Assessment of Mesh-Free Methods in Lsdyna

Assessment of Mesh-free Methods
in LS-DYNA :
Modeling of Barriers
in Crash Simulation
C
a
gdas Kambur
Institut f
ur Baustatik / Institute for Structural Mechanics
Prof.Dr.-Ing. E. Ramm
Master of Science Thesis supervised by

Dr.-Ing. A. Haufe and Dipl.-Ing. M. Gee
Stuttgart, May 2004

Masters Thesis
Assessment of the MeshFree Methods in LSDYNA:

Modelling of Barriers in crash simulation
The Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method is a prominent example of a meshless method for solving partial differential equations. By only using a set of nodal points and a geometrical description of the body to discretize the model, no mesh in the classical sense is needed to define the
problem. Moreover, while refining the discretization in the classical meshbased approaches can
be a tedious task, this is rather simple in case of meshless methods: the order of approximation
is increased by adding further nodes.
While the method has intensively
been used for brittle materials,
where crack tip propagation can be
simulated without remeshing, another major advantage of the method is seen in the absense of sensitivities due to large mesh distortions. The latter is currently regarded as the main benefit when simulating structures that undergo large
deformations like rubber, foams or
other cellular material, e.g. barriers in some crash test setups.

The thesis shall include but will not be limited to following topics:
A literature study on the method including an indepth understanding and documentation of
the theory. A critical comparison of different approaches compared to the one implemented
in LSDYNA.
Evaluation of the implementation of LSDYNA by test problems. Checking if the targeted
application (barriers) can be handled by the method including a study on stability.
Application of the method to partial car crash models and comparison to traditional modelling
techniques.
The student will get training and gain practical experience with major industrial tools that are
used to set up large numerical models.
Author:
Cagdas Kambur
Supervisors:
Dr.Ing. Andre Haufe (DYNAmore GmbH), Michael Gee
I, C
agdas Kambur, ensure that this master thesis is independently written
and no other sources have been used than the stated references.
Preface
Meshless methods or in a more positive manner mesh-free methods do not
require a mesh structure, and therefore they are termed as mesh-free methods. After the landmark paper by Belytschko[2], meshless methods gained a
fascinating popularity in finite element community and have grown so fast
over the last decade by means of their advantages. For a variety of engineering problems with extremely large deformations, moving boundaries or
discontinuities, meshless methods are very attractive.
Modeling with these methods only requires a set of unstructured points that
cover the domain of interest. Many problems that currently cannot be solved
by finite element method or finite difference method are handled by meshfree methods. The element free Galerkin method was the main point
of interest of Master Thesis, investigating its applicability and accuracy.
The aim was to implement the element free Galerkin method to design the
barriers in crash simulations using LS-DYNA including a large survey of
the theory. The models were tested for the performance of the method comparing available benchmark problems in very large and complex deformation
situations.
To solve the real life engineering problems using the very advanced general
purpose nonlinear finite element program, LS-DYNA, was a good experience
for me by applying this newly developed technique. Letting alone handle the
real life problems, it was good oppurtinity to see the professional engineering life at DYNAmore GmbH, which is the distributer of LS-DYNA and
provides consultancy and support to many well-known companies. I believe
that I learnt great to handle the different sorts of problems.
I would like to thank my supervisors Andre Haufe, DYNAmore GmbH and
Michael Gee for the guiding and helps during the thesis. I also would like
to thank Prof.Dr.-Ing. Ekkehard Ramm for giving the chance of performing
the thesis in this research environment.
Finally, I am thankful to my family for their support and patience.
C
a
gda
s Kambur - May 2004
CONTENTS
Contents
1 General View to Meshless Methods
1.1 Research on Meshless Methods . . . . . . .
1.1.1 Smoothed particle hydrodynamics .
1.1.2 Generalized finite difference method
1.1.3 Diffuse element method . . . . . .
1.1.4 Element free Galerkin method . . .
1.1.5 Reproducing kernel particle method
1.1.6 Partition of unity method . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2 The Need for Meshless Methods

2.1 Meshless Methods in Engineering . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Modeling the Geometry . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3 Node Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.4 Shape Function Construction . . . . . . .
2.1.5 Material Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.6 Boundary, Initial, and Loading Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3 Element Free Galerkin Method

3.1 Description of EFG Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Moving Least Squares Approximation . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Choice of the Weight Function . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Example : Effect of the weight function . . . .
3.4 Galerkin Weak Form Formulation . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Enforcement of essential boundary conditions
3.5 Numerical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.1 Quadrature Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.2 Nodal Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.3 Stabilized Nodal Integration . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 EFGM for Non-Linear Models . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 General View to Stability and Convergence Analysis .
3.7.1 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.2 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
13
15
19
22
24
25
28
29
31
32
33
35
35
36
4 1D Equilibrium Equation with EFGM

38
4.1 Conclusion of 1D EFGM problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2 Modified version of Galerkin weak form . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
CONTENTS
5 LS-DYNA and Selected Barrier Models
5.1 Brief Introduction of LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Theory of EFG method in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Interface constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Numerical Integration and Convergence . . .
5.2.3 Integration constraints . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Strain smoothing stabilization method . . .
5.3 Barrier Models in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Contact in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 EFG in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 Model 0 : Cantilever Block . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 Model 1 : Barrier - Hollow Cylinder . . . . .
5.3.5 Model 2 : Barrier - Projectile . . . . . . . .
5.3.6 Model 3 : Barrier - Impactor with an angle
5.3.7 Model 4 : Barrier - Bumper . . . . . . . . .
5.3.8 Model 5 : Chevrolet Truck (C1500D-Pickup)
6 Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Barrier
47
47
47
47
48
49
51
53
53
54
55
59
64
69
73
76
81
A Appendix
83
A.1 Material Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A.2 Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
References
86
1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS
General View to Meshless Methods
The finite element method used for modeling continuum problems stemming
from computational mechanics is well-established. Since the development of
the computer technology has increased sharply, the application of the finite
element method has become the most popular method with its advantages
in computer implementation. It is a robust and thoroughly developed technique. The question of robustness could be answered by means of its wellestablished convergence rate of the solution. In addition to that, the analysis
of complex geometries and non-linear problems can be handled. However,
the finite element method is not without shortcomings. It is not always
advantageous in handling some problems considering the modeling of large
deformation processes (remarkable loss in accuracy happens when the elements in the mesh become extremely skewed or compressed), the growth of
cracks with arbitrary and complex paths, moving discontinuities or that is
to say, some kind of fracture mechanics problems. These kinds of problems
are not handled so efficiently by finite element method which has a structure
originating from its reliance on a mesh which is not well-suited to the treatment of discontinuities, for example, having non-coincidence with original
meshlines.
Therefore, the most viable strategy or more commonly the traditional technique is to remesh the domain of the problem at each time step during simulation allowing the meshlines remain coincident with discontinuities throughout the evolution of the problem and enabling to hinder the distortion of
elements. Obviously, this technique can bring the numerous difficulties such
as the need to project between meshes in succesive stages of the problem
with a large number of remeshings, which leads to complexity and degradation of accuracy. Mesh generation each time is a far more time consuming
and expensive task than the assembly and the solution. Apart from that,
for three-dimensional problems, the cost increases highly making it a prohibitively expensive process. Therefore, a new method is needed which needs
less time in preparation of the data.
Meshless methods have been developed to handle these difficulties. They
do not require a mesh to discretize the problem. All meshless methods share
the common feature that the discretization of the partial differential equation
does not rely on a structured meshing topology. Mesh-free interpolants are
constructed among a set of scattered particles that have no particular topological connection among them. The meshless methods eliminate the difficulties experienced by finite element method by approximating it entirely in
terms of nodes distributed in the domain and the connectivity between nodes
and approximating functions are completely constructed by the method itself. Thus, the methodology uses only the nodes and can be linked more
easily with a CAD database than finite elements, since it is not necessary to
generate element meshes.
The main beauty of the meshless methods is to give the possibility of simplifying adaptivity and of overcoming the problems belonging to moving boundaries and discontinuities and large material distortion or structural deformation. In problems concerning the growth of crack surfaces, for example, to
capture the critical values of stress intensity factors, the addition of nodes
when and where necessary around the critical zones could be performed and
the method can precede to enhance the solution without constructing a new
finite element mesh. As a result, the accuracy can be controlled easily.
One of the meshless methods is the element free Galerkin method which uses
the weak form of governing equations and Galerkin minimization and provides a good regularity to the solution and its derivatives. The data structure
of the element free Galerkin method consists of coordinates of nodes (applicable to arbitrary shapes since only requires nodal data) and a description
of boundaries of the domain and any interior surfaces (in the case of cracks).
1.1
Research on Meshless Methods
In general, meshless methods can be classified based on two different criteria

namely, physical principles and computational formulations. According to
the physical modeling, they may be categorized into two classes: those based
on deterministic models, and those based on probabilistic models. On the
other hand, according to the computational modeling, they may be categorized as well: those serving as approximations of the strong forms of partial
differential equations, and those serving as approximations of the weak forms
of partial differential equations. The approximation for the strong form of a
partial differential equation using meshless methods is usually performed by
a speicific collocation technique. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics, vortex
method, generalized finite difference method can be named as the methods
in this group. The second class of particle methods is used with various
Galerkin weak formulations, which are named as mesh-free Galerkin methods. Diffuse element method, element free Galerkin method, reproducing
kernel particle method, partition of unity method, h-p clouds can be counted
as the methods in this group.

1.1.1
Smoothed particle hydrodynamics
It is one of the earliest starting points in computational mechanics. Lucy,

Gingold, and Monoghan simultaneously formulated the so-called smoothed
particle hydrodynamics, or sometimes called free Lagrange method, shortly
SPH to model the astrophysical problems, such as the formation and evolution of proto-stars or galaxies. The method is a kernel estimate to provide
a more rational basis. At any time, the velocity and the thermal energy is
known at these points. A mass also assigned to each point, for this reason,
points are referred as particles. The collective movement of those particles
is similar to the movement of a liquid, or gas flow, and it may modeled by
the governing equations of classical Newtonian hydrodynamics. Today, SPH
is used in simulations of supernova, collapse as well as formation of galaxies,
coalesence of black holes with neutron stars, single and multiple detonations
in white dwarfs, and even modeling of the universe.
1.1.2
Generalized finite difference method
The first paper was published about this method in early seventies by Jensen,
who extends classical concepts of finite difference to irregular sets of points,
without any need for a finite element mesh. Typically this is accomplished
by combining moving least squares approximation with a collocation method
for a partial differential equation. However, a possibility of practical computations with finite difference method on irregular grid is dependent on
computer technique development.
1.1.3
Diffuse element method
It was developed by Nayroles[29], Touzot[29], Villon[29]. They presented

diffuse approxmation method as a generalization of the finite element interpolation technique. The moving least squares method is not mentioned in the
paper but procedure described by Nayroles is exactly the same as in moving
least squares method. In diffuse approximation method, a function is locally
approximated around a point. A bunch of nodes and boundary description is
needed to develop the Galerkin equations. The interpolants are polynomials
that are fit to the nodal values by a weighted least squares approximation.
Among the stated the advantages of the diffuse element method over finite
element method is that diffuse approximation method provides a C 1 approximation of the solution while the finite element method in general provides
only a C 0 approximation.

