Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 29 references

A Chimera domain decomposition method with weak Dirichlet-Robin coupling for finite element simulation of particulate flows

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that weak imposition of Dirichlet constraints through a distributed interior penalty term stabilizes hydrodynamic forces in moving-particle simulations, restoring continuous dependence on particle position and giving…

desk verdict A useful penalty-based Chimera method with real force-smoothing gains, but the 'continuous dependence' claim is overstated and a few reproducibility gaps need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22831 v1 pith:TQP5WCRX submitted 2025-06-28 math.NA cs.NA

Raphael Münster , Otto Mierka , Dmitri Kuzmin , Stefan Turek This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M5576D0576M10
keywords particulateflowsChimeradomaindecompositionoversetgridsweakDirichlet-Robincouplinginteriorpenaltyfiniteelementmethodfictitiousboundarydragandliftforces
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a new multimesh finite element method for direct numerical simulation of particulate flows. Instead of strongly pinning the background velocity to the rigid-body motion at discrete mesh nodes, the authors enforce the coupling weakly through a distributed interior penalty term, supplemented by Robin-type conditions on body-fitted submeshes attached to each particle. The aim is to remove the nonphysical force oscillations that arise when a small particle displacement activates or deactivates nodal constraints, and this is achieved in the tested cases: the moving-cylinder test on fine meshes matches reference drag within 1% and lift within 5% over the full oscillation cycle. A sympathetic reading is that weakly enforced Dirichlet–Robin coupling makes the solution continuously dependent on particle position without the cost of mesh deformation or fine background meshes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distributed interior penalty term $s(\hat{u}, U; u, v) = \gamma_{\max} \sum_{k=1}^{N_p} \bigl[ \int_{\widehat{\Omega}_k(t)} \beta_k (u - \hat{u})\cdot v\,dx + \int_{B_k(t)} (u - U)\cdot v\,dx \bigr]$, added to the weak form of the background Navier–Stokes problem. The damping function $\beta_k$ ramps from $1$ inside the particle to $0$ near the outer boundary of the submesh, so that the penalty acts as a weak Dirichlet constraint on the background velocity while avoiding interference with the Robin boundary condition (5d) that transfers background data to the subproblem. The penalty term produces a symmetric positive semi-definite matrix $D$ in the discrete system, and it is applied both in the viscous Burgers step and in the final velocity update of the fractional-step scheme. This is what makes the coupling weak, continuous, and stable.

What would settle it

Run the moving-cylinder test of Section 7.2 on a coarse background mesh with adaptive quadrature applied to the interior penalty term (7). If the drag and lift fluctuations are not reduced to the levels seen on fine meshes, or if the condition number of $M_L + \Delta t D$ grows without bound as $\gamma_{\max}$ is increased, the claim of continuous dependence on particle position would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that weak imposition of Dirichlet constraints, via the interior penalty term (7), stabilizes the hydrodynamic forces in simulations with moving particles. In the 3D oscillating-cylinder test, the weak version (Chimera-W) produces smooth drag and lift curves that track the reference values within ±1% and ±5% on fine meshes, whereas the strong version (Chimera-S) exhibits strong oscillations because small displacements of the submesh activate or deactivate constraints at background nodes. The authors further show that in the Segre–Silberberg migration test the two versions converge to the same equilibrium positions, while the strong version is less oscillatory in that steady configuration. The method is posited as an accurate DNS tool at a fraction of the cost of fixed-mesh fictitious boundary methods.

