16th.

Annual (International) Conference on Mechanical Engineering-ISME2008

May 14-16, 2008, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

A Truly Meshless Element Free Galerkin Method by a General Approach for Evaluation of
Domain Integrals a
A. KHOSRAVIFARD
Graduate Student of Mechanical Eng. Dept,
Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

M. R. HEMATIYAN
Mechanical Eng. Dept,
Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

amirkhosravi@gmail.com

mhemat@shirazu.ac.ir

recent years, EFG has increasingly attracted attention.

Problems of different type and complexity have been
successfully analyzed by EFG method that proves the
method worth this much attention. Some important
areas of applied mechanics in which EFG has proven to
be useful are crack analysis and fracture mechanics [38], large deformation processes [9], shape optimization
problems [10, 11] and heat transfer and fluid mechanics
[12-16].
Nevertheless, as stated, some of the meshless methods
require a background mesh for evaluation of domain
integrals of the weak form. EFG method is one of such
methods. So far, some truly meshless methods have
been proposed that do not require such background
meshes. In a general view, such methods can be
classified into two main categories. In the first category,
the need for background mesh is eliminated through the
use of a specific meshless integration technique. In the
other category the need for background mesh is
eliminated by the use of a non-Galerkin weak form.
Meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method and
meshless local point interpolation method (LRPIM) are
examples of the latter category. In what follows some of
the pioneer methods of both categories are briefly
reviewed.
As stated earlier, meshless methods that belong to the
first category use a specific meshless integration
technique. One such method is the nodal integration
technique. In this technique, a domain integral is
approximated by summation of products of weights by
values of integrand at the nodes.
Beissel and Belytschko used nodal integration to
eliminate background mesh in EFG method [17].
Employment of this method leads to oscillations of the
solution, which is the result of under-integration of the
weak form. To overcome this difficulty, they added
stabilization terms to the weak form and showed that in
some cases this can eliminate or reduce the oscillations
[17]. As the additional terms contain second order
derivatives of the field variable, higher order
polynomials should be used in basis functions, which is
a time consuming task. Another difficulty with nodal
integration is that, it is unclear how to assign an
appropriate weight to each node [18]. However, Beissel
and Belytschko state that the accuracy of their method is
less than that of the original EFG method [17].

Abstract
In this paper a general method for numerical evaluation
of domain integrals without mesh is presented. Then
this method is utilized to develop a truly meshless
element free Galerkin method. Some examples are
included to demonstrate the usefulness and efficiency of
the proposed methods.
Keywords: truly meshless, element free Galerkin
method, domain integral
1. Introduction
Element free Galerkin (EFG) method (Belytschko et al.,
1994) [1] is a meshless method for analysis of problems
in applied mechanics. Unlike finite element method
(FEM), that requires a mesh of elements, EFG method
does not use elements for domain discretization.
However, a background mesh is required for evaluation
of domain integrals appearing in the weak form. As a
result, this method is not a truly meshless method.
Although FEM is a robust technique for analysis of
different types of problems in applied mechanics, there
are some limitations associated with this method. These
limitations mostly arise from reliance of the method on
an appropriate meshing of the problem domain. In the
cases that the elements undergo severe deformation, for
instance in large deformation processes, the
performance of the method degrades considerably. Also,
analysis of progressive crack problems with FEM is
accompanied by some difficulties. Generally, for
analysis of problems in which domain of the problem
needs to be re-meshed several times, finite element
method faces some problems. In such problems not only
generation of a new mesh is required at each step, that
can be a very time consuming task, but also projection
of field variables between meshes causes degradation of
accuracy [2]. Apart from the mentioned drawbacks, the
resulting stress and strain fields in FEM are not
continuous. Therefore, always some kind of postprocessing needs to be performed in order to smooth the
results. To overcome the mentioned difficulties, which
mainly arise from the use of elements in FEM, meshless
methods have been introduced and developed during the
past decade. So far, several methods have been
proposed which at least for discretization of the problem
domain do not require an element mesh. One of the
most powerful meshless methods is the EFG method. In
1

