Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, Vol. 21, No.

2, April, 2008
Published by AMSS Press, Wuhan, China. DOI: 10.1007/s10338-008-0819-0

ISSN 0894-9166

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF MINDLIN SHELL BY

MESHLESS LOCAL PETROV-GALERKIN METHOD 
Di Li1,2

Zhongqin Lin1

Shuhui Li1

(1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, China)

( School of Transportation and Vehicle Engineering, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255049, China)
2

Received 12 December 2007; revision received 30 January 2008

ABSTRACT The objectives of this study are to employ the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method
(MLPGM) to solve three-dimensional shell problems. The computational accuracy of MLPGM
for shell problems is aected by many factors, including the dimension of compact support domain, the dimension of quadrture domain, the number of integral cells and the number of Gauss
points. These factors sensitivity analysis is to adopt the Taguchi experimental design technology
and point out the dimension of the quadrature domain with the largest inuence on the computational accuracy of the present MLPGM for shells and give out the optimum combination of these
factors. A few examples are given to verify the reliability and good convergence of MLPGM for
shell problems compared to the theoretical or the nite element results.

KEY WORDS meshless methods, meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method, moving least square,
shell

I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there is a growing interest in the so-called meshless methods, which do not require
a nite element mesh for the denition of the approximation and throw out or decrease the diculties
caused by meshing and remeshing. Because of the high order of continuity of meshless approximation
functions, as well as the satisfaction of the C 1 continuity requirements easily met by meshless approximation functions, meshless methods can express the face and displacement of a shell very well and are
convenient to treat more complicated shell problems.
As for meshless methods for shell analysis, Krysl and Belytschko applied element free Galerkin
(EFG) method to thin shell analysis[1] as moving least-square interpolation (MLSI) can easily produce
C 1 smooth functions, which satisfy the Kirchho hypothesis Their results showed excellent convergence
and numerical locking could be successfully avoided by using appropriate basis functions for MLSI.
Noguchi and Kawashima et al.[2] employed the high continuity of MLSI approximation functions and
investigated EFG method analyzing three-dimensional shell spatial structures.
The EFG method still requires a mesh of background cells for integration in computing the system
matrices, so the method is not truly mesh free. Pursuit of truly mesh free methods therefore continues.
The meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPGM) originated by Atluri and Zhu[3] uses the so-called local
weak form of the Petrov-Galerkin residual formulation and satises the equation point-by-point using
information in a local domain of the point. The integration form can then be implemented locally by
carrying out numerical integration over the local domain. Therefore, not only constructing the meshless
 Project supported by the Scientic Foundation of National Outstanding Youth of China (No. 50225520) and the
Science Foundation of Shandong University of Technology of China (No. 2006KJM33).

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

Vol. 21, No. 2

161

Di Li et al.: Numerical Analysis of Mindlin Shell by MLPGM

approximation function, but also forming the integration equation, MLPGM does not require a nite
element mesh, and is a truly mesh free method. Atluri, Cho et al. employed the MLPGM to deal with
4th order problems of thin beams by using this generalized moving least square interpolation[4] . Xiong
and Long discussed MLPGM for solving the bending problem of the thin plate[5] and geometrically
nonlinear problems[6] , and achieved that high accuracy and good convergence.
In this paper, MLPGM is extended to solve three-dimensional general shell problems. The computational accuracy of MLPGM for shell problems is aected by many factors, which include the dimension
of compact support domain, the dimension of quadrture domain, the number of integral cells and the
number of Gauss points. These factors sensitivity is analysed by employing the Taguchi experimental
design technology. Through analysis, we make sure which one is the most important factor and then
how to choose the above-mentioned factors. Some examples are given to verify the reliability and good
convergence of MLPGM for shell structures, compared with those obtained by the nite element method
and theoretical computation.

II. MOVING LEAST-SQUARE INTERPOLATION

The MLSI method is used for making interpolation functions. In this section the formulation of
the MLSI method is presented according to Belytschko et al.[1] . Two-dimensional eld is assumed for
modeling spatial shells. In Eq.(1), u(X) is approximated by a function uh (X)
u(X) uh (X) =

n


pi (X) ai (X) = pT (X) a(X)

