pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27537 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Recognition: unknown

Parameterization-driven arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian method for large-deformation isogeometric fluid-structure interaction

Jingya Li , Ye Ji , Hugo Verhelst , Henk den Besten , Matthias M\"oller
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerianisogeometric analysisfluid-structure interactionspline parameterizationlarge deformationtangential slipgeometric conservation law
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reformulating ALE mesh motion as independent spline parameterizations enables fluid-structure simulations with sustained large rotations beyond any incremental deformation scheme.

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

The paper establishes that the ALE mesh-motion problem in isogeometric fluid-structure interaction can be recast as a sequence of independent domain-parameterization tasks solved from the current interface geometry at each time step. This replaces incremental deformation of a fixed reference mesh with fresh multi-patch spline constructions that enforce positive Jacobian via barrier functions and accommodate arbitrary rotations through tangential-slip reparameterization. A constant-preserving quasi-interpolation operator then transfers the solution while preserving the discrete geometric conservation law. The approach matters because it unlocks regimes of unbounded cumulative rotation and extreme deformation that cause classical mesh-update methods to fail by tangling or excessive distortion, as shown on rotating-square and rotor benchmarks.

Core claim

By solving a new multi-patch spline parameterization of the fluid domain from the instantaneous interface position at every time step, using a barrier-function approach to guarantee strictly positive Jacobian, a tangential-slip reparameterization for closed domains under large rotations, and a constant-preserving quasi-interpolation operator for solution transfer that satisfies the discrete geometric conservation law algebraically, the method permits accurate isogeometric FSI computations under sustained large deformations and rotations that remain inaccessible to any formulation based on deforming an initial mesh.

What carries the argument

The parameterization-driven ALE formulation, in which the fluid domain is reparameterized afresh using isogeometric splines at each time step rather than incrementally deformed from a reference configuration.

If this is right

  • The tangential-slip strategy allows full sustained rotations of closed interfaces without requiring a fixed boundary-to-parameter correspondence.
  • The quasi-interpolation transfer operator ensures the discrete geometric conservation law holds exactly at the algebraic level.
  • The same per-step parameterization framework extends directly to three-dimensional volumetric spline domains, as verified on a rotor example.
  • The resulting parameterizations integrate immediately into standard finite-element solvers without custom mesh-update logic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If automatic construction of valid multi-patch splines can be made robust and fast, the method may reduce reliance on manual intervention or remeshing in other large-deformation moving-boundary problems.
  • The separation of parameterization from solution transfer opens the possibility of applying different spline degrees or knot spacings at each step to control local resolution independently of the flow solver.
  • Similar reparameterization ideas could be tested on non-FSI problems such as free-surface flows or shape optimization where domain topology changes gradually.

Load-bearing premise

A valid multi-patch spline parameterization of the fluid domain with strictly positive Jacobian can always be constructed from the current interface geometry at every time step even under arbitrary large deformations and rotations.

