Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

An efficient, open source, iterative ISPH scheme

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper claims that the pressure-Poisson equation in incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics can be solved by a simple iterative Jacobi/SOR scheme instead of a sparse linear solver, and that this change makes ISPH fast and easy…

desk verdict A reproducible, practical ISPH method with credible benchmarks, but the efficiency claim rests on an unverified stopping criterion and the cylinder comparison needs a baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01762 v2 pith:NCJ2F6PO submitted 2019-08-06 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

Abhinav Muta , Prabhu Ramachandran , Pawan Negi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 65M7576M2865F10 PACS 47.11.-j
keywords ISPHincompressiblesmoothedparticlehydrodynamicspressurePoissonequationJacobiiterationSORGPUtransportvelocityformulationmatrix-free
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 claims that the pressure-Poisson equation in incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics (ISPH) can be solved by a simple iterative Jacobi/SOR scheme instead of a sparse linear solver, and that this change makes ISPH fast and easy to run on GPUs. With particle regularization from the generalized transport velocity formulation and a modified solid-wall boundary condition, the scheme is accurate on benchmark internal, free-surface, and external flows. The work matters because the sparse-solver step is the main obstacle to parallel ISPH; removing it, while keeping a few iterations per timestep, makes ISPH competitive with weakly-compressible SPH in simplicity and speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the iterative rewrite of the discretized pressure-Poisson equation (17) into the SOR update (28): $p^{k+1}_i = \omega \left(\mathrm{RHS}_i - \sum_j \mathrm{OD}_{ij} p^k_j\right)/D_{ii} + (1-\omega) p^k_i$, with convergence monitored by the relative-change criterion (29). This turns the sparse solve into a per-particle accumulation, which is trivially parallelized; the scheme's other components — the GTVF background-pressure force (15) for homogeneity, and the Shepard-interpolated wall pressure with position-only normals (41)-(42) — keep particles uniform and boundaries leakage-free so the iteration stays stable at larger timesteps.

