Figure 18 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
![The numerical results of the present DCM, the IEFG method [27], and analytical solutions along the angle axis θ.](publication/373511296/figure/fig2/AS:11431281184653009@1693405526163/The-numerical-results-of-the-present-DCM-the-IEFG-method-27-and-analytical-solutions.png)
The numerical results of the present DCM, the IEFG method [27], and analytical solutions along the angle axis θ.
Source publication
Due to the low computational efficiency of the Improved Element-Free Galerkin (IEFG) method, efficiently solving three-dimensional (3D) Laplace problems using meshless methods has been a longstanding research direction. In this study, we propose the Dimension Coupling Method (DCM) as a promising alternative approach to address this challenge. Based...
Similar publications
The p-y curve method is widely used to predict piles’ lateral bearing capacity. It assumes independent springs with a non-linear modulus of subgrade reaction for analyzing soil resistance (p) and deflection (y). This study determined the lateral bearing capacity using the three-dimensional finite element method (FEM-3D) and finite difference method...
Citations
This study introduces a hybrid element‐free Galerkin (HEFG) method to analyze the 3D steady convection–diffusion‐reaction equation. By introducing the dimension‐splitting method, the governing equation can be split into 2D form in each layer. The 2D form can be solved using the improved element‐free Galerkin (IEFG) method with improved moving least‐squares (IMLS) approximation as shape function, and discretized equations of 2D form are derived. The finite difference method (FDM) is selected to handle first‐ and second‐order derivatives in the splitting direction. Thus, new 2D discretized equations in each plane are derived, and the final solved equation of the original 3D problem is obtained by coupling these 2D discretized equations. In numerical examples, we study the astringency of the HEFG method by examining the impact of layer and node on relative errors, and the computing time and accuracy of numerical solutions are compared with the dimension‐coupling method (DCM), IEFG method, and exact one. The HEFG method can significantly reduce the calculation times of the IEFG method. Compared with the DCM, the advantage of the proposed method is its shorter computing time when dealing with essential boundaries in a splitting direction.
