Moving Mesh with Streamline Upwind Petrov-Galerkin (MM-SUPG) Method for Time-dependent Convection-Dominated Convection-Diffusion Problems

Matthew McCoy; Xianping Li

arxiv: 2105.08765 · v4 · submitted 2021-05-18 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Moving Mesh with Streamline Upwind Petrov-Galerkin (MM-SUPG) Method for Time-dependent Convection-Dominated Convection-Diffusion Problems

Xianping Li , Matthew McCoy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA

keywords moving meshSUPG stabilizationconvection-diffusion equationdiscrete maximum principleanisotropic diffusionmetric tensortime-dependent problems

0 comments

The pith

A moving mesh SUPG method adapts stabilization through mesh geometry to reduce oscillations in convection-dominated diffusion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents the MM-SUPG method that integrates metric-based moving mesh adaptation with residual-based SUPG stabilization for time-dependent convection-dominated convection-diffusion problems. Mesh movement changes the local element geometry, which modifies the direction and magnitude of the stabilization. Numerical experiments indicate that this reduces spurious oscillations and improves sharp layer resolution compared to fixed mesh methods for isotropic diffusion. For anisotropic diffusion, a weighted tensor and intersection metric enhance monotonicity and reduce undershoots. Sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle are derived under assumptions on tensors and velocity-diffusion alignment.

Core claim

The central discovery is the MM-SUPG method in which the interaction between the evolving mesh and the SUPG stabilization allows the mesh to modify the stabilization through local geometry while stabilization aids robustness, with numerical results showing reduced oscillations and better layer resolution for isotropic diffusion and improved monotonicity via weighted tensor and intersection metric for anisotropic diffusion, along with proven sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle of the fully discrete scheme under suitable assumptions on elementwise tensors, mesh geometry, and alignment between velocity field and diffusion tensor.

What carries the argument

The interaction between metric-based moving mesh PDE and residual-based SUPG stabilization, where mesh evolution alters stabilization parameters via element geometry.

If this is right

The method reduces spurious oscillations compared with fixed mesh methods.
Improved resolution of sharp layers is achieved.
Accuracy is comparable to moving mesh finite element methods without SUPG in some cases.
The weighted tensor and intersection metric improve monotonicity properties and reduce undershoots for anisotropic diffusion.
Sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle are established based on bounds for convection terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Mesh adaptation criteria could be chosen to also optimize the alignment conditions needed for the DMP.
The feedback between mesh and stabilization might be applied to other residual-based methods for convection problems.
Long-term simulations of transport phenomena could benefit from the reduced need for very fine fixed meshes.

Load-bearing premise

The velocity field and the diffusion tensor are aligned in a way that allows the derivation of bounds ensuring the discrete maximum principle holds for the scheme.

What would settle it

Computation of a solution on a mesh where the velocity-diffusion alignment condition is violated, checking if the solution violates the discrete maximum principle by exceeding the bounds of the initial data.

read the original abstract

Time-dependent convection-dominated convection-diffusion problems are considered. We develop a moving mesh streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin (MM-SUPG) method by combining residual-based SUPG stabilization with a metric-based moving mesh PDE (MMPDE) approach. The key feature of the method is the interaction between mesh adaptation and stabilization: the evolving mesh modifies both the direction and magnitude of the SUPG stabilization through the local element geometry, while stabilization improves robustness in convection-dominated regimes. For isotropic diffusion, numerical results show that the proposed method reduces spurious oscillations and provides improved resolution of sharp layers compared with fixed mesh methods, while yielding accuracy comparable to moving mesh finite element methods without SUPG in some cases. For anisotropic diffusion, we introduce a weighted tensor that incorporates both the diffusion tensor and the convection field, and construct a metric tensor via intersection to guide mesh adaptation. Under suitable assumptions on the elementwise tensors and mesh geometry, we establish sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle (DMP) of the fully discrete scheme. The analysis is based on quantitative bounds for the convection terms, and requires structural conditions on the alignment between the velocity field and the diffusion tensor. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the proposed metric improves monotonicity properties and reduces undershoots, while maintaining overall accuracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The MM-SUPG couples mesh movement directly to SUPG parameters via local geometry and adds an intersection-based weighted tensor for anisotropic cases, but the DMP result rests on alignment conditions whose applicability to the numerics is not shown.

