Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157

DOI 10.1007/s00466-007-0174-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
The reproducing singularity particle shape functions for problems
containing singularities
Hae-Soo Oh Jae Woo Jeong June G. Kim
Received: 23 October 2006 / Accepted: 13 March 2007 / Published online: 11 April 2007
Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract In this paper, we construct particle shape func-
tions that reproduce singular functions as well as polynomial
functions. We also construct piecewise polynomial convolu-
tion partition of unity functions by taking the convolution of
the scaled conical window function with the characteristic
functions of quadrangular patches (we provide the computer
code for this construction). We demonstrate that the reprodu-
cing singular particle shape functions yield highly accurate
numerical solutions for the singularity problems with crack
singularity or a jump boundary data singularity.
Keywords Reproducing polynomial particle shape
functions Reproducing singularity particle shape
functions Patch-wise uniformly spaced particles
Interpolation error estimate The convolution partition of
unity function
1 Introduction
The nite element method (FEM) has been widely used to
solve many important science and engineering problems.
H.-S. Oh was supported in part by funds provided by the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte. J. G. Kim was supported in part by the
Research Grant of the Kangwon National University. J. G. Kim is a
Visiting Professor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
H.-S. Oh (B) J. W. Jeong
Department of Mathematics and Statistics,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
e-mail: hso@uncc.edu
J. G. Kim
Department of Mathematics,
Kangwon National University,
Chunchon 200-701, South Korea
However, the conventional FEM has several obstacles, such
as mesh renement and constructing smooth global basis
functions. Recently, several generalized nite element
methods (GEFM) that circumvent the obstacles of the
conventional FEM were introduced. Among many GFEMs
that use meshes minimally or do not use meshes at all [13],
those methods related to this paper are Element Free Galerkin
Method (EFGM) [1, 7, 8, 10, 1315], h-p Cloud Method
[6], Partition of Unity Finite Element Method (PUFEM) [17,
24, 25], and Reproducing Kernel Element Method (RKEM)
[1012].
This paper is a continuation of the previous paper [22] that
is closely related to those element free methods: RKPM and
RKEM. The Reproducing Kernel Particle Method (RKPM)
[7, 8, 10, 1315] is a meshfree method that yields highly accu-
rate approximation to smooth functions by using the repro-
ducing kernel particle (RKP) shape functions that can exactly
interpolate the polynomials of a xed degree. The RKP shape
functions can be constructed to be smooth up to any desired
order by selecting smooth window functions.
However, the RKP shape functions constructed by using
specic window functions with compact supports are gene-
rally fractional functions with complicated denominators that
are solutions of the systemof algebraic equations. Thus, these
RKP shape functions have the following problems:
(1) Theydonot satisfythe Kronecker delta property; hence,
it has difculties in dealing with Dirichlet boundary
conditions.
(2) Accuracy is compromised in numerical integrations for
these complex fractional shape functions.
In order to alleviate these obstacles, in [21], we construc-
ted piecewise polynomial C
r
-reproducing polynomial
1 3
136 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
particle (RPP) shape functions associated with uniformly (or
non-uniformly) distributed particles, that satisfy the Krone-
cker delta property, for any integer r 0, and any desi-
red reproducing order. Furthermore, in [22], by transforming
these piecewise polynomial RPP shape functions via bilinear
mappings, we construct piecewise polynomial particle shape
functions, associated with patch-wise uniformly (or non-
uniformly) distributed particles in a polygonal domain, that
have the property of polynomial reproducing of a reduced
order. However, elliptic boundary value problems on non-
convex domains (especially, cracked domains) contain sin-
gularities. Moreover, it is well known that the polynomial
shape functions poorly approximate the singular functions.
Thus, in this paper, to deal with singularity problems in the
framework of meshfree particle methods, using RPP shape
functions of order 2N and special mappings similar to
[4, 9, 18, 19], we construct special particle shape functions
that reproduce three kinds of singularities:
(1) r
0.5+l
cos(0.5+l), r
0.5+l
sin(0.5+l), l =0, . . . , N1;
(2) r
0.5
, r
1.5
, r
0.5
cos(1.5);
(3) r
0.5
sin(1.5),
and the complete polynomials x
k
1
y
k
2
, 0 k
1
+k
2
N.
The main ideas of the construction for reproducing singu-
larity particle(RSP) shape functions are as follows:
(1) Let

Q
s
be a rectangular reference patch constructed
by tensor product of reproducing polynomial particle
(RPP) shape functions on [1, 1] as shown in [21].
(2) Suppose a polygonal domain contains a point singu-
larity at the origin (0, 0) of the rectangular coordinate
system. We properlyselect a rectangular subdomain Q
s
containing the singularity on which the inuence of the
singularity is dominant. Next,
R
:= \ Q
s
, where
the singularity effects are tolerable, is divided into qua-
drangular patches Q
j
, j = 2, . . . , N
Q
, as shown in
[21].
(3) Let

i j
, i j , be RPP shape functions on

Q
s
. Then,
we construct special mappings T
s
:

Q
s
Q
s
such
that

i j
T
1
s
, i j , reproduce the singular functions
arising in the crack singularity.
(4) Through the multiplication of the convolution partition
of unity to

i j
T
1
s
, we obtain RSP shape functions
on the singular zone Q
s
with compact supports.
The resulting closed form particle shape functions
satisfy the Kronecker delta property except at few par-
ticles around the singular zone Q
s
. However, it can be
made so that the Kronecker delta property is satised
at all particle along the boundary of the domain.
The paper is organized in the following manner. Section 2
introduces the notations and denitions used in this paper.
Section 3 reviews the construction of the (at-top) convolu-
tion partition of unity functions that was given in [22]. We
also present those theorems proved in the previous paper
[22] for the purpose of using them for the construction of
reproducing singularity particle shape functions. Section 4
proves three main theorems and tree different mappings that
construct the reproducing singular particle shape functions as
well as reproducing polynomial particle shape functions. In
Sect. 5, by combing the (at-top) piecewise polynomial par-
tition of unity functions, and the singular particle shape func-
tions, that were constructed in Sects. 3 and 4, respectively, we
construct reproducing singular particle shape functions with
compact supports. In Sect. 6, by comparing the interpolation
errors in the L
2
-norm and the H
1
-semi norm, we demons-
trate the effectiveness of the proposed reproducing singular
particle (RSP) shape functions in dealing with the crack sin-
gularity as well as the jump boundary data singularity. The
concluding remarks are stated in Sect. 7. In Appendix, we
present the diagram of intersection of patches and the sup-
port of a scaled window function that are essential in the
construction of the convolution partition of unity functions.
2 RKP shape functions and RPP shape functions
Throughout this paper, , Z
d
are multi-indices and x =
(
1
x,
2
x, . . . ,
d
x), x
j
= (
1
x
j
,
2
x
j
, . . . ,
d
x
j
) denote points
in R
d
. However, if there is no confusion, we also use the
conventional notation for the points in R
d
or Z
d
as x =
(x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
d
) and = (
1
,
2
, . . . ,
d
). We also use the
following notations:
(x x
j
)

:= (
1
x
1
x
j
)

1
. . . (
d
x
d
x
j
)

d
,

x
u :=

||
u
x

1
1
x

d
d
, || :=
1
+
2
+ +
d
.
Let be a domain in R
d
. For any non-negative integer m,
C
m
() denotes the space of all functions such that toge-
ther with all their derivatives D

of orders || m, are
continuous on . The support of is dened by
supp = {x : (x) = 0}.
In the following, a function C
m
() is said to be a
C
m
- function.
We also use the usual Sobolev space denoted by H
k
().
For u H
k
(), the norm and the semi-norm, respectively,
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 137
are
u
k,
=
_
_
_

||k
_

u|
2
dx
_
_
_
1/2
, and
|u|
k,
=
_
_
_

||=k
_

u|
2
dx
_
_
_
1/2
.
A weight function (or window function) is a non-negative
continuous function with compact support and is denoted
by w(x). Two typical window functions are as follows: For
x R,
(a) Conical:
w(x) =
_
(1 x
2
)
l
, |x| 1,
0, |x| > 1,
(1)
which is a C
l1
-function.
(b) Gaussian:
w(x) =
_
(e
1/1x
2
) if |x| < 1,
0 if |x| 1,
(2)
which is an innitely smooth function.
In R
d
, the weight function w(x) can be constructed froma
one-dimensional weight function either as w(x) = w(x)
or as w(x) =

d
i =1
w(x
i
), where x = (x
1
, . . . , x
d
) and
x
2
= x
2
1
+ + x
2
d
. In this paper, we use the latter for a
higher dimensional window function.
Let be a nite indexset anddenotes a boundeddomain
in R
d
. Let {x
j
: j } be a set of a nite number of
uniformly or non-uniformly spaced points in R
d
, that are
called particles.
Denition 2.1 Let k be a non-negative integer. Then the
functions
j
(x) corresponding to the particles x
j
, j
are called the RPP shape functions with the reproducing pro-
perty of order k (or simply, of reproducing order k) if and
only if it satises the following condition:

j
(x
j
)

j
(x)=x

, for x R
d
and for 0 || k.
(3)
By applying a similar argument to [2, 7], one can easily
prove the following: the condition (3) for the RPP shape
functions is equivalent to

j
(x x
j
)

j
(x)=
0
||
, for 0 || k and x R
d
.
(4)
For the construction of RPP shape functions, we do not
use any specic window functions [21] in one-dimensional
case. For higher dimensional RPP shape functions, we use
unbounded RPP shape functions multiplied by the convolu-
tion partition of unity functions.
On the other hand, the construction of RKP shape function
is directly related to the window functions as follows:
The RKP shape function, associated with the particle
x
j
, j , is constructed by

j
(x) = w(x x
j
)

0||k
(x x
j
)

(x) (5)
where b

(x) are chosen so that (3) is satised and w(x) is a

window function. This gives rise to a linear system in b

(x),
namely

0||k
m
+
(x)b

(x) =
0
||
for 0 || k, (6)
where
0
||
is the Kronecker delta, and
m

(x) =

j Z
w(x x
j
)(x x
j
)

.
For one-dimensional case, this system can be written as
M(x) [b
0
(x), b
1
(x), . . . , b
k
(x)]
T
= [1, 0, . . . , 0]
T
,
where
M(x) =

j
w(x x
j
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1
(x x
j
)
1
(x x
j
)
2
.
.
.
(x x
j
)
k
_

