Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30 (2006) 72–76

www.elsevier.com/locate/enganabound

A simple and less-costly meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG)

method for the dynamic fracture problem
Liu Kaiyuan a,*, Long Shuyao a, Li Guangyao b
a
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
b
College of Mechanical and Automotive, Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
Received 30 September 2004; received in revised form 31 August 2005; accepted 12 September 2005
Available online 28 November 2005

Abstract
A simple and less-costly MLPG method using the Heaviside step function as the test function in each sub-domain avoids the need for both a
domain integral, except inertial force and body force integral in the attendant symmetric weak form, and a singular integral for analysis of elasto-
dynamic deformations near a crack tip. The Newmark family of the methods is applied into the time integration scheme. A numerical example,
namely, a rectangular plate with a central crack with plate edges parallel to the crack axis loaded in tension is solved by this method. The results
show that the stresses near the crack tip agree well with those obtained from another MLPG method using the weight function of the moving least
square approximation as a test function of the weighted residual method. Time histories of dynamic stress intensity factors (DSIF) for mode-I are
determined form the computed stress fields.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: MLPG; Heaviside step function; Crack tip; DSIF

1. Introduction 2. The MLPG5 weak formulation

Meshless methods have attracted much attention in the past Consider a linear two-dimensional elasto-dynamic problem
decade due to their flexibility, and absolutely no elements or on a domain U bounded by a boundary G, governing equations
cells are needed in the present formulation, either for are
interpolation purposes or for integration purposes. Atluri and
sij;j C fi Z ru€ i inU; ði; j Z 1; 2Þ (1)
Zhu [1] proposed a meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method
which is a truly meshless method. Remarkable successes of
MLPG method have been reported in solving convection- 1
3ij Z ðui;j C uj;i Þ in U (2)
diffusion problems and incompressible Navier-Stokes pro- 2
blems by Liu and Atluri [2,3]; plane elasticity problems by
Long [4]; fracture mechanics problems by Ching and Batra [5]; sij Z Dijkl 3ijkl in U (3)
and plate bending problems by Gu and Liu [6], and Long and
where sij is the stress tensor, fi is the body force, r is the mass
Atluri [7]. Atluri and Shen [8] presented six MLPG methods
density, u€ i Z v2 ui =vt2 is the acceleration, t is the time, 3ij is the
based on different test functions. One of the methods called
strain tensor, Dijkl is a tensor of material constants. The initial
MLPG5 used by this paper may be expected to replace FEM or
and boundary conditions are given as follows
BEM in the near future due to its speed, accuracy and
robustness. The purpose of this paper is to use MLPG5 method ui Z u i ; on Gu (4)
to solve dynamic fracture problems.
ti Z sij nj Z ti ; on Gt (5)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C86–0731–8824724
E-mail address: lky_hnu@163.com (L. Kaiyuan). ui ðx; t0 Þ Z ui ðxÞ; x 2U (6)
0955-7997/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2005.09.002 u_ i ðx; t0 Þ Z vi ðxÞ; x 2U (7)
 L. Kaiyuan et al. / Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30 (2006) 72–76 73

ð ð ð ð
where ui and ti are the prescribed displacement and traction on
ti dG C ti dGKa ui dGK ru€ i dU
the boundary Gu and Gt, respectively, ui0 and vi0 denote the
initial displacement and initial velocity, respectively, nj is the Ls Gsu Gsu Us

unit outward normal to the boundary G. Gu and Gt are ð ð ð

complementary subsets of G. ZK ti dGK fi dUKa u i dG (12)
A generalized local weak form of Eqs. (1) and (2) over a Gst Us Gsu
local sub-domain Us can be written as follows
As long as the union of all local sub-domains covers the
ð ð global domain, the equilibrium equation (1) and boundary
ðsij;j Kru€ i C fi Þvi dUKa ðui Kui Þvi dG Z 0 (8) conditions (2) and (3) will be satisfied in the global domain U
Us Gsu
and on its boundary G, respectively.

