Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

A Volumetrically Stabilized Mixed Formulation of the Finite Element Immersed Boundary Method for Fluid Structure Interaction with Fully Incompressible Hyperelastic Solids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a weakly enforced solid pressure as a Lagrange multiplier for $J=1$ removes the volumetric collapse and locking that afflict the distributed-Lagrange-multiplier finite element immersed boundary method for fully incompressible…

desk verdict A credible mixed DLM-FE-IBM extension with honest reporting, but the volumetric-stability claim is only true in a narrow mesh-ratio window and the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10217 v1 pith:LOEQLXNE submitted 2026-08-10 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

Abhishek Mishra , Paul T. Bauman This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 65M6065M1274S0576M1074B20
keywords immersedboundarymethodfiniteelementfluid-structureinteractiondistributedLagrangemultipliervolumetricstabilizationincompressiblehyperelasticitymixedformulationfictitiousdomain
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

The paper is trying to establish that the distributed-Lagrange-multiplier finite element immersed boundary method can be made volumetrically stable for fully incompressible hyperelastic solids by treating a new solid pressure field as a genuine mixed unknown. The failure it addresses is concrete: when only the deviatoric solid stress is discretized, the Lagrangian volume constraint $J=1$ is satisfied only approximately, and immersed rings and other structures collapse or lock. The proposed cure follows the classical mixed treatment of nearly incompressible hyperelasticity: augment the solid stress with a volumetric term derived from a dilatational energy, introduce a solid pressure that weakly enforces $J=1$, and discretize the enlarged system with finite elements. On three benchmarks—an elliptically displaced ring, a radially stretched ring, and a disk falling under gravity—the mixed formulation removes the collapse and reproduces the falling disk's terminal velocity to within about 1%. A fourth, pressure-loaded inflating-ring case is reported as an open challenge because it remains sensitive to the solid-to-fluid mesh-size ratio.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the solid pressure $p_s$, introduced as a Lagrange multiplier for the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint $J=1$. It enters through a volumetric energy $U(J)=\frac{1}{2}(\ln J)^2$ with $U'(J)=\ln J/J$, enforced weakly as $\int_B U'(J) q_s \, dX = 0$ for all test functions $q_s$ on the solid mesh; the resulting volumetric stress $p_s J F^{-T}$ is added to the isochoric neo-Hookean stress. The time discretization is the semi-implicit scheme inherited from the original method, in which the solid position in the fluid–solid coupling term is frozen at the previous time level while the elastic stress is evaluated at the current configuration, so that the fluid shape functions need not be re-evaluated at every Newton iteration; the paper relies on the cited unconditional stability of that scheme. The spatial discretization uses inf-sup stable fluid elements and continuous piecewise-polynomial spaces for displacement, solid pressure, and multiplier, with extra quadrature used to integrate the non-matching fluid–solid coupling terms accurately.