_
[1, (x x
j
)
1
, . . . , (x x
j
)
k
].
The coefcient matrix M(x) of the linear system(6) is called
the moment matrix.
3 The convolution (at-top) partition of unity shape
function and the construction non-uniformly
distributed particles on quadrangular patches
In this section, we briey review the construction of the at-
top partition of unity shape functions and the construction of
patch-wise non-uniformly distributed particles. The detailed
descriptions and proofs can be found in [22].
1 3
138 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
3.1 The construction of the convolution partition of unity
shape function
For brevity, we denote the coordinates of points of R
2
by
x = (x, y) or = (, ).
Denition 3.1 The convolution of functions f (x) and g(x),
which is denoted by ( f g)(x), is dened by
( f g)(x) =
_
R
2
f (y)g(x y)dy.
The characteristic function of E R
2
, denoted by
E
, is
dened by

E
(x) =
_
1 x E,
0 otherwise.
The (at-top) convolution partition of unity(PU) functions
are constructed as follows:
1. Suppose is a polygonal domain and

= {x : di st (x, ) }, x = (x, y)
which is called the -framed (the outer rectangle in
Fig. 1 bounded by the dotted line). Now

is partitioned
into large bounded quadrangles (may not be rectangles),
Q

k
, k = 1, . . . , n such that
Q

k
= Q
k
,

=
n
k=1
Q

k
,
int(Q

k
) int(Q

l
) = , for k = l.
Here, for k = 1, . . . , n, the subset int(Q

k
) denote the
interior of Q

k
.
Then we have
n

k=1

int(Q

k
)
= 1, a.e. on

. (7)
Fig. 1 Diagram of ,

, for = 0.1 and the patches Q

k
, Q

k
,
k = 1, 2, 3, 4
Actually, Q

k
is enlarged from Q
k
by only along the
boundary part Q
k
(Q

k
= Q
k
if Q
k
= . It
is elaborated in Sect. 6.2)
2. Consider the scaled conical window function, dened
by
w

(, )=
_

_
A(1(

)
2
)
l
(1(

)
2
)
l
if || and
|| ,
0 otherwise,
(8)
where
A
1
=

(1 (

)
2
)
l
d

(1 (

)
2
)
l
d,
and l is an integer with 3 l < .
In this paper, this scaled conical windowfunction is said
to be the -window function.
3. Since
int(Q

k
)
w

=
Q

k
w

, we denote the convo-

lution of the characteristic function of int(Q

k
) and w

simply by

k
:=
Q

k
w

. (9)
Then, by taking convolution of both sides of (7) and w

and using (9), we have

n

k=1

k
= 1, for all (x, y) ,
supp(

k
) = {x R
2
: di st (x, Q

k
) }.
Therefore, {

k
, k = 1, . . . , n} is the partition of unity
subordinate to the covering {supp(

k
) : k = 1, . . . , n}
of .
Now one can see that for each k and any positive real num-
ber , the convolution shape function

k
is a wide at-top
piecewise polynomial function. Indeed, let
B

= [, ] [, ](to be called a -box),

P
(x,y)
= [B

+(x, y)] Q

k
,
where B

+(x, y) is the -box whose center is (x, y). Then

we have

k
(x, y) =
_
R
2

k
(, )w

(x , y )dd
=
_
P
(x,y)
w

(x , y )dd. (10)
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 139
Fig. 2 Graphs of the
convolution PU functions

k
(x, y), k = 1, 2, 3, 4, on the

. In the labels of four gures,

E
k
stands for
Q

k
w

, for
k = 1, . . . , 4
X
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Y
0
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Y
X
Z

E

*
1
X
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Y
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
X
Y
Z

*
E
2
X
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Y
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
Y
X
Z

*
E
3
X
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Y
0
0.5
1
Z Z
Z Z
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Y
Z
X

*
E
4
Let us note that the integral domain P
(x,y)
is one of a tri-
angle, a quadrangle, a pentagon, and a hexagon, as shown in
Appendix A.
In other words,

k
is an integral of the polynomial w

over
a polygon P
(x,y)
that is bounded by linear functions. Hence,
it is a piecewise polynomial whose support is the -framed
Q

k
(i.e., the set of all points that are within -distance from
Q

k
). Specically, this at-top bubble function is as follows:

k
(x, y)=
_

_
1, if [B

+(x, y)] Q

k
;
0, if [B

+(x, y)] R
2
\Q

k
;
r(x, y) > 0, if [B

+(x, y)] Q

k
is
a proper subset of B

+(x, y).
(11)
The piecewise polynomial r(x, y) can be obtained in a clo-
sed form function; however, it is complicated except when
Q is a rectangle. Thus, r(x, y) can be determined numeri-
cally by using the Gaussian quadrature that can yield the
exact integral. Fortran code for r(x, y) can be found in our
previous paper [22]. In [20], we prove the decomposition of
supp

k
into subsets on which the convolution PU function
is a polynomial.
It is worth noting that the convolution partition of unity
shape function

k
(x, y) is as smooth as the windowfunction
w

(, ), since

x
[
Q
k
w

] =
Q
k

[w

(, )],
where = (
1
,
2
) denotes a multi index and
x
=
x
1

x
2
.
The graphs of the convolution partition of unity func-
tions

k
(x, y), k = 1, 2, 3, 4 for the quadrangles Q

k
, k =
1, 2, 3, 4 in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 2. These gures and the
graphs of derivatives of

k
can also be found in [22]. Let us
note that in Fig. 2, we have
_
4

k=1

k
_
(x, y) = 1, for all (x, y) ,
but not 1 for (x, y)

\ .
3.2 The construction of reproducing polynomial particle
shape functions associated with patch-wise
non-uniformly distributed particles
In order to show that bilinear mappings preserve the pro-
perty of reproducing polynomials, we adopt the following
notations.
1. Suppose

b is a xed positive real number and the piece-
wise polynomial reference particle shape functions have
the polynomial reproducing property of order 2N:
2N

j =0

j

j
()=

, for 02N for all [0,

b].
(12)
Throughout this paper, we use the following notations:
h =

b/2N,
j
= h j, j = 0, 1, . . . , 2N,
1 3
140 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
Fig. 3 Mapping from the reference patch to physical patches

j
() = the particle shape functions constructed in
Appendix B (where
j
are not uniformly spaced) or,
the Lagrange interpolating polynomials corresponding
to the nodes
j
.
Taking tensor product of one dimensional shape func-
tions, the reference patch is

Q = [0,

b] [0,

b](see, Fig. 3)
and the reference particle shape functions have the
extended-polynomial reproducing property as follows:

( j
1
, j
2
)
2N

k
1
j
1

k
2
j
2

Ext
j
1
()

Ext
j
2
() =
k
1

k
2
,
for 0 k
1
, k
2
2N, for all (, ) R
2
. (13)
Then, we observe the following.
(a) It is important to note that the polynomial repro-
ducing property holds not only for (, )

Q, but
also for (, )

Q

(the complement of

Q).
(b) If
Ext
j
, j = 0, 1, . . . , 2N are the piecewise poly-
nomials shown in appendix, those piecewise poly-
nomials which are not zero on [0, h] (or [h,

b])
are extended to (, h) (or [h, )). Since these
piecewise polynomial particle shape functions are
global polynomials on (, h] (or [h, )) and
satisfy the polynomial reproducing property of
reproducing order 2N for all [0, h], the exten-
ded shape functions also satisfy the polynomial
reproducing property of reproducing order 2N for
all (, 0]([

b, )). Abusing notations, the

shape functions, that are extended to the outside
of [0,

b], are also denoted by
j
.
2. Let Q
k
be a quadrangular patch whose four vertices are
(x
i
, y
i
), i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
Then, a bijective mapping T
k
:

Q Q
k
(see, Fig. 3)
is dened by
(x, y) = T
k
(, ),
where
x =
x
1

b
2
(

b )(

b ) +
x
2

b
2
()(

b ) +
x
3

b
2
()()
+
x
4

b
2
(

b )(),
y =
y
1

b
2
(

b )(

b ) +
y
2

b
2
()(

b ) +
y
3

b
2
()()
+
y
4

b
2
(

b )().
Let

i j
(x, y) =

i j
(T
1
k
(x, y)),
where

i j
(, ) =
Ext
i
()
Ext
j
().
Then the transformed particle shape functions have the poly-
nomial reproducing property with reduced reproducing order
N (one half of the original reproducing order), as stated in
the following lemma, which was proved in [22].
Let
2N
be the index set {i j : 1 i, j 2N +1}.
Lemma 3.1 Suppose the reproducing property (13) holds
for
0 (k
1
+k
2
) 2N.
Then the transformed particle shape functions have the fol-
lowing polynomial reproducing property

i j
2N
x

1
i
y

2
j

i j
(x, y) = x

1
y

2
,
for 0 (
1
+
2
) N, (x, y) R
2
.
3.3 RPP shape functions with compact support
The supports of the extended piecewise polynomial RPP
shape functions,

i j
, constructed in the Sect. 3.2, are unboun-
ded. Thus, we need to make these particle shape functions
with small compact support by capping

i j
with the convolu-
tion partition of unity functions

k
constructed in Sect. 3.1.
Let us dene the particle shape functions by

i j
(x, y) := [

i j

k
](x, y).
Then the reduced particle shape functions,
i j
(x, y) become
a piecewise polynomial RPP shape functions with polyno-
mial reproducing property of order N with supp(
i j
)
supp(

k
), for some k. It was proved in [22] that the capped
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 141
particle shape functions also have the reproducing polyno-
mial property of order N. That is,

i j
2N
x
k
1
i
y
k
2
j

i j
(x, y) = x
k
1
y
k
2
,
for 0 (k
1
+k
2
) N, (x, y) .
4 Reproducing singularity particle shape functions that
reproduce polynomials and singular functions
Suppose a polygonal domain is non convex at a point at
which the internal angle is /, where is a real number
with 0 < < 1. Then an elliptic equation on this non convex
domain contains a singularity of type r

f (). The number

is called the intensity of a singularity.
In this section, we construct the particle shape functions
that generate the singular functions arising in the crack sin-
gularity or in the jump boundary data singularity.
4.1 Particle shape functions that generate the singular
functions

r sin(/2),

r cos(/2)
In this section, we construct the (2N +1)(2N +1) particle
shape functions that generate the singular functions:
r
+k
cos(( +k)), r
+k
sin(( +k)),
for k = 0, 1, . . . , N 1. (14)
as well as the complete polynomials of order N (if = 1/2):
x
k
1
y
k
2
, for 0 k
1
+k
2
N. (15)
For this end, we consider a conformal mapping from the
z(:= x +i y) plane onto the w(:= +i ) plane. Throughout
this paper, we denote the polar coordinates of the points in
the z-plane and the w-plane by
(r, ) and ( r,

