Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78

Numerical simulation on solidification and thermal stress of

continuous casting billet in mold based on meshless methods
Lei Zhang a,∗ , Hou-Fa Shen b , Yiming Rong a , Tian-You Huang b
a Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Rd. Worcester, MA 01609, United States
b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

Received 20 June 2006; received in revised form 7 February 2007; accepted 27 February 2007

Abstract
An integrated meshless thermal–mechanical analysis system is developed with a meshless solidification model based on Finite Point Method
(FPM) and the Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method based elastic–plastic analysis model. The system is applied to simulate the
solidification process and the thermal stress of continuous casting billet in mold. The results were consistent with the measurement and well
explained the characteristics of stress and strain distribution and the formation mechanism of the off-corner defects. The computational accuracy
was as good as when finite element method (FEM) was used, while taking advantage of rapid computation as well as flexible and dynamic node
distribution. A large deformation case is presented in this paper, which was solved by employing Lagrange description in the MLPG scheme.
The results show the potential crack problem due to the incorrect cooling and reduction parameters in continuous casting production. These
observations show that meshless method could be a powerful numerical analysis tool for the study of continuous casting processes, especially in
solving mechanical reduction production with large deformation and crack problems.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Meshless method; Numerical simulation; Solidification; Thermal elastic–plastic; Continuous casting; Large deformation

1. Introduction In these methods, a localized domain, where the partial differ-

Continuous casting is globally one of the most noted pro-
cesses of steelmaking and plays the leading role in steel industry
in many countries. During continuous casting, heat transfer,
metal solidification and stress–strain evolution in the solid shell
in continuous casting mold will directly affect the production
quality, and even contribute to the crack formation in the mold
[1,2]. Continuous casting is operated at high temperature above
the steel melting point. Therefore, the measurement of tem-
perature and stress is almost impossible. A full-scale physical
simulation is also very difficult and expensive.
Based on intensive research in the area, the physical phenom-
ena of heat transfer with solidification and stress–strain evolution
can be described by the mathematically model, which normally
is represented by a set of differential or partial differential equa-
tions. The temperature and stress are the unknown variables to
be solved by using numerical methods, such as finite difference
method (FDM) and finite element method (FEM) [2,3].
∗ mation and crack problems often happen in continuous casting
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 508 831 5825; fax: +1 508 831 6412.
E-mail address: lzhang@wpi.edu (L. Zhang).
ential governing equations are defined, is often discretized into
meshes. A mesh is defined as any of the open spaces or inter-
stices between the stands of a net that is formed by connecting
nodes in a predefined manner. By using a properly predefined
mesh with relationships among nodes, the differential equations
can be approximated by a set of algebraic equations for the mesh.
The system of algebraic equations for the whole problem domain
can be formed by assembling sets of algebraic equations for all
the meshes [4].
Mesh is the basis of FDM and FEM, but it also limits
the future development of the methods. For example, FDM
heavily relies on the construction of evenly distributed grids.
Therefore, it may not be very effective in providing solutions to
the treatment of complex boundary conditions. On the contrary,
FEM is better in dealing with the complex boundary condition
problems, but with other limitations, such as the mesh distortion
in solving large-scale deformation problem, and tedious
adaptive and interactive re-meshing in the simulation of crack
growth with arbitrary and complex paths. Large-scale defor-
processes and need to be predicted accurately before a process

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.02.103
72 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78

