]+; , (16)

+d;,2([K ]+;,!+F,)"0 (21)

Moreover, if the integrated domain ) is assumed to be a circle for internal nodes, or

Figure 3. De"nition of integrated area for stabilization terms

3.5. Treatment of the essential boundary conditions

Figure 4. Treatment of essential boundary conditions

3.6. Procedures for eigenvalue analysis

3.7. Node-by-node iterative solver

4.1. CPU time required to estimate stiwness

Table I. Processes of EFGM and NBNM

Step Procedure EFGM NBNM

1 Input shape data

Table II. CPU time for estimating sti!ness

EFGM NBNM Ratio

1 Potential 1681 12)9 0)3 0)7 1)6 2)6 5)0

Measured on SUN ultra sparc 2/Unit: s

Figure 5. Meshless models

4.2. Ewects of stabilization terms

Table III. Numerical solution at integrated points for the one-dimen-

Coordinate x F(x) G(x)"dF(x)/dx dG(x)/dx

0)0 0)921876 !0)06983467 !3)982843

4.3. Analysis of a square plate with a hole

Furthermore, the energy error norm is de"ned as follows:

Figure 7. Analysis of an in"nite plate with a hole (plane stress problem)

Figure 8. Analysis models

Figure 9. Scale factor vs. L2 Displacement and energy error norm

Figure 13. Analysis of a cantilevered rectangular plate

Figure 14. Analysis models

Figure 15. Results of plane stress analysis

4.4. Analysis of a rectangular plate

Figure 16. Results of plate analyses

Coarse node distribution Fine node distribution

1 926)10 1016)48 870)1 844)19 857)01 830)31

4.5. Convergency of iteration by CG method

examine the convergency in iterative calculation. Furthermore, smoothing appears to be required

4.6. Analysis of a machine part

Table V. Natural frequency of a rectangular plate: plate problem (lateral mode)

Coarse node distribution Fine node distribution

1 85)20 84)86 83)3 84)05 83)65 83)29

The proposed NBNM was demonstrated to be applicable as an e!ective meshless method.

Figure 25. Plane stress problem

Figure 26. Node distribution for convergence tests

Figure 27. Residual vs. Number of iterations

Table VI. Number of iterations and condition number

Number of Max. Min. Condition

4 de2r d<!1 du2t dS!4 du2b d<"0