pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02334 · v1 · pith:N3RDCV7Znew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

A Unified CutFEM Formulation for Finite-Strain Elasticity: Energy Minimisation and Corner Singularities

Micha{\l} Tomasz Wichrowski , Ella Godiva Noomen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 07:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords CutFEMfinite strain elasticityenergy minimizationNitsche methodghost penaltyautomatic differentiationcorner singularityunfitted finite elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

An energy-minimization formulation unifies the CutFEM for finite-strain elasticity with automatic differentiation and cut-independent analysis.

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

The paper constructs a discrete problem for finite-strain elasticity on unfitted meshes by requiring stationarity of an energy that adds Nitsche boundary enforcement and ghost-penalty stabilization to the bulk hyperelastic energy. Automatic differentiation computes the required stress and tangent tensors from the energy density alone, so any hyperelastic model can be swapped without further code changes. Linearised analysis at Newton steps establishes coercivity and continuity independent of the cut, plus an O(h^{-2}) condition-number bound, which combines with the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart theory to give quasi-optimal convergence for smooth solutions. Numerical tests confirm optimal rates on smooth domains, while analysis of mixed boundary junctions shows that corner singularities limit the rate for unfitted and fitted discretisations alike.

Core claim

The discrete solution is defined as the critical point of the augmented energy functional, and the linearisation of this nonlinear problem at each Newton iteration satisfies the conditions of the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework independently of the mesh cut, thereby proving quasi-optimal convergence rates for regular solutions; the same formulation reveals that the convergence rate is limited by the strength of corner singularities in the same manner as conventional fitted methods.

What carries the argument

The augmented energy functional (bulk hyperelastic energy plus Nitsche terms plus ghost-penalty stabilisation), whose stationarity condition supplies the discrete equations and whose successive variations yield the residual and tangent via automatic differentiation.

If this is right

  • The formulation applies to arbitrary hyperelastic constitutive models without manual derivation of derivatives.
  • Cut-independent coercivity and continuity hold for the linearised problems solved at each Newton step.
  • Quasi-optimal convergence holds for regular solutions through the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework.
  • Optimal h-convergence is observed for polynomial degrees one through three on smooth test cases.
  • Local mesh refinement recovers optimal convergence rates despite the presence of corner singularities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Swapping hyperelastic models requires only a change to the scalar energy density function, which could simplify implementation in engineering codes.
  • The shared singularity limit between fitted and unfitted schemes implies that unfitted methods do not introduce extra accuracy penalties at corners.
  • Similar energy-based constructions might be tested on other nonlinear problems such as plasticity or contact to check if the cut-independence carries over.

Load-bearing premise

The stationarity condition of the augmented energy functional produces a discrete problem whose Newton linearisation satisfies the hypotheses of the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework.