1.1.4
Element free Galerkin method
A landmark paper was published by Belytschko[2], Lu[2], and Gu[2] as an

alternative approach using moving least square approximation as defined by
Lancaster[24] and Salkauskas[24], calling their approach as element free
Galerkin method. This method has the same way with the diffuse element
method mentioned above except some features. Belytschko[2] made three
refinements to increase the accuracy of the method :
Lagrange multipliers are introduced in the potential energy functional to
enforce the essential boundary conditions which passed the linear patch test
unlike Nayroles, who used a low order quadrature rule that did not impose
the essential boundary conditions exactly.
Secondly, the derivatives of the shape functions are evaluated exactly.
And the spatial integration is improved by introducing a regular cell structure including a large number of quadrature points which are independent of
the nodes so as to perform the integration by numerical quadrature.
1.1.5
Reproducing kernel particle method
It was offered by Liu[27], realizing that SPH cannot represent the rigid body
motion correctly meaning that SPH is not a partition of unity. Thus, they
set a correction function. The idea is to construct a corrective kernel, a
product of correction function with the original kernel. By doing so, the
consistency, or the completeness of SPH interpolant can be enforced, named
as the reproducing kernel particle method. To construct the modified kernels,
one has to know all the neighboring particles that are adjacent to a spatial
point in which the kernel function is in evolution, increasing CPU time.
The enforcement of essential boundary condition was performed using the
transformation method (Chen[10]) and therefore with this transformation,
the modified shape function, that possesses the Kronecker delta properties,
could be developed imposing exactly the essential boundary conditions.
1.1.6
Partition of unity method
The essence of partition of unity method stated by Babuska[1] and Melenk[1]

is to take a partition of unity and multiply it with any independent basis to
form a new and better basis. This flexibility provides leverage in comptutation practice. Duarte and Oden, whose idea is the construction of families of
functions using the parition of unity, have developed that they denominate
h-p clouds. They used Legendre polynomial to construct a first p-version
meshfree interpolant, named as h-p clouds.
To summarize, some of the meshless methods mentioned above totally do

not need a mesh structure, and therefore they are called mesh-free methods.
Modeling with these methods only requires a set of unstructured points that
cover the domain of interest. Since meshfree methods have simple topological data structures, they allow easy adaptive refinement, easy parallelization,
and flexible interpolation in a deformable domain. It has been shown that
many problems that currently cannot be solved by the finite element method
or finite difference method can be handled by mesh-free methods.
These meshless methods covered above are left with many challenges in refining the fundemantal theory and applying the mesh-free methods to general
industrial problems.
2 THE NEED FOR MESHLESS METHODS
The Need for Meshless Methods
Because FEM is robust and has been thoroughly developed for static and
dynamic, linear or nonlinear stress analysis of solids, structures, as well as
fluid flows, most practical engineering problems are currently solved using a
large number of well-developed FEM packages that are available. However,
the following limitations of FEM are evident:
Construction of a mesh for the problem domain is a necessity in using FEM
packages. Usually the engineer tries to create the mesh spending considerable time, and it becomes a major component of the cost of a simulation
project because the cost of CPU time is less. The concern is more the human
spends, and less the computer effort. Therefore, ideally the meshing process
would be fully performed by the computer without human intervention. In
stress calculations, the stresses obtained using FEM are discontinuous and
less accurate. When handling large deformation, considerable accuracy is
lost because of the element distortions. It is very difficult to simulate both
crack growth with arbitrary and complex paths and phase transformations
due to discontinuities that do not coincide with the original nodal lines. It
is very difficult to simulate the breakage of material into a large number of
fragments as FEM is essentially based on continuum mechanics, in which the
elements formulated cannot be broken. The elements can either be totally
eroded or stay as a whole piece. Serious error can occur because the nature
of the problem is non-linear, and therefore the results are highly path dependent.
Remesh approaches have been proposed for handling these types of problems
in FEM. In the remesh approach, the problem domain is remeshed at steps
during the simulation process to prevent the severe distortion of meshes and
to allow the nodal lines to remain coincident with discontinuity boundaries.
For this purpose, complex, robust, and adaptive mesh generation processors
have to be developed. Adaptive processors require mappings of field variables
between meshes in successive stages in solving the problem. This mapping
process often leads to additional computation as well as degradation of accuracy. In addition, for large 3D problems, the computational cost of remeshing
at each step becomes very high, even if an adaptive scheme is available.
The main problem in these situations in FEM is the need to use elements. A
mesh with predefined connectivity is necessary to form the elements. Therefore, the concept of element free or mesh-free methods came into the picture,
in which the domain of the problem is presented by a set of arbitrarily dis-
10
tributed nodes.
Mesh-free methods have great potential for solving the difficult problems
mentioned before. Adaptive schemes can be easily developed, since there
is no mesh, and hence no connectivity concept involved. Thus, there is no
need to provide a priory any information about the relationship of the nodes.
This provides flexibility in adding or deleting points (nodes) whenever and
wherever needed. For stress analysis of a solid domain, for example, there are
often areas of stress concentration, even singularity. One can relatively freely
add points in the stress concentration area without worrying about their relationship with other existing nodes. In crack growth problems, nodes can
be easily added around the crack tip to capture the stress concentration with
desired accuracy. Adaptive meshing for a large variety of problems, 2D or
3D, including linear and nonlinear, static and dynamic stress analysis, can be
very effectively treated in mesh-free methods in a relatively simple manner.
2.1
Meshless Methods in Engineering
There are a large number of different physical phenomena in engineering

applications, such that it is hard to simulate them all. In fact, only the
major phenomena, which significantly affect the performance of the system,
need to be modeled and simulated to provide a necessary and sufficient in
depth understanding of the system. Different types of partial differential
equations have been derived for these phenomena, which can be simulated
if a proper tool is found to solve these equations. Similar to conventional
finite element method, finite difference method, and finite volume method,
meshless methods are actually a tool for solving partial differential equations
that govern physical phenomena.
2.1.1
Solution Procedure
The fundamental difference between finite element method and meshless

methods is the construction of the shape functions. The solution procedure
differs while in the consideration of shape functions. Geometry generation,
material data input, global matrix assembly, postprocessing stages (which do
not exist in meshless methods) are the usual procedures that both methods
share. These two methods diverge at the stage of mesh creation.

2.1.2
11
Modeling the Geometry
In general, the geometries of interest are very complex and need reducing to
more manageable geometry. In FEM, complex parts of the geometry and its
boundary can be modeled using curves and curved surfaces using high-order
elements, but the geometry is eventually represented by a collection of elements, and the curves and curved surfaces are approximated by piecewise
curves and surfaces of the elements. The number of the elements and the order of the elements used control the accuracy of representation of the curved
parts. A finer mesh of elements can generally lead to more accurate results
paying computational resources including hardware and software causing the
limited number of elements. In meshless methods, differently, the boundary
is represented (not discretized) by nodes. At any point between two nodes
on the boundary, one can interpolate using meshless shape functions. The
curved boundary can be approximated very accurately even if linear polynomial bases are used, since the meshless shape functions are created using
nodes in a moving local domain.
2.1.3
Node Generation
In FEM, meshing is implemented to discretize the geometry created into elements or cells. Mesh generation is a very important part of preprocessing in
FEM, and it can be a time consuming task for the analyst. The domain has
to be meshed properly into elements such as triangles and quadrilaterals. No
overlapping and gaps are allowed. Element connectivity must also be created
during the meshing for later simulation. Triangular elements are easy to generate but the accuracy is much lower than quadrilateral elements which are
more difficult to produce automatically. In meshless methods, the problem
domain is represented by a set of arbitrarily distributed nodes. The significance of mesh-free methods in terms of meshing is that the process of node
generation can be fully automated without human effort. Although the meshless methods do not need a mesh of elements for field variable interpolation,
some meshless methods require a background mesh of cells for integration of
the system matrices (e.g. element free Galerkin method). Since the mesh is
required only for numerical integration, any form of the cells is acceptable as
long as it provides sufficient accuracy in the numerical integrations.
2.1.4
Shape Function Construction
In FEM, shape functions are produced based on elements, and therefore,

the computation of shape functions is straightforward, and they will be the
same for the element. If the natural coordinate systems are used, the shape
12
functions in the natural coordinates are the same for all the elements of the
same type, which are predetermined before finite element analysis starts. In
meshless methods, the shape functions constructed are usually only for a
particular point of interest, and the shape function changes as the location
of point of interest changes. The construction of the element free shape
function is performed during the analysis, not before the analysis. All the
shape functions of the finite elements satisfy the Kronecker delta function
property. In meshless methods, the construction of the shape functions is
the central issue. The shape functions are complex and they have to be
computed with the use of predefined knowledge of relationship of the nodes.
The major problem is that the shape functions constructed do not have the
Kronecker delta function property.
2.1.5
Material Property
Inputting a material property into a preprocessor in both FEM and meshless

methods is usually straightforward. All the analyst needs is to insert the
material property data and specify to which region of geometry or which
elements that data apply.
2.1.6
Boundary, Initial, and Loading Conditions
In FEM, inputting these conditions is not very difficult and the standard
procedures or techniques for the implementation of the boundary conditions,
in the form of either single or multipoint constraints are also applicable to
meshless methods. But, in meshless methods, since the shape functions do
not hold Kronecker delta property, special techniques are required to enforce
essential boundary conditions.
3 ELEMENT FREE GALERKIN METHOD
13
Element Free Galerkin Method
3.1
Description of EFG Method
The element free Galerkin method (EFGM) is a relatively new approach. It

was proposed by Belytschko[2] as a consistent and improved version of the
diffuse element method as introduced by Nayroles[29] differing from that with
some respects, namely : Lagrange multipliers are introduced in the potential
energy functional to enforce the essential boundary conditions, the derivatives of the shape functions are evaluated exactly, and the spatial integration
is improved by introducing a regular cell structure with a large number of
quadrature points which is independent of nodes. This approach is called
the element free Galerkin method.
The element free Galerkin method is a meshless method since only a set
of nodes and description of the models boundary are required to generate
the discrete equations. A connectivity of the nodal points is not used which
explains the terminology element free. The connectivity between the nodes
and the approximation functions are completely constructed by the method.
That makes the method very appealing for application to fracture mechanics
problems.
The main features of the element free Galerkin method are: element free
Galerkin method uses moving least squares approximation (MLSA) for the
construction of the shape functions. The discretized system of equations are
developed by applying Galerkin weak form.
Element free Galerkin method employs moving least squares approximation
to approximate the function u(x) with ua (x). These approximants are constructed with three components:
1. a weight function of compact support associated with each node,
2. a basis, usually consisting of a polynomial,
3. and a set of coefficients which vary from point to point.
The weight function is nonzero only over a small subdomain around a node,
which is called its support. The support of the weight function defines a
nodes domain of influence, which is the subdomain over which a particular
node contributes to the approximation. The overlap of the nodal domains of
influence defines the nodal connectivity.
14
One attractive property of MLS approximants is that their continuity is

related to the continuity of the weight function. If the continuity of the basis
is greater than the continuity of the weight function, the resulting approximation will inherit the continuity of the weight function. Therefore, a low
order polynomial basis, for example, a linear basis (p = [1 x] for 1D), may
be used to generate highly continuous approximations by choosing an appropriate weight function.
Although EFGM is considered meshless when referring to the shape function
construction or function approximation, a mesh will be required for solving
partial differential equations by the Galerkin approximation procedure. In
order to calculate the integrals in the weak form, either a regular background
mesh or a background cell structure is used.
It is emphasized that the element free Galerkin method supplies a general
means of discretizing a partial differential equation. No assumption about
the material model is performed. From a finite element background this may
be understood from the fact that the only fundamental difference between
finite element method and the element free Galerkin method concerns the
computation of the shape functions. This difference, however brings about
some important implications :
The construction of the shape functions and their spatial derivatives involve relatively much effort when compared to the finite element method.
Furthermore, the shape functions and their spatial derivatives have complicated forms (compared to the polynomials that appear in finite element
procedures). Therefore, it is necessary to use a relatively large number of integration points so as to obtain accurate results. On the other hand, the shape
functions and their derivatives are continuous. Thus, strains and stresses are
computed as smooth quantities, and no postprocessing for stresses is needed.
Finite element shape functions N F E are mostly chosen such that they
have the selectivity property, i.e. NiF E (xj ) = ij with ij Kronecker delta.
EFG shape functions i , however, in general do not have this property. It
can be enforced that i (xj ) = ij by applying suitable weight functions, but,
then, the complexity of the shape functions increases accordingly, and makes
the numerical integration an even more burdensome task.
A result of the EFG shape function failing the selectivity property is that
essential boundary conditions cannot be imposed directly. However, various
solutions have been proposed to overcome this inconvenience, such as the use
15
of Lagrange multipliers, a modified variational principle, or the coupling to

finite elements on the boundaries of the domain. EFGM offers more flexibility compared to the methods that use a nodal connectivity, but the computer
costs raise due to the complexity of the shape functions and special effort
must be implemented to impose essential boundary conditions.
In FEM, one constructs a subdivision of the domain into nonoverlapping
finite elements, and then defines the support of a shape function associated
with a node as a union of those finite elements which reference the node.
Thus, the supports of the FE shape functions overlap exactly in a single finite element. To summarize, in order to evaluate the FE shape functions, one
needs to construct the mesh topology (difficult and expensive, since there are
many constraints on the mesh topology and shape, and this is done off-line,
by separate mesh generators), and compute the element based expressions
(easy and inexpensive, because the restrictions of the shape functions to an
element are of simple, usually polynomial, form).
EFGM is very different in this respect. To construct the shape functions,
one uses the moving least square technique, in which the influence of a node
emanates from a weight function defined on an arbitrary compact subset of
the domain. Since the shape functions can be constructed with arbitrary
continuity, the boundaries of the node supports do not affect deleteriously
the smoothness of the shape function; the smoothness of the shape function
is given by the smoothness of the weight function and of the so-called basis
functions.
The arbitrary overlaps of the nodal supports lead to variable connectivity,
the number of nodes affecting the approximation varies from point to point
arbitrarily, and is usually higher than for the FEM.
3.2
Moving Least Squares Approximation
Moving least square approximation is a technique which provides an approximation of a function without the use of a connectivity of points. The
technique as mentioned previously uses a set of nodal points, a set of weight
functions, and a set of basis functions. At every point in the domain, the
approximant of a function is a linear combination of the function. The coefficients of basis functions are the functions of coordinates and they are
computed by means of the weight functions and the nodal values of the function. Thus, a system of equations are to be solved at every point (or at Gauss
points) in the domain to obtain the coefficients of the basis functions. The
16
approximant is reached without the usage of connectivity of nodal points. A

more and deep detailed description of MLSA could be found in Lancaster[24]
and Salkauskas[24].
Considering the discretization of the domain given by a set of n nodes, each
node has a corresponding nodal parameter. The approximation ua (x) for the
function u(x) is posed as a polynomial of order m with nonconstant coefficients. The order of polynomial is defined as the order of the basis. For
example in 1D for linear basis, ua (x) can be written as :
ua (x) = a0 (x) + a1 (x)x
ua (x) = a0 (x) + a1 (x)x + a2 (x)x2
linear basis in 1D
quadratic basis in 1D
More generally a complete quadratic basis in 3D is given as :

pT (x) = [1, x, y, z, x2 , y 2 , z 2 , xy, yz, zx]
quadratic basis in 3D
where the unknown parameters ai (x) are varying with x. These approximations are known as moving least square interpolants in curve and surface
fitting. The local approximation is given as :
uaL (xi , x)
m
X
pj (xi ) aj (x) = pT (xi )a(x)
(3.1)
j=0
where
pT (x) = [1 x x2 , . . . , xm ] and aT (x) = [a0 a1 (x) a2 (x), . . . , am (x)]
Derivation is done for a general case x = [xi ], i = 1 . . . 3. The unknown
parameters ai (x) are determined by minimizing the difference between the
local approximation at that point and the nodal parameters, ui , the weighted
discrete L2 norm given by ;
J =
n
X
w(x xi )(ua L (xi , x) ui )2
(3.2)
i=1
and equation becomes ;

