New RBF collocation methods and kernel RBF with
applications
W. Chen
Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1080, Blindern, 0316
Oslo, Norway
Abstract. A few novel radial basis function (RBF) discretization schemes for partial
differential equations are developed in this study. For boundary-type methods, we
derive the indirect and direct symmetric boundary knot methods. Based on the multiple
reciprocity principle, the boundary particle method is introduced for general
inhomogeneous problems without using inner nodes. For domain-type schemes, by
using the Green integral we develop a novel Hermite RBF scheme called the modified
Kansa method, which significantly reduces calculation errors at close-to-boundary
nodes. To avoid Gibbs phenomenon, we present the least square RBF collocation
scheme. Finally, five types of the kernel RBF are also briefly presented.

1. Introduction
Many existing meshfree methods require using the moving least square (MLS).
Exceptionally, the numerical schemes based on the radial basis function (RBF)
do not need the MLS at all and are inherently meshfree. For some new
advances on the RBF see Buhmann’s excellent survey [1]. The RBF has
physical backgrounds of field and potential theory [2] and is justified
mathematically by integral equation theory [3]. Among RBF numerical
schemes, famous are the Kansa method [4], Hermite symmetric RBF
collocation method [5,6] and the method of fundamental solution (MFS) [7].
The Kansa’s method is the very first domain-type RBF collocation scheme
with easy-to-use merit, but the method lacks symmetric interpolation matrix
due to boundary collocation. The Hermite RBF collocation method kills the
unsymmetrical drawback. Like the Kansa’s method, however, the method
suffers relatively lower accuracy in boundary-adjacent region. The MFS, also
known as the regular BEM, is a simple and efficient boundary-type RBF
scheme, but the controversial artificial boundary outside physical domain
hinders its practical applications. The boundary knot method, recently
introduced by the present author [2,3], surpasses the MFS in that it employs the
nonsingular general solution instead of the singular fundamental solution and
thus no longer requires the arbitrary fictitious boundary. Albeit better than the
MKM, the BKM loses symmetric merit whenever the presence of mixed
boundary conditions. It is worth pointing out that all these RBF schemes are
indirect and global. The indirect methods mean that the expansion coefficients
rather than physical variables are used as the basic variable, while the global
interpolation causes the ill-conditioning interpolation matrix and susceptible to
Gibbs phenomenon amid weak continuity of physical solution.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a few new RBF discretization

schemes of boundary and domain types to overcome the aforementioned
shortcomings. On the other hand, the proper RBF is also an essential issue
leading to an efficient and stable solution. In general, there is not an
operational approach to create efficient RBF available now. Based on the
underlying relationship between the RBF and the Green integral [3], we
summarize five approaches constructing kernel RBF [8], which also cover all
existing popular RBFs.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we establish the
symmetric BKM and the direct BKM, and then, the symmetric boundary
particle method (BPM) is developed by using the multiple reciprocity principle
[9]. Unlike the BKM, the BPM does not require the interior nodes for
inhomogeneous problems. By using Green integral, section 3 presents the
symmetric modified Kansa’s method (MKM) to significantly improve the
solution accuracy at nodes neighboring boundary. Furthermore, we briefly
describe the spline version of the MKM called as the finite knot method
(FKM) to produce the sparse symmetric interpolation matrix. Section 4 is
concerned with the least square RBF collocation method which may better
approximate the solution of lower continuity to avoid Gibbs phenomenon. In
section 5 we discuss the kernel RBF, which is the best choice in the
approximate expression of particular solution and the domain-type RBF
methods. The first-order regulation condition is also proposed for numerical
PDE. Finally, section 6 indicates references on numerical experiments and
gives reasoning of naming brand-new methods and kernel RBF.