Load-bearing premise

The premise is that the hand-chosen penalty parameter $\gamma_{\max}$ and damping profile $\beta_k$, evaluated with standard quadrature, enforce the velocity constraint accurately without locking the solution; Section 7.2 shows this works only on fine meshes, since on coarse meshes small submesh displacements still activate or deactivate quadrature points and the proposed adaptive quadrature remedy is not implemented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the moving cylinder, fine-mesh Chimera-W matches reference drag within 1% and lift within 5% over the full oscillation cycle.
  • Replacing strongly imposed nodal constraints with the penalty term removes the spurious force oscillations that plague Chimera-S when particles move.
  • One outer iteration is sufficient in the weak version, so the method is cheaper than the strong version and cheaper than fixed-mesh fictitious boundary methods.
  • The penalty formulation naturally averages data in regions where submesh atmospheres overlap, so extension to overlapping submeshes is feasible within the same framework.
  • In the Segre–Silberberg tests, both versions converge to the same equilibrium positions, and channel-length studies show that a domain of at least $10H$ is needed for reliable results.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The coarse-mesh fluctuations the authors attribute to standard quadrature suggest that implementing adaptive quadrature for (7) could make the method accurate on meshes an order of magnitude coarser; this is a testable extension.
  • The damping profile $\beta_k$ is effectively a continuous filter between the strongly constrained particle interior and the free stream; tuning it could trade off force smoothness against phase accuracy, a degree of freedom not explored in the paper.
  • Because the penalty law resembles a distributed Lagrange multiplier in the limit $\gamma_{\max}\to\infty$, the method may connect quantitatively to DLM/fictitious-domain force formulas, giving a way to predict the asymptotic force error.
  • For non-spherical particles the submesh is body-fitted, so the same coupling should transfer without the quadrature jumps becoming worse, provided the damping layer follows the boundary shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Chimera (overset) multimesh finite element method for direct numerical simulation of incompressible particulate flows. A fixed background mesh covers the whole domain, while body-fitted ALE submeshes around each particle compute the near-field velocity and pressure used for hydrodynamic forces. Coupling is achieved by a Robin condition on the submesh boundary and by a distributed interior penalty term, Eq. (7), which weakly enforces the Dirichlet velocity on the background mesh. The authors compare a strong-form implementation (Chimera-S) with the new weak-form implementation (Chimera-W) on the DFG 2D-2 cylinder benchmark, a moving-cylinder test, and the Segré–Silberberg migration problem. The central claims are that weak Dirichlet imposition stabilizes force oscillations for moving particles and that the method is robust and accurate at a fraction of the cost of fixed-mesh fictitious boundary methods.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the method is a genuine contribution: it combines the accuracy of body-fitted submeshes for force evaluation with the simplicity of a fixed background mesh, and it replaces strong nodal Dirichlet constraints by a distributed penalty that is, in principle, continuously dependent on particle position. The paper contains extensive numerical experiments, including comparison with the external DFG 2D-2 benchmark and with the reference results of Yang et al. [29], and the reported fine-mesh agreement within 1% for drag and 5% for lift on the moving-cylinder test is encouraging. The authors are also transparent about the residual limitation of the current implementation, which is a point in the paper's favor.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7.2, Eq. (7), and Section 8] The paper's central claim of 'continuous dependence of numerical solutions on the location of moving particles' is not established for the implemented scheme. The discrete interior penalty term (7) is assembled using standard quadrature on the intersection of the fixed background mesh and the moving ALE submesh. As the authors state in Section 7.2, 'small displacements of the submesh may activate or deactivate some quadrature points in an abrupt manner,' which produces exactly the kind of force oscillation that motivates the weak formulation. The proposed remedy, adaptive numerical integration, is not implemented, and the fine-mesh agreement within 1%/5% does not address the coarse-mesh regime in which the method is claimed to deliver its main cost savings. The Conclusion in Section 8 must either be qualified to the non-adaptive implementation and fine meshes, or the adaptive quadrature must be implemented and tested.
  2. [Section 7.3, Tables 5 and 6] The naming and presentation of the Segré–Silberberg results are internally inconsistent. Table 5 is titled 'Equilibrium positions computed with Chimera-S for the particle size 2a = 0.10', but it contains a '%difference (vs. Chimera-S)' column and L4 resolutions, while the text says Chimera-S computations were performed on only three resolution levels and Chimera-W was extended to higher levels. The sentence 'The Chimera-W results (not presented here)' then conflicts with Tables 5 and 6, which appear to report Chimera-W results. This makes it difficult to interpret which column corresponds to which method and weakens the comparison; the headers and the surrounding text should be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 7.3] Please clarify the role of Tables 5 and 6: if they contain Chimera-W results, the table titles and the sentence 'The Chimera-W results (not presented here)' should be corrected.
  2. [Section 8] There is a grammatical error in 'Extension to overlapping submeshes are feasible'; it should be 'Extensions ... are feasible'.
  3. [Section 7.1, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) contains a typo: 'the coefficients Cd and Cd vary over time' should refer to Cd and Cl.
  4. [Section 7.2, Figures 9 and 10] The labels 'L4-Thick' and 'L4-Thin' are not defined in the text; please specify how these submesh levels differ.
  5. [Section 4] The paper does not report the numerical values used for the penalty parameters gamma_max and alpha, nor their sensitivity or the conditioning of the resulting algebraic system; a brief discussion or a reference to a sensitivity study would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Figure 12] The subplot labels in Figure 12 are incomplete (e.g., 'Re80' and 'Chimera Re80' without specifying that these are Chimera-S results); please make the legends self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the method is validated against external benchmarks and a distinct body-fitted reference, and the admitted quadrature limitation is a support gap rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: the interior penalty term (7) is inserted into the background weak form (8) and coupled to the ALE submesh problems (5); the predicted forces are computed from the independent submesh stress σ̂_h in (4), not from the penalty parameters. Validation is against the DFG 2D-2 benchmark [17], the body-fitted reference of Wan et al. [27], and the external Segre–Silberberg data of Yang et al. [29]. Although [27] shares co-author Turek, it is a distinct body-fitted computation and is not used to fit γ_max, β_k, or H_k, so it constitutes independent evidence (externally falsifiable) rather than a circular input. The paper explicitly admits in §7.2 that 'small displacements of the submesh may activate or deactivate some quadrature points in an abrupt manner' on coarse meshes, with adaptive quadrature only proposed; this undermines the unqualified 'continuous dependence' claim in §8, but it is a correctness/support gap, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical scheme rests on the standard incompressible Navier-Stokes model, the Q2-P1disc FE pair, and a fractional-step projection method. The user-selected algorithmic parameters gamma_max, alpha, and the beta damping ramp are not derived from the physics and no sensitivity study is reported. The ALE submesh formulation is imported from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_max (interior penalty parameter) = not reported (described as much greater than 1)
    Appears in penalty term (7) and discrete systems (10)-(12); its value controls how strongly the background velocity is pulled toward the submesh and rigid-body velocities, and is never specified or varied.
  • alpha (Robin coupling parameter) = not reported
    Appears in the Robin boundary condition (5d) for the submesh problem; no value or sensitivity study is given.
  • beta damping profile (0.75H and 0.25H ramp) = R+0.75H to R+H ramp
    The damping function beta in (7) is chosen with a ramp from 0.75H to 0.25H of the atmosphere width from the particle surface; this profile is ad hoc and not varied.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (1) govern the fluid-particle mixture
    Standard model; defines the PDE problem in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Particles do not collide and their subdomains do not overlap (Omega_hat_k intersect B_j is empty)
    Stated in Section 3; simplifies the coupling and avoids handling overlapping submeshes.
  • domain assumption ALE formulation with mesh velocity w_k = U_k is valid for the moving submeshes
    Invoked in Section 4 and referenced to [1,12,28]; not derived in the paper.
  • standard math Q2-P1disc element pair is inf-sup stable for the velocity-pressure discretization
    Standard FE assumption used implicitly in Section 4.
  • standard math Fractional-step projection (Burgers, pressure Poisson, correction) converges to the coupled NS solution
    Standard projection framework from [19-21] reused in Section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper Penalty parameters gamma_max and alpha can be chosen to make the weak constraint error negligible without causing ill-conditioning
    No analysis or numerical sensitivity is provided for these choices; they are assumed to work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Chimera domain decomposition method with weak Dirichlet-Robin coupling for finite element simulation of particulate flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQP5WCRX