What would settle it

Measure the average number of pressure iterations per timestep as particle count N and Reynolds number grow on a stiff benchmark (e.g., lid-driven cavity at Re=10000 or flow past a cylinder at Re=200 with an order-of-magnitude finer resolution). If iteration counts grow appreciably with N or Re rather than staying in the 2-10 range, the claimed speed advantage over the sparse solver — and the simplicity of the GPU implementation — would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a matrix-free, iteratively solved pressure-Poisson equation — equation (28) with omega=0.5 and tolerance 0.01 — together with GTVF-based particle regularization and a modified dummy-particle wall condition, delivers a generally applicable, accurate ISPH scheme. Whereas conventional ISPH assembles a sparse matrix and solves it with BiCGStab or similar, the new scheme rewrites the PPE as a diagonal-plus-off-diagonal iteration that needs only one scalar accumulation per particle, so the whole method runs with the same ease as weakly-compressible SPH. Benchmarks show accuracy matching matrix-based ISPH with shifting, stability where single-iteration EISPH fails at Re=10000, and an order-of-magnitude speedup at large particle counts, plus linear scaling on GPUs.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme is efficient only if the Jacobi/SOR pressure iteration converges in a small number of iterations per timestep; the paper documents that for a cavity and a dam break, but not for the full range of problems it claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ISPH implementations no longer need a sparse linear solver; the pressure solve becomes a per-particle accumulation that maps directly onto GPU kernels.
  • The scheme should scale to larger 3D problems than typical matrix-based ISPH because only three scalar values per particle are stored for the pressure solve.
  • Single-iteration EISPH is insufficient at high Reynolds numbers; iterating the same PPE to a tolerance around 0.01 stabilizes Taylor-Green at Re=10000.
  • The GTVF regularization, applied in sub-steps, replaces tuned particle-shifting algorithms and keeps particle distributions homogeneous for internal and free-surface flows.
  • Modified dummy-particle wall conditions with position-only normals allow WCSPH-style solid boundaries to be used in ISPH without leakage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same matrix-free iterative approach could be applied to other projection methods whose pressure solve dominates cost, such as incompressible Euler or fluid-structure interaction, whenever GPU simplicity is valued over per-iteration convergence rate.
  • A natural testable extension is to make the tolerance (or the SOR relaxation omega) adaptive — e.g., tied to the local truncation error O(h^2) — which could keep iteration counts uniform across resolutions and Reynolds numbers.
  • The slip/no-slip choice for the intermediate velocity field suggests that the boundary treatment of u* is as important as the pressure solve itself at high Reynolds numbers; a systematic study of that choice could further improve noise and accuracy.
  • If iteration counts stay bounded, Jacobi/SOR may beat Krylov solvers on GPUs even when Krylov converges in fewer iterations, because the per-iteration cost and memory traffic are much lower.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an iterative, matrix-free formulation of the projection-based ISPH scheme of Cummins and Rudman. The pressure-Poisson equation (17) is solved with an under-relaxed Jacobi/SOR iteration (28) using a change-based stopping criterion (29), eliminating the need to assemble and solve a sparse linear system. Particle ordering is controlled by a generalized transport-velocity formulation (GTVF) with a background pressure, and solid boundaries are treated with a modified Adami-type dummy-particle condition. The method is implemented in the open-source PySPH framework and demonstrated on Taylor-Green vortices, lid-driven cavities at Re=100 and 10000, a square patch, 2D and 3D dam breaks, and flow past a circular cylinder at Re=200, with CPU and GPU performance studies. The central claims are that the scheme is accurate, efficient, easy to implement on GPUs, and requires no sparse linear solvers.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practical simplification of ISPH: a matrix-free pressure solve that is straightforward to parallelize on GPUs, combined with GTVF regularization and a wall treatment that works at ISPH timesteps. The strengths of the manuscript are its open-source, reproducible implementation; validation of velocity fields against the exact Taylor-Green solution and the Ghia et al. cavity data; and a 3D dam-break GPU benchmark with scaling data. The paper also honestly demonstrates that a single explicit PPE iteration (EISPH) is inadequate at Re=10000, which motivates the iterative strategy. However, the central efficiency claim currently rests on an unverified stopping criterion, and the cylinder force coefficients are not compared with reference data, so the accuracy claim for external flows is only partially supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (28)–(29), Table 1] The stopping criterion (29) is based on the relative change in the pressure iterate, not on the residual of the discrete pressure-Poisson equation (17). Since the update (28) with omega=0.5 is a damped Jacobi step, the change ||p^{k+1}-p^k|| is scaled by omega=0.5 regardless of whether the fixed point has been reached, and the denominator max(Lambda, sum|p^{k+1}|) can be large when the mean pressure is large. Moreover, with the minimum of two iterations enforced (Algorithm 1 and Listing 1), the average of 2.0 iterations reported in Table 1 for the cavity at epsilon=0.01 implies the solver almost always exits after the mandatory minimum, not after satisfying (29) in a meaningful way. The paper therefore does not demonstrate that the stopped pressure solves (17) to any useful tolerance, and the claim in Section 3.1 that only a few iterations are necessary is not established. The authors should add a direct convergence check: report the residual norm of (17) at the stopping point for representative cases (lid-driven cavity at Re=100 and Re=10000, and the cylinder), and compare the change-based criterion with a residual-based criterion. This is load-bearing for both the accuracy and efficiency claims.
  2. [§4.7, Fig. 21] The quantitative results of the cylinder benchmark, average cd=1.609 and maximum cl=0.804, are presented without comparison to reference values. The text says the pressure and velocity contours "show an excellent match" with Refs. [38,39], but no force coefficients or Strouhal number from those references are quoted. For unconfined flow past a circular cylinder at Re=200, commonly reported values are around cd≈1.3 and |cl|max≈0.7, so the reported drag is substantially higher and the claimed accuracy is not self-evident. Since this benchmark exercises the modified wall boundary condition and the inlet/outlet treatment, the paper should provide a quantitative comparison (mean drag, peak lift, Strouhal number) against the cited references or other canonical data, and discuss any discrepancy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.7] The text says "In Fig. 16, we plot the velocity and pressure contour" but this should refer to Fig. 20; Fig. 16 shows the 3D dam break.
  2. [Eqs. (26)–(27)] The denominator is written as |r_ij|^2 + eta^2, which is inconsistent with Eq. (17) and Listing 2, where the term is |r_ij|^2 + eta h_ij^2; please harmonize the notation.
  3. [§3] The method in Eq. (28) is damped Jacobi iteration, not successive over-relaxation (SOR), which would require omega>1 and a Gauss-Seidel-type sweep; please correct the terminology.
  4. [Algorithm 1, lines 13–18] Step 17 computes the final GTVF transport velocity from r^K but appears inside the while loop over k; based on the description in §2.2, it should be executed after the loop terminates.
  5. [§4.2.1] The statement that "The matrix ISPH cannot be run on GPUs" is too strong in view of Ref. [7], which implements an ISPH scheme with a fast Poisson solver on a GPU; please replace it with a statement about the substantial implementation effort required.
  6. [§4.7, Eq. (51)] The force formula (51) is introduced without derivation or citation; please provide a reference for this SPH force evaluation on solid bodies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the iterative PPE solve is a standard matrix-free splitting of the discretized equations and is validated against external reference data; tuned parameters are not fit to the target quantities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The pressure-Poisson equation (17) is the standard Cummins-Rudman projection discretization; equations (25)-(28) are an algebraic Jacobi/SOR splitting of that same linear system, not a redefinition of the solution. The stopping criterion (29) is a change-based tolerance rather than a residual test, so the few-iteration efficiency claim is a convergence-verification concern (the paper reports iteration counts only for the cavity and dam break in Table 1 and does not report the PPE residual at the stopped iterate), but this is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The free parameters (omega = 0.5, epsilon, p_ref, K, and the choice of 'symm' vs 'asymm' pressure gradient) are tuning choices or per-case decisions made before comparing against benchmarks; for example, the cylinder case says 'we encountered particle voiding when we use the TVF reference pressure of 2 max(pi)' and then changes p_ref, and the Taylor-Green section selects the 'asymm' form after comparing both forms. These are post-hoc tuning choices, but the reported quantities (velocity decay, pressure errors, cavity profiles, dam-break toe position, drag/lift coefficients) are compared against analytic solutions or independent reference data such as Ghia et al., Koshizuka and Oka, and the exact Taylor-Green solution, so the predictions are not constructed from their targets. The self-citations (PySPH framework [22-24], the outlet condition of Negi et al. [30], and the IISPH discussion pointer [35]) are tooling or component citations and are not load-bearing derivations; no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no prior result by the authors is used to force the choice of the iterative scheme. Therefore no step in the paper reduces its claimed predictions to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the background pressure is a numerical device adopted from the GTVF literature. The central claim rests mainly on free solver and regularization parameters and on empirical convergence assumptions rather than on new physics.

free parameters (10)
  • SOR relaxation factor omega = 0.5 (default)
    Used in equation (28); no justification or sensitivity study in the paper.
  • PPE iteration tolerance epsilon = 0.01 for most benchmarks; varied from 0.1 to 5e-4 in Taylor-Green
    Stopping criterion equation (29); the paper tests sensitivity but the default is a chosen value.
  • GTVF background pressure p_ref = external: rho c^2 with c=10|u|max; internal: 2 max(p_i); cylinder changed to rho c^2 after voiding
    Controls particle regularization strength and is tuned per problem; Section 2.1 and Section 4.7.
  • GTVF small kernel ratio tilde h = 0.5 h_ij for external/free surface, h_ij for internal
    From equation (15) and the text in Section 2.1; chosen per flow regime.
  • GTVF sub-step count K = not stated
    Appears in Algorithm 1 and equations (21) to (23); no default or selection rule is given.
  • Free-surface density ratio threshold = 0.8
    Particles with rho_i/rho0 below 0.8 have pressure set to zero; Section 3.
  • Kernel resolution h/dx = 1.0, 1.2, or 1.3 depending on benchmark
    Chosen per test case; affects discretization error.
  • Artificial viscosity coefficient alpha = 0.15 for square patch, 0.05 for 2D dam break, 0.25 for 3D dam break, 0 for cylinder
    Added via equation (12); values are selected per benchmark.
  • Pressure gradient form = asymm for Taylor-Green, symm for cavity and cylinder
    The two discretizations in equations (8) and (9); the paper chooses different forms for different benchmarks.
  • Intermediate velocity wall boundary condition = slip for Re=10000 cavity; no-slip otherwise
    Section 3.4 and Figure 12; the choice is made to reduce noise at walls.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Hodge decomposition of the intermediate velocity field in equations (3) and (4) is valid for the projection step.
    Standard projection method from Cummins and Rudman, inherited from prior literature.
  • domain assumption SPH kernel interpolation and summation density approximate the continuum operators with O(h^2) error.
    Used throughout the discretization; no convergence proof is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption The Jacobi/SOR iteration converges to the pressure-Poisson solution for all tested configurations with fixed omega and tolerance.
    Not proven; assessed only through the stopping criterion behavior reported in Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Neighbor lists need not be rebuilt during the K GTVF sub-steps.
    The modified GTVF integrates positions using old neighbor information; no analysis of the resulting error is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Free-surface particles can be identified by the density ratio rho_i/rho0 < 0.8.
    Pressure is set to zero for these particles; the threshold is a design choice.
  • domain assumption Wall dummy pressure from Shepard extrapolation, with negative pressures clipped to zero, enforces the wall condition.
    Modified from Adami et al.; stability is validated only empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An efficient, open source, iterative ISPH scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCJ2F6PO