What would settle it

A rotating-square benchmark run in which the spline parameterization produces a non-positive Jacobian at some rotation angle despite the tangential-slip strategy, causing immediate simulation failure, would show that the method cannot handle sustained rotations as claimed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27537 by Henk den Besten, Hugo Verhelst, Jingya Li, Matthias M\"oller, Ye Ji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two approaches to ALE mesh motion under large interface displacement, illustrated on a rotating-square configuration. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Configurations and mappings in the ALE–FSI framework, shown on a representative conforming parameterization in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic of one time step of Algorithm 1, illustrated on the rotating-square geometry. Input: solution at 𝑡 𝑛−1 on the previous mesh Ω𝑓,𝑛−1 ℎ . Steps 1–2: new interface curves obtained from the structural solver or prescribed kinematics, after tangential reparameterization (closed domains). Step 3: initial ruled-surface parameterization before quality optimization. Step 4: optimized parameterization Ω𝑓,𝑛 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maximum admissible rotation angles for different mesh-motion strategies. Each panel in the left block shows the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Setup and parameters of the perpendicular-flap benchmark. The geometry schematic is adapted from the preCICE view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time history of the fluid velocity magnitude and the isogeometric parameterization for the perpendicular-flap benchmark, view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Perpendicular-flap benchmark: horizontal tip displacement histories obtained with six mesh-update strategies. view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Perpendicular-flap benchmark: minimum scaled Jacobian view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Turek–Hron FSI2 benchmark setup: a rigid cylinder with an elastic beam clamped to its downstream side, immersed in view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Patch decomposition of the fluid domain for the FSI2 benchmark. The rigid cylinder (white disc) and the elastic beam view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Turek–Hron FSI2 benchmark: velocity field and regenerated mesh at two instants in the periodic regime, near opposite view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FSI2 benchmark: time history of the vertical tip displacement of the elastic beam. The dashed orange lines mark the view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FSI2 benchmark: cumulative wall-clock time decomposed into the beam solver, the flow solver, and the barrier-patch view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Rotating-square benchmark setup. The inner 3 view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Velocity field (left) and regenerated ALE mesh (right) at selected rotation angles. The two velocity columns share the view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Minimum scaled Jacobian 𝒥min of the ALE fluid parameterization over one full revolution of the inner square. The red and green circles mark the global minimum and maximum, respectively. Two observations stand out. First, 𝒥min stays strictly bounded away from zero throughout the entire rotation, so no mesh degeneration is encountered. The minimum value 𝒥min = 0.6075 is attained at 𝜃 = 96.8 ∘ , and the maxi… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Cumulative barrier-patch reparameterization time over 200 time steps, for polynomial degrees view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Workflow for exporting the regenerated spline geometry to a finite element solver. At each time step, the spline view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Drag force histories on the rotating square, computed with G+Smo (IGA) and view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Setup of the 3D rotating-rotor benchmark. (a) Cross-section through the cylindrical casing showing the four-bladed view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Three-dimensional rotating-rotor benchmark at view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Body-fitted arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) methods provide a sharp representation of the fluid-structure interface but rely on mesh-update strategies that incrementally deform a reference configuration. To address this issue, we reformulate the ALE mesh-motion problem in the isogeometric setting as a sequence of independent domain parameterization problems. At each time step, a multi-patch spline parameterization of the fluid domain is constructed from the current interface geometry. Three technical components realize this framework: (i) a barrier-function-based spline parameterization that enforces a strictly positive Jacobian at every time step; (ii) a tangential-slip reparameterization that handles unbounded cumulative rotations of closed domains, where no fixed boundary-to-parameter correspondence is admissible; and (iii) a constant-preserving quasi-interpolation operator for solution transfer between consecutive parameterizations, ensuring that the discrete geometric conservation law holds algebraically. We validate the method on three two-dimensional FSI benchmarks, covering standard and large-rotation regimes, and on a three-dimensional rotor problem. On a rotating-square benchmark, the tangential-slip strategy enables simulations under sustained rotation far beyond the range accessible to classical mesh-update schemes--a regime that is fundamentally inaccessible to any mesh-deformation formulation, not merely numerically difficult. A three-dimensional rotor example further demonstrates that the framework extends naturally to volumetric spline parameterizations. Finally, we show that the per-step spline parameterizations can be used directly within a standard finite element solver.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a parameterization-driven ALE formulation for isogeometric FSI in which the fluid domain is re-parameterized as an independent multi-patch spline problem at each time step from the current interface geometry. The framework rests on three components: a barrier-function optimization that enforces strictly positive Jacobian, a tangential-slip reparameterization to accommodate unbounded cumulative rotations of closed domains, and a constant-preserving quasi-interpolation operator that transfers solutions while satisfying the discrete geometric conservation law algebraically. Validation is reported on three 2D FSI benchmarks (including large-rotation cases) and a 3D rotor problem, with the central assertion that the approach reaches sustained-rotation regimes inaccessible to any mesh-deformation ALE scheme.