),
respectively. And the corresponding rectangular coordinates,
respectively, are denoted by
(x, y) and (, ).
Denition 4.1 The conformal mapping T

fromthe w-plane
to the z-plane is dened by
z = T

(w) = w
1/
,
so that
T

(, ) = ( r
1/
cos((1/)

), r
1/
sin((1/)

)). (16)
We assume that = n/m is anirreducible rational number
with 1 n < m. Even for the cases when n > 1, we use
= 1/m for the singular patch mapping T

.
Then the inverse mapping is
T
1

(x, y) = (r

cos(), r

sin()), (17)
Let = 1/, then their Jacobians are
J(T

) = r
1
_
cos( 1)

sin( 1)

sin( 1)

cos( 1)

_
, (18)
J(T

)
1
= (1/ r
1
)
_
cos(1)

sin(1)

sin(1)

cos(1)

_
, (19)
| J(T

)| =
2
r
2(1)
. (20)
Next, we construct the particles and the polynomial repro-
ducing particle shape functions on a reference patch,

Q =
[0, a] [0,

b]. Let

i
= (
a
2N
)(i 1), i = 1, 2, . . . , 2N +1

j
= (

b
2N
)( j 1), j = 1, 2, . . . , 2N +1.
Let f
i
() and g
j
() be the Lagrange interpolating poly-
nomials corresponding to the nodes
i
, and
j
, respectively.
The Lagrange interpolating polynomials is simple, but it is
not the best choice because the supports are whole interval.
Thus, for smaller supports of shape functions, it is recommen-
ded to use those particle shape functions shown in appendix
B for f
i
and g
j
.
Let us consider the tensor product of f
i
() and g
j
() de-
ned by

i j
(, ) = f
i
() g
j
()
for the reproducing polynomial shape functions correspon-
ding to the particles (
i
,
j
) with reproducing polynomial
property of order 2N.
To generate the singular particle shape functions that can
deal with the crack singularity,
1. we choose the conformal patch mapping with = 1/2.
Then,
z = T

(w) = w
2
, w = T
1

(z) =

z.
2. we choose a singular zone Q
s
. For example, Q
s
=
[0.5, 0.5] [0, 0.5] is the rectangle ABCD around
the crack tip (0, 0) as shown in Fig. 5.
It is worthnotingthat our constructionfor RSPshape func-
tions is not restricted to the crack singularity. For example,
the patch mapping
z = T

(w) = w
3
, = 1/3,
can generate RSP shape functions to deal with the re-entrant
corner singularity, r
2/3
cos(2/3).
Remark 4.1 There are no particular rules to choose the size
of the singular zone Q
s
. One can choose the singular zone
1 3
142 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
so that the pollution effect of the crack singularity can be
tolerable on the outside of this zone.
For, i = 1, 2, . . . , 2N + 1, and j = 1, 2, . . . , 2N + 1,
we denote the particles and the corresponding singular shape
functions as follows:
1. Let
T

(
i
,
j
) = (x
i j
, y
i j
), T
1

(r
i j
,
i j
) = (
i
,
j
),
( r
i j
,

i j
) = the polar coordinates of (
i
,
j
),
(r
i j
,
i j
) = the polar coordinates of T

(
i
,
j
).
Then
T
1

:
_

i
= r
i j

cos(
i j
)

j
= r
i j

sin(
i j
)
;
T

:
_
x
i j
= r
1/
i j
cos(

i j
/)
y
i j
= r
1/
i j
sin(

i j
/).
(21)
2. The singular shape functions corresponding to the par-
ticles (x
i j
, y
i j
) are

i j
(x, y) = (

Ext
i j
T
1

)(x, y),
where

i j
(, ) = f
Ext
i
() g
Ext
j
().
Henceforth, we simply write

Ext
i j
by

i j
. Let
2N
= {kl :
1 k, l 2N +1}. Then we have
Lemma 4.1 (1) For i j, kl
2N
, we have

i j
(
k
,
l
) =
i k

jl
.
(2) For any point (, ) in the w-plane (and hence in
T
1

(Q
s
)), the reference global polynomial shape func-
tions,

i j
(, ), (i, j )
2N
, have the reproducing
polynomial property of order 2N:

i j
2N

k
1
i

k
2
j

i j
(, ) =
k
1

k
2
,
for 0 k
1
+k
2
2N. (22)
Let us note that the mapped particles in the singular zone
are not uniformly distributed (see, Fig. 4). Moreover, the
corresponding singular shape functions

i j
(x, y) do not have
compact supports.
Theorem 4.1 Suppose the RPP shape functions (Lagrange
interpolants or the piecewise polynomials in Appendix B)

i j
(, ), for i j
2N
corresponding to the particles (
i
,
j
), i j
2N
satisfy the
following relation:

i j
2N

k
1
i

k
2
j

i j
(, )=
k
1

k
2
, for 0 k
1
+k
2
2N.
(23)
Let

i j
(x, y) =

i j
(T
1

(r, )) =

i j
(r

cos(), r

sin()).
Then, we have
(1)

i j
satisfy the Kronecker delta property.
(2) For = 1/2, the particle shape functions

i j
, i j

2N
, reproduce the complete polynomial of order N :
x
k
1
y
k
2
, 0 k
1
+k
2
N. (24)
(3) For any , the particle shape functions

i j
, i j
2N
,
reproduce the following singular functions:
r
(2k+1)
cos((2k+1)), r
(2k+1)
sin((2k+1)),
for k = 0, . . . , (N 1). (25)
Henceforth, because of the property (3) of Theorem 4.1,
the shape function

i j
=

i j
T
1

are said to be the RSP

shape functions. However, the supports of

i j
are unbounded,
and hence they are not yet the required RSP shape functions.
As stated in Sect. 3.3, after multiplying the convolution PU
function

s
, the adjusted shape functions
i j
:=

i j
with compact supports will be actually called the RSP shape
functions.
Proof By the conformal mapping (16), the Eq. (23) is trans-
formed to

(i, j )
2N
_
r

i j
cos(
i j
)
_
k
1
_
r

i j
sin(
i j
)
_
k
2

i j
(r

cos(),
r

sin()) = [r

cos()]
k
1
[r

sin()]
k
2
,
for 0 k
1
+k
2
2N. (26)
In what follows, we denote the right-hand side of Eq. (26) by
P(k
1
, k
2
; r, ) =
_
r

cos()
_
k
1
_
r

sin()
_
k
2
= r
(k
1
+k
2
)
[cos()]
k
1
[sin()]
k
2
.
[A] Suppose k
1
+k
2
is an even integer and = 1/2, we have
the following cases:
(A-0) If k
1
+ k
2
= 0, there is only one case (k
1
, k
2
) =
(0, 0).
P(k
1
, k
2
; r, /2) = 1.
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 143
(A-2) If k
1
+ k
2
= 2, there are three case (k
1
, k
2
) =
(2, 0), (1, 1), (0, 2).
P(2, 0; r, /2) = r cos
2
_

2
_
= r
1 +cos
2
=
1
2
(x +r),
P(1, 1; r, /2) = r cos

2
sin

2
=
1
2
r sin =
1
2
y,
P(0, 2; r, /2) = r sin
2

2
= r
1 cos
2
=
1
2
(r x)
(A-4) If k
1
+ k
2
= 4, there are ve cases (k
1
, k
2
) = (4, 0),
(3, 1), (2, 2), (1, 3), (0, 4).
P(3, 1; r, /2) = (r
1/2
cos(/2))
2
(r
1/2
cos(/2))
(r
1/2
sin(/2))
=
1
2
(x +r)
1
2
y =
1
4
(xy + yr),
P(1, 3; r, /2) = P(1, 1; r, /2)P(1, 2; r, /2)
=
1
4
(xy + yr),
P(2, 2; r, /2) = P(1, 1; r, /2)P(1, 1; r, /2) =
1
4
y
2
,
P(4, 0; r, /2) = r
2
cos
4

2
= r
2

1
4
(1 +2 cos +cos
2
)
=
1
4
(r
2
+2r x + x
2
),
P(0, 4; r, /2) = r
2
sin
4

2
=
1
4
(r
2
2r x + x
2
)
From these relations, we can generate polynomials of degree
2 as follows:
_

_
1 = P(0, 0; r, /2),
x = P(2, 0; r, /2) P(0, 2; r, /2),
y = 2P(1, 1; r, /2),
y
2
= 4P(2, 2; r, /2)
xy = 2P(3, 1; r, /2) 2P(1, 3; r, /2),
x
2
= [P(2, 0; r, /2) P(0, 2; r, /2)]
2
= P(4, 0; r, /2) 2P(2, 2; r, /2)
+P(0, 4; r, /2).
(27)
(A-6) If k
1
+k
2
= 6, there are the following seven relations:
P(4, 2; r, /2) = P(2, 0; r, /2)P(2, 2; r, /2)
=
1
8
(xy
2
+r y
2
),
P(2, 4; r, /2) = P(0, 2; r, /2)P(2, 2; r, /2)
=
1
8
(r y
2
xy
2
),
P(5, 1; r, /2) = P(1, 1; r, /2)P(4, 0; r, /2)
=
1
8
(2x
2
y + y
3
+2r xy),
P(1, 5; r, /2) = P(1, 1; r, /2)P(0, 4; r, /2)
=
1
8
(2x
2
y + y
3
+2r xy),
P(3, 3; r, /2) = P(1, 1; r, /2)P(2, 2; r, /2)
=
1
8
(y
3
),
P(6, 0; r, /2) = P(2, 0; r, /2)
3
=
1
8
(x +r)
3
,
P(0, 6; r, /2) = P(2, 0; r, /2)P(2, 2; r, /2)
=
1
8
(r x)
3
,
Using all of above cases, we obtain all of the monomials of
degree 3:
_