(1)

i=1

where pT (X) is a basis vector and a(X) its coecient vector, n a number of terms in the polynomial
function. Higher-order polynomial functions are necessary for the analysis of shell structures in order
to avoid shear locking, and the polynomial basis adopted in this work is quartic or bi-cubic, as follows:
{1, x, y, x2 , xy, y 2 , x3 , x2 y, xy 2 , y 3 , x4 , x3 y, x2 y 2 , xy 3 , y 4 }T
(n = 15)
{1, x, y, x2 , xy, y 2 , x3 , x2 y, xy 2 , y 3 , x3 y, x2 y 2 , xy 3 , x3 y 2 , x2 y 3 , x3 y 3 }T
(n = 16)

(2)

In Eq.(1), the coecient a(X) is determined by minimizing the following weighted functional
J=

N


N


wI (r) [u (X I ) u(X I )] =
2

I=1

I=1

wI (r)

 n


2
pi (X I ) ai (X) uI

(r = |X X I |) (3)

i=1

where uI is an unknown nodal value of u(X) at a sampling

polynomial is adopted for a weight function, wI (r), which is

1 6r2 + 8r3 3r4
w(r) =
0

point X I and the following fourth-order

compact support with a center in X I .
(0 r 1)
(1 < r)

(4)

This yields the following algebraic equation for the coecient a(X)
A(X)a(X) = B(X)u

(5)

and then the approximation function uh (X) can be represented by the nodal value uI , as
h

u (X) = p (X) A
T

(X) B(X) u = (X) u =

T

N


I (X)uI

(6)

I=1

where I (X) is a component of vector (X) and corresponds to a shape function in FEM. Since this
approximation is based on the least-square method, which is not an interpolation, the displacement
uh (X) at a node X I usually does not coincide with the nodal value uI . Hence, it is dicult to impose
essential boundary conditions. In this study, the penalty method is used for imposing the essential
boundary conditions.

 162

ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA

2008

III. GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR SHELLS

The Mindlin assumptions are introduced for describing motion of shells, which are commonly used
in the formulation of the degenerated-type shell element, and during deformation the directional unit
vector remains straight and is not always normal to the mid-surface.
3.1. Geometrical Model for Shells
Figure 1 shows the geometry of a shell. The position vector of an arbitrary point in the shell is
described by using components in the convected coordinate system as
X() = X mid ( 1 , 2 ) +

3
h V 3 ( 1 , 2 )
2

(7)

where X mid is the position vector of the corresponding point at the mid-surface of shell, h is shell
thickness, V 3 is a directional unit vector which is normal to the mid-surface of the shell, and are
components of the convected coordinates.
For the general curved surface, the Cartesian coordinates of the appropriate number of sampling
points at mid-surface of the shell should be given
in advance. In the proposed formulation, the threedimensional geometry of the mid-surface of the shell
is expanded into the two-dimensional space by mapping from the Cartesian coordinate system to the
convected coordinate system, as shown in Fig.1.
Therefore, the shell can be represented by coorFig. 1 Geometrical model for shell..
dinates and shell thickness of sampling points at
mid-surface of shell.
Let
X
G1 ( 1 , 2 , 0) G2 ( 1 , 2 , 0)
Gi =
(8)
,
V3=
i

|G1 ( 1 , 2 , 0) G2 ( 1 , 2 , 0)|
Dene components of the whole coordinate system XY Z as {e1 , e2 , e3 }.
Let
V 3 e1
V2V3
,
V1 =
V2 =
|V 3 e1 |
|V 2 V 3 |

(9)

The convected coordinate system can be built by using V 1 , V 2 and V 3 , as shown in Fig.1.
3.2. Kinematic Description of Shells
In small displacement analysis, the displacement vector of an arbitrary point in the shell can be
written as follows:
3
U () = U mid ( 1 , 2 ) + h(V 2 1 + V 1 2 )
(10)
2
where 1 and 2 are physical innitesimal rotation angles about V 1 and V 2 , respectively.
The terms with regard to U mid , 1 and 2 are descretized by MLSI as described in II. Substituting
Eq.(6) into Eq.(10), the displacement can be written as

3
T

2 h(V 2 )1
0 0

u1
3
T
u2 +
T
U () =
0
0

2 h(V 2 )2
u3

T
0 0
3
h(V 2 )3 T
2

3
h(V 1 )1 T


2
1

3
h(V 1 )2 T
2
2

3
T
h(V 1 )3
2

(11)

where u1 , u2 and u3 are components of the displacement of sampling points at mid-surface, 1 and
2 are physically innitesimal rotation angles of sampling points at mid-surface about V 1 and V 2 ,
respectively, and (V i )j represents the j-th component of the vector V i .