Significance. If the per-step parameterization step can be performed reliably, the method would remove a fundamental limitation of body-fitted ALE schemes and enable simulations of sustained large rotations (e.g., rotors, flapping wings) that are impossible under incremental mesh-update strategies. The algebraic preservation of the geometric conservation law is a clear technical strength. The work therefore has the potential to broaden the applicability of isogeometric FSI, provided the robustness of the parameterization step is established.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and parameterization section] Abstract and the section introducing the barrier-function-based spline parameterization: the claim that the tangential-slip strategy enables simulations 'far beyond the range accessible to classical mesh-update schemes' and 'fundamentally inaccessible to any mesh-deformation formulation' rests on the assumption that a valid multi-patch spline parameterization with strictly positive Jacobian can always be constructed from the current interface geometry. The barrier-function formulation is presented to enforce positivity, yet the manuscript supplies no existence proof, sufficient conditions on the interface, or analysis of failure modes for the nonlinear optimization. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of accessing new regimes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Validation section] Validation section: the reported benchmarks supply no quantitative error metrics, convergence data, or direct comparisons against classical ALE schemes, which would be needed to assess accuracy and stability in the newly accessible regimes.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: the multi-patch spline domains and the precise mapping between interface geometry and spline control points could be defined more explicitly to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The major comment identifies a key assumption underlying our central claims about accessing new simulation regimes. We respond point by point below and outline targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and parameterization section] Abstract and the section introducing the barrier-function-based spline parameterization: the claim that the tangential-slip strategy enables simulations 'far beyond the range accessible to classical mesh-update schemes' and 'fundamentally inaccessible to any mesh-deformation formulation' rests on the assumption that a valid multi-patch spline parameterization with strictly positive Jacobian can always be constructed from the current interface geometry. The barrier-function formulation is presented to enforce positivity, yet the manuscript supplies no existence proof, sufficient conditions on the interface, or analysis of failure modes for the nonlinear optimization. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of accessing new regimes.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply a formal existence proof, sufficient conditions on the interface geometry, or a systematic analysis of failure modes for the nonlinear barrier-function optimization. The work is algorithmic and numerical in focus, and the central claim is supported by the concrete benchmarks rather than a general theorem. In all reported 2D and 3D examples the optimization, initialized from the previous time-step parameterization and combined with the tangential-slip reparameterization, produced valid multi-patch splines with strictly positive Jacobians. To strengthen the presentation we will (i) revise the abstract and introduction to state that the method reaches the reported regimes in the tested classes of problems where the parameterization succeeds, (ii) add a short subsection in the parameterization section that discusses observed practical behavior, including cases where the optimizer fails to converge (e.g., extreme local distortions) and the heuristics employed (adaptive barrier weights, quality-based initial guesses, and fallback re-meshing), and (iii) include a brief remark on the absence of a general existence result. These changes make the load-bearing assumption explicit without altering the numerical evidence or the algorithmic contribution. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; independent algorithmic components and per-step constructions

full rationale

The derivation reformulates ALE mesh motion as a sequence of independent domain-parameterization problems solved anew at each time step via a barrier-function spline map, tangential-slip reparameterization, and constant-preserving quasi-interpolation. None of these reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; each is introduced as a distinct technical contribution. Benchmark validation supplies external checks rather than tautological confirmation. The existence of valid positive-Jacobian multi-patch maps is treated as an operating assumption, not derived from the method itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard spline theory and the assumption that suitable parameterizations exist for deformed domains; no free parameters or new physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Multi-patch spline parameterizations with strictly positive Jacobian determinant can be constructed for arbitrary interface geometries at each time step
    Invoked to guarantee valid fluid meshes throughout the simulation
  • standard math The quasi-interpolation operator exactly preserves constant functions
    Required for algebraic satisfaction of the discrete geometric conservation law

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1389 out tokens · 46947 ms · 2026-05-07T09:41:43.791062+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N. D. Katopodes, Free-Surface Flow: Computational Methods, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    T. E. Tezduyar, Finite element methods for flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 8 (2) (2001) 83–130.doi:10.1007/BF02897870

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02897870 2001

  3. [3]

    Computational Fluid–Structure Interaction

    Y. Bazilevs, K. Takizawa, T. E. Tezduyar, Computational Fluid–Structure Interaction: Methods and Applications, Wiley Series in Computational Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.doi:10.1002/9781118483565

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118483565 2013

  4. [4]

    G. Hou, J. Wang, A. Layton, Numerical methods for fluid-structure interaction – a review, Communications in Computational Physics 12 (2) (2012) 337–377.doi:10.4208/cicp.291210.290411s

    work page doi:10.4208/cicp.291210.290411s 2012

  5. [5]

    Takagi, K

    S. Takagi, K. Sugiyama, S. Ii, Y. Matsumoto, A review of full Eulerian methods for fluid structure interaction problems, Journal of Applied Mechanics 79 (1) (2012) 010911.doi:10.1115/1.4005184

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4005184 2012

  6. [6]