is designed. To satisfy this requirement, meshless method,
which has been studied since 20 years ago, may have some
advantages and need to be studied for a successful application
in simulating the continuous casting processes. The meshless
method constructs the approximation entirely in terms of nodes.
Therefore, meshing is not needed, where the non-connectivity
concept is involved [4]. It also means that it is not necessary
to have relationships between nodes, which helps adding or
deleting points, or nodes, whenever and wherever needed. It
is advantageous in solving large-scale deformation and crack
extension problems [4]. For this reason, meshless method may
have a great future in the simulation of continuous casting.
Meshless method uses a set of nodes scattered both inside
the solution domain and on the boundaries to represent the
problem domain and its boundaries. The first step of meshless
method is to construct the approximation of the unknown func-
tion based on these points. An interpolation method (e.g., the
Moving Least-Square, MLS, method) can be used to minimize
the error between the approximation and the real value. Then the
unknown function is replaced by the approximation with resid-
ual differences from the governing equations and the boundary
conditions. Finally, the problem is solved by minimizing the inte-
gral (strong form) or the step integral (weak form) of weighted
residual over the entire domain and boundary.
There are more than 10 meshless methods or schemes have
been developed and some of them are listed in Table 1. The clas-
sification of meshless methods is normally based on the how the
approximation of the unknown field function is constructed, i.e.,
the choice of test function, and the system equation to be solved.
Among these meshless methods, when the background cell
integral is needed, the complexity and difficulty of the solu-
tion will be grandly increased. Smooth particle hydrodynamics
method does not need the background cell integral, but it is par-
ticularly effective in solving unbounded problems [6]. The Finite
Point Method (FPM) [7,8] and Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin
(MLPG) method [9,10] are the real meshless methods that only
need nodes.
FPM is relatively easy to implement. However, the numerical
stability could be an issue. For non-self adjoint problems, such
as occurring in fluid mechanics, special treatment is needed to
stabilize the numerical approximation. In heat transfer problem,
the Neumann boundary condition is convection-dominated and
may lead to inaccuracy and instability problems when solving
the equations of substituting the approximation with the arbi-
trary use of the weighting function into a non-symmetric finite
difference format of the derivative of the temperature. There-
fore, the special treatment is needed to stabilize the problem.
The same stabilization scheme for the thermal elastic–plastic
problem does not work well. Compared with FPM, MLPG is
not easy to implement, but it is more accurate and stable. Fur-
thermore, with MLPG the same discretized model can be used
as that of FPM. Therefore, the temperature results from FPM
can be directly added on the same points as the thermal loads
to solve the elastic–plastic problem. In this paper, an integrated
meshless thermal–mechanical analysis system is developed with
an FPM based solidification model and an MLPG based ther-
mal elastic–plastic model to simulate heat transfer, solidification
and thermal stress–strain evolution of continuous casting billet
in mold. And the predicted results of the system showed con-
sistency with the measurement and reasonable characteristics of
stress and strain distribution as well as the formation mechanism
of the off-corner defects. Meanwhile, the same accuracy as that
of FEM can be achieved with potential applications to the cases
not suitable for FEM.
2. Model development
An integrated meshless thermal–mechanical analysis system
has been developed. The meshless scheme for the solidification
analysis is developed based on FPM, and the Neumann boundary
conditions are modified based on Onate stabilization method.
Then a meshless scheme for solving the elasto-plastic thermal
stress is built based on MLPG. The system is used to simulate
the solidification process and the thermal stress of continuous
casting billet in mold.
2.1. Shape function and its derivatives
Moving Least-Square method [11] is used to construct the
shape functions. First, let the approximation of unknown func-

Table 1
Meshless methods [4,5]
Method System equation Method of function Need background cell Need integral
to be solved approximation

Diffuse element method Weak form MLS approximation, Galerkin Yes Yes
method
Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method Weak form MLS approximation, Galerkin Yes Yes
method
Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) method Local weak form MLS approximation, No Yes
Petrov-Galerkin method
Finite Point Method (FPM) Strong form Finite differential representation No No
(Taylor series), MLS
Smooth particle hydrodynamics Strong form Integral representation No No
Reproducing kernel particle method Strong form or Integral representation (RKPM) Yes Yes
weak form
hp-Clouds Weak form Partition of unity, MLS Yes Yes
Partition of unity FEM Weak form Partition of unity, MLS Yes Yes
 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78 73

tion u(x) be defined as with A−1 −1 −1

,ij = A A,j A A,i A
−1
− A−1 A,ij A−1 +
m −1 −1 −1
 A A,i A A,j A .
h
u(x) ≈ u (x) = pI (x)aI (x) ≡ pT (x)a(x) (1) The MLS approximation, Eq. (9), can be used in different
I=1 meshless methods, such as FPM, MLPG, and EFG, to replace
where pI (x) is complete monomial basis function of order m, the unknown field functions in the corresponding meshless
and aI (x) is undetermined coefficient as a function of the space formulas. The shape functions and their derivatives of MLS
coordinates x = [x1 , x2 , x3 ]T . approximation are known and can be calculated by using Eqs.
By using MLS method, a(x) is determined by minimizing a (10.1) and (10.2). Therefore, solving the unknown field func-
weighed discrete L2 error norm tion becomes to solve for û. The unknown field functions are the
 temperature functions in heat transfer problem and displacement
 2
J(x) = wI (x) pT (xI )a(x) − ûI = [Pa − û]T W[Pa − û] functions in stress–strain analysis case. Solving the equilibrium
I equations for û and replacing it in Eq. (9) will finally lead to
(2) obtain the unknown field functions.
where wI (x) is the weight function of node I with compact sup-
port [9,12], ûI is the unknown nodal value. The matrices P and 2.2. Solidification model
W are defined as
⎡ T ⎤ The steady-state condition is assumed in the calculation of
p (x1 ) the heat transfer and solidification process of continuous cast-
⎢ pT (x ) ⎥ ing billet in mold. Fig. 1a is the section view of the continuous
⎢ 2 ⎥
P =⎢ ⎥ (3) casting billet process. It can be simplified as 2D cast billet slice
⎣ ··· ⎦
moving along the casting direction. At different heights, differ-
pT (xn ) n×m ent fluxes at the boundary are determined by the water cooling
⎡ ⎤ capacity. The 2D computational model of the problem is shown
w1 (x) · · · 0
⎢ ⎥ in Fig. 1b, with coordinate axes x in thickness, y in width, and z
W = ⎣ ··· ··· ··· ⎦ (4) in casting direction.
0 · · · wn (x) If enthalpy H of the material is known, the energy equilibrium
equation in continuous casting process can be expressed as,
and
∂H ∂T
ûT = [û1 , û2 , . . . , ûn ] (5) k∇ 2 T = Vρ (11)
∂T ∂z
Then J(x) can be minimized by setting the derivative of J(x) with where T is the temperature, V the casting speed, ρ the density, k
respect to a equal to zero the thermal conductivity and H is the enthalpy function.
∂J And on the surface of the strand, i.e., the boundaries of the
= 2P T W [Pa − û] = 0 (6) solution domain in Fig. 1b, the heat flux boundary condition is
∂a
∂T
solving this for a −k + qn = 0 (12)
∂n
−1
a=A Bû (7) where n is the normal vector to the boundary, qn is the known
where, heat flux at the boundaries and determined by the cooling water
in mold.
A = P T WP, B = P TW (8) At meniscus, the temperature is initialized by
Then replacing a in Eq. (1) leads to T |z=0 = Tpour (13)
uh (x) = (pT A−1 B)û = ΦT û (9) where Tpour is the pouring temperature.
FPM is employed to solve the energy equation with specific
where  are called the shape functions of the MLS approxima- boundary conditions of the continuous casting billet in mold.
tion. The solution area (see Fig. 1b) is discretized into nodes, i.e., a
The first derivative of the shape function is obtained as [13] series of points or nodes are scattered both inner the area and on
ΦT,i = pT,i A−1 B + pT A−1 T −1
,i B + p A B,i (10.1) the boundary, as shown in Fig. 2b. Eqs. (11)–(13) can be directly
solved on these points and the following equations are obtained
withA−1 −1 −1 ⎧
,i = −A A,k A .And the second derivative is, ⎪ ∂H ∂TI
⎪
⎪ k∇ 2 TI − Vρ = 0, I ∈ Ω
⎪
⎨ ∂T I ∂z
ΦT,ij = pT,ij A−1 B + pT,i A−1 T −1 T −1
,j B + p,i A B,j + p,j A,i B ∂TI I = 1, 2, . . . , N
⎪
⎪ −k + qn = 0, I ∈ Γ
+pT A−1 T −1 T −1
,ij B + p A,i B,j + p,j A B,i
⎪
⎪
⎩
∂n
TI |z=0 − Tpour = 0
+pT A−1 T −1
,j B,i + p A B,ij (10.2) (14)
74 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78

Fig. 1. Schematics of continuous casting billet process. (a) Physical model; (b) computational model.

where N is the total number of points or nodes, Ω the solution above FPM solidification scheme, and show the better accuracy
area, Γ is the heat flux boundary. of the scheme.
The MLS approximation function of TI and their derivatives
(see Eqs. (10.1) and (10.2) are substituted into Eq. (4). Besides 2.3. Deformation and stress model
this, a stabilization item [8] is added to the Neumann boundary
condition. Then the final FPM formulas of the solidification The deformation and stress–strain of the solid shell in con-
problem in continuous casting become tinuous casting billet in mold can be obtained from the thermal
⎧ elastic–plastic stress–strain relations and the boundary condi-
h
⎪
⎪
⎪ k∇ 2 T h − Vρ ∂H ∂TI = 0, I ∈Ω tions based on small deformation theory. In the 2D strand slice
⎪
⎪ I
∂TI ∂z
⎨ (Fig. 2), the stress–strain evolution problem is governed by the
∂TIh h I = 1, 2, . . . , N following equations [3]
⎪
⎪
⎪ −k + qn − k∇ 2 TIh = 0, I ∈ Γ
⎪
⎪ ∂n 2 Equilibrium equation:
⎩ h
TI |z=0 − Tpour = 0
(15) σij,j + bi = 0 in Ω (16.1)

where TIh is the MLS approximation (9) of TI , and h is the Force boundary condition:
characteristic length [7,8]. σij nj − t̄i = 0 on Γt (16.2)
Compared with other meshless method, the FPM scheme is
easy to implement, and with high accuracy by employing stabi- Displacement boundary condition:
lization item. In Fig. 3, a solidification problem is solved by the
above FPM scheme. The results are verifying the validity of the ui = ūi on Γu (16.3)

Fig. 2. Shape, sizes and nodes discretization in the solution area (qtr.). (a) Geometry model; (b) discretized model.
 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78 75

Fig. 3. Verification of the FPM scheme by solving solidification problem. (a) 1-D solidification problem (Stefan problem); (b) FPM predicted solid front results vs.
the exact solution.

where σ ij is the stress tensor, bi the known body force in Ω, in the solid shell in continuous casting in mold
and ( ),i denotes ∂( )/∂xi . t̄i and ūi are the prescribed tractions
and displacements, on the traction boundary Γ t and on the dis- K · uh = F = F 0 + F 1 + F 2 (19)
placement boundary Γ u , respectively, and ni is the unit outward
where
normal to the boundary Γ .   
Von Mises yielding criterion and the Prandtl-reuss flow
KIJ = εv DBJ dΩ + α vSΦJ dΓ − vNDSBJ dΓ
rule are used to establish the stress–strain relations. In elastic Ωs Γsu Γsu
deformation range, the relation of stress increment and strain (20.1)
increment is
 
σ = De (ε − ε̃T ) (17.1) FI0 = vt̄ dΓ + α vS ū dΓ (20.2)
Γst Γsu
And in plastic deformation range, is  
FI1 = εv D ε̃T dΩ − vNDS ε̃T dΓ (20.3)
σ = Dep (ε − ε̃T ) + σ̃T (17.2) Ωs Γst
 
where σ is the total stress increment, ε the total strain incre-
ment, De the elastic stiffness matrix, Dep the elastic–plastic FI2 = vNS σ̃ T dΓ − εv σ̃ T dΩ (20.4)
Γst Ωs
stiffness matrix, ε̃T the thermal strain increment, and σ̃T
is the thermal stress increment [14]. with I, J = 1, 2, . . ., N, where D is the stiffness matrix, and in the
Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin method is used to solve the corresponding deformation range it needs to be replaced by De or
above problem. By using the generalized local weak form of Dep , N the unit outward normal matrix, BJ the derivatives matrix
the governing Eq. (16.1) over the local sub-domain Ωs , which from the MLS approximation, and S is the boundary condition
is conveniently taken to be a circle centered at a point x, and definition matrix [9,10].
with a penalty parameter α  1 is used to impose the essential
boundary condition and the divergence theorem to impose the
natural boundary condition, the MLPG formula of Eqs. (16) are
then obtained
  
εv σ dΩ + α uv dΓ − vt dΓ
Ωs Γsu Γsu
  
= vt̄ dΓ + α vū dΓ + vb dΩ (18)
Γst Γsu Ωs

where u and v are the trial and test function vectors, respectively,
εv denotes the strain matrix from the test functions and σ denotes
the stress vector from the trial functions, and Γ su is a part of
the boundary ∂Ωs of Ωs , over which the essential boundary
conditions are specified. Γ st is a part of ∂Ωs , over which the
natural boundary conditions are specified, as shown in Fig. 4.
The nodal model (Fig. 2b) can be applied, Eq. (9) is sub-
stituted into Eq. (18) for all nodes to approximate u, and the
thermal elastic–plastic relationship in Eq. (17) between stress
and strain is imposed into Eq. (18). This leads to the following
MLPG discretized system of the thermal elastic–plastic problem Fig. 4. Schematics of the MLPG method [9].
76 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78

Table 2
Production parameters
Size of the mold (mm) 115 × 115

Radius of fillet (mm) 8

Meniscus (mm) 100
Length of mold (mm) 700
Casting speed (m/min) 2.3
Carbon percentage of steel (wt%) 0.16
Pouring temperature (◦ C) 1520

3. Results and discussion

The heat transfer and solidification as well as the stress–strain

evolution in the solid shell in continuous casting billet in mold
were calculated by using the meshless model. Fig. 2a shows the
geometry of the mold. Evenly distributed nodes are dispersed
in the solution area. The space step is set to be 1.2 mm with
total 2395 points defined as shown in Fig. 2b. Table 2 shows the
production parameters.
Seven points, with two in the corner and five on the surface
of the strand (see Fig. 2a), are checked for temperature profiles.
The results are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the cooling
rates of the points on the surface of the strand are obviously
higher than that of the points in the inner corner of the strand.
Heat is quickly extracted from the surface of the strand to
solidify and form a shell. And the results of the thickness of the
solidified shell at corner versus the distance from the menis-
cus are plotted in Fig. 6 together with the FEM results and
measurements for comparison [15].
Fig. 7. Isotherm plots at mold exit (temperature unit: ◦ C).
Relative error of the FPM predictions is less than 20%. And
it can be seen in Fig. 6 that the FPM model results match well
with the FEM results. And the same observation is seen in the
isotherm results at mold exit as shown in Fig. 7.
The predicted average thickness of the solid shell at mold
exit shown in Fig. 7 is around 10 mm, which also agreed with
the results calculated based on classic solidification square-root
law [16].
Different cooling rates at different position may generate ther-
mal stress. Points at corner cool down more quickly than at other
positions. Therefore, at these positions higher thermal stresses
may be obtained. That can be seen in Fig. 8, which plots the
Mises equivalent stress variation versus the distance from the
meniscus.
The Mises equivalent stress and Mises equivalent strain dis-
tribution at mold exit is shown in Fig. 9a and b, respectively.
It shows that the thermal stress concentration at corner due to
the highest cooling rates there. Deformation occurs in the initial
solid shell with the plastic deforming first and followed by elas-
tic deforming as the temperature further goes down. The solid
shell continues cooling and shrinking, this results in the stress
concentration at the corner zone which quickly features strong
elasticity and is hard to deform. Finally, large deformation is

Fig. 5. Cooling curves of the different points.

Fig. 6. The thickness of the corner variation vs. the distance from the meniscus. Fig. 8. Mises equivalent stress variations vs. the distance from the meniscus.
 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78 77

Fig. 9. Contour plots of the predicted stress and strain at mold exit. (a) Mises equivalent Stress (MPa); (b) Mises equivalent strain.

Fig. 10. Contour plots of the predicted temperature and displacement at the last reduction step (reduction: 12 mm). (a) Temperature; (b) displacement, x; (c)
displacement, y.

Fig. 11. Contour plots of the predicted stress and strain at the last reduction step (reduction: 12 mm). (a) Mises equivalent stress (MPa); (b) Mises equivalent strain.
78 L. Zhang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 466 (2007) 71–78
generated at the off-corner zone where the temperature is higher
and is in the well-plastic deformation range to release part of
the stress. This can be seen in Fig. 9b and well explains why the
permanent deformation often happens at the off-corner zone.
The calculated results also agree with the characteristics of the
stress–strain distribution and the formation mechanism of the
off-corner defects.
Compared with FEM method, the meshless scheme will take
advantage of rapid computation as well as flexible and dynamic
node distribution when solving large deformation problem. By
employing Lagrange strain description method [14], the scheme
shown in Eq. (19) can be used to solve the large deformation
problem. The predicted results of the deformation, stress, strain
of a solidified billet, which suffered a 12 mm reduction at the
end of solidification, are plotted in Figs. 10 and 11.
The billet section is 280 mm × 380 mm, it iss water cooled,
and Fig. 10a shows the isotherm results at the end of reduction.
And when the billet was almost solidified, it suffered a 12 mm
mechanical reduction, Fig. 10b and c shows the deformation
results in x and y direction compared with the original shape.
The Mises equivalent stress and strain results are plotted in
Fig. 11. The stress concentration and stress value at the corner of
the billet is in a very high level, which indicates that the corner
is the crack-sensitive zone during reduction, and reduction rate
need to be redesigned.
4. Conclusions
The meshless method is investigated with application to
the simulation of continuous casting. An integrated meshless
thermal–mechanical analysis system for continuous casting pro-
cess is built up, which includes:
• the meshless solidification model based on Finite Point
Method;
• the meshless thermal elastic–plastic analysis model based on
Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin.
The system is applied to simulate solidification and thermal
stress of continuous casting billet in mold. The results are con-
sistent with the measurement and agree with the characteristics
of stress–strain distribution and the formation mechanism of the
off-corner defects, with the same accuracy as that of FEM can
be achieved.
Compared with FEM method, the meshless scheme will take
advantage of rapid computation as well as flexible and dynamic
node distribution when solving large deformation problem. The
deformation and stress, strain evolution of a solidified casting
billet, which suffered a 12 mm mechanical reduction, was solved
by employing Lagrange description in the MLPG scheme. The
results show the potential crack problem due to the incorrect
cooling and reduction parameters in continuous casting pro-
duction. These observations show that meshless method is a
potential numerical analysis tool for the analysis of the contin-
uous casting process.
References
[1] I.V. Samarasekera, J.K. Brimacombe, Steelmaking Conf. Proc. 74 (1991)
55–67.
[2] B.G. Thomas, in: J. Dantzig, A. Greenwell, J. Michalczyk (Eds.), The
Encyclopedia of Advanced Materials, vol. 2, Pergamon Elsevier Science
Ltd., Oxford, UK, 1999.
[3] Y. Gan, S.T. Chou, Z.Q. Xiao, Modeling and Simulation of Continuous
Casting Process of Steel, Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing, China, 2001
(in Chinese).
[4] G.R. Liu, Meshfree Methods: Moving beyond the Finite Element Method,
CRC Press, 2002.
[5] X. Zhang, Y. Liu, Meshless Methods, Tsinghua Press and Springer, Beijing,
China, 2004 (in Chinese).
[6] L. Lucy, The Astron. J. 8 (1977) 1013–1024.
[7] E. Onate, S. Idelsohn, O.C. Zienkiewics, R.L. Taylor, Int. J. Numer. Meth-
ods Eng. 39 (1996) 3839–3866.
[8] E. Onate, S. Idelsohn, O.C. Zienkiewics, R.L. Taylor, S. Sacco, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 139 (1996) 315–346.
[9] S.N. Atluri, T. Zhu, Comput. Mech. 22 (1998) 117–127.
[10] S.N. Atluri, T. Zhu, Comput. Mech. 25 (2000) 169–179.
[11] P. Lancaster, K. Salkauskas, Math. Comput. 37 (1981) 141–158.
[12] T. Belytschko, Y. Krongauz, D. Organ, M. Fleming, P. Krysl, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 139 (1996) 3–47.
[13] T. Belytschko, Y.Y. Lu, L. Gu, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 37 (1994)
229–256.
[14] X.Q. Kong, Application of FEM in Heat Transfer Process, Science Press,
Beijing, 1998 (in Chinese).
[15] E.G. Wang, J.G. He, Z.K. Yang, H.G. Chen, ACTA Metall. Sin. 35 (1999)
433–438 (in Chinese).
[16] L. Zhang, Numerical simulation on solidification and thermal stress of
solid shell in continuous casting mold based on meshless method, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 2004 (in Chinese).