read the letter

The paper's actual new piece is the explicit feedback where the moving mesh changes both the direction and magnitude of the SUPG stabilization, together with the construction of a metric tensor by intersecting a weighted tensor that mixes the diffusion tensor and convection field. That combination is presented as distinct from prior moving-mesh or SUPG work. Numerically the isotropic tests show reduced oscillations and better layer resolution than fixed-mesh SUPG while staying comparable in accuracy to plain moving-mesh FEM in some runs; the anisotropic experiments indicate the intersection metric improves monotonicity and cuts undershoots. Those results are the concrete evidence offered. The soft spot is the DMP analysis. It gives sufficient conditions that require structural alignment between the velocity and the diffusion tensor plus quantitative bounds on convection. The abstract states the result holds under those assumptions on elementwise tensors and mesh geometry, but supplies no check that the reported experiments satisfy the alignment or that the conditions are mild in the tested regimes. If the alignment is restrictive, the DMP claim does not directly back the monotonicity improvements seen in the runs. The rest of the work stays within standard residual-based SUPG and MMPDE machinery, with no circular definitions or post-hoc fitting visible at the summary level. This is a methods paper aimed at people already working on adaptive finite-element schemes for convection-dominated transport. Readers who need practical layer-capturing techniques would extract the implementation choices and the metric construction. It is coherent on its own terms and the numerics are presented as supportive rather than definitive. I would send it to referees for a methods journal; the interaction idea and the anisotropic metric are specific enough to merit review even if the DMP scope stays limited.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a moving mesh streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin (MM-SUPG) method for time-dependent convection-dominated convection-diffusion problems. It combines residual-based SUPG stabilization with a metric-based moving mesh PDE (MMPDE) approach, where mesh evolution interacts with stabilization by modifying the SUPG parameters through local element geometry. For isotropic diffusion, numerical results claim reduced spurious oscillations and improved sharp layer resolution relative to fixed-mesh SUPG, with accuracy comparable to moving-mesh FEM without SUPG in some cases. For anisotropic diffusion, a weighted tensor incorporating both the diffusion tensor and convection field is introduced, together with an intersection metric for mesh adaptation; under assumptions on elementwise tensors and mesh geometry (including alignment between velocity and diffusion tensor), sufficient conditions are derived for the discrete maximum principle (DMP) of the fully discrete scheme. Numerical experiments are reported to show improved monotonicity and reduced undershoots while preserving accuracy.

Significance. If the DMP conditions prove verifiable in the reported experiments and the alignment assumptions hold without excessive restriction, the work would provide a useful framework for convection-dominated problems by coupling adaptive meshing with stabilization. The interaction between mesh motion and SUPG direction/magnitude is a conceptually attractive feature, and the introduction of the weighted tensor plus intersection metric for anisotropic cases addresses a recognized difficulty. However, the load-bearing role of the alignment conditions means that without explicit verification the broader claim of improved monotonicity remains provisional.

major comments (1)

[DMP analysis] DMP analysis (abstract and corresponding section): The sufficient conditions for the DMP of the fully discrete scheme explicitly require structural alignment conditions between the velocity field and the diffusion tensor, together with quantitative bounds on convection terms. The anisotropic numerical experiments must be shown to satisfy these conditions (or the paper must demonstrate that the conditions are mild); otherwise the claim that the weighted tensor and intersection metric improve monotonicity properties rests on unverified hypotheses.

minor comments (1)