    C. S. Peskin, The immersed boundary method, Acta Numerica 11 (2002) 479–517.doi:10.1017/S0962492902000077

    work page doi:10.1017/s0962492902000077 2002

  7. [7]

    Schott, C

    B. Schott, C. Ager, W. A. Wall, Monolithic cut finite element–based approaches for fluid-structure interaction, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 119 (8) (2019) 757–796.doi:10.1002/nme.6072

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.6072 2019

  8. [8]

    Burman, P

    E. Burman, P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, S. Zahedi, Cut finite element methods, Acta Numerica 34 (2025) 1–121.doi: 10.1017/S0962492925000017

    work page doi:10.1017/s0962492925000017 2025

  9. [9]

    Marussig, T

    B. Marussig, T. J. R. Hughes, A review of trimming in isogeometric analysis: Challenges, data exchange and simulation aspects, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 25 (4) (2018) 1059–1127.doi:10.1007/s11831-017-9220-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-017-9220-9 2018

  10. [10]

    Kamensky, M.-C

    D. Kamensky, M.-C. Hsu, D. Schillinger, J. A. Evans, A. Aggarwal, Y. Bazilevs, M. S. Sacks, T. J. R. Hughes, An immerso- geometric variational framework for fluid-structure interaction: application to bioprosthetic heart valves, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 284 (2015) 1005–1053.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2014.10.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2014.10.040 2015

  11. [11]

    Hosters, J

    N. Hosters, J. Helmig, A. Stavrev, M. Behr, S. Elgeti, Fluid-structure interaction with NURBS-based coupling, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 332 (2018) 520–539.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.01.003 2018

  12. [12]

    J.-Y. Li, H. M. Verhelst, H. den Besten, M. M¨ oller, Isogeometric suitable coupling methods for partitioned multiphysics simulation with application to fluid–structure interaction, Engineering with Computers 42 (2) (2026) 69

    2026

  13. [13]

    C. W. Hirt, A. A. Amsden, J. L. Cook, An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds, Journal of Computational Physics 14 (3) (1974) 227–253.doi:10.1016/0021-9991(74)90051-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(74)90051-5 1974

  14. [14]

    Donea, A

    J. Donea, A. Huerta, J.-P. Ponthot, A. Rodriguez-Ferran, Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian methods, in: Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 2004, pp. 413–437.doi:10.1002/0470091355.ecm009

    work page doi:10.1002/0470091355.ecm009 2004

  15. [15]

    A. A. Johnson, T. E. Tezduyar, Mesh update strategies in parallel finite element computations of flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 119 (1–2) (1994) 73–94.doi:10.1016/ 0045-7825(94)00077-8

    1994

  16. [16]

    B. T. Helenbrook, Mesh deformation using the biharmonic operator, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engi- neering 56 (7) (2003) 1007–1021.doi:10.1002/nme.595

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.595 2003

  17. [17]

    T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, J. Liou, A new strategy for finite element computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces— the deforming-spatial-domain/space–time procedure: I. The concept and the preliminary numerical tests, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 94 (3) (1992) 339–351.doi:10.1016/0045-7825(92)90059-S

    work page doi:10.1016/0045-7825(92)90059-s 1992

  18. [18]

    F. J. Blom, Considerations on the spring analogy, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 32 (6) (2000) 647–668.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(20000330)32:6<647::AID-FLD979>3.0.CO;2-K

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0363(20000330)32:6 2000

  19. [19]

    Farhat, P

    C. Farhat, P. Geuzaine, C. Grandmont, The discrete geometric conservation law and the nonlinear stability of ALE schemes for the solution of flow problems on moving grids, Journal of Computational Physics 174 (2) (2001) 669–694.doi:10.1006/ jcph.2001.6932

    work page arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    Formaggia, F

    L. Formaggia, F. Nobile, Stability analysis of second-order time accurate schemes for ALE–FEM, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 193 (39-41) (2004) 4097–4116.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2003.09.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2003.09.028 2004

  21. [21]

    Fast and power efficient GPU-based explicit elastic wave propagation analysis by low- ordered orthogonal voxel finite element with INT8 tensor cores

    T. Hughes, J. Cottrell, Y. Bazilevs, Isogeometric analysis: Cad, finite elements, nurbs, exact geometry and mesh refinement, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 194 (39) (2005) 4135–4195.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cma.2004.10.008. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782504005171