@misc{pith2026190801762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An efficient, open source, iterative ISPH scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCJ2F6PO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01762}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper a simple, robust, and general purpose approach to implement the Incompressible Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (ISPH) method is proposed. This approach is well suited for implementation on CPUs and GPUs. The method is matrix-free and uses an iterative formulation to setup and solve the pressure-Poisson equation. A novel approach is used to ensure homogeneous particle distributions and improved boundary conditions. This formulation enables the use of solid wall boundary conditions from the weakly-compressible SPH schemes. The method is fast and runs on GPUs without the need for complex integration with sparse linear solvers. We show that this approach is sufficiently accurate and yet efficient compared to other approaches. Several benchmark problems that illustrate the robustness, performance, and wide range of applicability of the new scheme are demonstrated. An open source implementation is provided and the manuscript is fully reproducible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SISPH scheme compared with Matrix based ISPH method with shifting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Particle plots for ISPH without shifting, ISPH with shifting, and SISPH scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The use of “symm” form of pressure gradient vs “asymm” form of pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change in tolerance, , for Taylor-Green problem simulated for t = 5s using SISPH formulation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 t 10 1 10 0 max velocity Re = 100, nx = 50 Re = 1000, nx = 50 Re = 100, nx = 100 Re = 1000, nx = 100 Exact Re = 100 Exact Re = 1000 (a) Maximum velocity vs time. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Taylor-Green problem simulated for t = 5s, with two different Reynolds numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of SISPH using “asymm” form of pressure gradient with WCSPH, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of EISPH with SISPH for Re = 10000, using 100 × 100 initial particle distribution. Particles are perturbed from their initial position by a maximum of ∆x/10. 4.2.1. Performance of SISPH. Here we compare the performance of SISPH scheme with ISPH scheme on a C…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Log-log plot showing time taken vs number of particles for SISPH on single and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance speed up observed for SISPH scheme on single and multi-core with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Velocity profiles u vs. y and v vs. x for the lid-driven-cavity problem at Re = 100. Two particle discretizations of 50 × 50 and 100 × 100 are shown. We compare the results with those of Ghia et al. [33] and with the TVF scheme. plots the distribution of u and v along…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Velocity profiles u vs. y and v vs. x for the lid-driven-cavity problem at Re = 10, 000. Two particle discretizations of 100 × 100 and 200 × 200 are shown. We compare the results with those of Ghia et al. [33]. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Particle plots indicating the velocity magnitude for the lid-driven-cavity prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of particles at t = 3s for the initially square patch, with a 100×100 initial particle, distribution. SISPH scheme is compared with WCSPH scheme. Effect of different forms of pressure gradient is shown. In the “symm” pressure gradient particles along the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Particle plots of Dam break in 2D showing pressure at various times using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: X-coordinate of the toe of the dam versus time as computed with the new [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Dam break in three dimensions using SISPH shown at times t = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Log-log plot showing the performance of SISPH on different platforms, no of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Plot showing the scale up of SISPH on multi-core, NVIDIA 1050Ti, and 1070Ti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_18.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: It must be noted that unlike WCSPH schemes, the data presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_21.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The figure on the left shows the setup for flow past cylinder, the right figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Plots showing the pressure and velocity contours at times = (10s, 153s & [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The coefficients of lift, cl , and drag, cd, vs time are plotted here. After the initial fluctuation, the average coefficient of drag, cd = 1.609 is observed, the maximum lift coefficient is, cl = 0.804. 0.804. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A numerical approach to testing the fission hypothesis