The abstract states that accuracy is 'comparable to moving mesh finite element methods without SUPG in some cases'; the specific test cases and error tables supporting this comparison should be clearly identified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment on the DMP analysis below, and will incorporate the necessary additions in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: DMP analysis (abstract and corresponding section): The sufficient conditions for the DMP of the fully discrete scheme explicitly require structural alignment conditions between the velocity field and the diffusion tensor, together with quantitative bounds on convection terms. The anisotropic numerical experiments must be shown to satisfy these conditions (or the paper must demonstrate that the conditions are mild); otherwise the claim that the weighted tensor and intersection metric improve monotonicity properties rests on unverified hypotheses.

Authors: We agree that the DMP claims for the anisotropic case rely on the stated alignment assumptions and that explicit verification in the experiments is required to substantiate the monotonicity improvements. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (in Section 5 or an appendix) that reports, for each anisotropic test case: (i) the elementwise angle between the velocity vector and the principal axes of the diffusion tensor, (ii) the ratio of the convection term magnitude to the diffusion scale, and (iii) confirmation that the quantitative bounds used in the DMP proof are satisfied. These checks will be computed directly from the discrete data at each time step. We view the alignment conditions as physically natural for the targeted convection-dominated regime (where anisotropy is often aligned with the flow), but we will also add a short discussion of their restrictiveness and note that the metric construction via intersection remains well-defined even if the conditions are only approximately met. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: DMP conditions derived from explicit bounds and alignment assumptions; numerics are independent validation

full rationale

The paper derives sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle from quantitative bounds on convection terms and structural alignment requirements between velocity and diffusion tensor, stated as assumptions rather than outputs. Mesh adaptation and SUPG stabilization interact through explicit geometric and residual-based mechanisms without any fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the numerical experiments are presented as separate demonstrations rather than inputs to the analysis. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external mathematical bounds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions required for the DMP proof and on the construction of a new metric tensor; no explicit free parameters are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption suitable assumptions on the elementwise tensors and mesh geometry
Invoked to establish sufficient conditions for the DMP of the fully discrete scheme.
domain assumption structural conditions on the alignment between the velocity field and the diffusion tensor
Required for the quantitative bounds on convection terms in the DMP analysis.

invented entities (1)

weighted tensor incorporating both the diffusion tensor and the convection field no independent evidence
purpose: to construct a metric tensor via intersection that guides mesh adaptation for anisotropic diffusion
Introduced as part of the method for the anisotropic case; no independent external evidence provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5769 in / 1561 out tokens · 28659 ms · 2026-05-24T13:53:29.833563+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We develop a moving mesh streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin (MM-SUPG) method by combining residual-based SUPG stabilization with a metric-based moving mesh PDE (MMPDE) approach... sufficient conditions for the discrete maximum principle (DMP) ... requires structural conditions on the alignment between the velocity field and the diffusion tensor.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

τ_K = diam(K) / ||b||_∞ * ξ(Pe_K) with ξ(Pe_K) = min{1, Pe_K/3}

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

K. W. Morton, Revival: Numerical Solution Of Convection-Diﬀusion Problems (1996) . CRC Press, 2019

work page 1996
[2]

Adaptive anisotropic meshing for steady convection-dominated problems,

H. Nguyen, M. Gunzburger, L. Ju, and J. Burkardt, “Adaptive anisotropic meshing for steady convection-dominated problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 198, no. 37-40, pp. 2964–2981, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Anisotropic meshes and stabilization parameter design of linear supg method for 2d convection-dominated convection–diﬀusion equations,

Y. Di, H. Xie, and X. Yin, “Anisotropic meshes and stabilization parameter design of linear supg method for 2d convection-dominated convection–diﬀusion equations,” Journal of Scientiﬁc Computing, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 48–68, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Uniform error analysis for lagrange–galerkin approximations of convection-dominated problems,