_
xy
2
= 4(P(4, 2; r, /2) P(2, 4; r, /2)),
y
3
= 8P(3, 3; r, /2),
x
3
= P(6, 0; r, /2) P(0, 6; r, /2)
3(P(4, 2; r, /2) P(2, 4; r, /2)),
x
2
y = 2(P(5, 1; r, /2) P(1, 5; r, /2))
4P(3, 3; r, /2)
Inductively, we can combine all cases up to k
1
+k
2
= 2N, to
show that the RSP shape functions

i j
(

T
1

), i j
2N
,
reproduce the complete polynomials of order N:
x
k
1
y
k
2
, for 0 k
1
+k
2
N. (28)
[B] Next, let us consider the cases when k
1
+ k
2
is an odd
integer. Suppose k
1
+k
2
= 2k 1, k = 1, 2, . . . , N .
Using the identity cos(2k 1) + i sin(2k 1) =
(e
i
)
2k1
= (cos +i sin )
2k1
, we obtain
cos(2k 1)=
k1

l=0
(1)
l
_
2k 1
2l
_
cos
2k12l
sin
2l
,
sin(2k1)=
k

l=1
(1)
l1
_
2k 1
2l 1
_
cos
2k2l
sin
2l1
.
Thus, for k = 1, 2, . . . , N, we have the following relations:
r
(2k1)
cos (2k 1)
=
k1

l=0
(1)
l
_
2k 1
2l
_
r
(2k1)
cos
2k12l
sin
2l
,
=
k1

l=0
(1)
l
_
2k 1
2l
_
P(2k 1 2l, 2l; r, ).
r
(2k1)
sin(2k 1)
=
k

l=1
(1)
l1
_
2k 1
2l 1
_
r
(2k1)
cos
2k2l
sin
2l1

=
k

l=1
(1)
l1
_
2k1
2l1
_
r
(2k1)
P(2k 2l, 2l 1; r, ).
Specically, when k
1
+k
2
= 1, we have
r

cos() = P(1, 0; r, ),
r

sin() = P(0, 1; r, ).
1 3
144 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
When k
1
+k
2
= 3, we have
r
3
cos(3) =
1

l=0
(1)
l
_
3
2l
_
P(3 2l, 2l; r, )
= P(3, 0; r, ) 3P(1, 2; r, ),
r
3
sin(3) =
2

l=1
(1)
l1
_
3
2l 1
_
P(32l, 2l 1; r, )
= 3P(2, 1; r, ) P(0, 3; r, ).
When k
1
+k
2
= 5, we have
r
5
cos(5) =
2

l=0
(1)
l
_
5
2l
_
P(5 2l, 2l; r, )
= P(5, 0; r, ) 10P(3, 2; r, )
+5P(1, 4; r, ),
r
5
sin(5) =
3

l=1
(1)
l+1
_
5
2l 1
_
P(62l, 2l 1; r, )
= 5P(4, 1; r, ) 10P(2, 3; r, )
+P(0, 5; r, ).

Taking = 1/2 in Theorem 4.1, we have the following

Corollary 4.1 Suppose the RSP shape functions on the
z-plane are constructedby the conformal mapping, T
1

(z) =
z
1/2
, as follows:

i j
(x, y) = (

i j
T
1

)(x, y) =

i j
(r
1/2
cos(/2),
r
1/2
sin(/2)).
Then, we have
(1) The shape functions,

i j
(x, y), i j
2N
, have the
Kronecker delta property:

i j
(x
kl
, y
kl
) =
kl
i j
.
(2) The shape functions,

i j
(x, y), i j
2N
, have the
polynomial reproducing property of order N:
x
k
1
y
k
2
, for 0 k
1
+k
2
N. (29)
(3) The shape functions,

i j
(x, y), i j
2N
, reproduce
the singular functions:
r
1/2+l
cos(1/2 +l), r
1/2+l
sin(1/2 +l),
l = 0, . . . , (N 1). (30)
Remark 4.2 The transformed relation (26) reproduces poly-
nomials when the reproducing orders are even numbers (that
is, (k
1
+ k
2
) is 0, 2, 4, . . . , 2N), whereas the same relation
reproduces singular shape functions when the reproducing
orders are add numbers (that is, (k
1
+ k
2
) is 1, 3, 5, . . . ,
2N 1).
Corollary 4.2 Suppose the intensity of singularity is a ratio-
nal number = n/m with 1 < n < m. The RSP shape func-
tions constructed via the singular patch mapping dened by

(, ) = ( r
1/
cos((1/)

), r
1/
sin((1/)

)), (31)
where = 1/m, generate the singular functions:
r
n/m+l
cos(n/m +l), r
n/m+l
sin(n/m +l),
l = 0, 1, 2, . . . (32)
Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that = 2/3
(the re-entrant corner singularity). In order to generate the
singular functions:
r
2/3+l
cos(2/3 +l), r
2/3+l
sin(2/3 +l),
l = 0, 1, 2, . . . (33)
we can consider the following patch mapping:

(, ) = ( r
1/
cos((1/)

), r
1/
sin((1/)

)), (34)
where = 1/3. Observing that
2 = 2/3, 5 = (2/3 +1), 8 = (2/3 +2),
Theorem 4.1 implies that the RSP shape functions generate
the required singular functions
Corollary 4.3 Suppose u(x, y) is a linear combination of
the singular functions, listed in (30), and the complete poly-
nomials, listedin(29). Thenthe RSPshape functions

i j
, i j

2N
exactly interpolate u(x, y). That is, for all (x, y) R
2
,
u(x, y) =
2N+1

i =1
2N+1

j =1
u(x
i j
, y
i j
)

i j
(x, y).
Proof It is sufcient to prove this claim when u(x, y) has
two terms. For example, suppose
u(x, y) = C
1
r
1/2
sin(/2) +C
2
xy.
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 145
From the relation (27), we have
u(x, y) = C
1
P(0, 1; r, /2) +C
2
[2P(3, 1; r, /2)
2P(1, 3; r, /2)]
=

i j
2N
C
1
_
r
1/2
i j
sin(
i j
/2)
_
1

i j
(T

(x, y))
+C
2
_
2
_
r
1/2
i j
cos(
i j
/2)
_
3
_
r
1/2
i j
sin(
i j
/2)
_
1
2
_
r
1/2
i j
cos(
i j
/2)
_
1
_
r
1/2
i j
sin(
i j
/2)
_
3
_

i j
(T

(x, y))
=

i j
2N
C
1
_
r
1/2
i j
sin(
i j
/2)
_

i j
(T

(x, y))
+C
2
_
(x
i j
y
i j
+ y
i j
r
i j
) +(x
i j
y
i j
+ y
i j
r
i j
)
_

i j
(T

(x, y))
=

i j
2N
_
C
1
_
r
1/2
i j
cos(
i j
/2)
_
+C
2
[x
i j
y
i j
]
_

i j
(T

(x, y))
=

i j
2N
u(x
i j
, y
i j
)(x, y).

In the following three subsections, without loss of gene-

rality, we use 25 particles (that is, N = 2) in the reference
patch

Q.
4.2 Particle shape functions that generate the singular
functions

r,

r cos(3/2)
Consider the following domains
D
cos
= {(r, ) : 0 < r 1/2, 2/3 };
D
2
= {(r, ) : 0 < r 1/2, 0 /3};
D
3
= (, log(1/2)]
_
0,

2
_
;

Q
cos
= (0, 1/

2] [0, 1];

Q
0
= [1, 1] [1, 1].
Now we dene the following bijective mappings:
_

_
f
12
(r, ) = (r,
2
3
) : D
cos
D
2
f
23
(r, ) = (log(r),
3
2
) : D
2
D
3
f
34
( x, y) = (e
x/2
, cos( y)) : D
3


Q
cos
(, ) = (2

2 1, 2 1) :

Q
cos


Q
0
(35)
Dene a singular mapping from D
cos
onto

Q
cos
by
T
1
cos
(r, ) =
_

r, cos
_
3
2
( 2/3)
__
, (36)
which is the composition of f
12
, f
23
, and f
34
. Then the patch
mapping from a reference patch

Q
cos
onto D
cos
is
T
cos
(, ) =
_

2
,
2
3
+
2
3
cos
1
()
_
. (37)
Theorem 4.2 Let
i
(), 1 j 5, be the reference par-
ticle shape function dened by (12),

i j
(, ) =
i
()
j
()
and suppose
5

i, j =1

k
1
i

k
2
j

i j
(, ) =
k
1

k
2
,
for 0 k
1
, k
2
4, (, )

Q
cos
. (38)
Then the particle shapes
[

cos
]
i j
(

i j
) T
1
cos
, i = 1, . . . , 5, j = 1, . . . , 5,
satisfy the Kronecker delta property and generate the singu-
lar functions
r
1/2
, r
1/2
cos(3/2), r
3/2
.
Proof It follows from (36) and (38) that
5

i, j =1
T
cos
(
k
1
i

k
2
j
)(

i j
T
1
cos
(r, ) = (r
1/2
)
k
1
(cos 3/2)
k
2
,
for 0 k
1
, k
2
4.
By selecting proper combinations of k
1
and k
2
, we obtain the
the required singular functions.
Remark 4.3 The tensor product shape functions,

i j
=
i


j
, 1 i, j 5, has stronger reproducing polynomial pro-
perty with serendipity reproducing order than the order res-
tricted by 0 k
1
+k
2
4.
Corollary 4.4 The particles correspondingtothe RSPshape
functions [

cos
]
i j
are all in the domain D
cos
, and hence these
RSPshape functions exactly interpolate a linear combination
of those singular functions, a
1
r
1/2
+ a
2
r
1/2
cos((3/2)) +
a
3
r
3/2
, on the domain D
cos
.
4.3 Particle shape functions that generate the singular
functions

r,

r sin(3/2)
Let
D
si n
= {(r, ) : 0 < r 1/2, /3 };
D

2
= {(r, ) : 0 < r 1/2, 2/3 0};
D

3
= (, log(1/2)] [0, ];

Q
si n
= (0, 1/

2] [1, 1].
Then we have the following bijective mappings:
_

_
g
12
(r, ) = (r, /3) : D
si n
D

2
g
23
(r, ) = (log(r),
3
2
) : D

2
D

3
g
34
( x, y) = (e
x/2
, cos( y)) : D

3


Q
si n

(, ) = (2

2 1, ) :

Q
si n


Q
0
(39)
Dene a singular patch mapping from D
si n
onto

Q
si n
by
T
1
si n
(r, ) = (

r, cos((3/2)( /3)), (40)

1 3
146 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
which is the composition of g
12
, g
23
, and g
34
. Then the patch
mapping from a reference patch

Q
si n
onto D
si n
is
T
si n
(, ) = (
2
, /3 +(2/3) cos
1
()). (41)
By the similar methods to the proof of Theorem 4.3, we
have the following:
Theorem 4.3 Suppose

i j
, i = 1, . . . , 5, j = 1, . . . , 5, res-
pectively, are the reproducing polynomial particle shape
functions associated the particles (
i
,
j
)