Bonet and Kulasegaram used nodal integration along

with stabilization terms [19]. Their method does not
need higher order derivatives, but it needs a
stabilization gradient at each node, which should be
evaluated by an iterative procedure.
Chen et al. also used nodal integration technique [20].
To eliminate the oscillations, they modified the shape
functions prior to nodal integration. Since their method
is based on construction of a Voroni diagram, it cannot
be considered as a truly meshless method.
Duflot and Nguyen-Dang, proposed another truly
meshless method [18]. To evaluate the domain
integrals of the weak form, they propose a meshless
integration technique. Their method does not rely on a
partition of integration domain into small cells, but
rather on a partition of unity by a set of moving least
squares shape functions, each defined on a small patch.
As there is a need to evaluate additional MLS shape
functions, additional time should be spent. The method
uses Gauss quadrature technique in each patch to
evaluate the integrals; therefore, a zero weight should
be assigned to integration points of a patch that are not
inside the problem domain, so additional error is
introduced near boundaries (same as the integration
method by Gauss quadrature with background mesh).
Atluri and Zhu tried to obtain truly meshless methods
by using a non-Galerkin weak form [21]. They
proposed two different methods, one is meshless local
Petrov-Galerkin method and the other one is local
boundary integral equation method, which can be used
for linear differential equations that contain no body
force terms. Both of the methods result in nonsymmetric coefficient matrix in discretized system of
equations.
All these truly meshless methods have a common
characteristic: One must pay a price to obtain a truly
meshless method. The price may be reduced
accuracy, additional time consumption or complexity
of the method to be used.
The proposed method of the present work belongs to
the 1st category, i.e. in this paper a meshless
integration technique is proposed, which can evaluate
domain integrals with higher accuracy and lower time
consumption. This method is utilized for evaluation of
domain integrals in the Galerkin weak form. The result
is a truly meshless Galerkin method with better
performance in comparison with the original EFG
method. It should be noted that although this
integration technique is used for evaluation of domain
integrals in the EFG method, it can be used with any
other meshless method which uses global weak form,
such as meshless radial point interpolation method
(RPIM).
This method has been previously used for evaluation
of domain integrals in boundary element method [22,
23]. A modified version of the method is used here for
treatment of domain integrals in EFG method.

In equation (1), f is an arbitrary regular function and

represents domain of the problem. A simple
domain R such as circle, triangle or rectangle is
considered that contains the original domain (Fig. 1).
The domain R is called auxiliary domain. A new
function g is defined over the domain R as follows:

f ( x, y )d

(2)

Now the integral in (1) can be rewritten as follows:

(3)
I=
f ( x , y ) d =
g ( x , y ) d R

By applying Greens theorem, the domain integral in

Eq. (3) can be transformed into a double integral; a
boundary integral and a 1D integral. Greens theorem
is expressed as follows [24]:
u ( x, y )
(4)
d = u ( x, y ) dy

x
where and are respectively, the domain and
boundary of a simply or multiply connected region.
The function u in Eq. (4) is defined as follows:

u ( x, y ) =

x
c

g ( , y )d

(5)

where c is an arbitrary constant. Substituting definition

(5) into Eq. (4) and noting that

u
= g ( x, y ) results
x

in:

g ( x, y )d R =

g ( , y ) d dy
x

(6)

It can be observed that the domain integral (3) has

been transformed into a double integral in (6). The
outer integral is a boundary integral over the simple
boundary R and the inner one is a 1D integral, which
is independent of the domain geometry.
If a rectangular auxiliary domain is considered, a very
simple result will be obtained. The original domain
within a rectangular domain R is shown in Fig. 2.
The boundary R consists of four portions as follow:
1 : y = y1 , 2 : x = b, 3 : y = y 2 , 4 : x = a (7)
For evaluation of the outer integral in right hand side
of (6), any numerical integration technique such as
composite Gauss quadrature can be employed. By
setting the arbitrary constant c equal to a, the outer
integral in (6) vanishes on the boundaries 1 , 3 , and

(1)

4 and the integral should be evaluated only on 2 .

2

( x, y )

Figure 1: The main domain of problem and the

auxiliary domain

2. The proposed meshless integration technique

Suppose that the following domain integral is to be
computed:
I=

( x, y )

f ( x, y )
g ( x, y ) =
0

 j and w j in Eq. (12) are respectively Gauss points

The reason for this fact can be stated as follows. As 1

and 3 are along the y direction, dy is zero and the

and weights for numerical integration.

integral over 1 and 3 vanishes. By setting c equal to a,

the lower limit of the inner integral in (6) equals its upper
limit for all points on 4 and the integral will be zero

represents a horizontal line which is called integration

ray (Fig. 3). To evaluate the value of integral (11), the
value of h(y) should be evaluated for each ray.
Fig. 3 shows a typical integration interval along
boundary 2 and also typical integration intervals
along a ray. For evaluation of h(y) at each ray, one
should note that each ray intersects with the boundaries
of a closed domain even times. Suppose that a ray

over 4 . Therefore, the integral in (6) can be rewritten in

the following form:
y2
b g ( x, y ) dx dy
(8)
I=

y1 a

which is a simple double integral over the rectangular

region. One can write:

I=

y2
y1

intersects with the boundaries of a domain t = 2l times,

where l is a positive integer (Fig. 4). The ray is divided
into t-1 different parts, alternatively inside and outside
the original domain.