What would settle it

If the observed convergence rate on a corner-singularity problem exceeds the rate given by the Kolosov-Muskhelishvili equation, or if the condition number depends on cut position, the central claims would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02334 by Ella Godiva Noomen, Micha{\l} Tomasz Wichrowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualisation of the region around a domain boundary in non-matching methods [51] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Problem settings: the two geometries in their deformed configuration under the load (59), shown on the coarsest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Convergence of the L2 -error of the displacement for the all-Dirichlet disc test case (p = 1, 2, 3). (a) neo-Hookean model Ψ1: solid lines load factor 0.5, dashed lines load factor 0.1; reference slopes h p+1 shown in gray. (b) split neo-Hookean model Ψ2: solid lines load factor 0.5, dashed lines load factor 0.1; reference slopes h p+1 shown in gray. Both models are expected to attain the optimal rates O(h… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence of the difference ∥uc h−um h ∥L2 against a body-fitted reference for the pole test case (perturbed background grid), for the neo-Hookean model Ψ1 (solid lines) and linear elasticity (dashed lines). (a) Mixed Dirichlet–Neumann boundary conditions: all degrees p = 1, 2, 3 collapse onto a single sub-optimal slope, the corner cap 2λ(π/2, ν) < 2 of (65). (b) Pure-Dirichlet boundary conditions: the m… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predicted L2 rate cap 2λ(π/2, ν) at a right-angle corner under plane strain, for the mixed clamped–free (Dirichlet– Neumann) corner from the characteristic equation (67) and for the clamped–clamped (Dirichlet–Dirichlet) corner from (68). The clamped–clamped exponent satisfies λ > 1 throughout, so its cap exceeds two and the degradation is milder than at the mixed corner (λ < 1). Measured rates from the pol… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Restoring the optimal L2 rate by radial mesh grading (69) towards the Dirichlet–Neumann junctions of the pole, at Poisson ratio ν = 0.45. Left (a): self-convergence of the L2 error against a finer graded reference, as a function of the number of degrees of freedom N, for linear elasticity (Lin) and the neo-Hookean model (NH), p = 1, 2. On the graded family N = O(h−2 ), so the optimal L2 rate h p+1 correspo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a fully variational, model-independent formulation of the Cut Finite Element Method (CutFEM) for finite-strain elasticity. The discrete problem is the stationarity condition of a augmented energy functional consisting of the bulk hyperelastic energy, the Nitsche terms that impose the boundary conditions weakly, and the ghost-penalty stabilisation. The residual and the (symmetrised) tangent follow from this functional by successive variations. Automatic differentiation (AD) generates the first Piola--Kirchhoff stress tensor and the elasticity tensor directly from the scalar energy density, avoiding manual re-derivation when exchanging hyperelastic models. To our knowledge, this is the first unfitted finite-strain scheme combining an energy-only, model-independent construction with AD and an accuracy analysis at unfitted boundaries. Analysis of the linearised problem solved at each Newton step establishes cut-independent coercivity, continuity, and an $O(h^{-2})$ condition number bound, yielding a quasi-optimal convergence theorem for regular solutions through the Brezzi--Rappaz--Raviart framework. Numerically, the method attains optimal $h$-convergence for linear, quadratic, and cubic elements on a smooth test case. Furthermore, we quantify the method's accuracy limit at mixed Dirichlet--Neumann junctions using the Kolosov--Muskhelishvili characteristic equation. The exact solution's corner singularity caps the convergence rate identically for fitted and unfitted methods. We demonstrate that local mesh refinement removes this bound, with the unfitted discretisation inheriting the recovered optimal rates and cut-independent constants.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a fully variational CutFEM formulation for finite-strain elasticity based on stationarity of an augmented energy functional (bulk hyperelastic energy + Nitsche boundary terms + ghost-penalty stabilisation). The residual and symmetrised tangent are obtained by successive variations, with automatic differentiation used to generate the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress and elasticity tensor directly from the scalar energy density, making the scheme model-independent. Analysis of the linearised problem at each Newton step establishes cut-independent coercivity, continuity, and an O(h^{-2}) condition-number bound, which is used with the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework to obtain a quasi-optimal convergence theorem for regular solutions. Numerical experiments demonstrate optimal h-convergence for linear, quadratic, and cubic elements on smooth problems, while corner singularities at mixed Dirichlet-Neumann junctions are shown to limit convergence rates identically for fitted and unfitted schemes, with local refinement recovering optimal rates.

Significance. If the stability and convergence claims hold, the work supplies the first unfitted finite-strain scheme that is simultaneously energy-only, model-independent via AD, and equipped with an accuracy analysis at unfitted boundaries. This combination removes the need for manual re-derivation of stress and tangent tensors when changing hyperelastic models and provides a variational route to cut-independent constants, which would be a meaningful contribution to the CutFEM literature in nonlinear solid mechanics.