Q
si n
such that
5

i, j =1

k
1
i

k
2
j

i j
(, ) =
k
1

k
2
, for 0 k
1
, k
2
4. (42)
Then the particle shapes
[

si n
]
i j
(

i j
) T
1
si n
, i = 1, . . . , 5, j = 1, . . . , 5,
satisfy the Kronecker delta property and generate the singu-
lar functions
r
1/2
, r
1/2
sin(3/2), r
3/2
.
Corollary 4.5 The particles correspondingtothe RSPshape
functions [

si n
]
i j
are all in the domain D
si n
, and hence these
RSPshape functions exactly interpolate a linear combination
of those singular functions, b
1
r
1/2
+ b
2
r
1/2
sin((3/2)) +
b
3
r
3/2
, on the domain D
si n
.
4.4 Interpolation error of the Crack singularity associated
with RSP shape functions
Let us consider the following three linear combinations of
those singular functions that are generated in the previous
three subsections:
_

_
U

(r, ) = r
0.5
cos(0.5) +r
1.5
cos(1.5)
+r
0.5
sin(0.5) +r
1.5
sin(1.5),
U
cos
(r, ) = r
0.5
+r
0.5
cos(1.5),
U
si n
(r, ) = r
0.5
+r
0.5
sin(1.5).
(43)
Then, It follows from Corollary 4.3 through Corollary 4.5
that the RSP shape functions {

i j
(T
1
1/2
) : 1 i, j 5},
{

i j
(T
1
cos
) : 1 i, j 5} and {

i j
(T
1
si n
) : 1 i, j 5},
exactly interpolate U

(r, ), U
cos
(r, ), and U
si n
(r, ), res-
pectively.
Let D

= {(r, ) : r < 0.5, 0 } and

Q

=
[0, 1/

2] [0, 1/

2]. Then the conformal mapping T

1

:
D

with = 1/2 is dened by

T
1

(r, ) = (r
0.5
cos(0.5), r
0.5
cos(0.5)).
For the purpose of computing the derivatives of the inter-
polation errors, we compute the Jacobian of the mappings,
T
1

, T
1
cos
, T
1
si n
, respectively, as follows:
J(T
1

) =
_
/x /x
/y /y
_
= r
1
_
cos( 1) sin( 1)
sin( 1) cos( 1)
_
,
J(T
1
cos
) =
_
(1/2)r
0.5
cos (3/2) sin(
3
2
)(sin )/r
(1/2)r
0.5
sin (3/2) sin(
3
2
)(cos )/r
_
,
J(T
1
si n
) =
_
(1/2)r
0.5
cos (3/2) cos(
3
2
)(sin )/r
(1/2)r
0.5
sin (3/2) cos(
3
2
)(cos )/r
_
.
Now, the gradient of

i j
(T
1
cos
) is as follows:
_
_

i j
(T
1
cos
(r, ))/x

i j
(T
1
cos
(r, ))/y
_
_
= J(T
1
cos
) J()
_

i
(s)
j
(t )/s

i
(s)
j
(t )/t
_
, (44)
where :

Q
cos


Q
0
is dened by (35), and
i
(t ) is the
Lagrange interpolation polynomial associated with the node
i in [1, 1]. The gradients of

i j
(T
1

) and

i j
(T
1
si n
)
can be computed in a similar manner.
Let us note that, as r 0, the test singular functions (43)
approach zero, whereas their derivatives become innitely
large. However, numerical tests show that for each case, the
absolute maximum interpolation errors are virtually zero as
shown in Table 1. From Table 1, we observe the followings:
1. we compute the maximum interpolation errors by eva-
luatingthe interpolationerrors at the following61points:
(r, ), = k(/60), k = 0, 1, . . . , 60,
for each of the ten layers: r = 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.1E1,
. . . , 0.1E7.
2. Rerr stands for the sum of the maximum of
D
x
(error) and the maximum of D
y
(error).
3. Since U

/x at only one point (r, /2) is very small,

the relative error is about four digits larger than all the
other numbers even though the absolute error is vir-
tually zero. Thus, in estimating the maximum relative
D
x
(error) of the rst case, the relative error at the point
(r, /2) was excluded.
4. The errors for the second case is lager than the other
two cases. The error would be as good as that of the
rst case if calculating error were restricted on D
cos
=
{(r, ) : 0 < r 5, 3/2}. Let us note that
the particles corresponding to the RSP shape functions

i j
(T
1
cos
(r, )) are in the domain D
cos
that is one third
of the upper half disk with radius r = 0.5 (see, Fig. 4).
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 147
Table 1 Max relative errors along the half circle S
r
= {(r, ) : 0 } for the radii r =0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.1E1, 0.1E2, 0.1E3, 0.1E4, . . . ,
0.1E7
Maximum relative errors
S. type: r
1/2
cos(/2), r
1/2
sin(/2) r
1/2
, r
1/2
cos(3/2) r
1/2
, r
1/2
sin(3/2)
Layers(r): Rerr-1 Rerr-1 Rerr-2 Rerr-2 Rerr-3 Rerr-3
0.5E+0 8.31E16 3.98E14 9.23E14 7.55E13 2.12E15 9.83E15
0.2E+0 5.51E16 1.11E13 8.08E14 3.12E13 2.52E15 9.32E15
0.1E+0 8.69E16 4.74E14 5.25E14 2.42E13 4.75E15 7.44E15
0.1E1 2.75E15 6.96E14 6.77E14 6.17E13 6.89E15 1.17E14
0.1E2 3.42E15 4.78E14 1.10E13 1.16E12 1.46E14 1.90E14
0.1E3 4.95E15 3.36E14 1.12E13 1.77E12 1.13E14 3.17E14
0.1E4 8.34E15 5.87E14 9.86E14 1.84E12 1.24E14 3.90E14
0.1E5 2.18E14 2.01E14 1.01E13 1.33E12 2.66E14 2.49E14
0.1E6 6.97E14 4.42E14 9.91E14 2.18E12 6.39E14 2.42E13
0.1E7 2.26E13 3.32E14 1.55E13 1.91E12 1.28E13 4.37E13
Rerr indicates the sum of x-derivative and y-derivative of errors in the maximum norm. Rerr stands for the relative errors in the maximum
norm
Remark 4.4 Under stress boundary condition along the crack
front, the solution vector u(r, ) = (u
r
, u

) of the linear
elasticity equations around the crack tip can be expressed as
follows ([23], p. 290):
u
r
=
1
4
_
r
2
_
1/2
{[(2k 1) cos(/2) cos(3/2)]K
I
[(2k 1) sin(/2) 3 sin(3/2)]K
I I
} +o(r
1/2
)
u

=
1
4
_
r
2
_
1/2
{[(2k +1) sin(/2) +sin(3/2)]K
I
[(2k +1) cos(/2) 3 cos(3/2)]K
I I
} +o(r
1/2
),
where k = 34 for plane strain, = E/(2(1+)), and K
I
and K
I I
are the opening mode and the sliding mode stress
intensity factors, respectively.
We have seen that those singular functions appeared in
the singular displacement vector functions can be exactly
interpolated by using one of the RSP shape functions
{

i j
(T
1
1/2
(r, )) : 1 i, j 5}, {

i j
(T
1
cos
(r, )) : 1
i, j 5} and {

i j
(T
1
si n
(r, )) : 1 i, j 5}. Thus, the
meshfree method incorporated with these RSP shape func-
tions around the crack tip could yield highly accurate stress
analysis.
From the RSP shape function constructed in this section,
we observe the followings:
1. Our RSP shape functions are different from adopting
the enriched base function r
0.5
incorporated with a cut-
off function in the classical FEM [5]. Assuming that
the boundary is along the line = , the ve particles
along the -axis in the reference rectangles

Q
cos
,

Q
si n
(the -axis in the reference rectangle

Q

) are sent to the

boundary part Q
s
of the patch Q
s
= [0.5, 0.5]
[0, 0.5]. Since the RSP shape functions satisfy the Kro-
necker delta property at these particles, it is easy to
handle the Dirichlet boundary condition.
However, it is important to note that, if the reference
patches are

Q

= [0, H
1
] [0, H
1
],

Q
cos
= [0, H
2
]
[0, 1],

Q
cos
= [0, H
3
] [1, 1], then all three types
RSP shape functions concurrently satisfy the Kronecker
delta property at the ve particles on the negative x-axis
( = ) only when H
1
= H
2
= H
3
= H. We used
H = 1/

2 for Fig. 4.
2. One can use 16 particles on the reference patches

Q
instead of 25 particles, however, the ve particles on the
boundary handles the boundary condition better than the
four particles does.
3. The particles corresponding to the RSP shape functions
constructed in Sects. 4.1 (for the case I singularity), 4.2
(for the case II singularity), 4.3 (for the case III singu-
larity), respectively, are plotted in Fig. 4. If

Q

were
[0, 0.5] [0, 0.5], the particles (diamonds in Fig. 4)
would have been inside Q = [0.5, 0.5] [0, 0.5]. In
that case, the accuracy along the layer r = 0.5 drops by
one digit, whereas the accuracy along the layer
r = 0.1E7is slightlyimproved. Moreover, inthis case,
the Kronecker delta property is not satised for the RSP
shape functions for the case II and the case III sin-
gularities, unless the reference patches for these cases
are also adjusted to

Q
cos
= [0, 0.5] [0, 1],

Q
cos
=
[0, 0.5] [1, 1].
1 3
148 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
X
Y
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Particles for Case I Singularity
X
Y
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Particles for Case II Singularity
X
Y
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0
0.2
0.4
Paricles for Case III singularity
Fig. 4 Particles corresponding to the RSP shape functions for the Case I singularity (U

), the Case II singularity(U

cos
), and the Case III
singularity(U
si n
), respectively
5 The construction of RSP and RPP global shape
functions with compact supports
Without loss of generality, we assume that all reference
patches,

Q
k
,

Q

,

Q
cos
,

Q
si n
, are equipped with the standard
RPP shape functions of reproducing order 4.
In Sect. 3, using the bilinear patch mapping T
k
:

Q
Q
k
we constructed the RPP shape functions that reproduce
the complete polynomial of m (m = 4 if Q
k
is rectangle,
m = 2 if Q
k
is a quadrangle):
x

1
y

2
, 0
1
+
2
m, for all (x, y) R
2
.
InSect. 4, throughthe singular patchmapping T