(9)

h( y )dy

where
h( y ) =

b
a

y = y ( j )

(10)

g ( x, y )dx

Figure 4: Intersection of a ray with boundary at even

number of points
Considering the mentioned fact, one can write the
integral in (10) as follows:

Figure 2: The main domain of problem in a rectangular

auxiliary domain

h ( yi ) =

We want to evaluate integral of the function h(y) on 2 .

To use composite Gauss method, one should first divide
the boundary 2 , into n different integration intervals.
The m-point Gauss quadrature method can then be
applied to each individual interval (Fig. 3). The value of
the integral can be computed by summing all these
values. One can evaluate the integral in (9) as follows:
I=

i =1

yi +1
yi

h ( y ) dy =

i =1

1
1

H ( ) Jd

(12)

i =1 j =1

where H ( ) = h( y ( ) ) and J is the Jacobian of

transformation and is expressed as J = dy = y i +1 y i .
d

Figure 3: Rays and integration intervals

g ( x, yi )dx =

x2
x1

f ( x, yi )dx +
l

x4
x3

f ( x, yi )dx +

x2 j
(13)
f ( x, yi )dx =
f ( x, yi )dx
x 2 l 1
x
2 j 1

j =1
Now composite Gauss quadrature method is employed
for evaluation of each integral in the right hand side of
Eq. (13), similar to that in Eqs (11) and (12).
This feature of the proposed method makes it a robust
technique for evaluation of domain integrals. Because
by considering this feature, no integration point would
be located outside the domain; therefore, there is no
need to assign a zero weight (or zero value) to any
integration point.
If the value of the integrand is known only at finite
number of points, one can use meshless interpolation
techniques such as MLS [25] or RPIM [26] to evaluate
the value of the integrand at any required point.
For evaluation of domain integrals with the proposed
method, following points should be considered:
For complex domains, especially those with
irregular boundaries and multiply connected
domains, the present method performs much
better than conventional Gauss quadrature
method with background mesh.
In determining the number of times, that one
ray intersects with the boundaries of the
domain, it should be noted that the points of
tangency should not be regarded as points of
intersection. If one considers the point of
tangency of a ray with the boundary as a point

(11)

Jw H (

b
a

... +

or
I=

x2l

of intersection, the number of intersections

would be odd. This case is shown in Fig. 5.

observed, the sharp corner (vertex of the

triangle) is missed in Gauss method but it
is not the case in the present method. This
means that in the present method, finer
integration intervals are chosen in narrow
parts of the domain, without considerably
increasing the total number of integration
points. This property of the proposed
method is much important in evaluation of
the integrals of weak form in processes that
the domain of the problem is continuously
changing; for example, in large deformation
processes.

Figure 5: An integration ray tangent to

boundary

If a boundary has horizontal lines (Fig. 6) and

if a ray coincides with these lines, the number
of intersections would be infinite; therefore, it
is better to recognize the horizontal boundary
lines prior to evaluation of the integral. In
such cases, one can decompose the
integration interval in y direction, to some
sub-intervals.

(a)

Figure 6: A domain with horizontal boundary

lines
For example, the integral (11) for the case
shown in Fig. 6, should be written as follows:
I=

y max
y min

y2
y1

y1

h( y ) dy =

y min

h( y )dy +

y2

y max

(b)
Figure 7: Integration points in a region with
a sharp corner: a conventional Gauss
quadrature with background mesh, b the
proposed method

h( y ) dy
h( y )dy

(14)

Now composite Gauss quadrature method can

be applied to each individual integral in the
above equation. In evaluation of each integral
in Eq. (14), no ray coincides with horizontal
boundaries.
When domain of a problem has sharp corners
or is narrow in some parts, conventional
Gauss quadrature method with background
mesh may miss such regions, i.e. no
integration point falls within these parts of the
domain. It means that narrow parts of the
domain are not included in the integration
process, unless the mesh is made so fine.
However, as the present method considers the
points of intersection of each ray with the
boundary, sharp corners and narrow parts of
the domain would never be missed, without
the need to refining integration intervals (Fig.
7).
In Fig. 7, integration points corresponding to
the present method and Gauss quadrature
with background mesh are shown. As can be