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2005

  22. [22]

    Bazilevs, V

    Y. Bazilevs, V. M. Calo, T. J. R. Hughes, Y. Zhang, Isogeometric fluid-structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and computations, Computational Mechanics 43 (1) (2008) 3–37.doi:10.1007/s00466-008-0315-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-008-0315-x 2008

  23. [23]

    Bazilevs, V

    Y. Bazilevs, V. M. Calo, Y. Zhang, T. J. R. Hughes, Isogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis with applications to arterial blood flow, Computational Mechanics 38 (4) (2006) 310–322.doi:10.1007/s00466-006-0084-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-006-0084-3 2006

  24. [24]

    Bazilevs, K

    Y. Bazilevs, K. Takizawa, T. E. Tezduyar, ALE-VMS and ST-VMS methods for computer modeling of wind-turbine rotor aerodynamics and fluid-structure interaction, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 23 (2) (2013) 249–267. doi:10.1142/S0218202513400034

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202513400034 2013

  25. [25]

    Bazilevs, K

    Y. Bazilevs, K. Takizawa, T. E. Tezduyar, A. Korobenko, T. Kuraishi, Y. Otoguro, Computational aerodynamics with isogeometric analysis, Journal of Mechanics 39 (2023) 24–39.doi:10.1093/jom/ufad002

    work page doi:10.1093/jom/ufad002 2023

  26. [26]

    Takizawa, Y

    K. Takizawa, Y. Bazilevs, T. E. Tezduyar, A linear-elasticity-based mesh moving method with no cycle-to-cycle accumulated distortion, Computational Mechanics 67 (6) (2021) 1739–1764.doi:10.1007/s00466-021-02020-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-021-02020-6 2021

  27. [27]

    Codina, G

    R. Codina, G. Houzeaux, H. Coppola-Owen, J. Baiges, The fixed-mesh ALE approach for the numerical approximation of flows in moving domains, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (5) (2009) 1591–1611.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.11.004 2009

  28. [28]

    Baiges, R

    J. Baiges, R. Codina, The fixed-mesh ALE approach applied to solid mechanics and fluid-structure interaction problems, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 81 (12) (2010) 1529–1557.doi:10.1002/nme.2740

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.2740 2010

  29. [29]

    Schwentner, T.-P

    T. Schwentner, T.-P. Fries, Fully coupled, higher-order, block-structured mesh generation in fluid-structure interaction, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 97 (3) (2025) 359–377.doi:10.1002/fld.5355

    work page doi:10.1002/fld.5355 2025

  30. [30]

    Schalk, T

    T. Schalk, T. Fries, Block-structured meshing in coupled problems with moving domains, Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 26.doi:10.1002/pamm.70110. 28

    work page doi:10.1002/pamm.70110

  31. [31]

    P. E. Farrell, J. R. Maddison, Conservative interpolation between volume meshes by local Galerkin projection, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 200 (1-4) (2011) 89–100.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.07.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.07.015 2011

  32. [32]

    A. Pont, R. Codina, J. Baiges, Interpolation with restrictions between finite element meshes for flow problems in an ALE setting, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 110 (13) (2017) 1203–1226.doi:10.1002/nme.5444

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.5444 2017

  33. [33]

    Ji, Y.-Y

    Y. Ji, Y.-Y. Yu, M.-Y. Wang, C.-G. Zhu, Constructing high-quality planar NURBS parameterization for isogeometric analysis by adjustment control points and weights, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 396 (2021) 113615.doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2021.113615

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2021.113615 2021

  34. [34]

    Piegl, W

    L. Piegl, W. Tiller, The NURBS book, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  35. [35]

    Sayyid Hosseini, M

    B. Sayyid Hosseini, M. M¨ oller, S. Turek, Isogeometric analysis of the navier–stokes equations with taylor–hood b-spline elements, Applied Mathematics and Computation 267.doi:10.1016/j.amc.2015.03.104

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2015.03.104 2015

  36. [36]

    Ji, M.-Y

    Y. Ji, M.-Y. Wang, M.-D. Pan, Y. Zhang, C.-G. Zhu, Penalty function-based volumetric parameterization method for isogeometric analysis, Computer Aided Geometric Design 94 (2022) 102081.doi:10.1016/j.cagd.2022.102081