:

Q

, = 1/2, we constructed the RSP shape functions that

reproduce the complete polynomials
x

1
y

2
, 0
1
+
2
2, for all (x, y) R
2
,
as well as the singular functions:
r
0.5+k
cos((0.5+k)), r
0.5+k
sin((0.5+k)), for k =0, 1.
Using the singular patch mappings T
cos
and T
si n
, we
constructed the RSP shape functions that reproduce the sin-
gular functions:
r
0.5
, r
1.5
, r
0.5
cos(1.5), r
0.5
sin(1.5).
From now on, the singular patch mappings T

, T
cos
, T
si n
are denoted by T
s
and the bilinear patch mapping is denoted
by T
k
.
Let us note that
the supports of these particle shape functions are unboun-
ded;
the mapped particles by the bilinear patch mapping T
k
are overlapping along the common edges of patches that
do not contain singularities.
[A] We reduce these particle shape functions to the func-
tions with compact supports by multiplying the convolution
partition of unity functions

k
= w

k
constructed in
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 149
Sect. 3.1. For (x, y) and for i j
4
, we dene

k
i j
(x, y) = [

(i, j )
T
1
k
(x, y)] [

k
(x, y)],

s
kl
(x, y) = [

(k,l)
T
1
s
(x, y)] [

s
(x, y)].
Thensupp(
k
i j
) andsupp(
s
kl
) are compact subsets {(x, y) :
di st ((x, y), Q

k
}. Here Q

k
is enlarged by only along
the boundary part Q
k
(see, Sect. 6.2 for details).
[B] (Global numbering of particles) Consider the follo-
wing mapped particles obtained by the patch mappings
T
k
(
i
,
j
), k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n
Q
, 1 i, j 5,
T
s
(
i
,
j
), 1 i, j 5( s stands for the index of the patch
mappings for the singularities).
[B1: Numbering among RPP shape functions] To each of
these local particle numbers T
k
(
i
,
j
) corresponding to the
RPP shape functions, we assign one global particle number.
If several mapped particles associated with RPP shape func-
tions share one point in common, we assign the same global
number to thses particles and these RPP shape function is the
sum of the associated RPP shape functions.
Suppose, for example,
T
k
1
(
1
,
1
), T
k
2
(
2
,
2
), T
k
3
(
3
,
3
), T
k
4
(
4
,
4
),
are the same point on the common edge of two patches or the
common vertex of several patches. Then the global particle
number and the global RPP shape functions are determined
as follows:
_

I
(x, y) =
k
i j
(x, y)
if one mapped particle corresponds to one
point in ,

I
(x, y) =
k
i j
(x, y) +
k

(x, y),
if two mapped particles corresponds to one
point in an edge ,

I
(x, y) =
k
1
i
1
j
1
(x, y) +
k
2
i
2
j
2
(x, y) +
k
3
i
3
j
3
(x, y)
+
k
4
i
4
j
4
(x, y),
if several mapped particles(e.g. four) correspond
to one point at a vertex .
[B2: Numbering among RSP shape functions] To each local
particle number T
s
(
i
,
j
) corresponding to the RSP shape
function, we assign a different global particle number even
though several local particles fall on the same point in .
For example, since T

(r, /2) = T
cos
(r, 0) = T
si n
(r, 0) =
(r
2
, ), three different RSP shape functions are correspon-
ded to each of ve points, ([k/(4

2)]
2
, ), k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Thus, at least three different global particle numbers are
assigned to each of these ve points. The reason for this
assignment is that three different types of RSP shape func-
tions corresponding to the particles T

(
i
,
j
), T
cos
(
i
,
j
),
T
si n
(
i
,
j
) should be used within the same rectangular patch
to deal with the crack singularity.
[B3: Numbering among RSPand RPPshape functions whose
corresponding particles are the same point] If one local par-
ticle corresponds to an RSP shape function as well as an
RPP shape function, then this point has two different global
particle numbers.
Let

=
R

denotes the set of indices of the

globally numbered particles, where
R

is the index set for

the global RPP shape functions and
S

is the index set for

the global RSP shape functions. Then we have the following
theorem.
Theorem 5.1 1.
I
, I
R

, are the reproducing poly-

nomial particle shape functions of order at least 2 for
all (x, y) that are not in the patches containing
singularities.
2. For I
R

,
I
has a compact support and satisfy
the Kronecker delta property at all boundary particles
as well as the inside particles, except for the singular
particles that correspond to the RSP shape functions.
3. If all RSP shape functions (of three different types)
constructed in Sect. 4 are used, the vector space spanned
by
I
, I
S

, include the singular functions r

0.5+l
sin(0.5+l), r
0.5+l
cos(0.5+l), l =0, 1; r
0.5
, r
1.5
, r
0.5
sin(1.5), r
0.5
sin(1.5), multiplied by the convolution
PU function, which is 1 around the crack tip.
4. If the window function w

C
l
(R
2
),
I
C
l
() for
all I

, except at the singularity points.

Proof (1) If (x, y) is an interior point of Q
k
1
that is the -
distance away from Q
k
1
, then the convolution PU function

k
1
becomes 1 at (x, y). Hence,
I
, I

satisfy the
reproducing polynomial (as well as singular) shape function
property at (x, y).
On the other hand, if (x, y) is inside of the 2-band along
Q
k
1
(hence 0 <

k
1
(x, y) < 1), then this point is also
inside the 2-band along Q
k
2
, where Q
k
2
is a patch adja-
cent to the patch Q
k
1
. Thus, if dist((x, y), Q
k
1
) and
dist((x, y), Q
k
2
) , then

1
I
y

2
I

I
(x, y) =

i j
4
x

1
i j
y

2
i j

i j
(x, y)

k
1
(x, y)
+

kl
4
x

1
kl
y

2
kl

kl
(x, y)

k
2
(x, y)
= x

1
y

2
_

k
1
(x, y) +

k
2
(x, y)
_
= x

1
y

2
.
(2) Suppose
T
k
1
(
i
1
,
j
1
) = T
k
2
(
i
2
,
j
1
2
) = T
k
3
(
i
3
,
j
3
) = (x
I
, y
I
),
then

i
l
j
l
T
1
k
l
(x
I
, y
I
) =

i
l
j
l
(
i
l
,
j
l
) = 1, for l = 1, 2, 3.
Hence,
1 3
150 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157

I
(x
I
, y
I
) =
_
3

l=1

i
l
j
l
T
1
k
l

k
l
_
(x
I
, y
I
)
=
_
3

l=1

k
l
_
(x
I
, y
I
) = 1.
(3) and (4) are obvious.
6 Interpolation error associated with RSP shape
functions
For brevity, we consider the case when u(x, y) contains only
the type I singularity stated in Sect. 4.1.
The interpolation of u(x, y) associated with the combined
RSP shape functions and the RPP shape functions is dened
by
Iu =

I
u(x
I
, y
I
)
I
(x, y)
=
N
Q

k=1
_

st
u(
k
q
st
)[
k

st
(x, y)]
_
+

st
u(
s
q
st
)[
s

st
(x, y)]
=
N
Q

k=1
_

st
u(
k
q
st
)(

st
T
1
k
)

k
_
+
_

st
u(
s
q
st
)(

st
T
1

s
_
,
where
s
q
st
= T

(
s
s
,
s
t
), = 1/2, stand for the particles
(diamonds in Fig. 5) corresponding to the RSP shape func-
tions. The rectangular patch Q
s
= [0.5, 0.5] [0, 0.5]
contains a singularity in Fig. 5.
X
Y
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
b c
d a e
f
g h i j
k
l
Decomposition of the support of Convolution PU function
on which it is a polynomial
B C
D A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
1
2 3
4
5
m
n o
p
Fig. 5 Q

s
= [0.5, 0.5][, 0.5] is an enlarged rectangle such that
Q

s
= Q
s
. Then the intersection of [the support of

s
=
Q

s
w

]
and is the outer dash-dot rectangle (e g j i ). The rectangle
[supp

s
]is divided into six rectangles on which

s
is a polynomial.
The diamonds indicates the particles generated by the singular patch
mapping T

(w) = w
2
, = 1/2
A local interpolation of u on the patch Q
l
is dened by
I
l
u =

st
u(T
l
(
s
,
t
))(

st
T
1
l
(x, y)).
Lemma 6.1 Suppose x
p

L
l=1
[supp

l
]. If the local inter-
polation error of a function u(x, y) at the point x
p
is denoted
by
(I
l
u u)(x
p
),
then the global interpolation error of u at x
p
is the sum of
the local errors multiplied by the convolution PU functions
as follows:
L

l=1

l
(x
p
) (I
l
u u)(x
p
).
Proof Since

L
l=1

l
(x
p
) = 1, we have
L

l=1

l
(x
p
) (I
l
u u)(x
p
)
=
L

l=1

l
(x
p
) I
l
u(x
p
)
_
L

l=1

l
(x
p
)
_
u(x
p
)
=
_
L

l=1

l
(x
p
) I
l
u(x
p
)
_
u(x
p
),
which is the global interpolation error at the point x
p
.
6.1 Interpolation error in energy norm
The formulas for computation of interpolation error in energy
norm can be found in [22]. We briey describe parts of the
formulas for our numerical example. The squared L
2
()-
norm of the interpolation error is computed by the following
mater patch approach.
Iu u
2
0
=
Np

i =1
_
Q
i
_

st
u(
i
q
st
)[

st
T
1
i
]

i
+

k
i

st
u(
k
q
st
)[

st
T
1
k
]

k
u
_
_
2
=
Np

i =1
_

Q
_

st
u(
i
q
st
)[

st
]

i
T
i
+

k
i
_

st
u(
k
q
st
)[

i j
T
1
k
T
i
]

k
T
i
_
u T
i
_
2
| J(T
i
)|.
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 151
Here
i
= {k : [supp

k
] Q
i
= } (the index set of
the neighboring patches around Q
i
). Let
x
:= (

x
,

y
)
T
,
and J

i j
denotes the (i, j )- component of the inverse of the
Jacobian of T
i
. Then, the squared H
1
-semi norm of the inter-
polation error is dened by

x
(Iu u)
2
0
=
_

_
_

x
(Iu u)
_
2
+
_

y
(Iu u)
_
2
_
dx dy,
where each term of this integral can be computed on the
reference patch, for example
_

