Conforming versus non‐conforming boundary elements in three‐dimensional elastostatics

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In this work, we present a critical comparison of two basic ways of implementing the boundary element method in three‐dimensional elastostatics. The first way is by using non‐conforming elements, i.e. elements which have the collocation nodes removed from their perimeter. The number of nodes used for the collocation of the boundary tractions and displacements need not coincide with the number of nodes placed along the perimeter of the element for the purpose of describing the geometry. The second way is by placing the collocation nodes along the perimeter of the element, usually in coincidence with the geometry nodes. Thus, interelement continuity of the displacements is obtained. The basic reasons for the use of non‐conforming elements in the boundary element method are twofold. First, simplification in the assembly and solution of the system equations and, secondly, easy computation of the ‘free’ and Cauchy principal value terms appearing in the integral equations. The state of the art in the boundary element method, however, has advanced in the last decade to the point where both of the aforementioned reasons are no longer problematic. As will be shown in what follows, conforming elements are able to produce more accurate results than non‐conforming ones with substantial economy in the final size of the system equations.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: