1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0955-7997(97)00055-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Power iterative multiple reciprocity boundary element method for solving three-dimensional Helmholtz eigenvalue problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1992) and the multiple reciprocity method (MRM) (Kamiya & Andoh 1993;Nowak & Brebbia 1989;Nowak & Neves 1994) have been widely used. One advantage of the MRM, which uses the Laplace-type fundamental solution, is that only real-valued computation is needed (Itagaki & Brebbia 1993Itagaki et al 1997). Therefore, the MRM is indeed no more than the real part of the complex-valued formulation (Kamiya et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1992) and the multiple reciprocity method (MRM) (Kamiya & Andoh 1993;Nowak & Brebbia 1989;Nowak & Neves 1994) have been widely used. One advantage of the MRM, which uses the Laplace-type fundamental solution, is that only real-valued computation is needed (Itagaki & Brebbia 1993Itagaki et al 1997). Therefore, the MRM is indeed no more than the real part of the complex-valued formulation (Kamiya et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the Helmholtz eigenvalue problem with a simply connected domain, the dual reciprocity method (DRM) (Silva & Venturini 1988) and the multiple reciprocity method (MRM) (Kamiya & Andoh 1993;Nowak & Neves 1994;Nowak & Brebbia 1989) have been widely used recently. One advantage of the MRM using the Laplacetype fundamental solution is that only real-valued computation is used instead of the MRM using the Helmholtz-type fundamental solution (Itagaki & Brebbia 1993Itagaki et al . 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different to finite element approaches which require a discretization of the computational domain Ω, the use of boundary integral formulations and boundary element methods to solve the eigenvalue problem needs only a discretization of the boundary Γ. For the discretization of the boundary integral eigenvalue problem collocation schemes [4,5,14,16,17,22,27,29] and Galerkin methods [6,7,31,34] are considered. Both methods yield algebraic nonlinear eigenvalue problems where the matrix entries are transcendental functions with respect to the eigenparameter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%