2. Boundary-type RBF schemes
2.1. Symmetric boundary knot methods
The aim of this section is to derive the symmetric Hermite BKM and direct
BKM [9,10]. The following example serves as an illustrative example:
L{u} = f (x ) ,

u (x ) = R(x ) ,

∂u ( x )
= N (x ) ,
∂n

x∈Ω ,
x ⊂ Su ,

(1)
(2)

x ⊂ ST ,

(3)

where x means multi-dimensional independent variable, and n is the unit
outward normal. The solution of Eq. (1) can be expressed as
u = uh + u p ,

(4)

where uh and up are the homogeneous and particular solutions, respectively.
The latter satisfies

{ }

L u p = f (x )

(5)

but does not necessarily satisfy boundary conditions. To evaluate the particular
solution, the inhomogeneous term is approximated first by
f (x ) ≅

N +L

∑ α ϕ (r ) ,
j

(6)

j

j =1

where α j are the unknown coefficients. N and L are respectively the numbers
of knots on the domain and boundary. The use of interior points here is usually
necessary to guarantee the accuracy and convergence of the BKM solution.
r j = x − x j represents the Euclidean distance norm, and ϕ is the radial basis
function. By forcing approximation representation (6) to exactly satisfy Eq. (5)
at all nodes, we can evaluate α. Finally, we can get particular solutions at any
point by summing localized approximate particular solutions
up =

∑α φ ( x − x ).

N +L

j

j

(7)

j =1

On the other hand, the homogeneous solution uh has to satisfy both governing
equation and boundary conditions. Unlike the dual reciprocity BEM
(DR-BEM) [11] and MFS [7] using the singular fundamental solution, the
BKM [2,3] approximates homogeneous solution by means of nonsingular
general solution
L

u h (x ) = ∑ λ k u # (rk ) ,

(8)

k =1

where k denotes index of source points on boundary; u# represents the
nonsingular general solution of operator L, and λk are the desired coefficients.
The non-singular general solutions of some frequently-used operators are
listed in [2,3,10,12]. The representation (8) will lead to an unsymmetric BKM
formulation. By analogy with the symmetric Hermite RBF collocation method
presented in [5,6], we modify the BKM approximate expression (8) as
LD

LD + LN

s =1

s = L D +1

u h (x ) = ∑ λ s u # (rs ) −

∑

λs

∂u # (rs )
,
∂n

(9)

where n is the unit outward normal as in boundary condition (3), and LD and LN
are respectively the numbers of knots at the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary
surfaces. The minus sign associated with the second term is due to the fact that
the Neumann condition of the first order derivative is not self-adjoint.
Collocating at all boundary and interior knots in terms of representation (9),
we have

∂u (r )
∑ λ u (r ) − ∑ λ ∂n = R(x ) − u (x ) ,
∂u (x )
∂u (r )
∂ u (r )
∑ λ ∂n − ∑ λ ∂n = N (x ) − ∂n ,
LD

LD + LN

#

s

is

#

is

s

s =1

i

p

i

(10)

s = L D +1

#

LD

js

2

LD + L N

s = L D +1

LD

LD + L N

s =1

s = LD +1

∑ λ s u # (rls ) −

∑

λs

p

js

s

s

s =1

#

j

2

∂u # (rls )
= u l − u p (x l ) ,
∂n

j

(11)
(12)

where i, j, and l indicate response knots respectively located on boundary Su ,
SΓ , and domain Ω. The solution of the above simultaneous equations can be
decomposed into two steps. The first is to evaluate the unknown boundary
expansion coefficients λ by using symmetric equations (10) and (11), and then
the interior node solution ul is calculated by Eq. (12). We can employ the
obtained expansion coefficients λk and inner knot solutions ul to calculate the
BKM solution at any knot. It is stressed here that the MFS could not produce
the symmetric interpolation matrix in any way.
The above BKM uses expansion coefficients rather than the direct physical
variable in the approximation of boundary value. Such BKM is called the
indirect BKM. Note that the Neumann condition N(x) at x ⊂ S u and Dirichlet
condition D(x) at x ⊂ S T are unknown in contrast to the prescribed boundary
condition (2,3). To simplify the presentation, we use the Du, Nu and DΓ , NΓ
respectively represent the Dirichlet and Neumann values at x ⊂ Su and
x ⊂ ST . In terms of Eqs. (10,11,12), we have
D 
Aλ =  u  ,
N Γ 