@misc{pith2026250622831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Chimera domain decomposition method with weak Dirichlet-Robin coupling for finite element simulation of particulate flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQP5WCRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22831}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a new multimesh finite element method for direct numerical simulation of incompressible particulate flows. The proposed approach falls into the category of overlapping domain decomposition / Chimera / overset grid meshes. In addition to calculating the velocity and pressure of the fictitious fluid on a fixed background mesh, we solve the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on body-fitted submeshes that are attached to moving particles. The submesh velocity and pressure are used to calculate the hydrodynamic forces and torques acting on the particles. The coupling with the background velocity and pressure is enforced via (i) Robin-type boundary conditions for an Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) formulation of the submesh problems and (ii) a Dirichlet-type distributed interior penalty term in the weak form of the background mesh problem. The implementation of the weak Dirichlet-Robin coupling is discussed in the context of discrete projection methods and finite element discretizations. Detailed numerical studies are performed for standard test problems involving fixed and moving immersed objects. A comparison of Chimera results with those produced by fictitious boundary methods illustrates significant gains in the accuracy of drag and lift approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Subdomains of the Chimera domain decomposition method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chimera-type domain decomposition for a flow around a cylinder configuration. Velocity (top) and pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Background mesh and submeshes for the DFG Benchmark 2D-2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the drag and lift coefficients computed with FBM on different levels of resolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the drag coefficient computed with Chimera-S on different levels of mesh resolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the lift coefficient computed with Chimera-S on different levels of resolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the drag coefficient, Chimera-S method vs. reference data from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the lift coefficients, Chimera-S method vs. reference data from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the drag coefficient, Chimera-W method vs. reference data from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the lift coefficient, Chimera-W method vs. reference data from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic setup of the Segre–Silberberg migration test. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stability and oscillations of Segre–Silberberg equilibrium positions, FBM vs. Chimera-S. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    B. H. Yang, J. Wang, D. D. Joseph, H. H. Hu, T.-W. Pan, and R. Glowinski. Numerical study of particle migration in tube and plane Poiseuille flows.Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications, page 225–235, 2006. Appendix A. Matrices and vectors of the discrete problem The finite element approximations to the background velocity and pressure are given by uh(x, t)...