3. The moving least squares approximation

where ui and vi are the trial and the test functions, respectively.
Gsu is a part of the boundary (Us, over which essential boundary
conditions are specified, (Us is the boundary of a sub-domain
Us. In general, (UsZGsgLs, with Gs being a part of the local
boundary located on the global boundary and Ls being the other
part of the local boundary over which no boundary condition is
specified, i.e. GsZ(UshG and GsZ(UsKLs. In Eq. (8), a[1
is a penalty parameter that is used to impose essential boundary
conditions.
The moving least-square method is generally considered to
be one of the best schemes to interpolate data with reasonable
accuracy. This interpolation is used to represent trial functions
of primary variables at a set of regularly or randomly located
nodes in a domain. The approximation function uh(x) of a field
variable u(x) is defined in a sub-domain Ux by
X
N

Using the divergence theorem in Eq. (8) leads to uh ðxÞ Z 4n ðxÞu^ n uh ðxÞ h un s u^ n ; x 2Ux (13)
nZ1
ð ð ð where u^n ðnZ 1; 2; .; NÞ is the fictitious nodal value of u, N is
ðKsij vi;j Cfi vi Kru€ i vi ÞdUC ti vi dGKa ðui Ku i Þvi dG Z0 the number of points in the sub-domain Ux, the shape function
Us vUs Gsu fn(x) is defined by
(9) X
M
4n ðxÞ Z pm ðxÞ½AK1 ðxÞBðxÞmn (14)
mZ1
where tiZsijnj, and nj is a unit outward normal to the boundary
(Us. where A(x) and B(x) are the matrices defined by
It should be mentioned that Eq. (9) holds regardless of the X
N
size and the shape of Us provided that Us is smooth enough for AðxÞ Z PT WP Z BðxÞP Z wðxn ; xÞpðxn ÞpT ðxn Þ (15)
the divergence theorem to apply. So, the shape of a sub-domain nZ1
Us can be taken to be a circle in a two-dimensional problem
without loosing generality. Applying the natural boundary BðxÞ Z PT W
condition, ti Z sij nj Z ti on Gst where GstZ(UshGt, we get
Z ½wðx1 ; xÞpðx1 Þ; wðx2 ; xÞpðx2 Þ; .; wðxN ; xÞpðxN Þ (16)
ð ð ð ð
where pm(x) is a monomial basis function, and w(xn,x) is a
ti vi dG C ti vi dG C ti vi dG C ðKsij vi;j C fi vi Kru€ i vi ÞdU weight function. In this paper, the Gaussian weight function is
Ls Gsu
ð
Gst U adopted, and the form is written by
8
< exp½Kðdn =cÞ Kexp½Kðrn =cÞ  ; 0% d % r
2k 2k
Ka ðui Ku i Þvi dG Z 0 ð10Þ >
Gsu n n
wðxn ; xÞ Z 1Kexp½Kðrn =cÞ2k 
>
:
In order to simplify Eq. (10), the test functions vi is chosen 0; dn R r n
such that they eliminate or simplify the domain integral on Us. (17)
This can be accomplished by using the Heaviside step function where dnZkxKxnk is the distance between sampling point x
and node xn, and rn is the domain of the influence for a node.
(
c; x 2Us Parameters c and k in Eq. (17) control the shape of the Gaussian
HðxÞ Z (11) weight function w(xn,x). The parameter c is cZacn, where a is
0; x ;Us
a dilation parameter for the weight function. The parameter cn
is the characteristic dimension of the nodal spacing and is
where c is an arbitrary constant (cZ1 is used in this study). chosen as the distance to the third nearest neighbor. The
Using the choice, the partial derivatives of the test function vi,j domain of influence, rn, is also based on the characteristic
are identically zero. Using this test function and rearranging nodal spacing rnZccn, where c is a constant smoothing
Eq. (10), we obtain the following local symmetric weak form parameter for the weight function. In order for this weight
74 L. Kaiyuan et al. / Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30 (2006) 72–76

function to yield smooth shape functions and shape function 5. The time integration scheme
derivatives, it is required that c/aR3.5. In this paper, c/a is
equal to 4. The parameter k can be taken as 1 in Eq. (17). The Newmark’s equations in a standard form are