J =
n
X
i=1
w(x xi )(pT (xi )a(x) ui )2
(3.3)
17
where n is the number of nodes in the neighbourhood of x for which the

weight function w(x xi ) 6= 0 which provides a sparse stiffness matrix and
ui is the nodal parameter of u at x = xi . In this form the weighting function
is defined for every point in the domain and thus can be considered as translating or moving. The properties of the weight function will be mentioned
later. Minimization process leads to the following extremum of J;
n
X

J
=0=
w(x xi ) 2p(xi )pT (xi )a(x) 2p(xi )ui
a(x)
i=1
(3.4)
Minimization process produces a set of linear equations. A(x) is the coefficient matrix (moment matrix), and B(x) is the base vector :
A(x)a(x) = B(x)u
(3.5)
a(x) = A(x)1 B(x)u
(3.6)
or what is obtained is ;
The A(x) matrix is to be inverted at each sampling points ,

where
A(x) =
n
X
w(x xi )p(xi )pT (xi )
(3.7)
i=1
or more clearly,

1
1 x1
A(x) = w(x x1 )
x1

1
1 xn
+ . . . + w(x xn )
xn

1 xn
1 x1
+ . . . + w(x xn )
A(x) = w(x x1 )
x1 x2 1
xn x2 n

1
Bi (x) = w(x xi )
xi

B = B1 B2 . . . Bn
(3.8)
(3.9)
18
Then the approximation ua (x) is the following expression ;
u (x) =
n
X
pT (x)ai (x)
i=1
u (x) =
n
X
pT (x)A(x)1 Bi (x)ui
(3.10)
i=1
u (x) =
n
X
i (x)ui = (x)u
(3.11)
i=1
where the element free Galerkin shape function for node i is ;

i (x) = pT A(x)1 Bi (x)
(3.12)
Determination of the derivatives of the shape functions which are needed

in Galerkin formulation is as follows ;
di (x)
d pT (x) 1
=
A Bi (x) +
dx
dx
pT (x)
dBi
dA(x)1
Bi (x) + pT (x)A(x)1
dx
dx
(3.13)
where

d pT (x)
= 0 1 x . . . . . . m xm1
dx
dBi (x)
dw(x xi ) T
=
p (xi )
dx
dx
(3.14)
(3.15)
19
and considering the equality below to derive the moment matrix derivative;
A(x)1 A(x) = I
taking derivative of both sides with respect to x and,

d A(x)1 A(x)
dA(x)1
dA(x)
=
A(x) + A(x)1
=0
dx
dx
dx
dA(x)
dA(x)1
A(x) = A(x)1
dx
dx
and finally,
dA(x)1
dA(x)
= A(x)1
A(x)
dx
dx
(3.16)
where
n
dA(x) X dw(x xi )
=
dx
dx
i=1
1 xi
xi x2 i
EFG shape functions obtained above do not satisfy the selectivity property,
i (xj ) 6= ij . Therefore, one can conclude that they are not truly interpolants
(but approximants). This causes ua (xi ) 6= ui . It means that found values of u
are not the nodal values. The approximation at ith node is depended upon the
nodal parameters ui as well as the nodal parameters u1 to un corresponding
to all other nodes within the domain of influence of node i.
3.3
Choice of the Weight Function
The weight functions play an important role in the performance of the

method. They should be constructed such that they are positive and a unique
solution of a(x) is guaranteed; they should be relatively large for xi close to
x, and relatively small for more distant xi . That is, they should decrease as
the distance of |x xi | decreases, providing each node a compact support.
The weight function would be acceptable if it were positive and continous
up to desired degree. As a result, the shape functions will be non-zero in
20
the neighborhood of xi , and consequently the stiffness matrix derived from

Galerkins formulation will be sparse. Additionally, weight function provides
the nodes to leave or to enter the support domain in a gradual (smooth)
manner when x moves. That gives the compatibility.
Gauss Point
Figure 3.1: Circular domains of influence in 2D
The neighborhood of xi where the weight functions and the shape functions
are nonzero is called domain of influence, which is independent of arrangement of the nodes, of that point as can be seen from Figure 3.1 also. Another
explanation of domain of influence is that the weight function w(x xi ) is
zero outside the domain of influence and w(x xi ) 0 inside the domain of
influence.
There are several commonly used weight functions which are exponential,
quadratic, cubic, and quartic spline weight functions as given below. It is
not seen that there is a major effect of exponential weight functions over
di
spline weight functions. Defining di = |x xi |, and r = dmax
, where the dmax
is the size of the domain (radius of the support) of influence of ith node. dmax
is determined by dmax = di where di is the maximum distance of ith node
to the nearest node. The coefficient is the number defining the number
of node to be included around the support. Its value is between 2-4. The
weight function can be written as a function of normalized radius, r. Each
point may have a different weighting function or radius of support around
its defining point.
21
Gauss Point
Figure 3.2: Overlapping of domains of influence in 1D
The domain of influence must be chosen such that the node has enough neighbors in its domain of influence to have an invertible or nonsingular A matrix.
To satisfy this criterium, the number of the nodes must be greater or equal
to the number of monomials in basis n m. Apart from that there must be
reasonable spacing between nodes. But the radius of support should be small
enough to provide enough local character to the least squares approximation.
In 1D with linear basis, each node must have at least two neighbors in its
domain of influence.
Quadratic spline :
(
(1 r 2 ) if
w(x xi ) w(r) =
0
if
0r<1
r1
Cubic spline :
2
3
if
(2/3) 4(r ) + 4(r )
2
3
w(x xi ) w(r) =
(4/3) 4(r) + 4(r ) (4/3)(r ) if
0
if
r 21
1
<r1
2
r>1
Quartic spline :
w(x xi ) w(r) =
1 6(r 2 ) + 8(r 3 ) 3(r 4 ) if

0
if
0r<1
r1
We can examine the behaviour and the effect of the weight function on the
approximation as well. There are three possibilities for the weight function
selection. The weight function could be chosen constant over the whole
domain, constant but compact, or spline (such as cubic) with overlapping
properties. This can be explained with an example.

3.3.1
22
Example : Effect of the weight function
To understand the effect of the weight function, u = sin(x) is chosen as

the sample function. The approximating function of this function is ua (x).
For each case with selected x values, where high gradient of sinusodial behaviour exists, which will be described below, ua (x) will be found and compared with the real solution, u = sin(x). Representative nodal points are,
x = 1.4, 1.9, 2.4 . Weight functions are seen in Figure 3.3.
Constant weight function w=1, is chosen for the approximation of u.
The weight function associated with each node is constant over the whole
domain. This is standard least squares interpolant, resulting in a linear
polynomial fit thru the data. a(x) are not spatially varying any longer but
constant everywhere in the domain. Therefore, spatial dependency of the
coefficients is related to the chosen weight function.
Constant weight function w=1, compactly supported is used this
time. Each nodal weight function has compact support because it is only
nonzero in its domain. The size of the subdomain is chosen as equal to the
number of terms in basis functions (n = m). Thus, only two nodes will
contribute at any point x (sampling points, or Gauss points),where the approximation is equivalent to standard finite element solution.
Cubic weight function with overlapping domains is exploited to approximate the function. The weight function covers larger subdomains, such
that n > m resulting in a smooth and continous. Although the polynomial
basis is just linear, the approximation inherits the continuity of the weight
function.
w = 1 without compact weight function produces the standard least square
approximation, w = 1 compactly supported weight function is equivalent to
finite element approximation because the nodal parameters are captured. w
cubic weight function with dmax = 1.6 approximates the function as seen
below, which do not pass thru the data.
Therefore, it is perceived that the approximated function ua is continuous
and smooth in the domain of interest for the last case. As mentioned before,
this is the result of chosen weight function without any regard to the order
of basis function used. The resulting MLS approximation is seen in Figure
3.4.
Figure 3.3: Weight functions
23
24
Figure 3.4: Resulting MLS approximations
3.4
Galerkin Weak Form Formulation
Starting with the multi-dimensional equilbrium equations on a spatial domain .

+b=0
u=u
n =
t
in
on u
on t
(3.17)
(3.18)
(3.19)
where is the Cauchy stress tensor as T = [xx yy zz xy yz zx ],

b = [bx by bz ]T is the body force, u = [ux uy uz ]T is the displacement
field, n is the unit outward normal, t is prescribed traction force, and u
is
prescribed displacement. One can write equation (3.17) as using differential
operator L also :
L + b = 0
(3.20)
Before deriving the weak formulation for the set of discrete equations, the
imposition of the Dirichlet boundary condition is needed to be mentioned.

3.4.1
25
Enforcement of essential boundary conditions
In a finite element solution, the boundary conditions are applied directly

since the finite element shape functions at that node i is the unity.
Ni (xj ) = ij
i (xj ) 6= ij
in FEM
in EFGM
However in EFG method, because of the noninterpolatory character of the

approximation, the approximation does not pass thru the nodal parameter
values. This brings some complications. The essential boundary conditions
are accounted for by means of Lagrange multipliers. Due to the noninterpolating EFGM shape function, which can be thought as a reaction force
at the essential boundary. There are several ways the essential boundary
treatment, such as transformation method, penalty method, and coupling to
finite elements. Research on application of Lagrange multiplier method shows
that this reduces the accuracy of the results negligibly. Additionally, this is
an easy and practical method to impose the essential boundary conditions.
However, the discrete equations are neither banded nor positive definite. The
Galerkin procedure is followed to establish a set of discretized system equations for the displacement parameters. The displacement at any point is
obtained using MLS approximation and the nodal displacement parameters
obtained after solving the discretized system of equations. The strains at
any point are also obtained using the derivatives of the MLS shape functions
and the nodal displacement parameters.
The constrained Galerkin weak formulation with Lagrange multipliers is as
follows :
Z
u L d +
uT b d
T (u u
)d = 0
(3.21)
where u and are the test functions related to u and , respectively. It

is a weak formulation with essential boundary condition. After application
of Gauss theorem to get the boundary terms, one gets;
26
u b d
uT d
u
uTt d
t
T (u u
)d = 0
(3.22)
where = [xx yy zz xy yz xz ]T = Lu, and = C Lu. In order to

obtain the discrete equations from the weak form, discretization is performed
through shape functions :
u =
n
X
i ui
(3.23)
i=1
The discretization of Lagrange multiplier term is performed using the usual

Lagrange interpolant in finite element method. For example, a first order
Lagrange interpolant can be imposed. A higher order Lagrange interpolant
can also be used with more nodes on the boundary. The requirement for
imposition of essential boundary condition can be shown as ;
ua (xi ) 6= ui
(3.24)
u(xi ) = u
i
(3.25)
but
is to be enforced. Figure 3.5 represents that situation. Lagrange multiplier is applied;
(x) =
nb
X
Ni i
(3.26)
i=1
where nb is the number of nodes on the essential boundary, i is the Lagrange

multiplier at node i on the essential boundary, Ni is the Lagrange interpolant.
Inserting the above terms into the weak form to get a fully discretized system :
27
uâ
Figure 3.5: The explanation of approximation not passing thru the data
n
X
Bi ui ) C (
i=1
Bj uj ) d
j=1
(
t
n
X
n
X
i ui )T t d
i=1
i ui )T b d
i=1
T ((
u
n
X
n
X
i u i ) u
) d
(3.27)
i=1
n
X
i ui d = 0
i=1
where B contains the derivatives of the element free shape functions. Since
the variations u and are arbitrary, the following equations are obtained;
Ku +G = f
(3.28)
GT u = q
(3.29)
The above two equations can be written in the following matrix form ;

K G
GT 0

u
f
=
(3.30)
28
where
Kij =
BTi C Bj d
Gik =
fi =
(3.31)
Ni k d
Ti
b d +
qi =
(3.32)
Ni u
d
Ti
t d
(3.33)
(3.34)
The nodal stiffness matrix, Kij , which is symmetric defined is the basic component of for assembling the global stiffness matrix of EFGM. Global matrix
is symmetric but no longer positive definite which reduces the computational
efficiency. Since the support domain is compact, many entries of Kij will be
zero and the global stiffness matrix will be sparse.
The number of factors affecting the accuracy of the numerical results in
EFGM can be counted as: the number of nodes used in the problem domain,
the density of the background cell produced for integration, and the order of
Gauss integration.
To integrate the equations, there are several numerical quadrature techniques
such as Gaussian quadrature. Nodal integration is also possible but needs
some corrections. So next section will be about the numerical integration
consideration of the above equations.
3.5
Numerical Integration
To integrate the terms in the discrete equations, it is necessary to use numerical quadrature since the integrals cannot be evaluated analytically. There
are obviously some integration schemes necessary in meshless methods :
Nodal integration
Quadrature integration (background cell structure, background mesh).