M. Bause and P. Knabner, “Uniform error analysis for lagrange–galerkin approximations of convection-dominated problems,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1954– 1984, 2002. 13 (a): MM-SUPG and T = 0 (b): MM-SUPG and T = 0.5 Figure 7: Example 2 – Mesh movement with ε = 0, ∆t = 0.001, and N = 32768

work page 1954
[5]

On uniform convergence rates for eulerian and lagrangian ﬁnite element approximations of convection-dominated diﬀusion problems,

M. Bause and P. Knabner, “On uniform convergence rates for eulerian and lagrangian ﬁnite element approximations of convection-dominated diﬀusion problems,” Calcolo, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2004

work page 2004
[6]

Some aspects of adaptive grid technology related to boundary and interior layers,

G. F. Carey, M. Anderson, B. Carnes, and B. Kirk, “Some aspects of adaptive grid technology related to boundary and interior layers,” Journal of computational and applied mathematics , vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 55–86, 2004

work page 2004
[7]

Unsymmetric and symmetric meshless schemes for the unsteady convection–diﬀusion equation,

P. Chinchapatnam, K. Djidjeli, and P. Nair, “Unsymmetric and symmetric meshless schemes for the unsteady convection–diﬀusion equation,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 195, no. 19-22, pp. 2432–2453, 2006

work page 2006
[8]

Finite element methods for time-dependent convection–diﬀusion– reaction equations with small diﬀusion,

V. John and E. Schmeyer, “Finite element methods for time-dependent convection–diﬀusion– reaction equations with small diﬀusion,”Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 198, no. 3-4, pp. 475–494, 2008

work page 2008
[9]

On ﬁnite element methods for 3d time-dependent convection-diﬀusion- reaction equations with small diﬀusion,

V. John and E. Schmeyer, “On ﬁnite element methods for 3d time-dependent convection-diﬀusion- reaction equations with small diﬀusion,” in BAIL 2008-boundary and interior layers, pp. 173–181, Springer, 2009

work page 2008
[10]

On spurious oscillations at layers diminishing (sold) methods for convection–diﬀusion equations: Part i–a review,

V. John and P. Knobloch, “On spurious oscillations at layers diminishing (sold) methods for convection–diﬀusion equations: Part i–a review,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 196, no. 17-20, pp. 2197–2215, 2007

work page 2007
[11]

The local discontinuous galerkin method on layer-adapted meshes for time-dependent singularly perturbed convection-diﬀusion problems,

Y. Cheng, Y. Mei, and H.-G. Roos, “The local discontinuous galerkin method on layer-adapted meshes for time-dependent singularly perturbed convection-diﬀusion problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.03560, 2020

work page arXiv 2012
[12]

Singular boundary method for transient convection–diﬀusion problems with time-dependent fundamental solution,

F. Wang, W. Chen, A. Tadeu, and C. G. Correia, “Singular boundary method for transient convection–diﬀusion problems with time-dependent fundamental solution,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer , vol. 114, pp. 1126–1134, 2017

work page 2017
[13]

Numerical methods on shishkin meshes for linear convection–diﬀusion problems,

T. Linß and M. Stynes, “Numerical methods on shishkin meshes for linear convection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 190, no. 28, pp. 3527– 3542, 2001. 14 (a): FM-FEM (b): FM-SUPG (c): MM-FEM (d): MM-SUPG Figure 8: Example 3 – top view with all 4 methods with ∆ t = 0.001 for b = (2, 3), N = 32768

work page 2001
[14]

Streamline upwind/petrov-galerkin formulations for convec- tion dominated ﬂows with particular emphasis on the incompressible navier-stokes equations,

A. N. Brooks and T. J. Hughes, “Streamline upwind/petrov-galerkin formulations for convec- tion dominated ﬂows with particular emphasis on the incompressible navier-stokes equations,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 32, no. 1-3, pp. 199–259, 1982

work page 1982
[15]