major comments (2)
  1. [analysis of the linearised problem] Abstract and analysis section: the central quasi-optimal convergence theorem rests on the linearised problem at each Newton step satisfying the hypotheses of the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework with cut-independent constants; the manuscript must supply the explicit coercivity and continuity estimates (including the dependence on the ghost-penalty and Nitsche parameters) that establish the O(h^{-2}) condition-number bound independently of the cut location.
  2. [formulation and analysis] Abstract: the claim that the stationarity condition of the augmented energy defines a discrete problem whose linearisation inherits the required BRR properties is load-bearing for the convergence result; the paper should clarify how the ghost-penalty stabilisation is chosen to guarantee the necessary inf-sup or coercivity constants remain uniform with respect to the interface position.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'the (symmetrised) tangent' should be expanded to indicate whether symmetrisation is performed for theoretical convenience or for numerical robustness of the Newton solver.
  2. [numerical results] The numerical section should report the observed condition numbers versus h to corroborate the O(h^{-2}) bound claimed in the analysis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the recognition of the paper's contributions. The major comments correctly identify that the convergence analysis would benefit from more explicit detail on the estimates. We will revise the manuscript to supply these.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [analysis of the linearised problem] Abstract and analysis section: the central quasi-optimal convergence theorem rests on the linearised problem at each Newton step satisfying the hypotheses of the Brezzi-Rappaz-Raviart framework with cut-independent constants; the manuscript must supply the explicit coercivity and continuity estimates (including the dependence on the ghost-penalty and Nitsche parameters) that establish the O(h^{-2}) condition-number bound independently of the cut location.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit estimates are required for full rigor. The current analysis section derives cut-independent coercivity and continuity for the linearised problem and states the resulting O(h^{-2}) bound, but does not expand the intermediate steps showing the precise dependence on the Nitsche and ghost-penalty parameters. In the revision we will insert these estimates (with the standard scaling γ_N ~ 1/h and γ_G ~ 1 chosen to absorb the cut-dependent trace inequalities) and verify that the constants remain independent of the interface location. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [formulation and analysis] Abstract: the claim that the stationarity condition of the augmented energy defines a discrete problem whose linearisation inherits the required BRR properties is load-bearing for the convergence result; the paper should clarify how the ghost-penalty stabilisation is chosen to guarantee the necessary inf-sup or coercivity constants remain uniform with respect to the interface position.

    Authors: We will add a dedicated paragraph in the analysis section that recalls the ghost-penalty form, states the admissible range for its coefficient (independent of the cut ratio), and shows how the resulting coercivity constant is bounded below by a positive number that does not deteriorate when the interface approaches an element boundary. This choice is the standard one already used in the numerical experiments and is sufficient to transfer the BRR hypotheses to the nonlinear setting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs a discrete problem as the stationarity condition of an augmented energy functional (bulk hyperelastic energy + Nitsche terms + ghost-penalty), derives the residual and tangent via variations, and applies automatic differentiation to obtain stress and elasticity tensors from the scalar energy density. The convergence analysis then invokes the standard Brezzi--Rappaz--Raviart framework on the linearised problem at each Newton step after establishing cut-independent coercivity, continuity, and an O(h^{-2}) condition-number bound. These steps rest on the variational structure and an external mathematical framework rather than reducing any claimed prediction or theorem to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The corner-singularity bound is taken from the classical Kolosov--Muskhelishvili equation and applies equally to fitted and unfitted schemes. No load-bearing step collapses to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the method relies on standard domain assumptions from hyperelasticity and finite-element theory; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are explicitly introduced or quantified.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Existence and twice differentiability of a scalar hyperelastic energy density function
    Invoked to allow automatic differentiation to produce the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress and elasticity tensor.
  • domain assumption The linearised problem at each Newton step satisfies the hypotheses of the Brezzi--Rappaz--Raviart theory
    Required to obtain the quasi-optimal convergence theorem from cut-independent coercivity and continuity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5822 in / 1468 out tokens · 29554 ms · 2026-07-03T07:38:23.209079+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

76 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G. A. Holzapfel, Nonlinear solid mechanics: A continuum approach for engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    Ogden, Non-linear Elastic Deformations, Dover Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Dover Publica- tions, 1997

    R. Ogden, Non-linear Elastic Deformations, Dover Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Dover Publica- tions, 1997

    1997

  3. [3]

    Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, 1st Edition, Klaus-Jürgen Bathe, 2006

    K.-J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, 1st Edition, Klaus-Jürgen Bathe, 2006

    2006

  4. [4]

    O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, P. Nithiarasu, J. Z. Zhu, The Finite Element Method, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005. 26

    2005

  5. [5]

    P. G. Ciarlet, The finite element method for elliptic problems, North-Holland Pub. Co.; Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier North-Holland, 1978

    1978

  6. [6]

    Fumagalli, E

    A. Fumagalli, E. Keilegavlen, S. Scialò, Conforming, non-conforming and non-matching discretization couplings in discrete fracture network simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 376 (2019) 694– 712.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.09.048. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999118306508

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.09.048 2019

  7. [7]

    Boffi, A

    D. Boffi, A. Cangiani, M. Feder, L. Gastaldi, L. Heltai, A comparison of non-matching techniques for the finite element approxi mation of interface problemsimage 1, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 151 (2023) 101–115.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2023.09.017. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898122123004029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2023.09.017 2023