3.5.1
29
Quadrature Integration
The background cells (or background mesh) are used locate the quadrature
points to integrate the weak form. However, they have the disadvantage that
the resulting method is not truly meshless, but a background mesh is needed.
On the other hand, it should be indicated at this point that the background
mesh does not need to be compatible with meshless (or EFGM) nodes. Thus,
that can be easily generated from a CAD representation of the model. No
gap or overlap is permitted as in FEM. In principle, the background mesh can
be totally independent of the arrangement of the nodes. The most commonly
used scheme is Gaussian quadrature which can be formulated as;
Z
f () d
nq
X
f ()wi
(3.35)
i=1
where nq is the number of quadrature points, is the coordinate of point i,

and wi is corresponding weight.
How to place background cell or how to place Gauss quadrature points
Figure 3.6: Background mesh and background cell structure

will directly influence the accuracy as well as the invertibility of the stiffness
matrix. The shape functions are quite complex such that a large number of
quadrature points must be used. The real concern is the stability of quadrature integration. Domain integration by Gauss quadrature adds considerable
complexity to solution process. If there are not enough quadrature points
in a compact support, or quadrature points are not evenly distributed, some
spurious modes may appear.
30
In addition to that, it is found that it is the best to have a lower order

quadrature in many smaller background cells than very high order quadrature in larger cells. Accuracy is obtained by increasing the density of the
nodes and accordingly the background mesh for stress calculation. Gauss
quadrature integration error via different setup of background cells as well
as quadrature points distribution may appear.
Two distinct sources of errors associated with this integration scheme:
The shape functions in meshless methods are rational functions of the
spatial coordinates.
Their local supports may not align with the shape function supports. Considerable integration error is produced when quadrature cells do not match
the shape function support, as seen in Figure 3.7. So what is concluded,
Figure 3.7: Spatial relationship between integration cell and support boundaries using radial weights, (Dolbow[16])
the integration accuracy could be improved by aligning the integration cell
with the support of the integrand. Therefore, one path to more accurate
integration of the weak form is the construction of integration cells which
align with shape function supports. For radial supports, the construction of
31
Figure 3.8: Shape function support in 2D, radial support, (Dolbow[16]
integration cells with these properties is a hard task. Constructing integration cells which align with these local domains would require either the use
of integration cells of arbitrary shapes, or the subdivision of the intersections
into more managable geometries which are too difficult for practical use. The
use of tensor product weights offers considerably more promise (Figure 3.9)
and leads to the new concept called bounding box technique which will not
be discussed here (See Dolbow[16]).
Figure 3.9: Shape function support in 2D, tensor product support,

(Dolbow[16])
3.5.2
Nodal Integration
To have a pure meshless method, the nodal integration concept comes into
the picture unlike those ghost meshes used in quadrature integration. This integration scheme is faster compared the use of some kind of artificial meshes.
There is no need to produce those ghost meshes although they are easily
32
generated. However, nodal integration scheme is not without shortcomings

either.
Direct nodal integration leads to numerical instability due to the underintegration and vanishing derivatives of the shape functions at the nodes. To get
rid of this situation, a stabilized nodal integration procedure is proposed by
adding a residual of the equilibrium equation to the potential energy functional in element free Galerkin framework.
3.5.3
Stabilized Nodal Integration
A stabilization procedure is applied here for the application of nodal integration to weak discrete forms. The procedure is based on adding the square
of the residual in the equilibrium equation to the potential energy functional.
To understand the effects of the nodal integration, linear elastostatics is
repeated here:
+b=0
u=u
n =
t
in
on u
on t
(3.36)
(3.37)
(3.38)
Equations (3.36) - (3.38) are the Euler equations of a functional, , consisting

of the potential energy and Lagrange multiplier term :

Z
1
(u, ) =
(u) : (u) u b d
2
Z
Z
d
u t d +
(u u)
(3.39)
t
When adding the square of the residual of the equilibrium equation to the
functional above, one obtains;
Z
s lc2
( + b)2
d
(3.40)
s (u, ) = (u, ) +
{z
}
E |
square of the residual
where s is the dimensionless stabilization parameter lc2 is the characteristic

length scale of the discretization and E is the Youngs modulus. Setting the
variation of the functional to zero :
s (u, , u, ) = 0
(3.41)

Galerkin formulation of elastostatics gives the stiffness term as :
Z
Z
2lc2
T
K=
B CB d +
DT C0T C0 D d
E
33
(3.42)
where D contains the second derivatives of the shape functions. C is the

matrix of isotropic elastic moduli and C0 is the modified elastic moduli.
The spatial integration of the stiffness term is approximated by a quadrature
scheme that samples the integrand only at the nodes. Each node is weighted
with its influence area and the location. There are several methods to spot
those weight values.
K=
n
X
qi B(xi )T C(xi )B(xi ) +
i=1
n
2lc X
qi DT (xi )C0T (xi )C0 (xi )D(xi )
E i=1
(3.43)
where qi are the weights for each node and computed as follows :
fi 2 A
qi = P n i 2
j=1 fj j
(3.44)
where n is the number of nodes, A is the total area of the region, is the
radius of the circular support of the weighting function associated with node
i and f is the fraction of support lying in domain. f could be chosen as 1
for interior nodes, 0.5 for boundaries and 0.25 for corners.
Using nodal integration procedure, one gets rid of creating a quadrature
scheme. Apart from that, the data structure is as simple as that of a particle
method. All discretized variables are defined over one set of nodes. Additionally, evaluation of the integrals in discrete form is much quicker than
Gaussian procedure. On the other hand, with this stabilization technique,
one may decrease the accuracy if the original solution does not have any
unstable mode.
3.6
EFGM for Non-Linear Models
The method can be extended to the non-linear material models. An incrementaliterative procedure is applied for this purpose. For each incrementation of
the load, the equilibrium is searched in an iterative manner.
For time increment t, the stresses are obtained as :

Z t+t
dt
(t+t) = (t) +
34
(3.45)
the incremental displacements u are formulated as
u =
t+t
u dt
t
= u(t+t) u(t)
(3.46)
and the incremental Lagrange multipliers are obtained similarly. In the

above equations, stress rate and strain rate are related to each other by the
tangent matrix D(t) . If the above formulations are inserted into the weak
form that is derived before at time t + t, knowing the values at t gives the
following matrix;

Q(t) G
GT 0

f
u
=
q
(3.47)
where Q(t) is a result of D(t) , and u and are the discretized incremental
displacements and Lagrange multipliers, respectively. This system of equations are solved for incremental values. For the next time step, an extra
correction term can be added to increments;
df =
BT d G
(3.48)
dq = GT u
(3.49)
The correction terms du for incremental displacements and d for incremental Lagrange multiplier are computed as;

f + df
Q(t+dt) G du
=
q + dq
GT
0 d
By adding du and d to the values, u and are updated.
(3.50)
3.7
35
General View to Stability and Convergence Analysis
In this section, there will be a rough overwiev of stability and convergence

analysis of the method.
3.7.1
Stability
Meshless methods which construct the approximation entirely in terms of

nodes are less susceptible to distortion than finite elements. However, there
are some instabilities existing. SPH, for example, does not converge when the
support domain decreases proportionally to particle spacing. Furthermore,
the continous form of EFG method is similar to corrected version of SPH to
some extent. Consequently, there might be the same instabilities for both
methods. Two distinct instabilities happening in meshless methods resulting
from discretization are:
A high frequency instability resulting from the rank deficiency of discrete
divergence operator,
A tensile instability resulting from interaction of second derivative of tensile stress (SPH).
The tensile instability is due to Eulerian kernels (weight functions). In the
Eulerian kernel, the stability depends on the stresses and second derivatives
of the weight function. This generates a tensile instability. On the contrary,
when the kernel is a function of the material (Lagrange) coordinates, called
Lagrangian kernel, a tensile instability does not occur.
An instability due to the rank deficiency occurs for both Lagrangian and
Eulerian kernels with nodal integration. This inconvenience can be eliminated by adding stress points like extra Gauss points. However, it has been
found that the stress points cannot completely stabilize Eulerian kernels.
Lagrangian Kernel :
In a Lagrangian model, the weight function is expressed in terms of X,
w(|X Xi |). The Lagrangian kernel is a function of the material coordinates. Therefore, the neighbours of a particle remain neighbours throughout
the simulation not suffering from tensile instability.
For Lagrangian kernel, the shape of the domain of influence also changes
36
with time. The best approach to stable meshless discretizations of solids and
fluids is to use Lagrangian kernels with stress points.
Discretization is performed similarly but with material coordinates as:
ua (X) =
n
X
i (Xi ) ui
(3.51)
i=1
where ui , is the nodal value at particle Xi and

= pT (X)A1 (X)B(X)
(3.52)
so similar derivation is followed as before.

3.7.2
Convergence
Obviously, the accuracy is depended on how fine the discretization is. For
any method to converge, it must be consistent and stable. Stability is associated with the quadrature of the Galerkin form and the character of the
Galerkin procedure. But consistency is directly related to the character of
approximation.
The choice of the monomial base functions affect the consistency of the
method. Consistency requirements depend on the order of the partial differential equations to be solved. For a partial differential equation of order 2k,
solution by a Galerkin method requires only consistency of order k. For a
4th order PDE, 2nd derivatives are represented exactly, which implies that
a quadratic function must be represented exactly.
By moving least squares approximation, all monomials appearing in p can be
reproduced exactly. Therefore, EFGM is consistent of order k (the highest
order polynomial in the basis) if all monomials up to kth order are included
in p. For example, if the basis is linear, then the shape functions will
satisfy the linear consistency.
A compulsory condition is that the shape function must satisfy the partition of unity, that is,
n
X
i=1
i (x) = 1
(3.53)
37
This is a necessary condition for the shape function to be able to produce

any rigid body motion of the problem domain. The shape function also is
required to include the linear consistency condition;
n
X
i (x) xi = x
(3.54)
i=1
This condition is required for the shape function to pass the standard patch
test. To pass the standard patch test, shape functions are to be linearly
consistent, the field function approximation must be compatible, essential
boundary conditions are to be accurately imposed.
Element free Galerkin method passes the standard patch test since MLSA
satisfies the conditions mentioned above. Without the Lagrange multipliers,
patch tests will fail as reported by Belytschko[2]. For consistency discussion,
the details are given in Chapter 5. The function u is approximated by;
ua = pT (x) a
(3.55)
If the function is a component or included in p, and a is constant, then for

minimization process J will be necessarily minimum. Thus, ua = u. So any
function appearing in the basis is reproduced. Therefore, one can include
any singular functions into the basis to handle some situations in fracture
mechanics problems.
38
4 1D EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION WITH EFGM
1D Equilibrium Equation with EFGM
Considering a specific partial differential equation, namely, that of a onedimensional axially loaded bar. So, the 1D equilibrium equation is
+ b(x) = 0
x
(4.1)
where is the stress related to displacement field u and b(x) is a linear body
force of magnitude x, subjected to following boundary conditions
u |x=0 = u
|x=L = t
on u
on t
(4.2)
(4.3)
where at x = 0 an essential boundary condition, and at x = L a natural
b(x) = x
t
x
L
Figure 4.1: 1D Problem with linear body force, and a traction force
boundary condition exist and u
, and t are the prescribed displacement and
traction force, respectively. As repeated several times before, as the EFG
shape functions do not have the selectivity property, a Lagrange multiplier
is applied. Its physical meaning can be thought as a reaction force complementary to the imposed displacement at the essential boundary.
The Galerkin formulation continues as:
Z
L
0
dx +
u
x
u b(x) dx + (u u
)|x=0 = 0
0
(4.4)
39
Applying the integration parts ;