Optimal adaptivity for the supg ﬁnite element method,

C. Erath and D. Praetorius, “Optimal adaptivity for the supg ﬁnite element method,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 353, pp. 308–327, 2019

work page 2019
[16]

An adaptive algorithm for the crank–nicolson scheme applied to a time-dependent convection–diﬀusion problem,

M. Picasso and V. Prachittham, “An adaptive algorithm for the crank–nicolson scheme applied to a time-dependent convection–diﬀusion problem,” Journal of computational and applied math- ematics, vol. 233, no. 4, pp. 1139–1154, 2009

work page 2009
[17]

Ale-supg ﬁnite element method for convection–diﬀusion prob- lems in time-dependent domains: Conservative form,

S. Ganesan and S. Srivastava, “Ale-supg ﬁnite element method for convection–diﬀusion prob- lems in time-dependent domains: Conservative form,” Applied Mathematics and Computation , vol. 303, pp. 128–145, 2017

work page 2017
[18]

A new ﬁnite element formulation for computa- tional ﬂuid dynamics: Viii. the galerkin/least-squares method for advective-diﬀusive equations,

T. J. Hughes, L. P. Franca, and G. M. Hulbert, “A new ﬁnite element formulation for computa- tional ﬂuid dynamics: Viii. the galerkin/least-squares method for advective-diﬀusive equations,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 173–189, 1989

work page 1989
[19]

A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: Ii. beyond supg,

T. J. Hughes, M. Mallet, and M. Akira, “A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: Ii. beyond supg,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 341–355, 1986. 15 (a): FM-FEM (b): FM-SUPG (c): MM-FEM (d): MM-SUPG Figure 9: Example 3 – side view with the four diﬀerent methods with ∆t = 0.001,b = (2, 3),N = 8192

work page 1986
[20]

Fries, H

T.-P. Fries, H. Matthies, et al. , A review of Petrov-Galerkin stabilization approaches and an extension to meshfree methods . Citeseer, 2004

work page 2004
[21]

Stabilized ﬁnite element methods: I. application to the advective-diﬀusive model,

L. P. Franca, S. L. Frey, and T. J. Hughes, “Stabilized ﬁnite element methods: I. application to the advective-diﬀusive model,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 253–276, 1992

work page 1992
[22]

Stabilized ﬁnite element schemes with lbb-stable elements for incompressible ﬂows,

T. Gelhard, G. Lube, M. A. Olshanskii, and J.-H. Starcke, “Stabilized ﬁnite element schemes with lbb-stable elements for incompressible ﬂows,” Journal of computational and applied mathematics , vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 243–267, 2005

work page 2005
[23]

On stabilized ﬁnite element methods for linear systems of convection–diﬀusion- reaction equations,

R. Codina, “On stabilized ﬁnite element methods for linear systems of convection–diﬀusion- reaction equations,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 188, no. 1-3, pp. 61–82, 2000

work page 2000
[24]

On an improved unusual stabilized ﬁnite element method for the advective–reactive–diﬀusive equation,

L. P. Franca and F. Valentin, “On an improved unusual stabilized ﬁnite element method for the advective–reactive–diﬀusive equation,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer- ing, vol. 190, no. 13-14, pp. 1785–1800, 2000

work page 2000
[25]

Stabilized ﬁnite element methods with shock capturing for advection–diﬀusion problems,

T. Knopp, G. Lube, and G. Rapin, “Stabilized ﬁnite element methods with shock capturing for advection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 191, no. 27-28, pp. 2997–3013, 2002. 16 (a): MM-FEM (b): MM-SUPG Figure 10: Example 3 – Mesh movement for T = 0.5 and b = (2, 3), N = 32768. (a): b = (2, 3) (b): b = (y−t,x−t)...

work page 2002
[26]

Residual-based stabilized higher-order fem for advection-dominated problems,

G. Lube and G. Rapin, “Residual-based stabilized higher-order fem for advection-dominated problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 195, no. 33-36, pp. 4124–4138, 2006

work page 2006
[27]