Vol. 21, No. 2

Di Li et al.: Numerical Analysis of Mindlin Shell by MLPGM

163

3.3. Strain Description of Shells

The position vector and directional unit vector V i can be assumed to be interpolated from those
at the sampling points. Thus, they are descretized by MLSI as follows:


3
X=
I ( , ) X I + hV I3
2
I=1
K
I ( 1 , 2 )V Ii
 (i = 2, 3),
V i = I=1

K
 I=1 I ( 1 , 2 )V Ii 
K


(12)
V1 =V2V3

(13)

where V Ii is the vector V i of the I-th sampling point.

Taking spatial derivatives of U in Eq.(11), we have

T
0
0

j
u1

u2
=
0

0
j
u3

0
0
j





3

T
3
T
V 2
V 1
3
3
T
T
h(V 1 )1 j + h

2 h(V 2 )1 j 2 h j
2

2  j 1


1




3
3
T
3
T
V 2
V 1
1
3
T
T
+ h(V 2 )2 j h

)
+

h(V
h
1 2
2
2

2
j 2
2
j
2
j 2





T
T
3
3
3
3

V 2
V

1
T
T
h(V 1 )3 j + h
h(V2 )3 j h

2
j 3
2

2
j 3



u1
1
(j = 1, 2)
(14)
= {aj1 aj2 aj3 } u2 + { b1i,j b2i,j }
2

u3

1
1
h(V 2 )1 T
h(V 1 )1 T

2



2
1
1

 1
1
T
T

= c1i c2i
= h(V 2 )2
h(V 1 )2
2
2
2
12
1
T
T
h(V 2 )3
h(V 1 )3
2
2

U
j

U
3

where (V j )i is the ith component of the vector V j .

In small displacement analysis, the Green-Lagrange strain e is written as




1 U 1 U 1
1 U
U
=
e=
+
J
+
J
2 xj
xi
2 i ji
j ij

(15)

where J is the Jacobi matrix and J 1 is the inverse one of J .

Hence, substituting Eq.(14) into Eq.(15), the relation between displacement and strain is written as

,1
0
0
G11,1
G21,1

e11

u1

1
2

0
,2
0
G2,2
G2,2
e22

u2

1
2

0
0

G
G
e33
,3
3,3
3,3

u
=
= BU
e=
(16)
3
,2 ,1
2e12
0
G11,2 + G12,1 G21,2 + G22,1

0
,3 ,2 G12,3 + G13,2 G22,3 + G23,2

2e23

1
1
2
2
2e31
,3
0
,1 G1,3 + G3,1 G1,3 + G3,1
1
where ,i = J1i

T
T
1
1
1
1
+
J
, Gki,j = bki,1 J1j
+ bki,2 J2j
+ cki J3j
.
2i
1
2

 164

ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA

2008

3.4. Governing Equations for Shells

In MLPGM, the shell domain is represented by a set of arbitrarily distributed nodes. The weighted
residual method is used to create the discrete system equation. The major idea in MLPGM is, however,
that the implementation of the integral form of the weighted residual method is conned to a very small
local subdomain of a node. This means that the weak form is satised at each node in the problem
domain in a local integral sense. Therefore, the weak form is integrated over a local quadrature domain
that is independent of other domains of other nodes. This is made possible by use of the PetrovGalerkin
formulation, in which one has the freedom to choose the weight and trial functions independently.
The equation of motion in is as follows, and is the boundary of the domain .
in

ij,i + bi = 0

(17)

Essential boundary condition: ui = ui , on u

Natural boundary condition: ij nj = ti , on t
In order to start with a weighted residual form in the sense of Petrov-Galerkin, dene the weight or
T
test function V = {v1 , v2 , v3 } (in Q ), where Q is the domain of quadrature for node I, Q is the
boundary of quadrature domain Q , v1 , v2 and v3 are dened as three linear independent functions.
The strong form for a node I, based on the local weighted residual method can be stated as


(ij,i + bi )V d a
(ui ui )V d = 0
(18)
Q

Qu

where a  1 is the penalty factor, Qu = u Q is the part of the essential boundary that intersects
with the quadrature domain Q , Qt = t Q is the part of the natural boundary that intersects
with the quadrature domain Q .
The test function V can be descretized on sampling points by MLSI and described as
V (X) =

N


I (X)V I = (X) V

(19)

I=1

where (X) is the interpolation function. In this study, (X) is equivalent to (X) by MLSI.
Similar to representing strain, the spatial derivatives of the test function V can also be written as
eV = B V V

(20)

Using the divergence theorem, the following weak form can be obtained:




ij V ,i d +
ij ni V d +
(ui ui )V d = 0
b i V d a

(21)

Qu

where Q = Qi Qu Qt , Qi is the internal boundary of the quadrature domain.