In Fig. 7(a), 4-point Gauss quadrature

method with a 22 background integration
mesh has been considered. In Fig. 7(b), 4point Gauss quadrature, both for integration
along rays of the proposed method and
boundary 2 has been considered.
When evaluating the value of an integral
with the conventional methods with
background mesh, each quadrature point
should be checked to see whether it is or it
is not inside the domain of integration. For
irregular domains, it is a time consuming
task. Nevertheless, in the proposed method
no points need to be checked. This feature
makes the proposed method much faster.
At the end of this section, an algorithm for the
proposed method is given. Although we have used
this algorithm in evaluation of the integrals for the
examples that are included in this paper, other
algorithms for selection of the size and number of
integration intervals may also be used.
4

substituting the approximation (15) into the

associated Galerkin weak form, one can obtain the
final form of discretized system of equations [1]:
K G u f
(19)
G T 0 = q

definitions of the terms in (19) can be found in [1].
Here only the equations for the stiffness matrix K
and the load vector f are given:
(20)
K ij = B Ti DB j d

Loop over the outer integral in (8).

o Determine size of each integration
intervals along boundary 2 .
o Determine the integration point in
each interval; coordinates of these
points are used as coordinates of the
integration rays.
o Determine points of intersection of
each ray with the boundary.
o Loop over the inner integral in (8).
Determine size of each
integration interval along
the ray.
If length of that part of
domain along the ray is less
than that of integration
interval,
consider
one
interval along the ray in that
location.
Determine
integration
points along each interval
and calculate the value of
the integral over each
interval of the ray.
o Sum values of integrals over each
ray to obtain the value of h(yi).
Sum the value of integrals over each interval
along 2 , to obtain the final value of the
integral.
In the following sections, moving least squares
approximation and EFG method are reviewed.

fi =

(X)u
i

i =1

i, X is the space coordinates, i.e. X T = [x, y , z ] and

i (X) is the shape function corresponding to node i
and is obtained by:
m

ji

= PT ( X) A 1B i

i bd

(21)

5-1. Example 1: A domain integral over a multiply

connected region
Consider the multiply connected domain , shown in
Fig. 8. The value of the following integral over this
domain is computed:
4

(23)
I = x 2 + y + sin(x) cos(
y ) d

where u i is nodal parameter of function u(X) at node

i ( X) = p j ( X) A 1 ( X)B( X)

i td +

5. Examples
To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed
method, two examples are presented. In these
examples, accuracy and efficiency of the proposed
method and Gauss method with background mesh
(BM) are studied in comparison with the exact or
FEM solutions.
In the following examples, 4-point Gauss quadrature
method is employed in BM and the proposed
method.

(15)

where t , b and D are respectively specified traction

vector, body force vector and tensor of elastic
constants. i in Eq. (21) are the MLS shape
functions and the matrix Bi is defined as follows:
i , x
0

(22)
i, y
Bi = 0
i , y
i , x

In conventional EFG method, the two domain

integrals in (20) and (21) are computed by Gauss
quadrature method with a background mesh. In the
present work, we have made use of the proposed
method for evaluation of such domain integrals.
Since the proposed method is a meshless integration
technique, the resulting EFG method is truly
meshless.

3. Moving Least Squares Approximation

Moving least squares (MLS) approximation, presented
by Lancaster and Salkauskas [25], is used to find a
function that fits a discrete set of data. In MLS, a
function u (X) is approximated by:
u h ( X) =

(16)

j =1

where p j (X) are monomials and m is the number of

monomials used in construction of P(X).
In Eq. (16), A(X) and B(X) are expressed as follow:
A ( X) =

w(X X )P
i

( X)P ( X i )

(17)

i =1

B( X) = [ w(X X1 )P( X1 ), w(X X 2 )P( X 2 )

, ..., w(X X n )P( X n )]
(18)
where n is total number of nodes in support domain of
point X and w( X X i ) is value of the weight

Figure 8: Integration domain of example 1

function at point X, associated with node i.