    Lucy, L.B.. A numerical approach to testing the fission hypothesis. The Astronomical Journal 1977;82(12):1013–1024

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non-spherical stars

    Gingold, R.A., Monaghan, J.J.. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 1977;181:375–389

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    Simulating free surface flows with SPH

    Monaghan, J.J.. Simulating free surface flows with SPH. Journal of Computational Physics 1994;110:399–406

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    An SPH projection method

    Cummins, S.J., Rudman, M.. An SPH projection method. Journal of Computational Physics 1999;152:584–607

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Incompressible SPH method for simulating newto- nian and non-newtonian flows with a free surface.Advances in Water Re- sources 2003;26(7):787 – 800

    Shao, S., Lo, E.Y.. Incompressible SPH method for simulating newto- nian and non-newtonian flows with a free surface.Advances in Water Re- sources 2003;26(7):787 – 800. URL: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0309170803000307. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(03)00030-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0309-1708(03)00030-7 2003

  6. [6]

    An incompressible multi-phase SPH method

    Hu, X., Adams, N.. An incompressible multi-phase SPH method. Journal of Computational Physics 2007;227(1):264–

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    In- compressible SPH (ISPH) with fast poisson solver on a GPU

    Chow, A.D., Rogers, B.D., Lind, S.J., Stansby, P.K.. In- compressible SPH (ISPH) with fast poisson solver on a GPU. Computer Physics Communications 2018;226:81 – 103. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010465518300092. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.01.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.01.005 2018

  8. [8]

    A fully explicit three-step SPH algorithm for simulation of non-newtonian fluid flow

    Hosseini, M., Manzari, M., Hannani, S.. A fully explicit three-step SPH algorithm for simulation of non-newtonian fluid flow. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat and Fluid Flow 2007;17. doi:10. 1108/09615530710777976

    work page 2007

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    An SPH projection method for simulating fluid-hypoelastic structure interaction

    Rafiee, A., Thiagarajan, K.P.. An SPH projection method for simulating fluid-hypoelastic structure interaction. Computer Methods 39 in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2009;198(33):2785 – 2795. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0045782509001522. doi:https:...