Substituting Eq.(16), (19) and (20) into Eq.(21) leads to the following descrete system of linear
equations for the I-th node:
KI U = F I
(22)
where K I is a nodal stiness matrix, F I is the nodal force vector with contributions from body forces
applied in the shell domain, tractions applied on the natural boundary, as well as the penalty force
terms,



T
T
KI =
(B T
CB)d

(N
CB)d
+
a
T T d
V

u
u
Q



FI =
T t i d +
T b i d + a
T ui d
t

where N is the unit outward normal vector on

nx
NT = 0
0

the boundary,

0 0 n y 0 nz
ny 0 nx nz 0
0 n z 0 ny nx

By building K I and F I on every node, we assemble all these equations to obtain the nal global
system of equations. For the shell structure, the thickness stress 33 can be neglected. It is necessary
to build Eq.(22) of each node on the local coordinate system in order to ensure 33 = 0.

Vol. 21, No. 2

Di Li et al.: Numerical Analysis of Mindlin Shell by MLPGM

165

IV. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS

Two subdomains are involved in practical implementation of the MLPGM. One is the compact
support domain of the weighted function in MLSI, which is used to construct MLS approximation
function. The other is the quadrature domain of MLPGM. Equation (22) requires integration over this
local quadrature domain around the Ith node. Of course, the dimensions of these dierent domains
will aect the computational results. The quadrature domain is theoretically larger is best, but this
domain cannot be very large due to inaccurate integration. In MLPGM, the integration diculty is very
severe, because of the complexity of the integrand that results from the PetrovGalerkin formulation.
The integration has to be carried out via numerical quadrature schemes. In practice, the quadrature
domain often needs to be further divided into cells to improve the accuracy of the numerical integration,
and the Gauss quadrature scheme is often used to evaluate the integration for each cell. Therefore,
there will be a number of issues involved in the process, such as the number of cells and the number
of the Gauss points to be used.
The rectangular support domain and the rectangular quadrature domain for node I are dened as,
respectively,
(S dxI ) (S dyI )

(23)

(Q dxI ) (Q dyI )

(24)

where S is the dimensionless size of the rectangular support domain, Q is the dimensionless size of
the rectangular quadrature domain, dxI is the average nodal spacing in the horizontal direction between
two neighboring nodes in the vicinity of node I, and dyI is that in the vertical direction.
Thus, there are four parameters: the dimension of support domain, the dimension of the quadrature
domain, the number of cells and the number of the Gauss points, whose eects on the computational
accuracy need to be investigated. In this study, Taguchi design of experiment method[7] has been
employed to investigate the sensitivity of parameters on the computational accuracy of MLPGM for
shell structure, and these parameters involved in this study include (1) the dimensionless size of the
rectangular support domain S , (2) the dimensionless size of the rectangular quadrature domain Q ,
(3) the number of cells CN , (4) the number of the Gauss points GN .
The employed practical example is a barrel
vault roof, a famous benchmark problem for the
analysis of shells. Figure 2 shows an analysis model
and boundary conditions[8, 9] . The two edges of the
roof are diaphragm supported and the body force
is applied. Above-mentioned four parameters S ,
Q , CN , GN have been treated as four factors of
Taguchi experimental design, and their selected
levels are listed in Table 1. Each factor has three
levels, and these factor levels cover the typical
values which have been selected through preparatory computation. The converged solution of the
Fig. 2 Analysis model of barrel vault roof.
B point vertical displacement is 0.0938784, which
is used as the performance index to assess the computational accuracy, as follows:
|0.0938784 DB |
100
0.0938784
is the computational result of B point vertical displacement.
=

where DB

Table 1. Factors and their levels

factors
A(S )
B(Q )

levels
1
4
3

2
5
5

3
6
6

factors
C(CN )
D(GN )