  8. [9]

    Melenk, I

    J. Melenk, I. Babuška, The partition of unity finite element method: Basic theory and applications, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 139 (1) (1996) 289–314.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01087-0. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782596010870

    work page doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(96)01087-0 1996

  9. [10]

    Strouboulis, K

    T. Strouboulis, K. Copps, I. Babuška, The generalized finite element method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190 (32) (2001) 4081–4193.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0045-7825(01)00188-8. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782501001888

    2001

  10. [11]

    Fries, T

    T. Fries, T. Belytschko, The extended/generalized finite element method: An overview of the method and its applications, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 84 (3) (2010) 253–304. doi:10.1002/nme.2914

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.2914 2010

  11. [12]

    Zhang, A

    L. Zhang, A. Gerstenberger, X. Wang, W. K. Liu, Immersed finite element method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 193 (21) (2004) 2051–2067, flow Simulation and Modeling.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2003.12.044. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782504000672

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2003.12.044 2004

  12. [13]

    A. Main, G. Scovazzi, The shifted boundary method for embedded domain computations. part i: Poisson and stokes problems, Journal of Computational Physics 372 (2018) 972–995.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.10.026. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999117307799

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.10.026 2018

  13. [14]

    Hansbo, P

    A. Hansbo, P. Hansbo, An unfitted finite element method, based on nitsche’s method, for elliptic interface problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 191 (47) (2002) 5537– 5552.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00524-8. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782502005248

    work page doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(02)00524-8 2002

  14. [15]

    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

  15. [16]

    J. Nitsche, Über ein variationsprinzip zur lösung von dirichlet-problemen bei verwendung von teilräu- men, die keinen randbedingungen unterworfen sind, Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg 36 (1) (1971) 9–15.doi:10.1007/BF02995904. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02995904

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02995904 1971

  16. [17]

    Babuška, The finite element method with lagrangian multipliers, Numerische Mathematik 20 (3) (1973) 179–192.doi:10.1007/BF01436561

    I. Babuška, The finite element method with lagrangian multipliers, Numerische Mathematik 20 (3) (1973) 179–192.doi:10.1007/BF01436561. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01436561 27

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01436561 1973

  17. [18]

    R. Stenberg, On some techniques for approximating boundary conditions in the finite element method, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 63 (1) (1995) 139–148, proceedings of the Interna- tional Symposium on Mathematical Modelling and Computational Methods Modelling 94.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(95)00057-7. URLhttps://www.sciencedi...

    work page doi:10.1016/0377-0427(95)00057-7 1995

  18. [19]

    Burman, P

    E. Burman, P. Hansbo, Fictitious domain finite element methods using cut elements: I. a stabilized lagrange multiplier method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199 (41) (2010) 2680–2686.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.05.011. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004578251000160X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.05.011 2010

  19. [20]

    Burman, Ghost penalty, Comptes Rendus Mathematique 348 (21) (2010) 1217–1220.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.crma.2010.10.006

    E. Burman, Ghost penalty, Comptes Rendus Mathematique 348 (21) (2010) 1217–1220.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.crma.2010.10.006. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631073X10002827

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crma.2010.10.006 2010

  20. [21]

    Burman, S

    E. Burman, S. Claus, P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, A. Massing, Cutfem: Discretizing geometry and partial differential equations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 104 (7) (2014) 472–501.doi:10.1002/nme.4823

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.4823 2014

  21. [22]

    Hansbo, M

    P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, K. Larsson, Cut Finite Element Methods for Linear Elasticity Problems, Springer International Publishing, 2017, Ch. 2, pp. 25–63.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71431-8_2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71431-8_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71431-8_2 2017

  22. [23]

    Yang, The least squares finite element method for elasticity interface problem on unfitted mesh (2023).arXiv:2306.08801

    F. Yang, The least squares finite element method for elasticity interface problem on unfitted mesh (2023).arXiv:2306.08801. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08801

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [24]

    C. Ager, B. Schott, M. Winter, W. Wall, A nitsche-based cut finite element method for the coupling of incompressible fluid flow with poroelasticity, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 351 (2019) 253–280.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.015. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782519301446

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.015 2019

  24. [25]