Z
L
0
u
dx ut|x=L u |x=0
x
u b(x) dx (u u
)|x=0 = 0
(4.5)
where
u =
u =
n
X
i=1
n
X
i ui
uTi i
i=1
=
=
nb
X
i=1
nb
X
N i i
i Ni
i=1
The problem is linear elasticity, so = E , where = u

. Inserting above
x
equations into equation (4.5), the following discretized terms are obtained :
Kij =
L
0
i T
j
E
dx
x
x
Gik = Ni k |x=0
fi
= i t |x=L +
qk = Nk u
|x=0
(4.6)
(4.7)
i b(x) dx
(4.8)
(4.9)
The above equations are calculated by applying a Gauss quadrature. The

hidden terms inside of the shape functions are calculated at the integration
40
points. These equations form a matrix which is neither banded nor positive
definite :

K G
GT 0

f
u
=
q
(4.10)
Owing to Lagrange multiplier, the number of unknowns are increased which

is a burdensome task to solve. While deriving the weak form in finite element
analysis, the boundary term is composed of two parts, namely, essential and
natural boundaries. The essential boundary term was dropped because there
was no variation of term u. But in this case, it cannot be omitted since the
essential boundary is not satisfied and enforced by an external force called
Lagrange multiplier. Therefore, the term, at essential boundary is simply .
A FORTRAN code is written for the 1D problem mentioned above to
understand the method comprehensively. The body force, b(x) is a linear
function of x and traction, t is chosen as 0.2 to see the behavior of the
method when a high gradient is occuring. Youngs modulus, E is given as 1
as a representative value, and length of the bar, L is 1.
The analytical solution of the above 1D equation is;
u(x) =
1 L2
x3
(t + )x
E
2
6
(4.11)
and with the given parameters, it reduces to ;

3
x3
u(x) = x
10
6
(4.12)
The problem domain is discretized into 11 nodes with 10 cells. Integrations

are implemented with one point Gaussian integration which is equivalent to
the trapezodial rule. The nodes are equally spaced for the sake of simplicity.
K matrix and f vector are calculated in the same loop over Gauss points. G
matrix and q vector are computed on boundary nodes.
For this specific problem modified version of Galerkin weak form was used.
That can be found in the next section. It should be noted that the computed values are not nodal values. To find real nodal values, equation (3.23)
must be performed. The displacements and the strains are calculated and
compared to exact values.
41
Figure 4.2: Shape functions for the current problem
4.1
Conclusion of 1D EFGM problem
The factors affecting the accuracy of numerical results of EFGM are ;

The number of nodes used,
The background mesh density,
The order of Gaussian integration.
Displacement is less sensitive to the background integration, meaning that
a very coarse background mesh could yield good approximation for the displacements.
Stresses that are obtained using derivatives of the displacement fields are
very sensitive to the way the integration is performed. It means that a much
finer mesh with more Gauss points should be used for accurate stress results.
Although linear basis is used, stresses or strains are already smooth. Therefore, no postprocessing is required.
42
Figure 4.3: Derivative of shape functions for the current problem
4.2
Modified version of Galerkin weak form

= |x=0
(4.13)
Lagrange multiplier term is a reaction force imposed on the essential boundary. Therefore, it is replaced by a surface traction which is an energy conjugate variable of prescribed displacements. The derivation is the same until
equation (4.5) but at this point, since the value of Lagrange multiplier is
imposed, the variation of the displacement will disappear at the essential
boundary and the equation will be left with only the constraint term.
If the equation is rewritten with the use of equation (4.13) and also disand in matrix form u = u
cretized with = E , where = u
x
= E
u
|x=0
x
(4.14)

Z
L
0
u
u
E
dx ut|x=L
x
x
+E
43
u b(x) dx
0
u
u
|x=0 (u u
)|x=0 + u E
|x=0 = 0
x
x
(4.15)
This can be discretized in the same manner as previous derivation

[K][u] + [Gg][u] = [f + q]
(4.16)
which leads to the following ;

[K] + [Gg]
[u] = [f + q]
(4.17)
where
Gg ij = i |x=0 E
j
i
|x=0 + j |x=0 E
|x=0
x
x
(4.18)
and
qj = E
j
|x=0 u
|x=0
x
(4.19)
This equation can be solved easily and the nodal parameters are obtained.
This procedure provides discrete equations which are banded and positive
definite, having a superior advantage. For a reasonable number of nodes, the
accuracy of new modified version gives accurate results. To get the displacements these values must be inserted to equation (3.11).
The error plots are seen in Figure 4.6 and in Figure 4.7. As one concludes for
the displacements, the error norm is almost negligible. On the other hand,
strain values must be refined. One can either add more nodes where the error
is high, or increase the number of integration cells with more Gauss points
to capture the analytical solution.
Figure 4.4: Comparison of EFG displacements with analytical solution
Figure 4.5: Comparison of EFG strains with analytical solution
44
Figure 4.6: The normalized error for displacements
Figure 4.7: The normalized error for strains
45

Table for 1D equilibrium equation
Set up the coordinates of nodes and integration cells
Enter the known parameters
Set up Gauss points in cells
Loop over Gauss points
Loop over nodal coordinates
Calculate shape functions and their derivatives
Store shape functions and their derivatives at boundary nodes
Assemble discrete equations
Construct the system and solve
46
5 LS-DYNA AND SELECTED BARRIER MODELS
5
5.1
47
LS-DYNA and Selected Barrier Models

Brief Introduction of LS-DYNA
LS-DYNA is a general purpose finite element code for analyzing the large
deformation dynamic response of structures including structures coupled to
fluids. The main solution methodology is based on explicit time integration
using a modified central difference time integration. An implicit solver is also
avaliable but currently for structural analysis and heat transfer. A contactimpact algorithm allows difficult contact problems to be easily treated including heat transfer across the contact interfaces. Spatial discretization is
achieved by the use of four node tetrahedron and eight node solid elements,
two node beam elements, three and four node shell elements, eight node
solid shell elements, truss elements, membrane elements, discrete elements
and rigid bodies. A variety of element formulations are available for each
element type. Over 130 metallic and non-metallic material models exist also.
Adaptive meshing is available for shell elements. For detailed information,
see Hallquist[18].
5.2
Theory of EFG method in LS-DYNA
The derivation of moving least square approximation has already been performed in the previous chapter. Thus, that will not be repeated in this
context. But for some problems including finite element part and mesh-free
discretized part, as in the cases which will be presented, there must be a relation between among them. LS-DYNA can couple both methods by applying
suitable methods for the treatment of boundary conditions and those will be
explained in the next section.
5.2.1
Interface constraint
Problems that include both methods, FEM and EFGM, must obviously have
a means to be represented. The challange is the coupling of both methods. The model may consist of FEM and mesh-free parts as in our cases.
To couple the mesh-free method, an interface constraint is performed. This
interface constraint is introduced onto the interfaces between finite element
and mesh-free zones, and mesh-free and mesh-free zones, seen in Figure 5.1.
In order for the coupled solution to converge, the completeness condition is
imposed.
In conventional coupling methods, a layer of finite elements is added onto
48
the interface between the zones. The shape functions of those interface elements are composed of standard finite element and conventional mesh-free
shape functions.
To avoid the structured interface element, a strip of finite element nodes
is introduced. These additional nodes are taken to be the same nodes as
in the finite element model and do not need an extra degree of freedom.
Therefore, the mesh-free properties are preserved. The derivation is skipped
in this context but there are two parts for the solution ua , the pure finite
element part and pure mesh-free part plus interface. At the interface, modified coupled finite element and mesh-free shape function must hold the
following;
i (x) = 0
for all nodes x interf ace
(5.1)
meaning that the shape functions on the interface between finite element and
mesh-free zones are reduced to standard finite element shape functions.
The real concern is the stability and the convergence of the problem and of
Figure 5.1: The interfaces between zones

the method. As mentioned before, the integration of the discrete equations
from Galerkin method, and enforcement of Dirichlet boundary conditions
are the major points that must be considered. As a consequence, there exist
some remedies regarding those difficulties. Next sections will mention about
the new ideas and their derivations.
5.2.2
Numerical Integration and Convergence
Domain integration by Gauss quadrature in EFGM gives some complications

to the procedure. Especially the higher order quadrature rules required is a
49
major cause of high CPU time. Moreover, the domain partitioning for integration must match the shape function supports to minimize the integration
errors. Direct nodal integration suffers from numerical instability due to the
under integration (rank deficiency) and vanishing derivatives of the shape
functions at the nodes.
As mentioned before, a stabilized nodal integration method is proposed by
Belytschko[3], by adding a residual to the potential energy functional. But in
the problems where there do not exist unstable modes, this method destroys
the accuracy. As for the Gaussian integration, Dolbow[16], showed that when
the quadrature cells do not match the shape function support, there exists
a remarkable integration error. Therefore, a new approach is applied for the
nodal integration of the discrete terms, so-called strain smoothing stabilization.
5.2.3
Integration constraints
The convergence of the Galerkin method for a partial differential equation

is determined by the approximation for the unknowns and the numerical integration of the weak form. Shape functions with linear consistency can be
obtained from MLSA with linear basis functions.
For example, if the basis is linear, then the shape functions i will satisfy the
linear consistency. If the basis pT includes all constant and linear monomials,
linear consistency is satisfied. Therefore, what is concluded is any function
which appears in the basis can be reproduced exactly (consistency up to k
order). Reproducing conditions :
n
X
i = 1
i=1
n
X
i xi = x
i=1
n
X
i x2i = x2
i=1
n
X
i=1
..
.
i xki = xk
(5.2)
50
The same equations could be repeated for the derivatives of the shape functions:
n
X
i,x = 0
i=1
n
X
i,x xi = 1
(5.3)
i=1
n
X
..
.
i,x xki = kxk1
i=1
The application of linearly consistent shape functions in Galerkin approximation does not guarantee a linear exactness in the solution. For the derivation,
there is more in Chen[14], who showed that for the linear exactness in the
Galerkin approximation, two integration constraints are needed:
PIP
n=1
PIP
n=1
BT
n (xn ) n = 0
BT
n n =
PIP nb
n=1
NT
n (xn )$n
for interrior nodes
(5.4)
for boundary nodes
(5.5)
Or more clearly
PIP
n=1
PIP
n=1
i (xn )n = 0
i (xn )n =
PIP nb
n=1
ni (xn )$n
for interrior nodes
(5.6)
for boundary nodes (5.7)
where IP and IP nb are integration points and integration points on boundary, respectively, n , $n are the weights of integration points. However, it is
shown that a direct nodal integration significantly violates integration constraints (Chen[14]) generating large errors. Gauss integration does not satisfy
them either in irregular discretization again displaying errors. Therefore, to
avoid instability due to the vanishing derivatives of the shape functions at
the nodes, and to satisfy integration constraints in direct nodal integration,
a strain smoothing stabilization comes into the picture.