N 
Bλ =  u  .
 DΓ 

(13)

So
N u 
−1  Du 
  = BA   .
D
 Γ
N Γ 

(14)

Note that matrix A are symmetric and no indirect expansion coefficients are
involved in Eq. (14). The solution procedure is a symmetric direct BKM
strategy. Since the general solutions of Helmholtz problem tend to zero at
infinity, the BKM is applicable to exterior unbounded Helmholtz problems.
Like the comparisons between the direct and indirect BEMs, the direct
BKM has the advantages to problems with sharp corners since the fictitious
expansion coefficients may tend to infinity as nodes increase, even if the
physical quantity remains well behaved. If an iterative technique is applied, it
is also much easier to find a nice initial guess solution for the discretization
systems of the direct method than that of the indirect method.

2.2. Boundary particle methods
The multiple reciprocity BEM (MR-BEM) applies the multiple reciprocity
principle to circumvent the domain integral without using any inner nodes [13].
The shortcoming is uneasily applied to nonlinear problems and requires
relatively higher computing effort. In this section, we develop a truly
boundary-only RBF scheme based on the multiple reciprocity principle [10].
The MRM assumes that the particular solution of Eq. (1) can be
approximated by higher-order homogeneous solution, namely,
u = u h0 + u 0p = u h0 +

∞

∑u

m
h

,

(15)

m =1

where superscript m is the order index of homogeneous solution. Through an
incremental differentiation operation via operator ℜ{}, we have successively
higher order differential equations:
 uh0 (xi ) = R (xi ) − u 0p (xi )
 0
∂u 0p x j ,
 ∂u h x j
= N xj −

∂n
 ∂n

( )

( )

( )

{ }
{ ( )} (

{

(16)

}

 ℜ n −1 uhn (xi ) = ℜ n − 2 { f (xi )} − ℜ n −1 u np (xi )
 n −1 n
∂ ℜ n − 2 f x j − ℜ n −1 u np x j
 ∂ℜ u h x j
=

∂n
∂n


{ ( )}

{ ( )}) ,

n=1,2,…, (17)

where ℜn{} denotes the n-th order of operator ℜ{}, say ℜ0{}=ℜ{} and
ℜ1{}=ℜℜ0{}, i and j are respectively Dirichlet and Neumann boundary knots.
u np is the n-th order of particular solution approximated by
u np =

∞

∑u

m
h

.

(18)

m = n +1

The m-order homogeneous solution is represented by a Hermite expansion
u hm (x ) =

LD

LD + L N

s =1

s = L D +1

∑ β s u m# (rs ) −

∑

βs

∂u m# (rs )
,
∂n

(19)

where u m# is the corresponding m-th order fundamental or general solutions.
Collocating boundary equations (16, 17), we have discretization equations

LD

LD + LN

∑ β u (r ) − ∑
∂u (r )
∑ β ∂n − ∑
#
0

s

s =1

#
0

LD

s = L D +1
LD + LN

js

s

s =1

LD

s =1

s

∂n
∂ 2 u 0# r js

( )

∂n 2

{ ( )}

∂ℜ n −1 u n# r js
∂n

{

= R(xi ) − u 0p (xi )

( )

= N xj −

∂u 0p (x j )

(20)

∂n

}

∂ℜ n −1 u n# (ris )
= ℜ n − 2 { f (x i )} − ℜ n −1 u np (x i )
n
∂
s = LD +1
LD + L N
∂ ℜ n − 2 f x j − ℜ n −1 u np x j
∂ 2 ℜ n −1 u n# r js
βs
=
−
∂n
∂n 2
s = LD +1
n=1,2,…,
(21)