    Burman, M

    E. Burman, M. A. Fernández, An unfitted nitsche method for incompressible fluid–structure interaction using overlapping meshes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 279 (2014) 497– 514.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2014.07.007. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782514002291

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2014.07.007 2014

  25. [26]

    Winter, B

    M. Winter, B. Schott, A. Massing, W. Wall, A nitsche cut finite element method for the oseen problem with general navier boundary conditions, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 330 (2018) 220–252.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2017.10.023. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782517306965

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2017.10.023 2018

  26. [27]

    Deriving robust unfitted finite element methods from augmented Lagrangian formulations

    E. Burman, P. Hansbo, Deriving robust unfitted finite element methods from augmented lagrangian formulations (2017).arXiv:1702.08340. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08340

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [28]

    Claus, P

    S. Claus, P. Kerfriden, F. Moshfeghifar, S. Darkner, K. Erleben, C. Wong, Contact modeling from images using cut finite element solvers, Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 8 (1) (2021) 13.doi:10.1186/s40323-021-00197-2. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-021-00197-2

    work page doi:10.1186/s40323-021-00197-2 2021

  28. [29]

    Claus, P

    S. Claus, P. Kerfriden, A stable and optimally convergent latin-cutfem algorithm for multiple unilateral contact problems, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 113 (6) (2017) 938–966. doi:10.1002/nme.5694

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.5694 2017

  29. [30]

    Rüberg, F

    T. Rüberg, F. Cirak, J. M. García Aznar, An unstructured immersed finite element method for nonlinear solid mechanics, Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 3 (1) (2016) 22.doi: 10.1186/s40323-016-0077-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-016-0077-5 28

    work page doi:10.1186/s40323-016-0077-5 2016

  30. [31]

    Poluektov, L

    M. Poluektov, L. Figiel, A numerical method for finite-strain mechanochemistry with localised chemical reactions treated using a nitsche approach, Computational Mechanics 63 (5) (2019) 885–911.doi: 10.1007/s00466-018-1628-z. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-018-1628-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-018-1628-z 2019

  31. [32]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782521004242

    S.Badia, M.A.Caicedo, A.F.Martín, J.Principe, Arobustandscalableunfittedadaptivefiniteelement framework for nonlinear solid mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 386 (2021) 114093.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114093. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782521004242

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2021.114093 2021

  32. [33]

    Poluektov, L

    M. Poluektov, L. Figiel, A cut finite-element method for fracture and contact problems in large- deformation solid mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 388 (2022) 114234.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114234. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782521005600

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2021.114234 2022

  33. [34]

    Vigliotti, F

    A. Vigliotti, F. Auricchio, Automatic differentiation for solid mechanics, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 28 (3) (2020) 875–895.doi:10.1007/s11831-019-09396-y. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09396-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-019-09396-y 2020

  34. [35]

    J. Simo, R. Taylor, Consistent tangent operators for rate-independent elastoplasticity, Computer Meth- ods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 48 (1) (1985) 101–118.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0045-7825(85)90070-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045782585900702

    work page arXiv 1985

  35. [36]

    A. G. Baydin, B. A. Pearlmutter, A. A. Radul, J. M. Siskind, Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a survey (2018).arXiv:1502.05767. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05767

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [37]

    Hillgärtner, T

    M. Hillgärtner, T. Guo, M. Itskov, Automatic differentiation of strain-energy functions in the context of user–defined materials for the finite element method, Proceedings in Applied Mathematics & Mechanics (PAMM) 20 (1) (2021) e202000050.doi:10.1002/pamm.202000050. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1002/pamm.202000050

    work page doi:10.1002/pamm.202000050 2021

  37. [38]

    X. Li, S. Liu, W. Huang, P. Wen, Finite block method with automatic differentiation algorithm for reissner plate nonlinear analysis, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 179 (2025) 106354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2025.106354. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955799725002425

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2025.106354 2025

  38. [39]

    A. A. Ramabathiran, S. Gopalakrishnan, Automatic finite element formulation and assembly of hy- perelastic higher order structural models, Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (11) (2014) 2867–2883. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.11.021. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X13007579

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.11.021 2014

  39. [40]

    Neunteufel, A

    M. Neunteufel, A. S. Pechstein, J. Schöberl, Three-field mixed finite element methods for nonlinear elasticity, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 382 (2021) 113857.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.113857. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782521001948

