
doi: 10.1002/nme.217
AbstractIn many cases, boundary integral equations contain a domain integral. This can be evaluated by discretization of the domain into domain elements. Historically, this was seen as going against the spirit of boundary element methods, and several methods were developed to avoid this discretization, notably dual and multiple reciprocity methods and particular solution methods. These involved the representation of the interior function with a set of basis functions, generally of the radial type. In this study, meshless methods (dual reciprocity and particular solution) are compared to the direct domain integration methods. The domain integrals are evaluated using traditional methods and also with multipole acceleration. It is found that the direct integration always results in better accuracy, as well as smaller computation times. In addition, the multipole method further improves on the computation times, in particular where multiple evaluations of the integral are required, as when iterative solvers are used. The additional error produced by the multipole acceleration is negligible. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
domain integral, Laplace operator, Helmholtz equation (reduced wave equation), Poisson equation, multipole method, boundary integral equations, meshless method, Boundary element methods for boundary value problems involving PDEs, Helmholtz equation, particular solution method, Poisson equation, dual reciprocity method, boundary element method
domain integral, Laplace operator, Helmholtz equation (reduced wave equation), Poisson equation, multipole method, boundary integral equations, meshless method, Boundary element methods for boundary value problems involving PDEs, Helmholtz equation, particular solution method, Poisson equation, dual reciprocity method, boundary element method
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 51 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