Huang and R

W. Huang and R. D. Russell, Adaptive moving mesh methods . Springer, 2011

work page 2011
[28]

Moving mesh ﬁnite element simulation for phase-ﬁeld modeling of brittle fracture and convergence of newton’s iteration,

F. Zhang, W. Huang, X. Li, and S. Zhang, “Moving mesh ﬁnite element simulation for phase-ﬁeld modeling of brittle fracture and convergence of newton’s iteration,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 356, pp. 127–149, 2018

work page 2018
[29]

A new functional for variational mesh generation and adaptation based on equidistribution and alignment conditions,

A. Kolasinski and W. Huang, “A new functional for variational mesh generation and adaptation based on equidistribution and alignment conditions,” Computers & Mathematics with Applica- tions, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 2044–2058, 2018

work page 2044
[30]

Stability of the supg ﬁnite element method for transient advection–diﬀusion problems,

P. B. Bochev, M. D. Gunzburger, and J. N. Shadid, “Stability of the supg ﬁnite element method for transient advection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engi- neering, vol. 193, no. 23-26, pp. 2301–2323, 2004. 17 (a): MM-FEM (b): MM-SUPG (c): Enlarged view of (a) (d): Enlarged view of (b) Figure 12: Example 3 – side view with ∆ ...

work page 2004

[1] [1]

K. W. Morton, Revival: Numerical Solution Of Convection-Diﬀusion Problems (1996) . CRC Press, 2019

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Adaptive anisotropic meshing for steady convection-dominated problems,

H. Nguyen, M. Gunzburger, L. Ju, and J. Burkardt, “Adaptive anisotropic meshing for steady convection-dominated problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 198, no. 37-40, pp. 2964–2981, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Anisotropic meshes and stabilization parameter design of linear supg method for 2d convection-dominated convection–diﬀusion equations,

Y. Di, H. Xie, and X. Yin, “Anisotropic meshes and stabilization parameter design of linear supg method for 2d convection-dominated convection–diﬀusion equations,” Journal of Scientiﬁc Computing, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 48–68, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Uniform error analysis for lagrange–galerkin approximations of convection-dominated problems,

M. Bause and P. Knabner, “Uniform error analysis for lagrange–galerkin approximations of convection-dominated problems,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1954– 1984, 2002. 13 (a): MM-SUPG and T = 0 (b): MM-SUPG and T = 0.5 Figure 7: Example 2 – Mesh movement with ε = 0, ∆t = 0.001, and N = 32768

work page 1954

[5] [5]

On uniform convergence rates for eulerian and lagrangian ﬁnite element approximations of convection-dominated diﬀusion problems,

M. Bause and P. Knabner, “On uniform convergence rates for eulerian and lagrangian ﬁnite element approximations of convection-dominated diﬀusion problems,” Calcolo, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2004

work page 2004

[6] [6]

Some aspects of adaptive grid technology related to boundary and interior layers,

G. F. Carey, M. Anderson, B. Carnes, and B. Kirk, “Some aspects of adaptive grid technology related to boundary and interior layers,” Journal of computational and applied mathematics , vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 55–86, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Unsymmetric and symmetric meshless schemes for the unsteady convection–diﬀusion equation,

P. Chinchapatnam, K. Djidjeli, and P. Nair, “Unsymmetric and symmetric meshless schemes for the unsteady convection–diﬀusion equation,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 195, no. 19-22, pp. 2432–2453, 2006

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Finite element methods for time-dependent convection–diﬀusion– reaction equations with small diﬀusion,

V. John and E. Schmeyer, “Finite element methods for time-dependent convection–diﬀusion– reaction equations with small diﬀusion,”Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 198, no. 3-4, pp. 475–494, 2008

work page 2008

[9] [9]

On ﬁnite element methods for 3d time-dependent convection-diﬀusion- reaction equations with small diﬀusion,