∑ β s ℜ n−1 {u n# (ris )}−
∑β

βs

∂u 0# (ris )

s = L D +1

LD

s =1

βs

is

LD + L N

∑

βs

{

{ ( )} (

∑

{ ( )}

}

{ ( )})

In terms of the MRM, the successive process is truncated at some order M. The
practical solution procedure is a reversal recursive process:

β kM → β kM −1 → L → β k0 .
It is noted that due to

{

(22)

}

ℜ n −1 uhn (rk ) = uh0 (rk ) ,

(23)

the coefficient matrices of all successive equation are thus the same Q
Qβ kn = b n , n=M,M-1,…,1,0,

(24)

Thus, the LU decomposition algorithm is very suitable for this task. Finally,
the solution at any node is given by

( )  .

L +L
M  L
∂u # r
u x p = ∑  ∑ β sum# rps − ∑ β s m ps

∂n
n = 0  s =1
s = L +1

( )

D

( )

D

N

D




(25)

The BPM can use either singular fundamental solution or nonsingular general
solution, respectively relative to the MFS and BKM. The only difference
between the BKM (MFS) and BPM lies in how to evaluate the particular
solution. The former applies the dual reciprocity principle, while the latter
employs the multiple reciprocity principle. The BPM with M=1 degenerates
into the BKM or MFS without using the inner nodes. The advantage of the
BPM over the BKM is that it dose not require interior nodes which may be
especially attractive in such problems as moving boundary, inverse problems,
and exterior problems. However, the BPM may be more mathematically
complicated and computationally costly due to the iterative use of higher-order
fundamental or general solutions. It is expected that like the MR-BEM, the
truncated order M in the BPM may not be large (usually two or three orders) in

a variety of practical uses. Following strategy for direct BKM it is very
straightforward to develop the direct BPM methodology. The BKM, BPM and
BEM alike always produce full matrix, but the former two are more attractive
than the BEM in terms of accuracy, simplicity and efficiency.

3. Modified Kansa method based on the second Green identity,
spline approximation FKM and direct MKM
Despite great effort, the rigorous mathematical proof of the solvability of the
Kansa’s method is still missing [14]. The boundary conditions also destroy the
symmetricity of its interpolation matrix. As an alternative, refs. 5 and 6 present
the symmetric Hermite RBF collocation scheme with sound mathematical
analysis of solvability. One common issue in the Kansa’s method and
symmetric Hermite method, however, is that the numerical solutions at nodes
adjacent to boundary deteriorate (by one to two orders) compared with those in
central region. Fedoseye et al. [15] propose the PDE collocation on the
boundary (PDECB) to effectively remove this shortcoming. The strategy
requires an additional set of nodes (inside or outside of the domain) adjacent to
the boundary. Like the fictitious boundary of the MFS, the arbitrary placing of
these additional nodes may give rise to some troublesome issues. The PDECB
also lacks explicit theoretical endorsement. In fact, a similar strategy has been
independently proposed by Zhang et al. [16], which collocates both governing
and boundary equations on the same boundary nodes. However, the method is
unsymmetrical and still lacks explicit theoretical basis.
By using the Green second identity, the solution of Eqs. (1,2,3) is given by
 ∂ u * ( x, z ) ∂ u *

u (x ) = ∫ f (z )u * (x, z )dΩ + ∫ u
− u (x, z )dΓ,
Ω
Γ
∂
∂
n
n



(26)

where u* is the fundamental solution of differential operator L{}. z denotes
source point. It is noted that the first and second terms of Eq. (26) are
respectively equivalent to the particular and homogeneous solutions. If a
numerical integral scheme is used to analogize Eq. (26), we have
u (x ) ≅

N +L

∑ ω (x, x ) f (x )u
k

*

k

k =1

(

)

(

+

 ∂u
∑ Q(x, x )u ∂n

N +L

*

k

k = N +1



−

∂u * 
u ,
∂n 

(27)

)

where ω x, x j and Q x, x j are the integration weight functions dependent
on the integral schemes. Perceiving the RBF as an approximate Green function,
we can construct the following interpolation formula
u (x ) =