Value of integral (23) over this domain is evaluated

by four different meshes (4 3, 8 6, 12 9 and

4. Element free Galerkin method

Consider a two dimensional elastostatic problem, by
5

16 12) in BM and equal intervals in the proposed

method. The results are compared and illustrated in
table 1 and fig. 9. The exact value of integral is
48.9540.
In table 1, values of the integral (23) obtained by BM
and the proposed method are compared. In this table,
number of function evaluations, means the number of
times that the integrand of integral is calculated. In
BM, by number of sub-routine calls, we mean the
number of times a quadrature point should be checked
to see whether it is inside or outside the domain. In the
proposed method, this is the number of times that
intersection of a ray with the boundaries should be
checked. As the sub-routines are essentially the same,
the numbers of times they are called are compared to
show how much time is saved by the proposed
method.

especially when the domain of integration is complex

or multiply connected, a large background mesh
should be selected and so many redundant quadrature
points should also be chosen. In the process of
integration all these points should be checked to see if
they are inside or outside the domain. Also, one should
note that in methods with background mesh evaluation
of domain integral near boundaries has an additional
approximation because a portion of integration cell
may be outside the domain; but in the proposed
method no further approximation is produced due to
complicated boundaries. Also it should be mentioned
that no integration point in the proposed method falls
outside the domain, as a result there is no need to
check the integration points to see if they are in or out
of the domain.

Figure 9: Errors of BM and the present method in

evaluation of an integral

(a)

As can be easily seen, while number of function

evaluations is almost the same, the error of the
proposed method is considerably lower than that of
BM. From table 1, it is observed that number of subroutine calls is much lower for the proposed method in
comparison with BM. In table 1, by TPM we mean the
proposed method.
Table 1: Comparison of results of the proposed method
and BM, example 1
No. of function
evaluations

TPM
148
360
936
1416

BM
90
356
794
1416

No. of subroutine calls

TPM
16
24
40
48

BM
192
768
1728
3072

Value of integral

TPM
48.9552
48.9540
48.9540
48.9540

BM
50.6651
49.7066
49.1031
49.3068

(b)
Figure 10: integration points of, a the current method
and b BM

Fig. 10 shows the integration points for both the

proposed method and BM. The figure also shows the
background mesh and integration elements of BM. The
figure corresponds to the 8 6 background mesh and
its equivalent interval size for the proposed method. In
Fig. 10(b), the dots represent integration points that are
inside the domain and cross signs represent the
integration points that are outside the domain. Also
shown in this figure is the background mesh. These
two figures clearly show the advantage of the present
method over the conventional Gauss quadrature
method. In conventional Gauss methods with BM,

5.2 Example 2: A linear elastic problem

In this example, a tapered cantilever beam (Fig. 11),
subjected to a uniform tension is analyzed by the
proposed truly meshless EFG method as well as
original EFG method. Fig. 12 shows axial
displacement of the beam along its centerline. For
analysis of this problem a 2 2 and a 5 5 background
mesh and their equivalent intervals for the proposed
method are considered. To represent the problem
6

domain, a 30-node model (Fig. 11(b)) is used. In Fig.

12, the results are compared with the solution obtained
by FEM. FEM solution is obtained by ANSYS with a
fine mesh (8961 nodes and 8800 elements). This
solution is referred to as accurate FEM solution, in Fig.
12.

Figure 12: Horizontal displacement of free end of the

beam
6. Conclusion
A truly meshless element free Galerkin method was
presented. The results obtained by this new truly
meshless method shows very good agreement with
accurate solution. Therefore, this method can be a
good alternative for the original EFG method.
References
[1]
Belytschko, T., Lu, Y.Y., Gu, L., 1994,
Element free Galerkin methods, Int J Numer
Methods Eng, 37, 229-256
[2]
Dolbow, J., Belytschko, T., 1998, An
introduction to programming the meshless
element free Galerkin method, Arch Comput
Methods Eng, 5(3), 207-241
[3]
Belytschko, T., Gu, L., Lu, Y.Y., 1994,
Fracture and crack growth by element-free
Galerkin methods, Model Simul Mater Sc Eng,
2, 519-534
[4]
Belytschko, T., Lu, Y.Y., Gu, L., 1995, Crack
propagation
by
element-free
Galerkin
methods, Eng Fract Mech, 51, 295-315
[5]
Belytschko, T., Tabbara, M., 1996. Dynamic
Fracture
Using
Element-Free
Galerkin
Methods, Int J Numer Methods Eng, 39, 923938.
[6]
Belytschko, T., Organ, D., Gerlach, C., 2000,
Element-free Galerkin methods for dynamic
fracture in concrete, Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng, 187, 385-399
[7]
Krysl, P., Belytschko, T., 1999, The Element
Free Galerkin Method for Dynamic Propagation
of Arbitrary 3-D Cracks, Int J Numer Methods
Eng, 44, 767-800
[8]
Ventura, G., Xu, J.X., Belytschko, T., 2002, A
vector level set method and new discontinuity
approximation for crack growth by EFG, Int J
Numer Methods Eng, 54, 923-944
[9]
Ponthot, J.P., Belytschko, T., 1998, Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation for elementfree Galerkin method, Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng, 152, 19-46
[10] Bobaru, S., Mukherjee, S., 2001, Shape
sensitivity analysis and shape optimization in
planar elasticity using the element-free Galerkin
method, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng,
190, 4319-4337
[11] Bobaru, S., Mukherjee, S., 2002, Meshless
approach to shape optimization of linear