5.2.4
51
Strain smoothing stabilization method
Strain smoothing stabilization is used to compute the nodal strain by a divergence counterpart of a spatial averaging of strain. This strain smoothing
avoids evaluating derivatives of mesh-free shape functions at nodes, and thus
eliminates spurious modes. This strain smoothing method was proposed by
Chen[13] and Wu[13] as a regularization for material instabilities in strain
localization is extended and used to meet the integration constraints. Strain
smoothing approximation is introduced into the Galerkin method by means
of an assumed strain method.
Starting with a strain smoothing at the nodal representative domain by ;
Z
1
a
ij (xn ) =
(uai,j + uaj,i) d
(5.8)
2An
where aij (x) is got from displacement by compatibility. For above equation,
weighted Shepard function satisfying partition of unity was used (Chen[13]).
One can get the following version of above equation;
Z
1
a
uai d
(5.9)
ui (xn ) =
An
where An is the area or volume of the representative domain. Two methods
exist in the construction of the nodal representative domain (using Voronoi
diagram or Delaunay triangulation, see Chen[13]). Applying divergence theorem to this equation ;
ai (xn ) = 1
u
An
n uai d
(5.10)
where n is the boundary of representative domain of node n. The EFG

shape functions are inserted ;
a (xn ) =
u
i
i (xn ) di
(5.11)
where
i (xn ) = 1
An
1
i (x) d =
An
n i (x) d
n
(5.12)
52
i (xn ) is the smoothed shape function evaluated at node n. Sowhere

moothed EFG shape function gradients meet the integration constraints regardless of the numerical integration employed.
As a consequence, the strain smoothing method stabilizes spurious modes.
The method also satisfies linear exactness in the Galerkin approximation.
The need for quadrature structure is eliminated and the evaluation of stiffness matrix at nodal points give opportunity to have efficient results. Apart
from that, the method is quite robust when dealing with irregular node distribution.
When Eulerian kernel (weight) functions are implemented in the approximation, there exist some spurious modes, like tensile instability. To avoid
tensile instability caused by Eulerian kernel functions, the Lagrangian kernel
functions are performed in LS-DYNA. In the Lagrangian approach, moving
least squares approximation of displacement uai is defined using the material
coordinates X. This can be employed and showed for path-dependent and
path-independent problems but this is out of scope of this text. The Lagrangian shape function is obtained from the following ;
uai (X)
n
X
i (X)di
(5.13)
i=1
To derive the Galerkin approximation, with the Lagrangian strain smoothing

formulation, the assumed strain method is employed. Equations are derived
in a similar manner differing by the usage of Lagrangian kernels, and the
assumed strain method mentioned above.
To impose the essential boundary condition, transformation method is applied, since mesh-free shape functions do not have the selectivity property of
standard FEM shape functions. The details of the transformation method,
which is originally proposed for RKPM that is equivalent to EFGM when
monomial basis functions are used, could be found in Chen[11].
The current method in LS-DYNA is shown to perform well for explicit dynamics problems. The extension of this method to implicit analysis is currently under development.
5.3
53
Barrier Models in LS-DYNA
There are several barrier models using LS-DYNA applying the element free
Galerkin method. The method applied for the model problems are compared
with finite element solution and the test data if available. Using these benchmark applications, the necessary plots are obtained. Test data and the some
material properties obtained from experiments are used by the courtesy of
DaimlerChrysler AG. Before examining the models closely, it would be
better to mention about the concepts that deserve discussion.
5.3.1
Contact in LS-DYNA
Contact treatment is the integral part of many deformation problems. Accurate modeling of contact interfaces between bodies is important to predict
deformations in simulations. LS-DYNA offers a large number of contact
types. Some types are for specific applications, and the others are suitable
for more general use.
In LS-DYNA, contact is defined by identifying what locations are to be
checked for potential penetration of a slave segment through a master segment. A search for penetrations, using any of a number of different algorithms, is performed each time step. In the penalty based contact, when
penetration is found, a force proportional to the penetration depth is applied
to resist, and ultimately eliminate the penetration.
Interior contact is used with meshes of very soft solid elements (i.e., foams)
which are prone to invert under severe loading conditions. It is equivalent
to a single surface contact in which contact segments of a thickness are attached to every internal and external solid element face. When the elements
are severely crushed, these segments contact each other and resist further
crushing, thus prevent element inversion (negative volumes). Mesh connectivity tracking, in which neighbouring segments can be identified because
they share nodes. When one segment is no longer contacted by a node, the
neighbouring segments are checked.
In crash analysis, since the deformations occuring are very large and predetermination of where and how contact will take place is hard to perceive,
the automatic contact options are advised because these contact types are
nonoriented, meaning that they can detect the penetration coming from either side. Single surface contact types are the most widely used contact
options in LS-DYNA, specifically for crash analysis. No master surface is
54
defined, and the slave surfaces are defined as a list of parts. For the present
models, Contact Automatic Single Surface contact type is used. This contact
is very reliable and accurate if the model is accurately defined.
5.3.2
EFG in LS-DYNA
The current formulation in LS-DYNA works with the Lagrangian description

as mentioned before to get rid of some unstable modes. The EFG is the explicit version currently, requiring more CPU and memory. It needs minimum
human effort to change the inputdeck. There are some options to select the
weight function to be either a cubic spline or a quadratic spline.
The dilation parameters are chosen according to the way implemented. It
will use the largest dilation parameter which is computed by EFG processor
to assign this value for each mesh-free part. Every node associated with that
meshfree part will be assigned to the same value for the mesh-free computation. The other choice is that it will use individual a dilation parameter
for each mesh-free node. In the control card of EFG, the memory requirement for solving the model could be increased while assigning the increase
in the default value. This is necessary because LS-DYNA calls some external subroutines and needs memory when dilation parameters are increased.
This value implicitly indicates the number of the mesh-free nodes within the
domain of influence per each node in one direction. A formula that can automatically calculate the required maximum workspace will be available in
the new versions and will be totally removed.
For solid element formulation, a mesh-free solid formulation (element formulation 41 ) is developed. There are three parameters of the weight (kernel) function in X,Y,Z directions. The normalized dilation parameters of the
kernel function are introduced to provide the smoothness and compact support properties on the construction of the meshfree shape functions. Larger
values of this dilation parameters cause the increase in computational time.
The formulation in LS-DYNA uses the finite element hexahedral elements
for solid elements as the background mesh to identify the mesh-free part in
the computation. For shell elements, the finite element hexahedral quadrilateral elements are used as the background mesh to identify the mesh-free part.
There are some models in the following discussion to test the applicability and robustness of EFG method in LS-DYNA. The models are always
solved with finite element analysis, and then EFG method is applied. Both
results are compared with the test data if available.

5.3.3
55
Model 0 : Cantilever Block
Figure 5.2: Cantilever - Force applied at tip
Information for the simulation

Method
FEM
EFGM
Unit System
mm/sec./Newton
Configuration of PC
AMD Athlen XP2000+ with 1GB memory
The same
Mass of the block
0.393e-01 tonne
Total CPU time

15 mins.
1 hr. 30 mins.
Force
see Figure 5.3
To start with the new method, this model is selected as a sample to perceive
the applicability of EFG in LS-DYNA. This is three dimensional cantilever
beam exposed to a nodal force at its tip. The problem is investigated using
FEM first and EFG is applied and then both results are compared.
This problem is simple and very useful to see that if EFG works suitably
or not. The problem is analyzed as two seperate parts. First of all, the cantilever is meshed coarsely and then it is refined to understand the differences
56
Cantilever
50
Curve
A Curve 1
40
Force (E+6)
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
Time
Figure 5.3: Force vs. time curve
between them. In coarse mesh situation, fewer nodes are used compared to
refined steup. Therefore, EFG results are not exactly the same as FEM.
Although some differences or errors are seen between both methods, the results are quite acceptable. After refining the mesh of cantilever, obviously
more EFG nodes exist which means more CPU time. But in this situation
since the number of nodes (the number of Gauss points) is increased, the
perfect agreement with FEM solution is seen in the plots. Elastic material
was used with the properties of steel. For EFG solution element formulation
is (41) mesh-free solid formulation. Fully integrated solid element was used
for FEM solution. The energies are also consistent, not differing from the
FEM solution. As expected, the internal energy of the system is increasing.
The locking situation was examined while increasing the poisson ratio to
incompressible limit (0.4999). In that situation, EFG solution converged but
FEM solution exploded giving a negative brick element error in spite of the
usage of reduced integration. Thus, EFG does not experience volumetric
locking.
57

Cantilever
Node Ids
A FEM_628
B EFG_628
B
Yacceleration (E+6)
A
B
2
B
A
A
B
4
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Time
Figure 5.4: y acceleration,node on coarse mesh cantilever

Cantilever
Component
0.2
Internal Energy (E+9)
0.15
A
0.1
B
A
0.05
B
A
B
A
B
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Time
Figure 5.5: Internal energy of coarse mesh system
A FEM_Internal Energy
B EFG_Internal Energy
58

Cantilever_refined
Node Ids
A FEM_3903
B EFG_3903
Yacceleration (E+6)
0
B
3
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Time
Figure 5.6: y acceleration,node on refined mesh cantilever

Cantilever_refined
0.4
Component
A
0.3
Internal Energy (E+9)
0.2
B
A
0.1
B
A
B
A
B
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Time
Figure 5.7: Internal energy of refined mesh system
A EFG_Internal Energy
B FEM_Internal Energy

5.3.4
59
Model 1 : Barrier - Hollow Cylinder
Figure 5.8: Hollow Cylinder - Barrier

In this model, a crash analysis of a barrier (see [34]) and a hollow cylinder
is investigated using finite element and element free Galerkin method with
the test data. The cylinder is not completely hollow but the side where it
has interaction with barrier is closed. The rigid impactor, hollow cylinder, is
given an initial velocity to approach the barrier. The barrier is made from
honeycomb material which is highly anisotropic. There are two covering shell
surfaces at the sides and in the front of the barrier as in the real case covered
by metal sheets. Contact shells are used during the interaction of the rigid
body, hollow cylinder, and the barrier to make the contact problem managable. The solid elements are used for the barrier (block) using the special
element formulation for material modified honeycomb existing in LS-DYNA.
They do have three translational degree of freedom but not rotational degree
of freedom. At the same time, for possible hourglassing modes, the hourglass handling option is switched on. The barrier is fixed in space at the
60
back and constrained in three directions. Modified honeycomb material parameters have been verified by experimental results. For the shell elements,
Belytschko-Tsay shell elements were used.
For the covering shells, the material model is material piecewise linear plasticity having an option to delete the shell elements when plastic limits are
reached. The contact shells, which are not the part of the structure, but are
produced for convenience during the contact, use the material null, which
shows a fluid like manner and do not have yield stresses. The material rigid
is used to imitiate the real life situation because in many applications some
materials, although they are deformable, for the sake of the problem could be
considered as rigid body without loss of accuracy. Therefore, the impactor
is assigned to use material rigid.
In the crash analysis, the contact algorithm is Contact Automatic Single Surface. In this algorithm, there is only one surface definition necessary called
slave surface. The contact is searched between these slave surfaces that are
given as part list. The handling of dissimilar materials is also available in
this contact type.
The plots shown are given for a node of the rigid body impactor. The acceleration is the first calculated parameter using explicit time integration,
and then velocities and displacements are calculated. The small noises on
the acceleration plot is due to the explicit time integration. Test data is
available for forces since the force and the displacement are the quantities
measured easily from experiments. The calculated force is obtained simply
by multiplying the mass of impactor with the acceleration of any node on
the impactor. Since it is a rigid body, the all values on the impactor are
the same. There is no total energy increase in EFG solution which means
that the stability of the method and the model is reliable. It is clear that
with FEM, there is some amount of hourglassing appearing. However, this
is cured by the option given for this situation in LS-DYNA. Total energies
of each method are in perfect agreement. One important issue to remember
is not to use hourglassing options for the material which uses EFG method.
When both methods are compared to the test data for force vs. displacement, it is seen that they are comparable. The EFG results capture the
experimental data better than the FEM solution. To see the effects of dilation parameters on shape function smoothness, their values are increased and
a better solution was obtained as can be seen from the plot (Figure 5.12).
61

Hollow cylinder
Node Ids
40
Xdisplacement
A FEM_4120
B EFG_4120
C EFG_DIFF_4120
20
60
A
80
100
A
B
120
C
A
B
C
A
B
140
0
20
40
60
80
Time
Figure 5.9: x displacement,node on impactor

Hollow cylinder
Node Ids
0
C
B
A
1
C
B
Xvelocity
2
C
B
A
5
0
20
40
60
Time
Figure 5.10: x velocity,node on impactor
80
A FEM_4120
B EFG_4120
C EFG_DIFF_4120
62

Hollow cylinder
0.16
Node Ids
A FEM_4120
B EFG_4120
C EFG_DIFF_4120
0.14
C
0.12
B
A
Xacceleration
0.1
0.08
0.06
C
C
A
0.04
0.02
0.02
0
20
40
60
80
Time
Figure 5.11: x acceleration,node on impactor

Hollow cylinder
Node Ids
A
B
C
D
40
C
B
30
Force
20
B
D
D
A
B CD
A
10
B
A
CD
10
0
50
100
150
Displacement
Figure 5.12: Force vs. displacement on impactor
TEST_4120
FEM_4120
EFG_4120
EFG_DIFF_4120
63

Hollow cylinder
4
G
Component
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
F
B
B
B
F
Energy Data (E+3)
FEM_Kinetic Energy
FEM_Internal Energy
FEM_Total Energy
FEM_Hourglass Energy
EFG_Kinetic Energy
EFG_Internal Energy
EFG_Total Energy
EFG_Hourglass Energy
A
E
B
D
0
0
A
H
20
40
60
80
Time
Figure 5.13: Comparison of energies of the system

Mesh-free solid formulation (41)
Method
EFGM
EFGM different
Controlling Parameters Dilation Parameters

Max. workspace (0)
1.01
Cubic spline function (0)
Max. workspace (18)
1.10

Method
FEM
EFGM
EFGM different
Unit System
mm/msec./kNewton
Configuration of PC
The same
The same
Mass of the impactor
314 kg.
Total CPU time