N +L

N + LD

N +L

k =1

k =1

k = N + LD +1

∑ α k L* {ϕ (rk )}+

∑ β k ϕ (rk ) +

∑

 ∂ϕ (rk ) 
, (28)
∂n 


β k  −

where L*{} reverses some signs of odd-order derivatives in L{} if the latter is
not self-adjoint. Note that the boundary nodes are here interpolated twice. The
above RBF interpolation scheme differs from the PDECB in that it does not
require auxiliary nodes at all and is derived naturally from the Green second
identity. Therefore, theoretical and operational ambiguities in the PDECB are
eliminated at all. Contrast to the method given in [16], collocating Eqs. (1,2,3)
via representation (28) leads to theoretically solid and symmetric modified
Kansa’s method formulation.
The MKM holds symmetric property with radically symmetric RBF ϕ even
if operator L{} is not self-adjoint, where we need to create the corresponding
operator L*{} with a different sign before the odd-order derivative. For varying
parameter problems, the MKM also keeps symmetric merit. For more related
details see ref. 9.
The MKM and preceding symmetric BKM establish an underlying
connection due to the fact that both are based on the second Green identity. The
MKM may be less accurate than the BKM since the latter employs the
analytical general solution to approximate homogeneous solution. However,
the MKM can produce the symmetric interpolation matrix no matter whether
or not the right-hand inhomogeneous term in Eq. (1) includes the dependent
variable u and operator L{} is self-adjoint.
One can note that the MKM applies the boundary conditions in a similar
fashion of the functional FEM. Accordingly the basic strategy localizing the
MKM is to apply spline RBF interpolation and domain decomposition,
interpreted as influential domain, namely, the solution at one node within a
specified subregion is approximated only by those nodes of the same
subregion. The subregion can by no way been understood as grids in the
standard FEM. The method is still truly meshless. In addition, the strategy does
not involve the overlapping across different subregions. We call this localizing
MKM as the finite knot method, which produces a sparse banded system
matrix. For more details on the FKM and direct MKM see ref. 9.

4. Least square RBF collocation method
For problems with discontinuous or weekly continuous solutions, the
preceding RBF schemes will encounter the Gibbs phenomenon, which spoils
accuracy and stability. It is well known that the least square approach
outperforms well the interpolation method in this regard.
Still consider the case of Eqs. (1,2,3). If we choose N source and M field
nodes across whole computational domain, where N and M are not necessarily
equal and source and field nodes are also not necessarily coincidental, we have
the RBF approximate expression
N

u (x ) = ∑ β kψ (rk ) ,
k =1

(29)

where ψ is the RBF with the Kansa’ method, Hermite RBF method, BKM,
BPM, MKM or FKM. Collocating via expression (29) in M field nodes yields
G M × N β N ×1 = b M ×1 ,

(30)

where G is coefficient matrix. Eq. (30) can be solved by the least square
approach. The L2 norm of residual errors is
M



i =1

 k =1

N



2

σ = ∑  ∑ g ik β k − bi  ,


(31)

where gik are entries of matrix G. By forcing the first order derivative of σ with
respect to βk zero, we have the least square formulation:
Gˆ N × N β N ×1 = bˆ N ×1 .

(32)

We call this technique the least square RBF collocation method. The
methodology is less sensitive to the discontinuity of the physical solution. L1
(Chebyshev) norm of residual errors can also be employed to design a least
square RBF scheme. The extension of the methodology to the Galerkin-type
method is straightforward. As alternative of RBF interpolation, the application
of least square RBF to multivariate data processing is also promising.