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Improvement of the precision and the effi- ciency of the SPH method: theoretical and numerical study

    Barcarolo, D.A.. Improvement of the precision and the effi- ciency of the SPH method: theoretical and numerical study. The- ses; Ecole Centrale de Nantes (ECN); 2013. URL: https://tel. archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00904198

    2013

  3. [11]

    Validation of a new fully-explicit incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics method

    Barcarolo, D., Le Touz´ e, D., de Vuyst, F.. Validation of a new fully-explicit incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Blucher Mechanical Engineering Proceedings 2014;1(1)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Explicit in- compressible SPH algorithm for free-surface flow modelling: A com- parison with weakly compressible schemes

    Nomeritae, , Daly, E., Grimaldi, S., Bui, H.H.. Explicit in- compressible SPH algorithm for free-surface flow modelling: A com- parison with weakly compressible schemes. Advances in Water Re- sources 2016;97:156 – 167. URL: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S030...

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    δ-SPH model for simulating violent impact flows

    Marrone, S., Antuono, M., Colagrossi, A., Colicchio, G., Le Touz´ e, D., Graziani, G.. δ-SPH model for simulating violent impact flows. Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2011;200:1526–

    2011

  6. [14]

    SPH modelling of multi-fluid lock-exchange over and within porous media

    Basser, H., Rudman, M., Daly, E.. SPH modelling of multi-fluid lock-exchange over and within porous media. Advances in Water Re- sources 2017;108:15 – 28. URL: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0309170817304049. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.011

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Implicit incompressible SPH

    Ihmsen, M., Cornelis, J., Solenthaler, B., Horvath, C., Teschner, M.. Implicit incompressible SPH. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2014;20(3):426–435. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2013.105. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.105

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Accuracy and stability in in- compressible sph (ISPH) based on the projection method and a new 40 approach

    Xu, R., Stansby, P., Laurence, D.. Accuracy and stability in in- compressible sph (ISPH) based on the projection method and a new 40 approach. Journal of Computational Physics 2009;228(18):6703–6725. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.032

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    Incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics for free-surface flows: A generalised diffusion- based algorithm for stability and validations for impulsive flows and propagating waves

    Lind, S., Xu, R., Stansby, P., Rogers, B.. Incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics for free-surface flows: A generalised diffusion- based algorithm for stability and validations for impulsive flows and propagating waves. Journal of Computational Physics 2012;231(4):1499 – ...

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) with reduced temporal noise and generalised fickian smoothing applied to body–water slam and effi- cient wave–body interaction

    Skillen, A., Lind, S., Stansby, P.K., Rogers, B.D.. Incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) with reduced temporal noise and generalised fickian smoothing applied to body–water slam and effi- cient wave–body interaction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engin...

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    A transport-velocity formula- tion for smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Adami, S., Hu, X., Adams, N.. A transport-velocity formula- tion for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Journal of Computa- tional Physics 2013;241:292–307. URL: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002199911300096X. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.043

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    A generalized transport-velocity formulation for smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Zhang, C., Hu, X.Y.T., Adams, N.A.. A generalized transport-velocity formulation for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Journal of Compu- tational Physics 2017;337:216–232

    2017

  13. [21]

    A generalized wall boundary condi- tion for smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Adami, S., Hu, X., Adams, N.. A generalized wall boundary condi- tion for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics 2012;231(21):7057–7075. URL: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002199911200229X. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.05.005

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    PySPH: a reproducible and high-performance framework for smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Ramachandran, P.. PySPH: a reproducible and high-performance framework for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. In: Benthall, S., Rostrup, S., eds. Proceedings of the 15th Python in Science Conference. 2016:127 – 135. doi:10.25080/Majora-629e541a-011

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    PySPH: a python-based SPH frame- work

    Ramachandran, P., Puri, K., et al. PySPH: a python-based SPH frame- work. 2010–. URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PySPH/. 41

    2010

  16. [24]

    automan: A python-based automation frame- work for numerical computing

    Ramachandran, P.. automan: A python-based automation frame- work for numerical computing. Computing in Science & Engineering 2018;20(5):81–97. URL: doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/ 10.1109/MCSE.2018.05329818. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2018. 05329818

    2018

  17. [25]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Monaghan, J.J.. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annual Re- view of Astronomy and Astrophysics 1992;30(1):543–574. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192. 002551. doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    1992

  18. [26]

    Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics

    Monaghan, J.J.. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Reports on Progress in Physics 2005;68:1703–1759

    2005

  19. [27]

    Volume conservation issues in incompress- ible smoothed particle hydrodynamics

    Nair, P., Tomar, G.. Volume conservation issues in incompress- ible smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics 2015;297:689 – 699. URL: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0021999115003769. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.05.042

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations

    Chorin, A.J.. Numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations. Math- ematics of Computation 1968;22(104):745–762. URL: http://www. jstor.org/stable/2004575

    1968

  21. [29]

    Bi-cgstab: A fast and smoothly converg- ing variant of bi-cg for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems

    van der Vorst, H.A.. Bi-cgstab: A fast and smoothly converg- ing variant of bi-cg for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 1992;13(2):631–

    1992

  22. [30]

    An improved non-reflecting outlet boundary condition for weakly-compressible SPH

    Negi, P., Ramachandran, P., Haftu, A.. An improved non-reflecting outlet boundary condition for weakly-compressible SPH. ArXiV 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Entropically damped artificial com- pressibility for SPH

    Ramachandran, P., Puri, K.. Entropically damped artificial com- pressibility for SPH. Computers and Fluids 2019;179(30):579–594. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.11.023

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python. 2001–. URL: http://www.scipy.org/. 42

    2001

  25. [33]

    High-Re solutions for incompressible flow using the Navier-Stokes equations and a multigrid method

    Ghia, U., Ghia, K.N., Shin, C.T.. High-Re solutions for incompressible flow using the Navier-Stokes equations and a multigrid method. Journal of Computational Physics 1982;48:387–411

    1982

  26. [34]

    A meshless lagrangian method for free-surface and in- terface flows with fragmentation

    Colagrossi, A.. A meshless lagrangian method for free-surface and in- terface flows with fragmentation. These, Universita di Roma 2005;URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10805/688

    2005

  27. [35]

    Dual-Time Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Incompressible Fluid Simulation

    Ramachandran, P., Muta, A., Mokkapati, R.. Dual-Time Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Incompressible Fluid Simulation. arXiv e- prints 2019;:arXiv:1904.00861arXiv:1904.00861

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Application of weakly compressible and truly incompressible SPH to 3-d water collapse in waterworks

    Lee, E.S., Violeau, D., Issa, R., Ploix, S.. Application of weakly compressible and truly incompressible SPH to 3-d water collapse in waterworks. Journal of Hydraulic Research 2010;48(sup1):50–

    2010

  29. [37]

    Moving-particle semi-implicit method for fragmentation of incompressible fluid

    Koshizuka, S., Oka, Y.. Moving-particle semi-implicit method for fragmentation of incompressible fluid. Nuclear Science and Engineering 1996;123:421–434

    1996

  30. [38]

    An accurate SPH modeling of viscous flows around bodies at low and moderate reynolds numbers

    Marrone, S., Colagrossi, A., Antuono, M., Colicchio, G., Graziani, G.. An accurate SPH modeling of viscous flows around bodies at low and moderate reynolds numbers. Journal of Computational Physics 2013;245:456 – 475. URL: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0021...

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    A versatile algorithm for the treatment of of open boundary conditions in smoothed particle hydrodynamics GPU models

    Tafuni, A., Dom´ ınguez, J., Vacondio, R., Crespo, A.J.C.. A versatile algorithm for the treatment of of open boundary conditions in smoothed particle hydrodynamics GPU models. Computer methods in applied me- chanical engineering 2018;342:604–624. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2018. 08.004. 43

    2018 doi

  32. [60]

    2010.9641245

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686. 2010.9641245. doi: 10.1080/00221686.2010.9641245. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2010.9641245

    2010

  33. [278]

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.07.013

    URL: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0021999107003300. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.07.013

    2007 doi

  34. [644]

    doi:10.1137/ 0913035

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/0913035. doi:10.1137/ 0913035. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/0913035

    doi

  35. [1542]

    doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.12.016

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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