Murphy’s Law in Boundary Element Implementations
Many scientists believe that the time to write a program to solve a given problem is measured in days for a finite difference approach, in weeks for a finite element and in months for a boundary element approach. Obviously the last method is the most sophisticated one and this implies following Murphy’s law the best possibility to encounter errors. In what follows some aspects of those difficulties are discussed.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- (1).C.A.Brebbia,J.C.F.Telles,L.C.Wrobel (1984) Boundary Element Techniques, Springer Berlin.Google Scholar
- (2).C.Katz (1985) Analytic Integration of Isoparametric 2D Boundary Elements Boundary Elements VII, Proc. of the 7th Intern. Conference Como 1985, ( C.A.Brebbia,G.Maier ed) Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- (4).G.C.Hsiao,P.Kopp,W.Wendland (1980) A Galerkin collocation method for some integral equations of the first kind. Computing 25, 89–130 (5) C.Katz (1986)Google Scholar
- Self-adaptive boundary elements for the shear stress in beams. Proc. of the BETECH 86, MIT Cambridge, June 1986.Google Scholar
- (6).T.J.R.Hughes,T.E.Tezduyar (1981) Finite Elements Based Upon Mindlin Plate Theory With Particular Reference to the Four-Node Bilinear Isoparametric Element. Journ.of Applied Mechanics (48) 587–596Google Scholar
- (7).M.Chaudonneret (1978) On the discontinuity of the stress vector in the boundary integral equation method for elastic analysis. Recent Advances in BEM, Pentech Press PlymouthGoogle Scholar