dataname: 11-18-11 w1BF s1 t7 z139 bead1(0.6229, 0.3963, 0.3388) (7.7 104 , 2.2 104 , 0.0035) bead2(0.6249, 0.4593, 0.

0.3262) (4.7 104 , 0.0022, 0.0056) directly estimated normal strain: ex = 0.150, ey = 0.031, ez = 0.167 maximum MLS estimated normal strain: e = 0.048 = underestimated strain components.

Figure 1: Displacement reconstruction of a set of real data.

Figure 2: MLS-calculated strain component e11 at t=16 hours.

J(x) =
I=1

w(x, xI )(pT (xI )a(x) uI )2

w(x, xI ) = w(dI , dmI ), dI = ||x xI || uh (x) = pT (x)a(x) = I (x)uI

minimization of J(x) in moving least square regression leads to a(x) = A1 BU , where

N

A = PTWP =
=1

w(x, x )p(x )pT (x ),

B = P T W = w(x, x1 )p(x1 ), , w(x, xN )p(xN ) a,i (x) = (A1 B + A1 B,i (x))U , where ,i A1 = A1 A,i A1 . ,i

Figure 3: [2] Visibility criterion ( [1] ): include MLS node P only if the evaluation point is visible from it discontinuous shape function. [4] proves that the discontinuous approximation generated by the visibility criterion converge at the same rate as continuous EFG approximation.

Figure 4: Left: [3]; Right: [2]

Ways to construct smooth shape function for non-concave bodies( [3] ) A. diraction method: wrap the domain of inuence around a concave boundary. modied parameter: dI (x) = ( s1 + s2 (x) ) s0 (x) s0 (x)

s0 (x) = ||x xI ||2 , s1 (x) = ||xw xI ||2 , s2 (x) = ||x xw ||2 , derivative calculation: dw w dI = dxi dI xi dI s1 + s2 s2 s1 + s2 s0 = ( ) + (1 )( ) xi s0 xi s0 xi xi xIi s2 xi xci s0 = , = xi s0 xi s2

Figure 5: Top: [4]; Bottom: [3]

B. transparency method: endow boundaries within the domain of inuence with a varying measure of transparency. modied parameter: dI (x) = s0 (x) + dmI ( sc (x) ) , 2 sc

Figure 6: [3] Numerical results on innite plate with a hole:

Figure 7: [3]

method plain visibility diraction

eciency

accuracy

implementation

Table 1: Interpolation time for 20 nodes. Numerical experiment: Test A) u1 = (x2 + x2 ) 0.1, 1 2 u2 = (x1 + x2 sin(x3 )) 0.1, u3 = x1 x2 x3 0.1; Test B) Innite 3D specimen with a hole under internal pressure Hole radius: a, internal pressure: p. (r) = a3 p 1 4 r3

ui = (r)xi pa3 r3 pa3 T = 3 2r Tr = Coupled FE-EFG method: allows for the use of the EFG method in the crack region and the nite element method to handle complex geometries and essential boundary conditions. Enriched MLS basis representative for crack tip elds( [3]):

pT (x) = 1, x, y, z, r cos , r sin , r sin sin , r cos cos 2 2 2 2

References
[1] T. Belytschko. 1994 Belytschoko etal Element free galerkin methods.pdf. [2] Petr Krysl and Ted Belytschko. Element-free Galerkin method: Convergence of the continuous and discontinuous shape functions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 148(3-4):257277, September 1997.

Figure 8: Short term results for test A. Data number: 10000. [3] D Organ, M Fleming, T Terry, T Belytschko, and T Terry. Continuous meshless approximations for nonconvex bodies by diracti0n and transparency. Computational Mechanics, 18, 1996. [4] N. Sukumar, B. Moran, T. Black, and T. Belytschko. An element-free Galerkin method for three-dimensional fracture mechanics. Computational Mechanics, 20(1-2):170175, July 1997.

Figure 9: Long term results for test A. Data number: 10000.

Figure 10: Short term relative L2 error for test B. Data number: 10000. Mesh distance to the sphere: 0.01.

Figure 11: Short term relative L2 error for test B. Data number: 20000. Mesh distance to the sphere: 0.01.

Figure 12: Long term relative error for test B. Left: Data number: 50000. Right: Data number: 10000. Point distance to the sphere: 0.001.

10

Figure 13: Long term relative error for test B. Left: Data number: 50000. Right: Data number: 10000. Point distance to the sphere: 0.001. (Cont)

11

Figure 14: Long term relative error for test A. Data number: 10000. Point distance to the sphere: 0.001.

12

Figure 15: Relative error for test B. dI =0.1. Left: Data number: 100000. Right: Data number: 10000.

13

Figure 16: Relative error for test B. dI =0.1. Left: Data number: 100000. Right: Data number: 10000(Cont).

14

Figure 17: Convergence test for test B. Point distance to the sphere: 0.001. dI = 0.1

15