1
u^ t Z u^ tKDt C Dtu_^tKDt C Kb Dt2 u€^tKDt C bDt2 u€^t (28)
4. Discretization of the weak form 2

Substituting Eq. (13) into the local weak form Eq. (12) for u_^ t Z u_^ tKDt C ð1KgÞDtu€^ tKDt C gDtu€^ t (29)
each node and summing over all nodes give the following where b and g are parameters determined by stability and
discrete equation: integral accuracy. The Newmark family of the method is
€^ C KuðtÞ unconditionally stable if
MuðtÞ ^ Z FðtÞ (18) 
1 1 1
where the mass matrix M, the stiffness matrix K and the load gR and bR Cg (30)
2 4 2
vector F are given by
ð For each time step tZDt, 2Dt, 3Dt, rewriting Eq. (18) at
Mij Z r4j dU (19) time (nC1)Dt, and substituting Eqs. (28) and (29) into (18)
yield the following system of equations:
Us
^ ðnC1ÞDt u^ ðnC1ÞDt Z F^ ðnC1ÞDt
K (31)
ð ð ð
Kij ZK Jj dGK Jj dG C a fj dG (20) where
Ls Gsu Gsu ^ ðnC1ÞDt Z KðnC1ÞDt C d1 MðnC1ÞDt
K (32)
ð ð ð
F^ ðnC1ÞDt Z FðnC1ÞDt C MðnC1ÞDt ðd1 u^ nDt C d2 u_^ nDt
Fi Z tdG C a  C
udG fdU (21)
Gst Gsu Us
C d3 u€^nDt Þ (33)
where
 X 1 1 1
t1 N
d1 Z ; d2 Z ; d3 Z K1 (34)
tZ Z ns Z Jj u^ j (22) bðDtÞ2 bDt 2b
t2 jZ1
6. Numerical examples
and

E v4 1Kv v41 v4 Fig. 1 displays a rectangular plate with a central crack

Jj Z 2
n1 1 C n2 n1 v 2 loaded by an axial tensile traction. Basic parameters are LZ
1Kv vx1 2 vx2 vx2
1Kv v42 v41 1Kv v41 v42 52 mm, tZ 0:4HðtÞ GPa (Fig. 2), DZ20 mm, EZ76 GPa, mZ
C n n v C n n 0.286, rZ2450 Kg/m3 and aZ12 mm. A plane strain state of
2 2 vx1 2 vx1 2 1 vx2 2 vx2
 deformation is supposed in computing. Due to the symmetry of
1Kv v42 the problem about two centroidal axes, only a quadrant of the
C n ð23Þ
2 1 vx1 plate is considered and discretized using 2534 nodes. The
Newmark method is used with DtZ4!10K2and results are
We note that
( computed till tZ16 ms.
E for plane stress In the MLS approximation, the linear basis function and
E Z (24) the Gaussian weight function are used. In computing, r0 is
E=ð1Kv2 Þ for plane stain the radius of the sub-domain, and r0 Z ldi1 , where l taken as
(
v for plane stress
v Z (25)
v=ð1KvÞ for plane strain

where E is the Young’s modulus, and v is the Poisson’s ratio.

Here, the mass matrix is diagonalized by the row-sum
technique to obtain the symmetric matrix
N ð
X
Mii Z r4i dU (26)
iZ1
Us

Fig. 1. A geometric model.