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cagd.2022.102081 2022

  37. [37]

    Y. Ji, M. M¨ oller, Y. Yu, C. Zhu, Boundary parameter matching for isogeometric analysis using schwarz–christoffel mapping, Engineering with Computers 40 (6) (2024) 3929–3947

    2024

  38. [38]

    Buffa, E

    A. Buffa, E. M. Garau, C. Giannelli, G. Sangalli, On quasi-interpolation operators in spline spaces, in: Building bridges: connections and challenges in modern approaches to numerical partial differential equations, Springer, 2016, pp. 73–91

    2016

  39. [39]

    Guillard, C

    H. Guillard, C. Farhat, On the significance of the geometric conservation law for flow computations on moving meshes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190 (11-12) (2000) 1467–1482.doi:10.1016/S0045-7825(00) 00173-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(00 2000

  40. [40]

    J¨ uttler, U

    B. J¨ uttler, U. Langer, A. Mantzaflaris, S. E. Moore, W. Zulehner, Geometry + simulation modules: Implementing isogeometric analysis, Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 14 (1) (2014) 961–962.doi:10.1002/pamm.201410461

    work page doi:10.1002/pamm.201410461 2014

  41. [41]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Bergbauer, M. Feder, M. Fehling, J. Heinz, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, P. Munch, J.-P. Pelteret, B. Turcksin, D. Wells, S. Zampini, Thedeal.IIlibrary, version 9.5, Journal of Numerical Mathe- matics 31 (3) (2023) 231–246.doi:10.1515/jnma-2023-0089

    work page doi:10.1515/jnma-2023-0089 2023

  42. [42]

    Chourdakis, K

    G. Chourdakis, K. Davis, B. Rodenberg, M. Schulte, F. Simonis, B. Uekermann, G. Abrams, H.-J. Bungartz, L. C. Yau, I. Desai, K. Eder, R. Hertrich, F. Lindner, A. Rusch, D. Sashko, D. Schneider, A. Totounferoush, D. Volland, P. Vollmer, O. Z. Koseomur, preCICE v2: A sustainable and user-friendly coupling library, Open Research Europe 2 (2022) 51.doi: 10.12...

    work page doi:10.12688/openreseurope.14445.2 2022

  43. [43]

    Shamanskiy, B

    A. Shamanskiy, B. Simeon, Mesh moving techniques in fluid-structure interaction: robustness, accumulated distortion and computational efficiency, Computational Mechanics 67 (2021) 583–600.doi:10.1007/s00466-020-01950-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-020-01950-x 2021

  44. [44]

    Wick, Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques, Computers & Structures 89 (13–14) (2011) 1456–1467.doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.019

    T. Wick, Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques, Computers & Structures 89 (13–14) (2011) 1456–1467.doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.019 2011

  45. [45]

    Stein, T

    K. Stein, T. Tezduyar, Advanced mesh update techniques for problems involving large displacements, in: Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Vienna, Austria, 2002, pp. Paper–ID 81489. URLhttp://wccm.tuwien.ac.at/

    2002

  46. [46]

    Delaiss´ e, T

    N. Delaiss´ e, T. Demeester, R. Haelterman, J. Degroote, Quasi-Newton methods for partitioned simulation of fluid-structure interaction reviewed in the generalized Broyden framework, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 30 (2023) 3271–3300.doi:10.1007/s11831-023-09907-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-023-09907-y 2023

  47. [47]

    Turek, J

    S. Turek, J. Hron, Proposal for numerical benchmarking of fluid-structure interaction between an elastic object and laminar incompressible flow, in: Fluid-structure interaction: modelling, simulation, optimisation, Springer, 2006, pp. 371–385

    2006

  48. [48]

    Fixed-point fluid–structure interaction solvers with dynamic relaxation

    U. K¨ uttler, W. Wall, Fixed-point fluid-structure interaction solvers with dynamic relaxation, Computational Mechanics 43 (2008) 61–72.doi:10.1007/s00466-008-0255-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-008-0255-5 2008

  49. [49]

    Egermaier, H

    J. Egermaier, H. Horn´ ıkov´ a, Approximate inner solvers for block preconditioning of the incompressible navier–stokes problems discretized by isogeometric analysis, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 96.doi:10.1002/fld.5280. 29

    work page doi:10.1002/fld.5280