What would settle it

Run the radially stretched ring at a solid-to-fluid mesh-size ratio of about 1/2 with a much finer mesh than case E and monitor the enclosed area over time; if the sustained pressure difference and the stretched configuration decay toward the reference configuration even while the weak constraint residual is zero, then the discrete solution is not actually enforcing $J=1$. Alternatively, use the falling-disk case with very large time steps and check whether the kinetic energy grows; that would indicate the inherited unconditional stability does not hold for the mixed formulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that volumetric failure in the immersed setting is not an intrinsic limitation of the immersed boundary method but a missing Lagrange multiplier. The paper derives a mixed formulation in which the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress is replaced by $P = p_s J F^{-T} + \mu_s J^{-2/3}(F - I_1/3 F^{-T})$, with $p_s$ the new solid pressure, and enforces the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint through the weak condition $\int_B U'(J) q_s \, dX = 0$ with $U(J)=\frac{1}{2}(\ln J)^2$. Here $p_s$ is a finite element field living on the solid mesh, not a penalty parameter, and in the fully incompressible limit $U'(J)=0$ is imposed exactly in the weak sense. The paper shows by numerical verification that this restores the expected physics: an elliptically displaced thick ring returns to its circular equilibrium at every refinement level, a radially stretched ring sustains a physical pressure difference across its wall when the solid mesh is fine enough relative to the fluid mesh, and a falling disk matches the empirical terminal velocity to within 1% over a range of densities and viscosities. The authors also report the inflating-ring case as a remaining limitation, where the method either relaxes back (for coarse solid meshes) or locks (for very fine solid meshes).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the unconditional stability of the semi-implicit time discretization carries over from the original distributed-Lagrange-multiplier immersed boundary method to the enlarged system with the new solid pressure unknown and the nonlinear $J=1$ constraint; the paper cites the earlier stability proof but gives none for the new system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fully incompressible hyperelastic solids immersed in viscous fluids can be simulated without remeshing and without spurious volume collapse, as long as the solid mesh is sufficiently fine relative to the fluid mesh.
  • Physical pressure jumps across solid walls become computable: the radially stretched ring benchmark shows a sustained pressure difference between interior and exterior when the solid-to-fluid mesh-size ratio is about 1/2.
  • Quantitative settling problems are within reach: the falling-disk terminal velocity matches the empirical value to within about 1% for multiple densities and viscosities.
  • A practical resolution requirement is identified: non-matching coupling integrals need extra quadrature (order 4–8) before results converge, which any implementation must supply.
  • The method's remaining open challenge is the pressure-loaded inflating ring, where the correct physical response is obtained only in a narrow range of mesh-size ratios; outside it the method either fails to hold volume or locks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not prove stability of the enlarged mixed system; if the inherited stability proof does not carry over, the unconditional-stability claim could fail for large time steps in regimes where the solid pressure couples strongly to the flow. Testing the scheme on the falling disk with increasingly large time steps would settle this.
  • The mesh-ratio sensitivity suggests the pair (solid displacement, solid pressure) may need its own discrete inf-sup condition in the immersed setting; one testable extension is to vary the polynomial order of the solid pressure at fixed mesh ratio and see whether the inflating-ring behaviour improves.
  • The volumetric-energy route is general: replacing $U(J)$ with other functions would extend the same mixed framework to different incompressible or nearly incompressible constitutive laws.
  • A practical design rule implicit in the results is to keep the solid-to-fluid mesh-size ratio at or below about 1/2 for volume-conserving simulations; this could be verified independently on the radially stretched ring benchmark.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mixed formulation of the distributed-Lagrange-multiplier finite element immersed boundary method (DLM-FE-IBM) for fluid–structure interaction with fully incompressible hyperelastic solids. It introduces an additional solid pressure field that acts as a Lagrange multiplier for the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint J=1, and augments the solid stress with a volumetric contribution derived from a dilatational strain energy. The formulation is discretized with a semi-implicit time scheme and finite elements, implemented in the GRINS multiphysics framework, and verified on three benchmarks: an elliptically displaced thick ring, a radially stretched ring, and a disk falling under gravity. The paper reports that the mixed formulation removes the volumetric failure of the unstabilized method on the first two benchmarks and reproduces the empirical terminal velocity of the falling disk to within about 1%, but it also reports an inflating-ring case that exposes a remaining sensitivity to the solid-to-fluid mesh-size ratio, which the authors describe as an open challenge.