5. Kernel RBF
Chen [2,3] presented the kernel RBF-creating strategy based on the second
Green identity, i.e., formulas (26,27). Chen [8] further proposed three types of
kernel RBF. The first is to apply r2m augmented term to enhance the
smoothness and ensures sufficient degree of differential continuity since the
fundamental solution has a singularity at origin. The TPS is a notable example
in this regard. The second strategy is simply the higher order of fundamental
and general solutions. The third approach is to replace distance variable r in
fundamental or general solutions by r 2 + c 2 , where c is shape parameter.
Next is a physical explanation of shape parameter. All complete
fundamental solutions consist of essential and complementary elementary
functions [17]. The standard singular fundamental solutions used in the BEM
involve only the essential part. The complementary terms of the complete
fundamental solutions are often understood the nonsingular general solution in
terms of the BKM [2,3]. The shape parameter c can be interpreted as the
scaling parameter in the simplified form of the complete fundamental solutions
and leads to infinite smoothness at the cost of one complementary term. For
instance, the MQ and reciprocal MQ are respectively related with general
fundamental solutions of 1D and 3D Laplacian. The tricky choose of the shape
parameter coincides with skillful implementation of general fundamental

solutions. For some details on the kernel RBF see ref. [8].
Following the basic idea of the corrected reproducing kernel approximation
[18], next is involved a compactly-supported kernel RBF (CSK-RBF).
Multidimensional function u is represented by

(

)( )

v
v v v
u (x ) = ∫ v wd x − ξ u ξ dΩ ξv ,
Ωξ

(33)

where wd is the corrected kernel function

(

) ( )(

)

v v
v v v v
wc x − ξ = C x , ξ w x − ξ .

(34)

The correction function C can be a polynomial expansion just like those in [18]
or the RBF. For instance, the MQ can be used as correction function to decide
local optimal shape parameter by establishing the reproducing conditions
(moment conditions). Instead of using polynomial expansion, the point of
CSK-RBF is to choose the kernel RBF as the kernel function w. Note that
v v
x − ξ implicates not only the Euclidean distance but also wider translation
invariance likelihood. The choice of kernel RBF depends on the property of
function u or PDE type. The CSK-RBF is seen as a generalized Green integral
representation with u itself instead of f(x) in Eq. (26) while keeping
higher-order local consistency via correct function. On the other hand, some
kernel RBF itself is compactly-supported. For example, those of modified
Helmholtz operator. Chen [10,12] has also recently found the higher-order
fundamental and general solutions of convection-diffusion, biharmonic,
Winkler plate and Burger plate equations.
The kernel RBF also includes time-space RBF [3] using transient
fundamental solution and general solution. d’Alembert RBF general solution
of 3D linear wave equation is
u (r , t ) =

1
[ f (r + ct ) + g (r − ct )] .
r

(35)

Accordingly we construct the characteristic RBF ϕ(r-ct) for hyperbolic wave
problems, where we can choose Laplacian kernel RBF as ϕ.
The RBF is closely related to the solution of a PDE with spherically
symmetric unbounded domain without boundary conditions. In that sense, the
first-order regulation condition means that only the first order derivative of the
RBF at origin does not tend to infinity. The higher differential continuity is not
necessary for higher-order PDE but may increase the accuracy in the case of
smooth solution.
Partial differential equation is the very basic language describing the
universe. So it will be a natural choice making the RBF underlying PDE. The
operator-dependent kernel RBF is strongly recommended in the solution of
PDE and data processing. For example, e-αr is much better than Guassian for

diffusion and convection-diffusion problems due to its underlying physical
grounds. The numerical integration of the boundary integral equation theory
(distribution theory) may be a powerful tool to mathematical analysis of the
kernel RBF.