Mij Z 0; i sj (27)
 L. Kaiyuan et al. / Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30 (2006) 72–76
Fig. 2. A transient force.
Fig. 3. The time history of the normalized stress intensity factor KI(t).
0.688 in this paper is a scaling factor for determining the
sub-domain and di1 is chosen as the distance to the first
nearest neighbor. 9!9 Gauss points are used in a sub-
domain Us, 9 Gauss points are used on each section of Ls and
Gs for numerical integration.
The stress intensitypfactors
ffiffiffiffiffiffi for mode-I and the mode-II can
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
be expressed by KI Z 2ps22 ðr; 0; tÞ and KII Z 2ps12 ðr; 0; tÞ,
Fig. 4. The time history of sx about different distances to the tip.
75
Fig. 5. The time history of sy about different distances to the tip.
respectively. Fig. 3 displays the time history of the stress
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
intensity factor KI normalized by t ap. The solution
is compared with another MLPG solution [3], the analytical
solution for an infinite plate [9], the hyper-singular traction
boundary integral equation solution [10] and the time
domain boundary integral equation solution [11]. It can be
seen that there is a good agreement between the present
numerical results and the available solutions. Figs. 4 and 5
exhibit the time history of stress sx and sy about different
distances at the tip. Figs. 6–8 show the variation of stresses sx,
sxy and sy with the distance to the tip at tZ6 ms. The present
results have a good agreement compared with the results of
Reference [3] obtained by another MLPG method which test
function is the weight function of the moving least square
approximation.
Fig. 6. The variation of stress sx with the distance to the tip at tZ6 ms.
76 L. Kaiyuan et al. / Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30 (2006) 72–76

analyze elasto-dynamic behaviors near a crack tip. The present

results have a good agreement compared with the results of
Ref. [3] obtained by another MLPG method which test function
is the weight function of the moving least square approxi-
mation. The value of the parameter l is difficult to be given
which will be studied in the coming paper. In the present
method, the computational time is greatly reduced in forming
stiffness matrix K because there is no domain integral. In
summary, the MLPG method with a Heaviside test function is a
good method.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of

China (No. 10372030), the National 973 Project under the
grant number 2004CB719402 and Foundation of the Ministry
of Education of China (No. 20020532021,[2002]350).
Fig. 7. The variation of stress sxy with the distance to the tip at tZ6 ms.
References

Fig. 8. The variation of stress sy with the distance to the tip at tZ6 ms.
[10] Rangelov T, Dineva P, Gross D. A hyper-singular traction boundary
7. Conclusions
[11] Rafiee S, Seelig Th, Gross D. Simulation of dynamic crack curing and
The meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method that
uses the Heaviside test function is presented and used to
[1] Atluri SN, Zhu TL. A new meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG)
approach in computational mechanics. Comput Mech 1998;22(2):117–27.
[2] Liu H, Atluri SN. The meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG) method
for solving convection-diffusion problem. CMES: Comput Model Eng Sci
2000;1(2):45–60.
[3] Liu H, Atluri SN. The meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG) method
for solving imcompressible Navier–Stokes equations. CMES: Comput
Model Eng Sci 2000;2(2):117–42.
[4] Long S, Atluri SN. A meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG)
formulation for solving the bending problem of a thin plate. CMES:
Comput Model Eng Sci 2002;3(1):53–63.
[5] Ching HK, Batra RC. Determination of crack tip fields in linear
elastostatics by the meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG) method.
CMES: Comput Model Eng Sci 2001;2(2):273–90.
[6] Gu YT, Liu GR. A meshless local Petrov–Galerkin (MLPG) formulation
for static and free vibration analysis of thin plates. CMES: Comput Model
Eng Sci 2001;2(4):463–76.
[7] Long SY. A local Petrov–Galerkin method for the elasticity problem.
Acta Mech Sinica 2000;33(4):508–18.
[8] Atluri Satya N, Shen Shenping. The meshless local Petrov-Galerkin
(MLPG) method: a simple & less costly alternative to the finite element
and boundary element methods. Comput Model Eng Sci 2002;3(1):11–51.
[9] Fan TY. The introduction of fracture dynamics [M]. Beijing, China:
Beijing Institute of Technology Press; 1990. p. 59–66.
integral equation method for stress intensity factor computation in finite
cracked body. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2003;27:9–21.
branching under biaxial loading by a time domain boundary integral
equation method. Int J Fract 2003;120:545–61.