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    An interface-fitted subspace projection method for finite element simulations of particulate flows.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer- ing, 267:133–149, Dec 2013

    Steffen Basting and Rodolphe Prignitz. An interface-fitted subspace projection method for finite element simulations of particulate flows.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer- ing, 267:133–149, Dec 2013. 18 2¯a Re Short Medium Long M.vs.S [%] M.vs.L [%] 0.10 18 0.3330 0.3427 0.3426 -2.9 -0.1 80 0.2175 0.2194 0.2189 -0.9 -0.2 180 -0.1061 0.16...

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Dokken, August Johansson, André Massing, and Simon W

    Jørgen S. Dokken, August Johansson, André Massing, and Simon W. Funke. A multimesh finite element method for the Navier–Stokes equations based on projection methods.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 368:113129, Aug 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    AdistributedLagrangemultiplier/fictitious domain method for particulate flows.International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 25(5):755–794, Aug 1999

    R.Glowinski, T.-W.Pan, T.I.Hesla, andD.D.Joseph. AdistributedLagrangemultiplier/fictitious domain method for particulate flows.International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 25(5):755–794, Aug 1999

    1999

  5. [4]

    Glowinski, T.W

    R. Glowinski, T.W. Pan, T.I. Hesla, D.D. Joseph, and J. Périaux. A fictitious domain approach to the direct numerical simulation of incompressible viscous flow past moving rigid bodies: Appli- cation to particulate flow.Journal of Computational Physics, 169(2):363–426, May 2001. 19 65.0 65.5 66.0 66.5 67.0 67.5 68.0 68.5 69.0 0.390 0.395 0.400 0.405 0.410...

    work page 2001

  6. [5]

    Haeri and J.S

    S. Haeri and J.S. Shrimpton. On the application of immersed boundary, fictitious domain and body-conformal mesh methods to many particle multiphase flows.International Journal of Mul- tiphase Flow, 40:38–55, Apr 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    William D. Henshaw. A fourth-order accurate method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equa- tions on overlapping grids.Journal of Computational Physics, 113(1):13–25, Jul 1994

    work page 1994

  8. [7]

    Henshaw and N

    William D. Henshaw and N. Anders Petersson. A split-step scheme for the incompressible Navier- Stokes equations. Numerical Simulations of Incompressible Flows, page 108–125, Jan 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    A Chimera method based on a Dirich- let/Neumann(Robin) coupling for the Navier–Stokes equations

    Guillaume Houzeaux and Ramon Codina. A Chimera method based on a Dirich- let/Neumann(Robin) coupling for the Navier–Stokes equations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192(31–32):3343–3377, Aug 2003

    2003

  2. [9]

    Larson, and Anders Logg

    August Johansson, Benjamin Kehlet, Mats G. Larson, and Anders Logg. Multimesh finite element methods: Solving PDEs on multiple intersecting meshes.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 343:672–689, Jan 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Sources of spurious force oscil- 20 lations from an immersed boundary method for moving-body problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(7):2677–2695, Apr 2011

    Jongho Lee, Jungwoo Kim, Haecheon Choi, and Kyung-Soo Yang. Sources of spurious force oscil- 20 lations from an immersed boundary method for moving-body problems.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(7):2677–2695, Apr 2011