6. Numerical experiments and naming of brand-new methods
Due to very limited space, the readers are advised to find the numerical
experiments applying the BKM, BPM and MKM with kernel RBF in
[10,12,19]. A more complete description of the methods and references go to
ref. 9.
The BKM and BPM are two global RBF collocation techniques using
nonsingular general solution corresponding to the DR-BEM and MR-BEM.
Thus, they may be renamed as the dual reciprocity method of general solution
(DR-MGS), multiple reciprocity method of general solution (MR-MGS), and
multiple reciprocity MFS(MG-MFS). If combined with particular solution
method, we could have PS-MGS just like PS-MFS. Contrast to the known
Kansa’s method, the domain-type modified Kansa’s method borrows the idea
of the BKM that the solution of PDE is a sum of particular and homogeneous
solutions. A combination of the RBF and least square technique is unknown to
the author so far. The least square RBF collocation method reflects the
essential components of the technique. The kernel RBF is due to the fact that it
applies kernel function of integral equation, especially Green integral, as
essential element.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Buhmann, M.D. (2000) Radial basis functions. Acta Numerica. 1-38.
Chen, W., Tanaka, M. (2000) New Insights into Boundary-only and
Domain-type RBF Methods. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. & Numer. Simulation.
1(3), 145-151.
Chen, W., Tanaka, M. (2000) Relationship between boundary integral
equation and radial basis function. The 52th Symposium of JSCME on
BEM (Tanaka, M. ed.), Tokyo.
Kansa, E.J. (1990) Multiquadrics: A scattered data approximation scheme
with applications to computational fluid-dynamics, Comput. Math. Appl.
19, 147-161.
Fasshauer, G.E. (1996) Solving partial differential equations by
collocation with radial basis functions. Proc. of Chamonix. (Mehaute, A.,
Rabut, C., Schumaker, L. ed.), 1-8.
Wu, Z. (1998) Solving PDE with radial basis functions and the error
estimation. Adv. Comput. Math. Lectures in Pure & Applied Mathematics,
202 (Chen, Z. Li, Y., Micchelli, C.A., Xu, Y., Dekkon M. ed.).
Golberg, M.A., Chen, C.S. (1998) The method of fundamental solutions
for potential, Helmholtz and diffusion problems. Boundary Integral
Methods - Numerical and Mathematical Aspects (Golberg, M.A. ed.),

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

103-176, Comput. Mech. Publ. UK.
Chen, W. (2001) Direct linearization method for nonlinear PDE’s and the
related kernel RBFs. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.NA/0110005. CoRR
preprint.
Chen, W. (2001) Several new domain-type and boundary-type numerical
discretization schemes with radial basis function. CoRR preprint,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cs.CC/0104018.
Chen, W. (2001) RBF-based meshless boundary knot method and
boundary particle method. Proc. of China Congress on Computational
Mechanics’2001, Guangzhou, China.
Partridge, P.W., Brebbia, C.A., Wrobel, L.W. (1992) The Dual Reciprocity
Boundary Element Method. Comput. Mech. Publ. UK.
Chen, W. (2001) Boundary knot method for Laplace and biharmonic
problems, Proc. of the 14th Nordic Seminar on Comput. Mech. 117-120,
Lund, Sweden.
Nowak, A.J., Neves, A.C. (ed.) (1994) The Multiple Reciprocity
Boundary Element Method. Comput. Mech. Publ., U.K..
Schaback, R., Hon, Y.C. (2001) On unsymmetric collocation by radial
basis functions. J. Appl. Math. Comp. 119, 177-186.
Fedoseyev, A.I., Friedman, M.J., Kansa, E.J. (2001) Improved
multiquadratic method for elliptic partial differential equations via PDE
collocation on the boundary. Comput. Math. Appl. (in press).
Zhang, X. Song, K.Z., Lu, M.W., Liu, X. (2000) Meshless methods based
on collocation with radial basis functions. Comput. Mech. 26, 333-343.
Westphal Jr. T., de Barchellos, C.S. (1996) On general fundamental
solutions of some linear elliptic differential operators. Engng. Anal.
Boundary Elements, 17, 279-285.
Liu, W.K., Jun, S. (1998) Multiple-scale reproducing kernel particle
methods for large deformation problems. Int. J. Numer. Methd. Engng. 41,
1339-1362.
Chen, W. (20001) New RBF collocation schemes and their applications.
Int. Workshop for Meshfree Methods for PDE’s, Bonn, Germany. CoRR
preprint, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.NA/0111220.