V. John and E. Schmeyer, “On ﬁnite element methods for 3d time-dependent convection-diﬀusion- reaction equations with small diﬀusion,” in BAIL 2008-boundary and interior layers, pp. 173–181, Springer, 2009

work page 2008

[10] [10]

On spurious oscillations at layers diminishing (sold) methods for convection–diﬀusion equations: Part i–a review,

V. John and P. Knobloch, “On spurious oscillations at layers diminishing (sold) methods for convection–diﬀusion equations: Part i–a review,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 196, no. 17-20, pp. 2197–2215, 2007

work page 2007

[11] [11]

The local discontinuous galerkin method on layer-adapted meshes for time-dependent singularly perturbed convection-diﬀusion problems,

Y. Cheng, Y. Mei, and H.-G. Roos, “The local discontinuous galerkin method on layer-adapted meshes for time-dependent singularly perturbed convection-diﬀusion problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.03560, 2020

work page arXiv 2012

[12] [12]

Singular boundary method for transient convection–diﬀusion problems with time-dependent fundamental solution,

F. Wang, W. Chen, A. Tadeu, and C. G. Correia, “Singular boundary method for transient convection–diﬀusion problems with time-dependent fundamental solution,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer , vol. 114, pp. 1126–1134, 2017

work page 2017

[13] [13]

Numerical methods on shishkin meshes for linear convection–diﬀusion problems,

T. Linß and M. Stynes, “Numerical methods on shishkin meshes for linear convection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 190, no. 28, pp. 3527– 3542, 2001. 14 (a): FM-FEM (b): FM-SUPG (c): MM-FEM (d): MM-SUPG Figure 8: Example 3 – top view with all 4 methods with ∆ t = 0.001 for b = (2, 3), N = 32768

work page 2001

[14] [14]

Streamline upwind/petrov-galerkin formulations for convec- tion dominated ﬂows with particular emphasis on the incompressible navier-stokes equations,

A. N. Brooks and T. J. Hughes, “Streamline upwind/petrov-galerkin formulations for convec- tion dominated ﬂows with particular emphasis on the incompressible navier-stokes equations,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 32, no. 1-3, pp. 199–259, 1982

work page 1982

[15] [15]

Optimal adaptivity for the supg ﬁnite element method,

C. Erath and D. Praetorius, “Optimal adaptivity for the supg ﬁnite element method,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 353, pp. 308–327, 2019

work page 2019

[16] [16]

An adaptive algorithm for the crank–nicolson scheme applied to a time-dependent convection–diﬀusion problem,

M. Picasso and V. Prachittham, “An adaptive algorithm for the crank–nicolson scheme applied to a time-dependent convection–diﬀusion problem,” Journal of computational and applied math- ematics, vol. 233, no. 4, pp. 1139–1154, 2009

work page 2009

[17] [17]

Ale-supg ﬁnite element method for convection–diﬀusion prob- lems in time-dependent domains: Conservative form,

S. Ganesan and S. Srivastava, “Ale-supg ﬁnite element method for convection–diﬀusion prob- lems in time-dependent domains: Conservative form,” Applied Mathematics and Computation , vol. 303, pp. 128–145, 2017

work page 2017

[18] [18]

A new ﬁnite element formulation for computa- tional ﬂuid dynamics: Viii. the galerkin/least-squares method for advective-diﬀusive equations,

T. J. Hughes, L. P. Franca, and G. M. Hulbert, “A new ﬁnite element formulation for computa- tional ﬂuid dynamics: Viii. the galerkin/least-squares method for advective-diﬀusive equations,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 173–189, 1989

work page 1989

[19] [19]

A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: Ii. beyond supg,

T. J. Hughes, M. Mallet, and M. Akira, “A new ﬁnite element formulation for computational ﬂuid dynamics: Ii. beyond supg,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 341–355, 1986. 15 (a): FM-FEM (b): FM-SUPG (c): MM-FEM (d): MM-SUPG Figure 9: Example 3 – side view with the four diﬀerent methods with ∆t = 0.001,b = (2, 3),N = 8192

work page 1986

[20] [20]