    2011

  4. [11]

    Main and G

    A. Main and G. Scovazzi. The shifted boundary method for embedded domain computations. Part II: Linear advection–diffusion and incompressible Navier–Stokes equations.Journal of Computa- tional Physics, 372:996–1026, Nov 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    B. Maury. Direct simulations of 2D fluid-particle flows in biperiodic domains.Journal of Compu- tational Physics, 156(2):325–351, Dec 1999

    1999

  6. [13]

    Münster, O

    R. Münster, O. Mierka, and S. Turek. Finite element-fictitious boundary methods (FEM-FBM) for 3D particulate flow. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 69(2):294–313, May 2011

    2011

  7. [14]

    Patankar, P

    N.A. Patankar, P. Singh, D.D. Joseph, R. Glowinski, and T.-W. Pan. A new formulation of the distributed Lagrange multiplier/Fictitious domain method for particulate flows.International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 26(9):1509–1524, Sep 2000

    2000

  8. [15]

    Charles S. Peskin. The immersed boundary method. Acta Numerica 2002, page 479–518, Jul 2002

    2002

  9. [16]

    Numerical simulation of suspension induced rheology

    Rodolphe Prignitz and Bänsch Eberhard. Numerical simulation of suspension induced rheology. Kybernetika, 46(2):281–293, 2010

    2010

  10. [17]

    Schäfer, S

    M. Schäfer, S. Turek, F. Durst, E. Krause, and R. Rannacher. Benchmark computations of laminar flow around a cylinder.Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM), page 547–566, 1996

    1996

  11. [18]

    Patankar

    Nitin Sharma and Neelesh A. Patankar. A fast computation technique for the direct numerical simulation of rigid particulate flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 205(2):439–457, May 2005

    2005

  12. [19]

    Springer, 1999

    Stefan Turek.Efficient Solvers for Incompressible Flow problems: An Algorithmic and Computa- tional Approach. Springer, 1999

    1999

  13. [20]

    Algebraic flux correction III: Incompressible flow problems

    Stefan Turek and Dmitri Kuzmin. Algebraic flux correction III: Incompressible flow problems. In Dmitri Kuzmin, Stefan Turek, and Rainald Löhner, editors,Flux-Corrected Transport, pages 239–297. Springer, 2 edition, 2012

    2012

  14. [21]

    University of Dortmund, 2000

    Stefan Turek et al.FeatFlow: Finite Element Software for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equa- tions. University of Dortmund, 2000. User manual

    2000

  15. [22]

    An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of par- ticulate flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 209(2):448–476, Nov 2005

    Markus Uhlmann. An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of par- ticulate flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 209(2):448–476, Nov 2005. 21

    2005

  16. [23]

    Veeramani, P

    C. Veeramani, P. D. Minev, and K. Nandakumar. A fictitious domain formulation for flows with rigid particles: A non-Lagrange multiplier version.Journal of Computational Physics, 224(2):867– 879, Jun 2007

    2007

  17. [24]

    von Wahl

    H. von Wahl. Unfitted Finite Elements for Fluid-Rigid Body Interaction Problems. PhD thesis, University of Magdeburg, 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Decheng Wan and Stefan Turek. Direct numerical simulation of particulate flow via multigrid fem techniques and the fictitious boundary method.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 51(5):531–566, Dec 2005

    2005

  19. [26]

    Modeling of liquid-solid flows with large number of moving particles by multigrid fictitious boundary method.Journal of Hydrodynamics, 18(S1):93–100, Feb 2006

    Decheng Wan and Stefan Turek. Modeling of liquid-solid flows with large number of moving particles by multigrid fictitious boundary method.Journal of Hydrodynamics, 18(S1):93–100, Feb 2006

    2006

  20. [27]

    An efficient multigrid-FEM method for the simulation of solid–liquid two phase flows.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 203(2):561–580, Jun 2007

    Decheng Wan and Stefan Turek. An efficient multigrid-FEM method for the simulation of solid–liquid two phase flows.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 203(2):561–580, Jun 2007

    2007

  21. [28]

    Fictitious boundary and moving mesh methods for the numerical simulation of rigid particulate flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 222(1):28–56, Mar 2007

    Decheng Wan and Stefan Turek. Fictitious boundary and moving mesh methods for the numerical simulation of rigid particulate flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 222(1):28–56, Mar 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.