levels
1
2
3

2
4
5

3
6
7

 166

ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA

2008

In Eq.(18), the essential boundary condition is

imposed by the penalty method. We note that a
smaller penalty factor may result in the absence of
constraints, and a larger one may wast too much
computation time. Usually, it is suggested to use
= 10N Youngs modulus, where N is an integer number[10] . The barrel vault roof has been
used to investigate how the penalty factor aects
the computational results. Some of the obtained
analysis results are illustrated in Fig.3. It follows
from Fig.3 that the computational accuracy is very
low for N < 4, and becomes enough accurate af- Fig. 3 Analysis results of the barrel vault roof with respect to
ter N exceeds 4. Furthermore, the computational the penalty factor.
accuracy is no longer able to be further improved once N > 13. Therefore, we suggest the penalty factor
to be = 10412 Youngs modulus. In this paper, N is chosen as 8.
During the analysis, the bi-cubic basis function for MLSI and 77 regular nodal arrangements in
the convected coordinate system have been employed. Experiments of four factors with three levels give
nine degrees of freedom, so that a minimum of nine tests is required to investigate the factor eect on
the computational accuracy. The L9 orthogonal array is chosen from the standard orthogonal array
table[7] . Table 2 shows the matrix experiment of L9 orthogonal array and the simulation results. The
number for each column means a level number for each factor. In this study only the individual eort of
each factor on computational accuracy was investigated, without considering the interactions between
factors.
Table 2 is the response table. In table 2, performance index is the response data, and S/N ratio is the
signal-to-noise ratio. The S/N ratio can be computed with 10 log(2 ). The response tables show the
average of the S/N ratio for each level of the factors, and Delta statistics, which compare the relative
magnitude of eects, can be computed as the highest average of S/N ratio for each factor minus the
lowest for each factor. Figure 4 is the main eects plot for S/N ratios, which shows the factor-eects
on the variation of the S/N.
From the response tables and main eects plots for the S/N ratios we can see which factors have
the greatest eect on S/N ratio. Here, the factor with the biggest inuence on the S/N ratio is factor
B, Q (Delta = 8.2952), the dimensionless size of the quadrature domains. It is clear that a change
of the level of factor B causes a large variation of the performance index. Hence, eects of factor Q
on computational precise is largest, whereas eects of other factors are a little small. Under current
computational conditions, the magnitude of eects on computational accuracy can be arranged, with
descending order, as Q , S , GN , CN . Furthermore, from main eects plot for S/N ratio and Table
Table 2. Experimental scheme and results

Exp. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
level 1
level 2
level 3
Delta

levels assignment of factors

A
B
C
D
(Q )
(CN )
(GN )
(S )
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
1
3.9858 0.9751 4.7024 5.6316
3.3302 0.7708 2.4844 3.1711
3.4959 9.0660 3.6250 2.0091
0.6556
8.2952
2.2179
3.6225

Perfor.
index
%
1.6755
0.9550
2.4757
0.7931
1.3406
2.9709
1.0538
1.0193
3.1139

S/N
ratio
(dB)
4.4830
0.3997
7.8740
2.0130
2.5457
9.4578
0.4552
0.1663
9.8660

Vol. 21, No. 2

Di Li et al.: Numerical Analysis of Mindlin Shell by MLPGM

Fig. 4. The factor-eects on the variation of the S/N

ration.

167

Fig. 5. Convergence of Q , CN and GN .

2, three levels of Q have the very similar average S/N ratio, so eects on S/N ratios have relatively
small variation.
According to the Taguchi method, levels for the largest S/N ratio are always the optimal levels,
whether the design goal is Larger is best or Smaller is best. From Fig.4, the optimal combination of
the preparation levels is A2 B2 C2 D3 , which means, in Table 2, S = 5, Q = 5, CN = 4, and GN = 7.
Due to the limitation of levels of factors, the optimal combination of levels must be investigated in
more detail. Analysis model of the barrel vault roof is used and 99 regular nodes have been employed.
Some of the obtained analysis results are illustrated in Fig.5. Computational conditions are S = 5,
Q = 5, CN = 4 and GN = 5. When investigating eects of a factor, the others keep unchanged. For
example, while analyzing convergence of the quadrature domain, Q changes from 1 to 8, S , GN and
CN keep above-mentioned values. From Fig.5, it can be observed that computational accuracy of the
analysis model is very good when Q = 5, CN 4 and GN 4.

V. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
5.1. EXAMPLE 1. A Barrel Vault Roof
This shell problem is illustrated in Fig.2. The total number of nodes is 55, Fig.6 shows regular
and irregular nodal arrangements in the convected coordinate system. The displacements along AB
and the horizontal displacement along the support edge have been computed, as shown in Figs.7 and 8.
The results by MLPGM agree with the converged solution very well, even in the case where irregular
nodal arrangement is utilized. The convergence by MLPGM is excellent in comparison with the results
by FEM[9] , as shown in Fig.9.

Fig. 7. Vertical displacement along AB.

Fig. 6. Nodal arrangement.

 168

ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA

Fig. 8. Horizontal displacement along support edge.