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method would be a useful extension of the DLM-FE-IBM to fully incompressible hyperelastic solids, which are prone to volumetric locking and spurious volume collapse. The paper gives a clean derivation of the mixed formulation, describes a reusable implementation in an established multiphysics framework, and provides quantitative verification against an independent empirical correlation for the falling disk. The authors also deserve credit for transparently reporting the inflating-ring failure. However, the central claim is stronger than the evidence: the numerical tests show that volumetric stability is restored only in certain mesh-ratio regimes, and no discrete inf-sup analysis or stability proof is given for the enlarged mixed system. These gaps are load-bearing because they directly concern the method's claimed generality and reliability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5] The discrete stability of the solid mixed pair (U_h, S_h) is not addressed. The text specifies only that the solid displacement, solid pressure, and multiplier are discretized with continuous piecewise-polynomial elements, without stating the element pair or verifying a discrete inf-sup condition for the mixed system (20c)–(20d). For incompressible mixed elasticity, the displacement and pressure spaces must satisfy an inf-sup condition; arbitrary equal-order pairs are known to lock or oscillate. Since the central claim is that the mixed formulation restores volumetric stability, the absence of this analysis leaves the claim unestablished at the discrete level.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2.4] The assertion that the semi-implicit time discretization is unconditionally stable is not supported for the enlarged system (19). The cited stability proof in [7] applies to the original DLM-FE-IBM, which does not include the solid pressure unknown p_s or the nonlinear constraint (19d). No stability analysis is given for the new system, so the claim should either be proved or qualified as an inherited property that has not been verified for the mixed formulation.
  3. [Sections 4.2 and 4.4] The numerical results show that volumetric stability is not restored in general, contradicting the unqualified claim in the abstract. In Section 4.2, cases A and B (hs/hx ~ 2 and ~ 1) allow the radially stretched ring to relax and the pressure difference to decay, indicating that J=1 is not effectively enforced; only case C (hs/hx ~ 1/2) sustains the pressure difference, and even there residual pressure leakage remains. In Section 4.4, the inflating ring at hs/hx ~ 1 retains residual volumetric instabilities, and reducing to hs/hx ~ 1/2 produces volumetric locking. The abstract should qualify the claim that the mixed formulation restores volumetric stability to the tested regimes, and the paper should discuss the conditions under which the stabilization is effective.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.5] Please specify the actual finite element spaces used in the computations (e.g., the polynomial degree of the continuous piecewise-polynomial elements for U_h, S_h, and Lambda_h), rather than only stating that they are continuous piecewise-polynomial.
  2. [Eq. (17) and (18d)] The constraint (18d) is written as the integral of U'(J) against q_s; since U'(J)=ln J / J, its vanishing is equivalent to J=1 only when J is positive. This equivalence should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.3] The empirical formula (21) is for a rigid disk; the paper should justify its applicability to an incompressible neo-Hookean disk, for example by reporting the maximum deformation or by showing that the solid modulus makes the disk effectively rigid under the tested conditions.
  4. [Title page] There is a spacing issue in the title: 'A V olumetrically Stabilized' should read 'A Volumetrically Stabilized'.
  5. [References] Reference [16] is missing volume and page numbers; the reference entry should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixed formulation is self-contained and its verification uses external, parameter-free benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding a solid pressure unknown and the weak constraint (18d) enforces the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint J=1 in the DLM-FE-IBM. This is a formulation construction, not a prediction obtained from fitted inputs: the volumetric energy U(J)=1/2(ln J)^2 is adopted from [13] as a modeling choice, and the solid pressure is defined by p_s=κU'(J) and then imposed weakly, which is the standard mixed treatment of incompressible elasticity rather than a circular reuse of the target result. Material parameters (μ_s, ρ_f, μ_f) are prescribed for the benchmarks, not fitted to the outputs. The falling-disk terminal velocity is compared with the external empirical formula (21) from [22], and the ~1% agreement is an independent validation. No step in the derivation reduces to its own output by construction. The only caveat is that the unconditional-stability assertion in Sections 2.4 and 5 is inherited from Boffi et al. [7] for the original DLM-FE-IBM without the new solid-pressure unknown and constraint (19d); that is an unverified assumption and a correctness risk, and the paper itself flags the mesh-ratio sensitivity in the inflating-ring test (Section 4.4), but neither constitutes circularity. Citations to the authors' own GRINS and libMesh work are implementation references and do not carry the mathematical claim, so there is no load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formulation relies on standard continuum mechanics assumptions, a chosen volumetric energy from the literature, and an unproven stability inheritance for the new mixed scheme. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Cauchy stress additively splits into fluid and solid parts, sigma = sigma_f in the fluid region and sigma_f + sigma_s in the solid region.
    Equation (2). Standard continuum assumption for immersed systems, from [2].
  • domain assumption The solid strain energy splits into volumetric and isochoric parts, W = kappa U(J) + Wbar(C).
    Equation (11). Follows the nearly incompressible hyperelasticity framework of [15].
  • domain assumption The volumetric energy U(J) = 1/2 (ln J)^2 is chosen.
    Equation (17), following [13]. A modeling choice that penalizes deviation of J from 1.
  • domain assumption The weak enforcement of p_s = kappa U'(J) via integral_B (U'(J) - p_s/kappa) q_s = 0 gives the correct incompressible limit as kappa goes to infinity.
    Section 2.3, equation (16). Standard mixed method for nearly incompressible elasticity.
  • ad hoc to paper The semi-implicit time discretization is unconditionally stable for the mixed formulation.
    Section 2.4 claims unconditional stability citing [7], but the proof in [7] is for the original scheme without p_s and the volumetric constraint. This is an unproven assumption of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Volumetrically Stabilized Mixed Formulation of the Finite Element Immersed Boundary Method for Fluid Structure Interaction with Fully Incompressible Hyperelastic Solids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOEQLXNE

@misc{pith2026260810217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Volumetrically Stabilized Mixed Formulation of the Finite Element Immersed Boundary Method for Fluid Structure Interaction with Fully Incompressible Hyperelastic Solids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOEQLXNE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10217}
}
read the original abstract

The finite element immersed boundary method (FE IBM) with a distributed Lagrange multiplier is an attractive framework for fluid structure interaction (FSI) because it couples an Eulerian description of an incompressible fluid to a Lagrangian description of an immersed solid on two independent, nonconforming meshes, avoiding the costly remeshing required by body fitted arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian methods. When the immersed solid is modelled as a fully incompressible hyperelastic material, however, a direct finite element discretization of the deviatoric solid stress fails to enforce the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint, and the computed structure exhibits spurious volumetric instabilities and locking. In this work we present a mixed formulation of the distributed Lagrange multiplier FEIBM that restores volumetric stability. Following the theory of nearly incompressible hyperelasticity, we augment the solid stress with a volumetric contribution derived from a dilatational strain energy and introduce an additional solid pressure field, enforced weakly, that plays the role of the Lagrange multiplier for the Lagrangian incompressibility constraint J = 1. The resulting formulation is discretized in space by finite elements and in time by an unconditionally stable semi implicit scheme, and is implemented as a reusable Immersed Boundary physics kernel within the GRINS multiphysics framework, built on the libMesh finite element library. The method is verified on three FSI benchmarks, an elliptically displaced thick ring returning to equilibrium, a radially stretched incompressible ring, and a disk falling under gravity in a viscous fluid, for which the mixed formulation removes the volumetric failure observed with the unstabilized formulation and reproduces the analytical terminal velocity of the falling disk to within 1%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Volumetric failure of the unstabilized distributed-Lagrange-multiplier FE-IBM. An elliptically displaced incompressible hyperelastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the elliptically displaced thick ring from its initial ellipse to the circular equilibrium, for the coarsest (Level 1, top) and finest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pressure p over the whole domain at successive times for the three refinement levels of the elliptically displaced ring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radially stretched ring at t = 0.99 s for different solid-to-fluid mesh ratios (cases A–C of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pressure difference between the interior and exterior of the ring over time for cases A–C. The difference decays for cases A and B but is sustained for case C. volume of fluid at the centre of the ring over an initial interval. As the fluid is injected the ring should …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radially stretched ring at t = 0.99 s for increasing refinement at fixed hs/hx ∼ 1 2 (cases D, C, E of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pressure difference over time for the refinement study (cases D, C, E). Convergence toward a sustained pressure difference is observed as the mesh is refined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of the extra quadrature order on the domain pressure for case C of the radially stretched ring. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Geometry of the disk falling in a 2D control volume. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fluid velocity field and disk position at successive times for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of solid density on the disk velocity. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effect of fluid viscosity on the disk velocity. (a) Disk velocity vs. axial position (b) Disk velocity vs. time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of the extra quadrature order on the disk velocity for ρs = 4.0 g/cm3 , µf = 1.0 P. Orders 4, 6 and 8 coincide. (a) t = 0.01 s (b) t = 0.18 s (c) t = 0.85 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Inflating ring, case I (hs/hx ∼ 2). The ring stretches during injection but then incorrectly relaxes to its reference configuration. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Inflating ring, case III (hs/hx ∼ 1, refined). A pressure field develops inside the ring, but residual volumetric instabilities remain. (a) Case II (b) Case III [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Pressure over the domain at successive times for the inflating ring, cases II and III. Refinement (case III) yields a lower and smoother [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Boffi, N

    D. Boffi, N. Cavallini, L. Gastaldi, The finite element immersed boundary method with distributed Lagrange multiplier, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 53 (6) (2015) 2584–2604