_

x
(Iu u)
_
2
dx dy
=
Np

i =1
_
Q
i
_

x
_

st
u(
i
q
st
)[

st
T
1
i
]

i
_
+

x
_
_

k
i

st
u(
k
q
st
)[

st
T
1
k
]

k
_
_

u
x
_
_
2
=
Np

i =1
_

Q
_

st
u(
i
q
st
)
_
[(J

11
, J

12
)

st
] (

i
T
i
)
+

st

_

x

i
_
T
i
_
+

k
i

st
u(
k
q
st
)

_

x
_

st
T
1
k
_
T
i

k
T
i
+[

st
T
1
k
T
i
]

k
T
i
_

u
x
T
i
_
2
| J(T
i
)|.
Moreover, for effective evaluation of these integrals, we
observe the following:
1.

x
[

st
T
1
k
]T
i
and

y
[

st
T
1
k
]T
i
can be computed
by the following chain rules:

x
[

st
T
1
k
] T
i
=
x
[

st
T
1
k
] (T
k
T
1
k
) T
i
=
_
J(T
k
)
1

st
_
(T
1
k
T
i
)
= [J(T
k
)
1
(T
1
k
T
i
)]
[

st
(T
1
k
T
i
)]. (45)
2. An explicit form of the inverse function T
1
k
is not
available in general. Thus, (T
1
k
T
i
) is evaluated by
Newtons method, that yield the desired inverse coor-
dinates in two or three iterations because T
k
is bilinear
mapping. For k = s, the inverse of the singular patch
mapping T
s
is available in an explicit form in Sect. 4.
6.2 Numerical example
We explain the procedures of constructing RSP shape func-
tions as well as RPP shape functions in conjunction with
Fig. 5. We assume that our test problem contains a jump
boundary data singularity at (0, 0) (see, Fig. 5).
(1) Mappings for patch-wise non-uniformly spaced par-
ticles.
T

:

Q
s
[0, 1/

2] [0, 1/

2] (conformal
mapping:T

(w) = w
2
, = 1/2)
T
k
: [1, 1] [1, 1] Q
k
, k = 1, . . . , 5 (bilinear
mapping),
where Q
1
, . . . , Q
5
are rectangles in Fig. 5.
(2) With = 0.1, the convolution partition of unity shape
functions are constructed by

k
= w

k
, k =
1, , 5, where Q

k
are rectangles whose vertices are
as follows:
Q

s
: (0.5, ), (0.5, 0.5), (0.5, 0.5), (0.5, )
Q

1
: (0.5, ), (1 +, ), (1 +, 0.5), (0.5, 0.5),
Q

2
: (0.5, 0.5), (1+, 0.5), (1+, 1+), (0.5, 1+),

Q

5
: (1 , ), (0.5, ), (0.5, 0.5), (1
, 0.5).
Let us note that the enlarged quadrangle Q

k
contains
Q
k
so that the convolution PU shape function

k
becomes 1 along Q
k
. We also note that Q

k
=
Q
k
for k = 1, . . . , 5 and s.
In this section, the interpolation errors on the patch Q
k
are estimated in the following two norms: the L
2
-norm and
the H
1
-semi norm, respectively, dened by
error|
Q
k

H
0 =
_

_
_
Q
k
(Iu u)
2
dxdy
_

_
1/2
,
|error|
Q
k
|
H
1 =
_

_
_
Q
k
(Iu u)
2
dxdy
_

_
1/2
.
In the computational perspectives, we observe the follo-
wings:
1. For the particle shape functions corresponding to the
particles in the patch Q
s
(Fig. 5), we use the conformal
1 3
152 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
mapping T

, = 1/2. Thus, the components J

i j
of the
inverse matrix and the determinant | J(T
s
)| are those in
(19) and (20).
2. If x
p
T

[

Q
s
] [\ Q
s
], then T
1

(x
p
) is an outside
point of

Q
s
, and hence

Ext
i j
(T
1

(x
p
)) is very large,
whenever di st (T
1

(x
p
),

Q
s
) is large and the polyno-
mial degree of

i j
is high.
Thus, it is recommended to choose Q
s
so that it can
be as close to T

(

Q
s
) as possible, especially when the
reference RPP shape functions of high order (>4) are
employed.
3. At the particles in the outside of Q
s
, the RSP shape
functions
I
, I

, do not satisfy the Kronecker

delta property. In particular,
K
(T

(1/

2, 1/

2)) =
0, for all particle shape functions
K
that correspond to
the mapped particles in Q
s
(diamonds in Q
s
) because
T

(1/

2, 1/

2) is not in the support of

K
(the
-neighborhood of Q
s
). However, that does not mean
the amplitude of the global RSP shape function
J
cor-
responding to the particle T

(1/

2, 1/

2) is zero in
the interpolation approximations as well as the nite
element approximations.
We are about to show the effectiveness of the RSP shape
functions indealingwithproblems containingthe jumpboun-
dary data singularity.
Let us consider the benchmark problem, known as the
Motz Problem ([16], p. 335):
u = 0 in (shown in Fig. 5),
u =
_
500 along the vertical line x = 1
0 along the negative x-axis,
u
n
= 0 along the non negative x-axis.
Then u has a jump boundary data at (0, 0). It is known that
around the singularity point (0, 0), the solution of the Motz
problem is dominated by

l=0
b
l
r
l+1/2
cos(l +1/2),
where the coefcients b
l
are quickly decreasing to zero as
l .
Example 1 Let us compute the interpolation error of a sin-
gular function with jump-boundary data singularity
u(r, ) = 0.5r
1/2
cos(/2) +0.4r
1/2
sin(/2) +0.2r
3/2
cos(3/2) +0.1r
3/2
sin(3/2), (46)
associated with the RSP shape functions corresponding to
the particles shown as the 25 diamonds in Fig. 5, and the
RPP shape functions corresponding to the 81-particles in the
patches Q
1
, . . . , Q
5
.
Without loss of generality, we will show the interpola-
tion error only on the patch Q
s
= [0.5, 0.5] [0, 0.5],
that contains the singularity. For this purpose, we decompose
[supp

s
]Q
s
, into the following six rectangles (see, Fig. 5):
_

_
Q
s0
= rectangle(a b c d)
Q
s1
= rectangle(a A m b)
Q
s2
= rectangle(b m B n)
Q
s3
= rectangle(c b n o)
Q
s4
= rectangle( p c o C)
Q
s5
= rectangle(D d c p)
Let us note that, on each of these rectangles, the convolution
PUfunction

s
is a polynomial. In particular,

s
is 1 on Q
s0
.
The RSP columns of Table 2 are computed as follows:
1. By Corollary 4.3 and Table 1, we have

1i, j 5
u(T

(
s
i
,
s
j
))(

i j
(T
1

(x, y) u(x, y) = 0,
for all (x, y) Q
s
. (47)
Moreover,

k
(x, y) = 0, k = 1, . . . , 5, for all (x, y)
Q
s0
. Thus, we have (Iu u)|
Q
s0
= 0. (see, the rst
row of RSP columns)
2. From Lemma 6.1 and Eq. (47), we have the followings:
(a) (Iu u)|
Q
s1
=

1i, j 5
[u(T

(
s
i
,
s
j
))(

i j
(T
1

(x, y))u(x, y)]

s
+

1i, j 9
[u(T
1
(
i
,
j
))(

i j
(T
1
1
(x, y)) u(x, y)]

1
=

1i, j 9
[u(T
1
(
i
,
j
))(

i j
(T
1
1
(x, y)) u(x, y)]

1
(b) (Iu u)|
Q
s2
=

1i, j 5
[u(T

(
s
i
,
s
j
))(

i j
(T
1

(x, y)) u(x, y)]

s
+
3

k=1
_
_

1i, j 9
u(T
k
(
i
,
j
))(

i j
(T
1
k
(x, y))u(x, y)
_
_

k
=
3

k=1
_
_

1i, j 9
u(T
k
(
i
,
j
))(

i j
(T
1
k
(x, y))u(x, y)
_
_

k
.
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 153
Table 2 Interpolation error in L
2
-norm and H
1
-semi norm with respect to RPP shape functions as well as the RSP shape functions
Jump boundary data singularity
Norm Error in L
2
-norm Error in H
1
-semi norm
Basis RPP RSP RPP RSP
(Iu u) on Q
s0
5.18E3 1.52E16 2.36E1 5.86E16
(Iu u) on Q
s1
7.89E3 1.91E9 3.18E1 8.04E8
(Iu u) on Q
s2
5.60E5 2.70E7 3.38E3 9.52E6
(Iu u) on Q
s3
4.96E5 8.43E8 2.92E3 3.80E6
(Iu u) on Q
s4
5.62E5 2.26E7 3.39E3 8.01E6
(Iu u) on Q
s5
7.73E3 2.08E9 3.14E1 9.01E8
(Iu u) on Q
s
1.22E2 3.62E7 3.20E0 1.30E5
We use 25 RSP shape functions for RSP columns, whereas 81 RPP shape functions (polynomial reproducing order = 8) for RPP columns
Fig. 6 Upper left The graph of
the exact u(x) containing the
jump data singularity on the
singular zone Q
s
. Upper right
The graph of the interpolation
function of u associated with the
RSP shape functions on Q
s
.
Two gures agrees up ve digits
or more at almost all mesh
points for graphs and hence two
are numerically exactly the
same. Center The graph of the
interpolation of u associated
with the RPP shape functions on
Q
s
, that shows a big difference
from the graph of the exact
function
X
-0.2
0
0.2
Y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Z
0
0.2
0.4
Y
X
Z
Jump Boundary Data Singularity
X
-0.2
0
0.2 Y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Z
0
0.2
0.4
Y
Z
X
Interpolation of
jump boundary data singularity
by RSP shape ft
X
0
Y
0
0.5
Z
0
0.5
Y
X
Z
Interpolation of Jump Data Singularity
associated with RPP shape functions
We use 25 RSP shape functions on Q
s
and 81 RPP shape
functions (polynomial reproducing order = 8) on each
Q
k
, k = 1, . . . , 5 for the numerical results on RSP
columns. On the other hand, for the interpolation errors
on the RPP columns we used the 81 RPP shape func-
tions on all six patches. If the 25 RPP shape functions
were used for all six patches, the accuracy would be
dropped by one half.
3. On Q
sk
, k 1, the interpolation of u is mixed with res-
pect to RSP shape functions and the RPP shape function
of order 8. The complete polynomials of degree 8 that
are generated by RPP shape functions are not able to
1 3
154 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
Fig. 7 The Interpolation
functions of u associated with
the capped RSP shape functions
Left and with the capped RPP
shape functions right,
respectively
X
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Y
0
0.5
Z
0
0.2
0.4
Y
Z
Z
X
X
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Y
0
0.5
Z
0
Y
X
Interpolation of Jump Data Singularity
associated with RSP shape ft
multiplied by Flat-Top convolution PU
Interpolation of Data Singularity
associated with RPP shape ft
multiplied by flat-Top convolution PU
exactly interpolate the singular functions. That is why
the interpolation errors on Q
sk
, k = 1, . . . , 5 are not
zero in Table 2.
In Figs. 6 and 7, we show that
1. In Fig. 6, the exact u(r, ) with jump boundary data
singularity agrees with the interpolation of u associated
with RSP shape function on Q
s0
. Thus, two gures are
the same. However, the graph of the interpolation of u
associatedwithRPPshape functions (lower center graph
of Fig. 6) is quite different from the graph of the exact
u (upper left gure).
2. In Fig. 7, the interpolations of u(r, ) associated with
capped RSP shape function (that is, multiplied by the
convolution PU function) is compared with the inter-
polations of u(r, ) associated with capped RPP shape
functions over the singular zone [supp