2008

Fig. 9. Convergence of vertical displacement at B.

5.2. EXAMPLE 2. A Pinched Cylinder

This is one of the benchmark tests to evaluate if the shell can represent inextensional bending
modes and complex membrane states. The nite length circular cylinder with diaphragms in its ends
is subjected to concentrated pinching loads, P =1. The geometry and the material property used in
the analysis are illustrated in Fig.10. The 1/8 model is analysed due to symmetry. From Fig.11, the
convergence rate of results by MLPGM is relatively slow in comparision with those by FEM[9] , when
the number of nodes is less than 100. Reversely, with more than 100 nodes, better results are obtained.

Fig. 10. Analysis model of a pinches cylinder.

Fig. 11. Convergence of central displacement.

5.3. EXAMPLE 3. Clamped a Quadratic Thick Shell

Although this is originally a geometrically and
materially non-linear problem found in the literature[11],
only linear analysis is conducted in this study. The
moderately thick shell, the geometry of which is
dened by a quadratic polynomial function, is subjected to a concentrated load P =4 at its center and
all the boundaries are clamped. The analysis model
is shown in Fig.12 and 1/4 model is used for this
analysis due to symmetry.
The distributions of vertical displacement along
the centerline are shown in Fig.13 in comparison
with the converged solution. All the results by the
Fig. 12 Analysis model of clamped quadratic shell.
MLPGM almost agree with the converged solution, except only the displacement at the loading point
in the coarse computing model (the total number of nodes is 36). The converged solution at the center

Vol. 21, No. 2

Di Li et al.: Numerical Analysis of Mindlin Shell by MLPGM

Fig. 13. Vertical displacement along the center line.

169

Fig. 14. Convergence of vertical displacement at center.

is 0.0106, which is used to normalize the results in Fig.14. As shown in Fig.14, the analysis results of
the present MLPGM show excellent convergence, even when a linear basis is adopted.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method (MLPGM) for solving Mindlin shells was
presented and discussed. The MLPGM is a truly meshless one without need of nite element or boundary
element mesh. The method used the moving least-squares approximation to interpolate the solution
variables, and employed a local weak form. The factors eects on the computational accuracy of the
present MLPGM for shells are investigated with the Taguchi experimental design method. These factors
include the support domain of MSLI, the quadrature domain of the MLPGM, cells and the number of
the Gauss points. It is found out that the dimension of the quadrature domain produces the largest
inuence on the computational accuracy of the present MLPGM for shells. The optimum combination
of these factors is put forth according the analysis. Numerical examples show high accuracy and quick
convergence of the present method, compared with those by the nite element method and theoretical
computation. However, the computational accuracy in the coarse nodes must be improved in some class
of problems. It should be noted that a further investigation is required on how to approximate a surface
shell better by making scattered points parameterization, such as the approximation of the boundary
and the normal vector of shell.

References
[1] Krysl,P. and Belytschko,T., Analysis of thin shells by the element-free Galerkin method. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 1996, 33: 3057-3080.
[2] Noguchi,H., Kawashima,T. and Miyamura,T., Element free analysis of shell and spatial structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2000, 47: 1215-1240.
[3] Atluri,S.N. and Zhu,T., A new meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) approach in computational mechanics. Computational Mechanics, 1998, 22(1): 117-127.
[4] Atluri,S.N., Cho,J.Y. and Kim,H.G., Analysis of thin beams, using the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin
method, with generalized moving least squares interpolation. Computational Mechanics, 1999, 24(4): 334347.
[5] Xiong,Y.B. and Long,S.Y., Local Petrov-Galerkin method for a thin plate. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 2004, 25(2): 189-196 (in Chinese).
[6] Xiong,Y.B., Long,S.Y., Hu,D.A. and Li,G.Y., A meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method for geometrically
nonlinear problems. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 2005, 18(4): 348-356.
[7] Phadke,M.S., Quality Engineering using Robust Design. Prentice-Hall International Editions, 1989.
[8] Timoshenko,S., Theory of Plates and Shells. McGraw-HillBook Company, Inc, 1959.
[9] Simo,J.C., Fox,D.D. and Rifai,M.S., On a stress resultant geometrically exact shell modelPart II, The
linear theory; Computational aspects. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1989, 73:
53-92.
[10] Liu,G.R., Meshfree Methods Moving beyond the Finite Element method. CRC Press, 2003.
[11] Hinton,E. and Owen,D.R.J., Finite Element Software for Plate and Shells. Swansea: Pineridge Press, 1984.