3 hrs. 44 mins.
8 hrs. 33 mins.
25 hrs. 24 mins.
Impactor velocity
17.8 km/h

5.3.5
64
Model 2 : Barrier - Projectile

In this model, the crash analysis of a barrier (see [34]) and a projectile
is investigated using finite element and element free Galerkin method with
the test data. The rigid impactor, projectile, is given an initial velocity to
approach the barrier. The barrier is made from honeycomb material which
is highly anisotropic. The barrier is fixed at the back constrained in three directions. Additionally, from the right side it is constrained in Z direction and
from the bottom it is constrained in Y direction. Actually this model is the
quarter of the whole model simplifying the calculation. There are two covering shell surfaces at the sides and in the front of the barrier, as in the real
case covered by metal sheets. Contact shells are used during the interaction
of the rigid body and the barrier advantageously. The key points mentioned
in Model 1 will be repeated here. The models differ in the application of
impactor placement. This model is applied to the edge of the barrier which
extra complicates the problem. Because in crash analysis, the handling of
edges is hard to stabilize due to distortions and, therefore, they need special
65
Projectile
Node Ids
B
50
A
B
C
D
C
D
FEM_9220
EFG_9220
EFG_DIFF_9324
EFG_PART_9324
100
Xdisplacement
150
B
C
D
200
A
B
250
C
D
A
B
300
A
B
350
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time

treatment.
But for EFGM solution of this model, only the contact area is seperated
as a new part and only for this part EFGM is applied. Therefore, the barrier
is composed of two parts, namely, the contact area with EFGM and the rest
of barrier with FEM. This has been done just to perceive the handling of both
methods at the same time and to compare with the others. This solution is
approaching the FEM solution. The energies of the system are also plotted.
It is clear that with FEM, there is some amount of hourglassing appearing.
LS-DYNA produces some hourglassing forces to make the element efficient,
eliminating hourglassing situation.
For the force vs. displacement comparison, the superiority of EFG is
obvious to FEM. The EFG solution estimates the test data better than FEM
especially at the point where the peak is appearing. What is concluded is that
at the critical points where FEM has difficulty in estimating the experimental
data, EFG works well. There is no total energy increase in EFG solution
which means that the stability of the method and the model is reliable.
66

Projectile
Node Ids
C
B
A
A
B
C
D
FEM_9220
EFG_9220
EFG_DIFF_9324
EFG_PART_9324
Xvelocity (E+3)
4
C
A
D
C
B
A
8
D
C
B
10
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time

Projectile
Node Ids
B
A
B
C
D
0.2
A
B
Xacceleration (E+6)
0.15
C
B
C
C
D
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time
FEM_9220
EFG__9220
EFG_DIFF_9324
EFG_PART_9324
67

Projectile
Node Ids
A
B
C
D
E
0.15
TEST_9220
FEM_9220
EFG_9220
EFG_DIFF_9324
EFG_PART_9324
0.1
Force (E+6)
C
E
B
E
0.05
E
CA
D
E
CB
E
A
0.05
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Displacement

Projectile
6
Component
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
E
F
F
4
F
Energy Data (E+6)
A
B
3
E
F
B
A
F
A
B
0
0
0.02
D E
0.04
0.06
Time
FEM_Kinetic Energy
FEM_Internal Energy
FEM_Total Energy
EFG_Kinetic Energy
EFG_Internal Energy
EFG_Total Energy
68

Method
EFGM
EFGM different

Max. workspace (0)
1.01
Max. workspace (20)
1.30

Method
FEM
EFGM
EFGM different
Unit System
mm/sec./Newton
Configuration of PC
The same
The same
484 kg.
Total CPU time

48 mins.
1 hr. 48 mins.
2 hrs. 2 mins.
Impactor velocity
34.3 km/h

5.3.6
69
Model 3 : Barrier - Impactor with an angle
Figure 5.20: Impactor with an angle - Barrier

This is the half of the whole model. For this problem, the keypoints that
are mentioned for Model 1 are valid also. Since the model represents the extreme type of crash model, analysis is performed to understand the behaviour
of EFG application for this model problem. Different EFG parameters are
inserted while increasing the dilation parameters that need more CPU time.
The accelerations are in similar range meaning that even for this worst case,
EFG is able to capture the FEM solution which is more robust than EFG.
Since there is an interaction between FEM and EFG solution in LS-DYNA, to
increase the accuracy or to get increased stability situation, one can remesh
FE part to interact with mesh-free part in a correct manner. When compared
to experimental data, it is seen that both methods are able to represent the
test values in a similar manner. For the present model, the change in kernel
function dilation parameters could be ignored because a perfect consistency
is observed from the plots. In spite of this complicated situation, there is no
total energy increase in EFG solution which means that the stability of the
70

Method
EFGM
EFGM different

Max. workspace (0)
1.01
Max. workspace (20)
1.20

Method
FEM
EFGM
EFGM different
Unit System
mm/sec./Newton
Configuration of PC
The same
The same
443 kg.
Total CPU time

1 hr. 6 mins.
2 hrs. 30 mins.
6 hrs. 33 mins.
Impactor velocity
38.6 km/h
method and the model is reliable.(see [34])

The impact w/ angle
Node Ids
B
A
B
C
D
50
100
Xdisplacement
A
B
150
C
D
200
A
B
250
C
D
A
300
B
C
350
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Time
FEM_18162
EFG_18162
EFG_DIFF_18162
EFG_MESH_18162
71

The impact w/ angle
Node Ids
C
0
A
A
B
C
D
FEM_18162
EFG_18162
EFG_DIFF_18162
EFG_MESH_18162
2
C
B
A
Xvelocity (E+3)
C
B
A
8
D
C
B
A
10
B
12
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Time

The impact w/ angle
Node Ids
A
B
C
D
A
B
0.3
B
0.25
C
D
Xacceleration (E+6)
A
C
0.2
D
B
0.15
A
C
0.1
D
C
D
0.05
B
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Time
FEM_18162
EFG_18162
EFG_DIFF_18162
EFG_MESH_18162
72

The impact w/ angle
Node Ids
A
B
C
D
E
0.15
B CD
B
0.1
TEST_18162
FEM_18162
EFG_18162
EFG_DIFF_18162
EFG_MESH_18162
Force (E+6)
D
B
C
C
B
0.05
E
D
C
D
B
0.05
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Displacement

The impact w/ angle
Component
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
10
Energy Data (E+6)
F
E
8
F
F
B
0
0
0.01
0.02
D E
0.03
0.04
0.05
Time
FEM_Kinetic Energy
FEM_Internal Energy
FEM_Total Energy
EFG_Kinetic Energy
EFG_Internal Energy
EFG_Total Energy

5.3.7
73
Model 4 : Barrier - Bumper
Figure 5.26: Barrier - Bumper

A rigid wall approaches the barrier (see [34]) with an idealized bumper.
The wall is not visualized. The rigidwall provides a simple way of treating
contact between rigid surface and the points on the deformable body.
An initial velocity is given to the rigid wall, and an artificial node was created
on the wall to measure the displacement. The force displacement plots show
the accuracy of EFG when compared to FEM because the former captures
more of the test value. There is no so much difference between the stonewall
energies. Thus, one may consider that EFG is consistent in this problem.
Different dilation parameters of EFG were also tried and gave acceptable
results than FEM. For this model, rigid wall directly interacts with surface
of bumpers totally. Therefore, those three bumpers are not needed to be assigned as separate three parts. There is exactly a direct interaction between
the wall and bumpers.
74

Method
EFGM
EFGM different

Max. workspace (0)
1.01
Max. workspace (20)
1.20

Method
FEM
EFGM
EFGM different
Unit System
mm/msec./kNewton
Configuration of PC
The same
The same
Mass of the stonewall
100 Mtonne
Total CPU time

1 hr. 48 mins.
3 hrs. 50 mins.
10 hrs. 19 mins.
Stonewall velocity
36.0 km/h
Barrier w/ bumper
Rigid Wall
A
A
B
C
D
Force (E+3)
0.8
0.6
0.4
A
B
0.2
B
AB
0
0
100
200
300
400
Displacement
Test_999
FEM_999
EFG_999
EFG_DIFF_999
75
Barrier w/ bumper
0
Component
A FEM_Wall1
B EFG_Wall1
200
Energy
400
A
A
A
600
B
B
B
800
0
10
20
30
40
Time
Figure 5.28: Comparison of energies of the wall

5.3.8
76
Model 5 : Chevrolet Truck (C1500D-Pickup) - Barrier
Figure 5.29: Truck - Barrier

The truck and the barrier with bumper (see [34]) are investigated in this
simulation making it similar to real life situation. This is an offset frontal
crash simulation, and 40% of the vehicle interacts with the barrier at the beginning of the simulation time. This is called an offset crash. In offset tests,
only one side of the vehicles front end, not full width, hits the barrier so
that a smaller area of the structure manages the crash energy, meaning that
the front and the struck side may have more intrusions into the occupant
area. There is a rigid wall at the end of the barrier block for visualization
purpose. Truck model is meshed mostly using quadrilateral elements. The
truck model was obtained from http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/vml/models.html,
which is National Crash Analysis Center web site and it was modified to
get rid of negative volume elements and unacceptable total mass increase.
The truck approaches the barrier with an initial velocity and accelerations of
some parts on the truck are examined by comparing them with EFG solution.
The barrier is made from honeycomb material which is highly anisotropic.
The barrier is fixed at the back constrained in three directions. The three
77
bumpers, which are in front of the barrier to interact with the trucks bumper
are made from honeycomb material also.
To manage the contact problems during the interaction with the vehicle,
contact shells are created having material null without any yield stresses.
The covering shells as mentioned before use piecewise linear plasticity having an option to delete some shell elements (eroding the shell elements) when
they reach the specified plasticity limit.
There are very large deformations happening in the system. However, that
situation is struggled to be minimized by choosing an appropriate hourglassing formulation, viscous formulation. Unlike the usual choice which is the
standard viscous form formulation, Belytschko-Flanagan visocus formulation
was used with suitable changes in hourglassing viscous parameters to increase
hourglassing forces.
The three bumpers in front of the barrier were defined as one part including those three. This did not cause any strange behaviour for FEM solution,
however, EFG got some problems. In the part card of LS-DYNA, the solution
is put together getting information from material parameters, the element
types and formulation, hourglassing formulations. From the nature of EFG,
there are no elements but nodes whose domain of influences overlap each
other.
During the simulation, unlike FEM, the bumpers moved together producing a wrong result. This was since they were defined as one part tying them
together to move. Thus, to get an uncoupled situation, the three bumpers
are to be defined as three independent parts. Then, the sensible solution is
obtained.
The energy plots, the accelerations, velocities and displacements are calculated and compared with each other. For this case, the node in front of
the instrument panel was marked. The accelerations are very much similar
and there is almost no difference in velocity and displacement plots. The
intrusions occuring in the truck must be the same since the displacement
plots agree well. Hourglassing option for the simulation should be off for
EFG solution regarding the total energy consideration. Since there are many
contact situation happening in the vehicle, the energy of the system is to be
examined carefully. Additionally, the truck used is a bad finite element model
meshed. The energies of barrier is important to observe the applicability of
EFG method. The differences are seen due to hourglassing effect. Obviously
78

Method
EFGM
EFGM different

Max. workspace (0)
1.01
Max. workspace (20)
1.40

Method
FEM
EFGM
EFGM different
Unit System
mm/sec./Newton
Configuration of PC
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz with 1GB memory
Mass of the vehicle
1800 kg
Total CPU time

20 hrs. 1 minutes.
22 hrs. 32 minutes.
97 hrs. 59 mins.
Velocity
35.0 km/h
there is no hourglassing happening in the parts where EFG is applied. Thus,

one observes the applicability of EFG method for this crash simulation.
C1500 PICKUP TRUCK MODEL
Node Ids
800
C
B
A
C
B
Xdisplacement
600
A
400
B
A
200
C
B
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Time
Figure 5.30: x displacement,node on vehicle
0.14
A FEM_795
B EFG_795
C EFG_DIFF_795
79

B
Node Ids
A
B
C
A FEM_795
B EFG_795
C EFG_DIFF_795
8
A
B
Xvelocity (E+3)
B
C
A
B
C
0
A
2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Time
Figure 5.31: x velocity,node on vehicle

Node Ids
A FEM_795
B EFG_795
C EFG_DIFF_795
0.05
0
Xacceleration (E+6)
C
A
B
0.05
A
C
A
C
0.1
B
C
0.15
0.2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Time
Figure 5.32: x acceleration,node on vehicle
0.14
80