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2021.113857 2021

  40. [41]

    Schröder, O

    J. Schröder, O. Klaas, E. Stein, C. Miehe, A physically nonlinear dual mixed finite element formulation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 144 (1) (1997) 77–92.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01169-3. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782596011693

    work page doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(96)01169-3 1997

  41. [43]

    Brezzi, J

    F. Brezzi, J. Rappaz, P.-A. Raviart, Finite dimensional approximation of nonlinear problems. Part I: Branches of nonsingular solutions, Numerische Mathematik 36 (1) (1980) 1–25. 29

    1980

  42. [44]

    Grisvard, Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Vol

    P. Grisvard, Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Vol. 24 of Monographs and Studies in Mathe- matics, Pitman, Boston, 1985

    1985

  43. [45]

    A. Rössle, Corner singularities and regularity of weak solutions for the two-dimensional lamé equa- tions on domains with angular corners, Journal of Elasticity 60 (1) (2000) 57–75.doi:10.1023/A: 1007639413619

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 2000

  44. [46]

    Wichrowski, M

    M. Wichrowski, M. Rezaee-Hajidehi, J. Korelc, M. Kronbichler, S. Stupkiewicz, Matrix-free methods for finite-strain elasticity: Automatic code generation with no performance overhead, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 126 (22) (2025) e70166

    2025

  45. [47]

    Bonet, R

    J. Bonet, R. D. Wood, Nonlinear continuum mechanics for finite element analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997

    1997

  46. [48]

    A matrix-free approach for finite-strain hyperelastic problems using geometric multigrid

    D. Davydov, J.-P. Pelteret, D. Arndt, P. Steinmann, A matrix-free approach for finite-strain hyperelastic problems using geometric multigrid (2019).arXiv:1904.13131. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1904.13131

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [49]

    Schussnig, N

    R. Schussnig, N. Fehn, P. Munch, M. Kronbichler, Matrix-free higher-order finite element methods for hyperelasticity, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 435 (2025) 117600.doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2024.117600. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117600

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.117600 2025

  48. [50]

    Brezis, Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations by Haim Brezis, Springer New York, 2011

    H. Brezis, Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations by Haim Brezis, Springer New York, 2011

    2011

  49. [51]

    Wichrowski, Matrix-free ghost penalty evaluation via tensor product factorization (2025).arXiv: 2503.00246

    M. Wichrowski, Matrix-free ghost penalty evaluation via tensor product factorization (2025).arXiv: 2503.00246. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00246

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    Benzaken, J

    J. Benzaken, J. A. Evans, R. Tamstorf, Constructing nitsche’s method for variational problems, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 31 (4) (2024) 1867–1896.doi:10.1007/ s11831-023-09953-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-023-09953-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-023-09953-6 2024

  51. [53]

    Sticko, G

    S. Sticko, G. Ludvigsson, G. Kreiss, High-order cut finite elements for the elastic wave equation, Ad- vances in Computational Mathematics 46 (3) (2020) 45.doi:10.1007/s10444-020-09785-z. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-020-09785-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10444-020-09785-z 2020

  52. [54]

    Badia, E

    S. Badia, E. Neiva, F. Verdugo, Linking ghost penalty and aggregated unfitted methods (06 2021). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.13728

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.13728 2021

  53. [55]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Bergbauer, B. Blais, M. Fehling, R. Gassmöller, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, P. Munch, S. Scheuerman, B. Turcksin, S. Uzunbajakau, D. Wells, M. Wichrowski, Step 85: The cut finite element method (2024). URLhttps://dealii.org/current/doxygen/deal.II/step_85.html

    2024

  54. [56]

    R. I. Saye, High-order quadrature methods for implicitly defined surfaces and volumes in hyperrectan- gles, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 37 (2) (2015) A993–A1019

    2015

  55. [57]

    Massing, M

    A. Massing, M. G. Larson, A. Logg, M. E. Rognes, A stabilized Nitsche fictitious domain method for the Stokes problem, Journal of Scientific Computing 61 (2014) 604–628

    2014

  56. [58]

    Braess, Finite Elemente, 5th Edition, Masterclass, Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013

    D. Braess, Finite Elemente, 5th Edition, Masterclass, Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013

    2013

  57. [59]

    L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2022

    2022

  58. [60]