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    T. J. R. Hughes, W. K. Liu, T. K. Zimmermann, Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element formulation for incompressible viscous flows, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 29 (3) (1981) 329–349

    work page 1981

  3. [2]

    Boffi, L

    D. Boffi, L. Gastaldi, L. Heltai, C. S. Peskin, On the hyper-elastic formulation of the immersed boundary method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197 (25–28) (2008) 2210–2231

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    C. S. Peskin, The immersed boundary method, Acta Numerica 11 (2002) 479–517

    2002

  5. [4]

    Heltai, The finite element immersed boundary method, Ph.D

    L. Heltai, The finite element immersed boundary method, Ph.D. thesis, Universit `a di Pavia, Dipartimento di Matematica (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Boffi, L

    D. Boffi, L. Gastaldi, A finite element approach for the immersed boundary method, Computers & Structures 81 (8–11) (2003) 491–501

    work page 2003

  7. [6]

    Boffi, N

    D. Boffi, N. Cavallini, L. Gastaldi, The finite element immersed boundary method with different fluid and solid densities, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 21 (12) (2011) 2523–2550

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Girault, R

    V . Girault, R. Glowinski, T. W. Pan, A fictitious domain method with distributed Lagrange multipliers for the Stokes problem, Applied Nonlinear Analysis (Kluwer/Plenum) (1999) 159–174

    work page 1999

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Glowinski, Y

    R. Glowinski, Y . Kuznetsov, Distributed Lagrange multipliers based on fictitious domain method for second order elliptic problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196 (8) (2007) 1498–1506

    2007

  2. [10]

    Alshehri, D

    N. Alshehri, D. Boffi, F. Credali, L. Gastaldi, Advances on finite element discretization of fluid–structure interaction problems, Arabian Journal of Mathematics 15 (1) (2025) 27–51

    2025

  3. [11]

    P. T. Bauman, R. H. Stogner, GRINS: A multiphysics framework based on the libMesh finite element library, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38 (5) (2016) S78–S100

    2016

  4. [12]

    B. S. Kirk, J. W. Peterson, R. H. Stogner, G. F. Carey, libMesh: A C++library for parallel adaptive mesh refinement/coarsening simulations, Engineering with Computers 22 (3–4) (2006) 237–254

    2006

  5. [13]

    Vadala-Roth, S

    B. Vadala-Roth, S. Rossi, S. Prakash, N. A. Barrett, B. E. Griffith, Stabilization approaches for the hyperelastic immersed boundary method for problems of large-deformation incompressible elasticity, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 365 (2020) 112978

    2020

  6. [14]

    L. Li, C. Gruninger, J. H. Lee, B. E. Griffith, Local divergence-free immersed finite element–difference method using composite B-splines, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15408

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Brink, E

    U. Brink, E. Stein, On some mixed finite element methods for incompressible and nearly incompressible finite elasticity, Computational Mechanics 19 (1) (1996) 105–119

    1996

  8. [16]

    Karabelas, G

    E. Karabelas, G. Haase, G. Plank, C. M. Augustin, Versatile stabilized finite element formulations for nearly and fully incompressible solid mechanics, Computational Mechanics 65 (1)

  9. [17]

    M. D. Gunzburger, Finite Element Methods for Viscous Incompressible Flows: A Guide to Theory, Practice, and Algorithms, Academic Press, 1989

    1989

  10. [18]

    Gonzalez, A

    O. Gonzalez, A. M. Stuart, A First Course in Continuum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Heltai, F

    L. Heltai, F. Costanzo, Variational implementation of immersed finite element methods, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 229–232 (2012) 110–127

    2012

  12. [20]

    S. Roy, L. Heltai, F. Costanzo, Benchmarking the immersed finite element method for fluid–structure interaction problems, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 69 (10) (2015) 1167–1188

    2015

  13. [21]

    L. T. Zhang, M. Gay, Immersed finite element method for fluid–structure interactions, Journal of Fluids and Structures 23 (6) (2007) 839–857

    2007

  14. [22]

    Clift, J

    R. Clift, J. R. Grace, M. E. Weber, Bubbles, Drops, and Particles, Academic Press, New York, 1978

    1978

  15. [23]

    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, V ol. 53 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer, 2006, pp. 371–385. 18

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.