35
Component/MatId
C
30
A
B
C
D
Barrier_FEM_Internal Energy
Barrier_FEM_Hourglass Energy
Barrier_EFG_Internal Energy
Barrier_EFG_Hourglass Energy
25
C
Energy (E+6)
20
A
15
10
5
A
0
0
0.02
0.04
B
B
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Time
Figure 5.33: Comparison of energies of barrier
6 CONCLUSION
81
Conclusion
The applicability and the accuracy of the element free Galerkin method
was investigated and compared to the finite element method in this work.
Deep research was made including newly developed respects and newly gained
features. To understand the method better, a code was written and applied
to 1D equilibrium equation. The nodes are ordered uniformly for the sake
of simplicity and very accurate results are obtained by means of the moving least squares method. To eliminate the Lagrange multipliers, a modified
form of the element free Galerkin method was used to make use of the positive definitness of the matrix. One can implement the same problem using
randomly distributed nodes and 2D version of the same problem could be analyzed also. However, as one realizes, the main area of element free Galerkin
method is the problems having the large deformation processes, the growth
of cracks with arbitrary and complex paths, moving discontinuities requiring
remeshings the domain of interest. Since it is a mesh-free technique, the main
advantage of it is the application to fracture mechanics problems where the
finite element method has difficulties.
The main needs of element free Galerkin method are the description of coordinates of nodes enabling to apply to arbitrary shapes since only requires
nodal data and a description of boundaries of domain and any interior surfaces. Since there is no need to create mesh, and the nodes can be created by
a computer in a fully automated manner, the time an engineer would spend
on conventional mesh generation could be saved.
For the numerical process of integration with Gauss quadrature, a background mesh is needed. This can be thought of as a deficiency of the method
but the purpose of the background mesh is necessary for integration and
can be produced very easily. The integration could be implemented using
reduced integration procedure, eliminating the necessary background mesh
structure and having a pure meshless method. To get rid of rank deficiency
while applying nodal quadrature, several techniques were developed (Chen
[14]).
The purpose of this work was to use the element free Galerkin method in
the design of the barriers in crash simulation using LS-DYNA. The models
were evaluated for the performance of the method comparing with the test
data and FEM solution. For the models for which test data was available, it
is observed that the accelerations on the impactor and the force applied by
impactor are represented by element free Galerkin formulation better than by
6 CONCLUSION
82
usual finite element formulation. When the dilation parameters responsible

for the smoothness of the shape functions are increased, the computational
time is also increased leading to more accurate results. Actually, this is
a problem dependent situation since for one of the models increase of this
values does not make so much sense. During calculation, since LS-DYNA requires to call external subroutines, it needs more memory allocation. Thus,
maximum work space for the increased dilation parameters must be raised.
The definition of the contact algorithms and the usage of correct material
properties of the barrier for the simulations were very important for the convergence and numerical stability of the new method. The models contain the
finite element meshed items, meaning that LS-DYNA is capable of handling
the correct coupling of both methods.
In future development of LS-DYNA, it is expected to be able to add EFG
nodes to several critical areas. That means interactive adaptive mesh-free
method which provides adjustable shape function support size and direct
nodal insertion/deletion capability. EFG shells are supposed to be developed and EFG - SMP (Shared Memory Parallel) code is under investigation.
The MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) version of the method is also under
development. There is no implicit implementation of EFG available to the
public use, therefore, implicit EFG shell and MPP shell are also under development. Additionally, fast mesh-free integration method, mesh-free based
contact algorithm, and fluid and gas formulations are on the horizon. Consequently, with these newly developed features, EFG method in LS-DYNA
could manage more problems in which FEM has difficulties.
83
A APPENDIX
Appendix
The material properties of the models are given in this section. The basic materials used are honeycomb material, piecewise linear plastic material,
elastic material, and rigid material.
With piecewise linear plastic material, an elasto-plastic material with an
arbitrary stress vs. strain curve and arbitrary strain rate dependency can
be defined. Also, as mentioned before, failure based on plastic strain can
be defined. With elastic material, an isotropic elastic material can be defined available for all elements. With modified honeycomb material, the material for aliminum honeycomb crushable foam materials with anisotropic
behaviour can be defined (See Hallquist [18]).
A.1
Material Data
The following material data will be the same for all barrier models.
Unit System:
mm/sec./Newton
Material Properties - Modified Honeycomb Material

Barrier Block
Youngs Modulus
for compacted honeycomb
1000.0
Density Poissons Ratio

5.12e-11
0.3
Material Properties - Piecewise Linear Plasticity

Covering Sheet Metals
Part Youngs Modulus
Front
80000.0
Sides
80000.0
Density
2.7e-09
2.7e-09
Poissons Ratio
0.3
0.3
84
A APPENDIX
A.2
Curves
The following stress - strain curves will be the same for all barrier models.
But one should pay attention to unit systems.
Hollow Cylinder
0.03
Curve
A Curve 8000001
0.025
Stress
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
1
0.5
0.5
1.5
Strain
Figure A.1: Stress - Strain curve of Barrier Block

Hollow Cylinder
0.2
Curve
A Curve 8000008
A
0.15
A
Stress
0.1
0.05
A
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Plastic Strain
Figure A.2: Stress - Plastic Strain curve of Front Covering Sheet Metal
85
A APPENDIX
Hollow Cylinder
Curve
A Curve 8000009
0.18
Stress
0.16
0.14
0.12
A
0.1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Plastic Strain
Figure A.3: Stress - Plastic Strain curve of Side Covering Sheet Metal
Barrier w/ Bumper & C1500 PICKUP TRUCK MODEL

0.35
Curve
A Curve 25
0.3
0.25
Stress
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
10
Strain
Figure A.4: Stress - Strain curve of Bumper Blocks for Model 4 and Model 5
REFERENCES
86
References
[1] I. Babuska, J. M. Melenk. The partition of unity method. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, pp.727-758 (1997)
[2] T. Belytschko, Y. Y. Lu ,L. Gu. Element free Galerkin methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, pp.229-256
(1994)
[3] T. Belytschko, S. Beissel. Nodal integration of the element free Galerkin
method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
pp.49-74 (1996)
[4] T. Belytschko, Y. Krongauz, M. Fleming, D. Organ, W.K. Liu.
Smoothing and accelerated computations in th element free Galerkin
method. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, pp.111126 (1996)
[5] T. Belytschko, Y. Krongauz, D. Organ, M. Fleming, P. Krysl. Meshless
methods: An overview and recent developments. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, pp.3-48 (1996)
[6] T. Belytschko, Y. Krongauz, J. Dolbow, C. Gerlach. On the completeness of meshfree particle methods. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, pp.785-819 (1998)
[7] T. Belytschko, Y. Guo, W.K. Liu, P. Xiao. A unified stability analysis of meshless particle methods. International Journal for Numerical
[8] T. Belytschko, W.K. Liu, B. Moran. Nonlinear Finite Elements for
Continua and Structures. J.Wiley and Sons, New York. (2000)
[9] J.S. Chen, W.K. Liu. Meshfree particle methods. Computational Mechanics, pp.99-101 (2000)
[10] J.S. Chen, C.Pan, C.T. Wu, W.K. Liu. Reproducing kernel particle methods for large deformation analysis of nonlinear structures.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, pp.195-227
(1996)
[11] J.S. Chen, H.P. Wang. New boundary condition treatments in meshfree computation of contact problems. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, pp.441-468 (2000)
REFERENCES
87
[12] J.S. Chen, C.T. Wu, T. Belytschko. Regularization of material instabilities by meshfree approximations with intrinsic length scales. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, pp.1303-1322
(2000)
[13] J.S. Chen, C.T. Wu, S. Yoon, Y.You. A stabilized conforming nodal
integration for Galerkin meshfree methods. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, pp.435-466 (2001)
[14] J.S. Chen, C.T. Wu, S. Yoon. Nonlinear version of stabilized conforming nodal integration for Galerkin meshfree methods. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, pp.2587-2615 (2002)
[15] J. Dolbow, T. Belytschko. An introduction to programming the meshless element free Galerkin method. Archives in Computational Mechanics, pp.207-241 (1998)
[16] J. Dolbow, T. Belytschko. Numerical integration of Galerkin weak form
in meshfree methods. Computational Mechanics, pp.219-230 (1999)
[17] J.O. Hallquist. LS-DYNA. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, California. (1992-2004)
[18] J.O. Hallquist. LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual. Livermore Software
Technology Corporation, California. (1992-2004)
[19] D. Hegen. An element free Galerkin method for crack propagation in
brittle materials. Phd Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven (1997)
[20] A. Huerta, S. Fernàndez-Mèndez. Enrichment and coupling of finite
element and meshless methods. International Journal for Numerical
[21] A. Huerta, T. Belytschko, S. Fernàndez-Mèndez, T. Rabczuk. Meshfree Methods. Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, John Wiley
and Sons (2004)
[22] H. Kopka, P.W. Daly. A Guide to LAT EX2 : Document Preparation
for Beginners and Advanced Users. Addison-Wisley Publishing Company. (1995)
[23] Y. Krongauz, T. Belytschko. Enforcement of essential boundary conditions in meshless approximations using finite elements. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, pp.133-145 (1996)
REFERENCES
88
[24] P. Lancaster, K. Salkauskas. Surfaces generated by moving least square

methods. Mathematics of Computation, pp.141-158 (1980)
[25] S. Li, W.K. Liu. Meshfree and particle methods and their applications.
Applied Mechanics Review, pp.1-80 (2001)
[26] G.R. Liu. Meshfree Methods: Moving Beyond the Finite Element
Method. CRC Press LLC (2003)
[27] W.K. Liu, S. Jun, S. Zhang. Reproducing kernel particle methods.
International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, pp.1081-1106
(1995)
[28] Y.Y. Lu, T. Belytschko, L. Gu. A new implementation of the element
free Galerkin method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, pp.397-414 (1994)
[29] B. Nayroles, G. Touzot, P. Villon. Generalizing the finite element
method: Diffuse approximations and diffuse elements. Computational
Mechanics, pp.307-318 (1992)
[30] N. Sukumar, B. Moran, T. Belytschko. An element free Galerkin
method for 3D fracture mechanics. Computational Mechanics. pp.170175 (1997)
[31] K. Weimar. Einf
uhrung in LS-DYNA. DYNAmore GmbH, Stuttgart
(2003)
[32] C.T. Wu, M.E. Botkin, H.P. Wang. Development of a coupled finite
element and mesh-free method in LS-DYNA. 7th International LSDYNA Users Conference, Michigan (2002)
[33] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Taylor. Finite Element Method, Volume 1. 5th
Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann. (2000)
[34] The experimental data of the barrier tests have been provided by the
DaimlerChrysler AG, Abt. EP/CSB. This tests have also been introduced to the FAT-workgroup Deformable Barriers, which was working in the course of the workgroup AK27 of the FAT from 1996-2001.

Assessment of Mesh-Free Methods in Lsdyna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Assessment of Mesh-Free Methods in Lsdyna

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Assessment of Mesh-Free Methods in Lsdyna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Mesh-free Methods

Master of Science Thesis supervised by

Stuttgart, May 2004

   

Assessment of the MeshFree Methods in LSDYNA:

Dr.Ing. Andre Haufe (DYNAmore GmbH), Michael Gee

2 The Need for Meshless Methods

3 Element Free Galerkin Method

4 1D Equilibrium Equation with EFGM

1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS

General View to Meshless Methods

1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS

Research on Meshless Methods

In general, meshless methods can be classified based on two different criteria

1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics

It is one of the earliest starting points in computational mechanics. Lucy,

Generalized finite difference method

Diffuse element method

It was developed by Nayroles[29], Touzot[29], Villon[29]. They presented

1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS

Element free Galerkin method

A landmark paper was published by Belytschko[2], Lu[2], and Gu[2] as an

Reproducing kernel particle method

Partition of unity method

The essence of partition of unity method stated by Babuska[1] and Melenk[1]

1 GENERAL VIEW TO MESHLESS METHODS

To summarize, some of the meshless methods mentioned above totally do

2 THE NEED FOR MESHLESS METHODS

The Need for Meshless Methods

2 THE NEED FOR MESHLESS METHODS

Meshless Methods in Engineering

There are a large number of different physical phenomena in engineering

The fundamental difference between finite element method and meshless

2 THE NEED FOR MESHLESS METHODS

Modeling the Geometry

Shape Function Construction

In FEM, shape functions are produced based on elements, and therefore,

2 THE NEED FOR MESHLESS METHODS

Inputting a material property into a preprocessor in both FEM and meshless

Boundary, Initial, and Loading Conditions

3 ELEMENT FREE GALERKIN METHOD

Element Free Galerkin Method

Description of EFG Method

The element free Galerkin method (EFGM) is a relatively new approach. It

3 ELEMENT FREE GALERKIN METHOD

One attractive property of MLS approximants is that their continuity is

3 ELEMENT FREE GALERKIN METHOD

of Lagrange multipliers, a modified variational principle, or the coupling to

Moving Least Squares Approximation

3 ELEMENT FREE GALERKIN METHOD

approximant is reached without the usage of connectivity of nodal points. A

More generally a complete quadratic basis in 3D is given as :

pj (xi ) aj (x) = pT (xi )a(x)

w(x xi )(ua L (xi , x) ui )2

and equation becomes ;

w(x xi )(pT (xi )a(x) ui )2