(a)

(b)
Figure 11: Domain of example 2 (dimensions are in
meter): a dimensions, b nodes
The problem is solved under plane stress condition and
material properties are: E=200 GPa and = 0.3 . As
can be observed in the Fig. 12, the results of EFG
method with the proposed method are in better
agreement with accurate FEM solution, than those of
EFG with BM. As the background mesh and intervals
of the proposed method are refined, the results
converge together and also to the accurate FEM
solution.
Table 2, lists the values and errors of horizontal
displacement at x=5 and y=0, obtained by EFG method
with the proposed method and BM. The computed
value of displacement at the tip of the beam by
ANSYS is 1.8113 10-6. Again, TPM means the
proposed method in table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of deflections of the tip of the
beam, example 2
Mesh
size

No. of
quadrature
points

22
55

TPM BM
48
44
304 298

(u x )end 106

Error (%)

TPM
BM TPM BM
1.9539 2.3481 7.9 29.6
1.8069 1.8057 0.24 0.31

[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]

[23]

[24]
[25]
[26]

thermoelastic solids, Int J Numer Methods

Eng, 53, 765-796
Singh, I.V., Sandeep, K., Parkash, R., 2003,
Heat transfer analysis of two dimensional fins
using meshless element free Galerkin method,
Numeri Heat Tr A App, 44, 73-84
Singh, I.V., 2004, Meshless EFG Method in
three-dimensional heat transfer problems: a
numerical comparison, cost and error analysis,
Numeri Heat Tr A App, 45, 199-220
Singh, I.V., 2004, Parallel implementation of
the EFG method for heat transfer and fluid flow
problems, Comput Mech, 34, 453-463
Singh, I.V., Tanaka, M., 2006, Heat transfer
analysis of composite slabs using meshless
element free Galerkin method, Comput Mech,
38, 521-532
Singh, I.V., Tanaka, M., Endo, M., 2007,
Thermal analysis of CNT-based nanocomposites by element free Galerkin method,
Comput Mech, 39, 719-728
Beissel, S., Belytschko, T., 1996, Nodal
integration of the element-free Galerkin
method, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng,
139, 49-74
Duflot, M., Nguyen-Dang, H., 2002, A truly
meshless Galerkin method based on a moving
least squares quadrature, Commun Numer
Methods Eng, 18, 441-449
Bonet, J., Kulasegaram, S., 2000, Correction
and
stabilization
of
smooth
particle
hydrodynamics methods with applications in
metal forming simulations, Int J Numer
Methods Eng, 47, 1189-1214
Chen, J.S., Wu, C.T., Yoon, S., You, Y., 2001,
A stabilized confirming nodal integration for
Galerkin mesh-free methods, Int J Numer
Methods Eng, 50, 435-466
Atluri, S.N., Zhu, T., 2000, New concepts in
meshless methods, Int J Numer Methods Eng,
47, 537-556
Hematiyan, M.R., 2007, A general method for
evaluation of 2D and 3D domain integrals
without domain discretization and its
application in BEM, Comput Mech, 39, 509520
Hematiyan, M.R., 2007 Exact transformation
of a wide variety of domain integrals into
boundary integrals in boundary element
method, Commun Numer Methods Eng, Early
view, DOI: 10.1002/cnm.1047
Lai, W.M., Rubin, D. and Krempl, E., 1999,
Introduction to Continuum Mechanics, 3rd edn.
Butterworth Heinemann, USA
Lancaster, P., Salkauskas, K., 1981, Surfaces
generated by moving least squares methods,
Math Comput, 37, 141-158
Liu, G.R. and Gu, Y.T., 2005, An Itroduction to
Meshfree Methods and Their Programming
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

8
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.