Fries, H

T.-P. Fries, H. Matthies, et al. , A review of Petrov-Galerkin stabilization approaches and an extension to meshfree methods . Citeseer, 2004

work page 2004

[21] [21]

Stabilized ﬁnite element methods: I. application to the advective-diﬀusive model,

L. P. Franca, S. L. Frey, and T. J. Hughes, “Stabilized ﬁnite element methods: I. application to the advective-diﬀusive model,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 253–276, 1992

work page 1992

[22] [22]

Stabilized ﬁnite element schemes with lbb-stable elements for incompressible ﬂows,

T. Gelhard, G. Lube, M. A. Olshanskii, and J.-H. Starcke, “Stabilized ﬁnite element schemes with lbb-stable elements for incompressible ﬂows,” Journal of computational and applied mathematics , vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 243–267, 2005

work page 2005

[23] [23]

On stabilized ﬁnite element methods for linear systems of convection–diﬀusion- reaction equations,

R. Codina, “On stabilized ﬁnite element methods for linear systems of convection–diﬀusion- reaction equations,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 188, no. 1-3, pp. 61–82, 2000

work page 2000

[24] [24]

On an improved unusual stabilized ﬁnite element method for the advective–reactive–diﬀusive equation,

L. P. Franca and F. Valentin, “On an improved unusual stabilized ﬁnite element method for the advective–reactive–diﬀusive equation,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer- ing, vol. 190, no. 13-14, pp. 1785–1800, 2000

work page 2000

[25] [25]

Stabilized ﬁnite element methods with shock capturing for advection–diﬀusion problems,

T. Knopp, G. Lube, and G. Rapin, “Stabilized ﬁnite element methods with shock capturing for advection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 191, no. 27-28, pp. 2997–3013, 2002. 16 (a): MM-FEM (b): MM-SUPG Figure 10: Example 3 – Mesh movement for T = 0.5 and b = (2, 3), N = 32768. (a): b = (2, 3) (b): b = (y−t,x−t)...

work page 2002

[26] [26]

Residual-based stabilized higher-order fem for advection-dominated problems,

G. Lube and G. Rapin, “Residual-based stabilized higher-order fem for advection-dominated problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , vol. 195, no. 33-36, pp. 4124–4138, 2006

work page 2006

[27] [27]

Huang and R

W. Huang and R. D. Russell, Adaptive moving mesh methods . Springer, 2011

work page 2011

[28] [28]

Moving mesh ﬁnite element simulation for phase-ﬁeld modeling of brittle fracture and convergence of newton’s iteration,

F. Zhang, W. Huang, X. Li, and S. Zhang, “Moving mesh ﬁnite element simulation for phase-ﬁeld modeling of brittle fracture and convergence of newton’s iteration,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 356, pp. 127–149, 2018

work page 2018

[29] [29]

A new functional for variational mesh generation and adaptation based on equidistribution and alignment conditions,

A. Kolasinski and W. Huang, “A new functional for variational mesh generation and adaptation based on equidistribution and alignment conditions,” Computers & Mathematics with Applica- tions, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 2044–2058, 2018

work page 2044

[30] [30]

Stability of the supg ﬁnite element method for transient advection–diﬀusion problems,

P. B. Bochev, M. D. Gunzburger, and J. N. Shadid, “Stability of the supg ﬁnite element method for transient advection–diﬀusion problems,” Computer methods in applied mechanics and engi- neering, vol. 193, no. 23-26, pp. 2301–2323, 2004. 17 (a): MM-FEM (b): MM-SUPG (c): Enlarged view of (a) (d): Enlarged view of (b) Figure 12: Example 3 – side view with ∆ ...

work page 2004