    Caloz, J

    G. Caloz, J. Rappaz, Numerical analysis for nonlinear and bifurcation problems, in: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Vol. 5, Elsevier, 1997, pp. 487–637. 30

    1997

  59. [61]

    Davydov, J.-P

    D. Davydov, J.-P. Pelteret, D. Arndt, M. Kronbichler, P. Steinmann, A matrix-free approach for finite- strain hyperelastic problems using geometric multigrid, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 121 (13) (2020) 2874–2895

    2020

  60. [62]

    R. W. Ogden, Large deformation isotropic elasticity – on the correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike solids, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 326 (1567) (1972) 565–584

    1972

  61. [63]

    L. R. G. Treloar, The mechanics of rubber elasticity, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 351 (1666) (1976) 301–330

    1976

  62. [64]

    J. C. Simo, K. S. Pister, Remarks on rate constitutive equations for finite deformation problems: compu- tational implications, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 46 (2) (1984) 201–215

    1984

  63. [65]

    J. C. Simo, Numerical analysis and simulation of plasticity, in: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Vol. 6, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 183–499

    1998

  64. [66]

    Babuška, M

    I. Babuška, M. Suri, Locking effects in the finite element approximation of elasticity problems, Nu- merische Mathematik 62 (1) (1992) 439–463

    1992

  65. [67]

    Babuška, M

    I. Babuška, M. Suri, The optimal convergence rate of thep-version of the finite element method, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 24 (4) (1987) 750–776.doi:10.1137/0724049

    work page doi:10.1137/0724049 1987

  66. [68]

    A. H. Schatz, L. B. Wahlbin, Maximum norm estimates in the finite element method on plane polygonal domains. part 2, refinements, Mathematics of Computation 33 (146) (1979) 465–492.doi:10.1090/ S0025-5718-1979-0502067-6

    1979

  67. [69]

    Babuška, R

    I. Babuška, R. B. Kellogg, J. Pitkäranta, Direct and inverse error estimates for finite elements with mesh refinements, Numerische Mathematik 33 (4) (1979) 447–471.doi:10.1007/BF01399326

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01399326 1979

  68. [70]

    Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, Advances in Numerical Math- ematics, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999

    T. Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, Advances in Numerical Math- ematics, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999

    1999

  69. [71]

    J. K. Knowles, E. Sternberg, An asymptotic finite-deformation analysis of the elastostatic field near the tip of a crack, Journal of Elasticity 3 (2) (1973) 67–107.doi:10.1007/BF00045816

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00045816 1973

  70. [72]

    J. K. Knowles, E. Sternberg, Finite-deformation analysis of the elastostatic field near the tip of a crack: Reconsideration and higher-order results, Journal of Elasticity 4 (3) (1974) 201–233.doi: 10.1007/BF00049265

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00049265 1974

  71. [73]

    Strang, G

    G. Strang, G. J. Fix, An Analysis of the Finite Element Method, Series in Automatic Computation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973

    1973

  72. [74]

    H. Blum, M. Dobrowolski, On finite element methods for elliptic equations on domains with corners, Computing 28 (1) (1982) 53–63.doi:10.1007/BF02237995

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02237995 1982

  73. [75]

    G. J. Fix, S. Gulati, G. I. Wakoff, On the use of singular functions with finite element approximations, Journal of Computational Physics 13 (2) (1973) 209–228.doi:10.1016/0021-9991(73)90023-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(73)90023-5 1973

  74. [76]

    V. A. Kozlov, V. G. Maz’ya, J. Rossmann, Spectral Problems Associated with Corner Singularities of Solutions to Elliptic Equations, Vol. 85 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

    2001

  75. [77]

    V.G.Maz’ya, J.Rossmann, EllipticEquationsinPolyhedralDomains, Vol.162ofMathematicalSurveys and Monographs, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010

    2010

  76. [78]

    Dauge, Elliptic Boundary Value Problems on Corner Domains, Vol

    M. Dauge, Elliptic Boundary Value Problems on Corner Domains, Vol. 1341 of Lecture Notes in Math- ematics, Springer, Berlin, 1988.doi:10.1007/BFb0086682. 31 Appendix A. Local-size CutFEM stability on graded meshes This appendix proves Assumption 2: the cut-independent stability of Section 4, established there for a globally quasi-uniform background mesh, ...

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0086682 1988