s
]. From this
gure, one can see that approximability of RSP shape
functions is far better than that of RPP shape functions
in dealing with singularities.
Example 2 Let us consider the following function that
contains the cracksingularity: w(r, )=w
1
(r, )+w
2
(r, )+
w
3
(r, ), where
w
1
(r, ) = 0.5r
1/2
cos(/2) +0.4r
1/2
sin(/2)
+ 0.2r
3/2
cos(3/2) +0.1r
3/2
sin(3/2)
w
2
(r, ) = r
0.5
+r
1.5
+r
0.5
cos(1.5)
w
3
(r, ) = r
0.5
+r
1.5
+r
0.5
sin(1.5)
FromCorollaries 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, we knowthat (Iw
j
w
j
)|
Q
s
,
j = 1, 2, 3 should be similar to the errors in Table 2. Howe-
ver, Lemma 6.1 does not hold for (Iww)|
Q
s
(the interpola-
tion error associated with the combined RSP shape functions
of three different types) because the RSP shape functions
related to type I singularity do not have the Kronecker delta
property with respect to the particle associated with type II
singularity, and so on.
However, as stated in Remark 4.3, the nite element
approximation with respect to combined RSP shape func-
tions should be as good as the interpolation approximation
of Table 2 for Example 1.
7 Concluding remarks
The singularities of the crack on homogeneous materials are
the monotone singularityof type: x

, x

(log x)
l
. Onthe other
hand, the singularities of the cracks in the composite mate-
rials are the oscillating singularity of type: x

cos log x,
where 0 < < 1 is called an intensity of singularity and a
small real number is called the oscillating factor.
In this paper, we constructed three different types of RSP
shape functions that can reproduce singular functions captu-
ring the almost all monotone singularities.
More work should be done for constructions of particle
shape functions that can handle the oscillating singularities,
arising at the cracks of the composite materials.
The proof of error estimate for an interpolation associated
with RPP shape function was given in [22]. An error estimate
of an interpolation associated with the RSP shape functions
will be reported in a forthcoming paper.
There are three different types of three-dimensional
domain singularities: vertex singularity, edge singularity and
vertex-edge combined singularity. We expect that it is not
very difcult to extend the two-dimensional construction
of reproducing singularity particle shape functions to the
three-dimensional cases. However, it may not be easy to
extend the convolution partition of unity shape functions to
the three-dimensional cases. These three dimensional issues
will be discussed in the forthcoming paper.
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 155
A Diagram of intersecting polygons and their vertices in
the convolution PU functions
B C
1
particle shape functions of reproducing order 4
whose supports are subsets of [0, n]
The basic C
1
-particle shape function with support [3, 3]
and reproducing property of order 4 for uniformly distributed
particles is uniquely determined as follows [21]:

([3,3];1;4)
(x) =
_

_
1
120
x(x +2)(x +3)
2
(x +7) x [3, 2]

1
24
(x +1)(x +2)(x
3
+6x
2
3x 24) x [2, 1]
1
12
(x +1)(x
4
+2x
3
15x
2
12x +12) x [1, 0]

1
12
(x 1)(x
4
2x
3
15x
2
+12x +12) x [0, 1]
1
24
(x 2)(x 1)(x
3
6x
2
3x +24) x [1, 2]

1
120
(x 7)(x 3)
2
(x 2)x x [2, 3]
As mentioned above, since
(x
0
)
|
[0,3]
,
(x
1
)
|
[0,3]
,
(x
2
)
|
[0,3]
,

(x
3
)
|
[0,3]
,
(x
4
)
|
[0,3]
, and
(x
5
)
|
[0,3]
are polynomials, that part
of these piecewise polynomial particle shape functions can
be globally extended. Note that n should be greater than or
equal to 12.
1 3
156 Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157
1. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
0
= 0 is the following:

(x
0
)
(x) =
_
_
_
1
5400
(x 5)(x 4)(x 3)
2
(x 2)(x 1)(8x +15) x [0, 3] (, 0]
0 x (, 3]
2. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
1
= 1 is the following:

(x
1
)
(x) =
_

1
1080
(x 5)(x 4)(x 3) (x 2)x(8x
2
17x 36) x [0, 3] (, 0]

([3,3];1;4)
(x 1) x [3, 4]
0 x (, 4]
3. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
2
= 2 is the following:

(x
2
)
(x) =
_

_
1
540
(x 5)(x 4)(x 3) (x 1)x(8x
2
25x 27) x [0, 3] (, 0]

([3,3];1;4)
(x 2) x [3, 5]
0 x (, 5]
4. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
3
= 3 is the following:

(x
3
)
(x) =
_

1
540
(x 5)(x 4)(x 2) (x 1)x(8x
2
33x 18) x [0, 3] (, 0]

([3,3];1;4)
(x 3) x [3, 6]
0 x (, 6]
5. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
4
= 4 is the following:

(x
4
)
(x) =
_

_
1
1080
(x 5)(x 3)(x 2) (x 1)x(8x
2
41x 9) x [0, 3] (, 0]

([3,3];1;4)
(x 4) x [3, 7]
0 x (, 7]
6. The extended particle shape function corresponding to the particle x
5
= 5 is the following:

(x
5
)
(x) =
_

1
5400
(x 4)(x 3) (x 2)(x 1)x
2
(8x 49) x [0, 3] (, 0]

([3,3];1;4)
(x 5) x [3, 8]
0 x (, 8]
7. For particle x
j
( j = 6, 7, . . . , n 6)

(x
j
)
(x) =
([3,3];1;4)
(x j )
8. For particle x
j
( j = n 5, n 4, n 3, n 2, n 1, n)

(x
j
)
(x) =
(x
nj
)
((x n))
1 3
Comput Mech (2007) 41:135157 157
References
1. Atluri S, Shen S (2002) The meshless method. Tech Science Press
2. Babuska I, Banerjee U, Osborn JE (2003) Survey of meshless
and generalized nite element methods: a unied appraoch. Acta
Numer, pp. 1-125. Cambridge Press, Cambridge
3. Babuska I, Banerjee U, Osborn JE (2004) On the approximabi-
lity and the selection of particle shape functions. Numer math
96:601640
4. Babuka I, Oh H-S (1990) The p-version of the nite element
method for domains with corners and for innite domains. Numer
Methods PDEs 6:371392
5. Babuka I, Rosenzzweig MR (1972) A nie element scheme for
domains with corners. Numer Math 20:371392
6. Duarte CA, Oden JT (1996) An hp adaptive method using clouds.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 139:237262
7. Han W, Meng X (2001) Error alnalysis of reproducing kernel par-
ticle method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:61576181
8. Han W, Meng X (2002) On a Meshfree method for singular pro-
blems. CMES(Tech Science Press) 3:6576
9. KimH, Lee SJ, OhH-S(2003) Numerical methods anderror analy-
sis for one diemensional elliptic problems containing singularities.
Numer Methods PDEs 19:399420
10. Li S, Liu WK (2004) Meshfree particle methods. Springer,
Heidelberg
11. Li S, Lu H, Han W, Liu WK, Simkins DC Jr (2004) Reprodu-
cing kernel element method: part II. Globally conforming I
m
/C
n
hierarchies. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:953987
12. Liu WK, Han W, Lu H, Li S, Cao J (2004) Reproducing kernel
element method: part I. Theoretical formulation. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 193:933951
13. Liu WK, Jun S, Zhang YF (1995) Reproducing kernel particle
methods. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 20:10811106
14. Liu WK, Liu S, Jun S, Li Adee J, Belytschko T (1995) Reprodu-
cing kernel particle methods for structural dynamics. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 38:16551679
15. Liu WK, Li S, Belytschko T (1997) Moving least square reprodu-
cing kernel method. Part I: Methodology and convergence. Com-
put Methods Appl Mech Eng 143:422453
16. Lucas TR, Oh H-S (1993) The method of auxiliary mapping for
the nite element solutions of elliptic problems containing singu-
larities. J Comput Phys 108:327342
17. Melenk JM, Babuka I (1996) The partition of unity nite element
method: theory and application. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
139:239314
18. Oh H-S, Babuka I (1995) The method of auxiliary mapping for
the nite element solutions of plane elasticity problems containing
singularities. J Comput Phys 121:193-212
19. Oh H-S, Kim H, Lee S-J (2001) The numerical methods for oscil-
lating singularities in elliptic boundary value problems. J Comput
Phys 170:742763
20. Oh H-S, Kim JG (2006) The piecewise polynomial partition of
unity shape functions for the generalized nite element methods
(revision process)
21. Oh H-S, KimJG, Jeong JW(2005) The Closed FormReproducing
polynomial particle shape functions for meshfree particle methods.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng (to appear)
22. Oh H-S, Kim JG, Jeong JW (2006) The smooth piecewise
polynomial particle shape functions corresponding to patch-wise
non-uniformly spaced particles for meshfree particles methods.
Comput Mech (to appear)
23. Parton VZ, Perli PI (1984) Mathematical methods of the theroy of
elasticity, I. MIR Publisherd, Moscow
24. Stroubolis T, Copps K, Babuska I (2001) Generalized nite ele-
ment method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:40814193
25. Stroubolis T, Zhang L, Babuska I (2003) Generalized nite ele-
ment method using mesh-based handbooks: application to pro-
blems in domains with many voids. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 192:31093161
1 3