Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Numerical benchmarking of fluid-rigid body interactions

T0 review · 3 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 This paper proposes benchmark cases for a freely rotating circular or spherical obstacle in channel flow and gives reference intervals for drag, lift, torque and angular velocity.

desk verdict Useful, honestly executed benchmark for freely rotating bodies in flow; reference intervals are credible but rest on an unverified attractor assumption and self-consensus among five in-house codes. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04637 v2 pith:BFARTB7V submitted 2019-08-13 physics.comp-ph cs.NAmath.NAphysics.flu-dyn

Henry von Wahl , Thomas Richter , Christoph Lehrenfeld , Jan Heiland , Piotr Minakowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcs.NAmath.NAphysics.flu-dyn MSC 65M6076M1076D05
keywords fluid-rigidbodyinteractionbenchmarkproblemreferenceintervalsfreelyrotatingsphereNavier-Stokesequationsfiniteelementmethodsfluid-structurecodevalidation
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a benchmark problem for fluid–rigid-body interaction: a circular (2D) or spherical (3D) obstacle whose center of mass is pinned but which rotates freely in a laminar channel flow. Because the fluid–solid partition never changes, the geometry stays fixed and a wide class of standard computational fluid dynamics codes can compute the coupled problem. Four configurations are defined—three in 2D (steady, periodic, and time-dependent inflow) and one stationary 3D case—together with a list of quantities of interest: drag, lift, torque, angular velocity, pressure difference and Strouhal number. Using several independent finite-element discretizations, the authors obtain reference intervals for each quantity, so that other codes can be validated against the benchmark.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotational coupling law $J\partial_t\omega = T$, the balance between the body's moment of inertia and the fluid torque $T=\int_I (x-c_S)\times(\sigma(u,p)\,n)\,ds$, with the interface velocity imposed as $u=\omega\times(x-c_S)$. Together with the choice of a fixed center of mass, this turns the fluid-structure interaction into a Navier-Stokes problem on a time-independent domain coupled to a single ODE for the angular velocity, so the geometric partition stays fixed and standard fluid solvers can be used. The reference quantities (dimensionless drag $C_D$, lift $C_L$, torque $C_T$, angular velocity $\omega^*$, pressure difference $\Delta p$, and Strouhal number $St$) are the functionals used to compare methods, and the convergence of the different discretizations to each other is what turns their ranges into reference intervals.

What would settle it

Run one of the benchmark cases (for example Rot2d-2 at Reynolds number 100) with an independent discretization not represented among the paper's methods—say a spectral or lattice-Boltzmann code—and compare its extremal drag, lift and Strouhal number with the intervals in Tables 3 and 4; any value falling outside those intervals would show that the reference values depend on the participating methods rather than on the continuum solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that these four configurations and the accompanying reference intervals constitute a usable quantitative benchmark for fluid-particle interaction methods, with the rotation coupling as the nontrivial ingredient. The paper defines the configurations by specifying the domain, obstacle size and position, inflow profiles, Reynolds numbers (20 and 100 in the 2D cases, 20 in 3D), and the rigid-body parameters, then reports the values computed by five different finite-element schemes. The reference intervals in Tables 2, 4, 6 and 8 are the ranges spanned by the converged computations; they are meant to serve as targets that an independent implementation should hit. The authors note that the 3D case is limited to a stationary configuration because no suitable stable periodic configuration was found at higher Reynolds numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark assumes that each configuration has a well-defined stable solution—a steady state, a limit cycle, or a prescribed time window—and that the reported reference intervals converge to that solution; the paper supports this only by observing that the participating methods agree with each other, not by proving existence, uniqueness, or convergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new fluid-particle solver can be validated by reproducing the intervals in Tables 2, 4, 6 and 8; matching them indicates that the torque coupling and force evaluation are implemented correctly.
  • Rot2d-1 is cheap to run, so it is suited as a routine regression test; the paper reports reference intervals as tight as about $10^{-5}$ for $C_D$ and $10^{-8}$ for $\omega^*$.
  • Rot2d-2 gives a stronger dynamic test through a periodic limit cycle, with vortex shedding and an additional Strouhal-number target.
  • Rot2d-3 tests time-dependent inflow and is particularly sensitive to the temporal discretization, making it a useful case for comparing time-stepping schemes.
  • Rot3d-1 extends the benchmark to three dimensions, where the near-zero component $\omega_1^*$ changes sign between methods; the published interval tells users how much accuracy to expect for such a quantity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to use the same fixed-center design for non-spherical bodies or multiple rotating obstacles, creating harder particle-flow benchmarks without changing the benchmark's core structure.
  • Because the geometry is fixed, the same cases could be used to isolate coupling errors from spatial discretization errors by comparing different fluid–solid coupling schemes on identical space discretizations.
  • The paper's remark that no stable 3D periodic configuration was found at higher Reynolds numbers suggests that an unsteady 3D benchmark would require a different geometry, forcing, or Reynolds-number regime.
  • The sign change in $\omega_1^*$ indicates that near-zero reference quantities can be reported as intervals crossing zero; future benchmarks may want to add a secondary residual-based quantity to assess convergence in such cases.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a set of benchmark problems for fluid-rigid body interaction, where a circular (2D) or spherical (3D) obstacle is fixed at its center of mass but is free to rotate. The geometry is chosen so that the fluid-solid interface does not move, allowing standard CFD methods to be applied. The paper defines four configurations (Rot2d-1 stationary, Rot2d-2 periodic, Rot2d-3 unsteady with a fixed time interval, and Rot3d-1 stationary) and provides reference intervals for drag, lift, torque, pressure difference, angular velocity, and Strouhal number. These intervals are computed with five different finite-element or hybrid discontinuous Galerkin methods, and the manuscript reports convergence studies, degrees of freedom, sparsity, and computation times. The main claimed contribution is a reproducible benchmark that quantitatively tests methods for fluid-particle interactions.

Significance. If the benchmark definitions are completed and the reference intervals are reproducible, this paper would be a valuable contribution to the CFD community, filling a gap for quantitative benchmarking of fluid-rigid body interaction. The use of several independent discretizations, systematic mesh and time-step refinement studies, and the public availability of code and data (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3253455) are clear strengths. The reference values are computed outputs rather than fitted parameters, so there is no circularity. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions in the form of reference intervals, which is exactly what a benchmark should provide. The main weaknesses are that the well-posedness of the reference states is not established and that the interval-construction rule is not documented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2.1 (Rot2d-2, Rot2d-3) and Section 2.3 (Rot3d-1)] The initial condition for the angular velocity of the solid is not specified for any of the unsteady problems. Section 2.2.1 states for Rot2d-3 that 'the initial state is u(0)=0', but no omega(0) is given; for Rot2d-2 and Rot3d-1 no initial condition for the ODE (3) is stated. For Rot2d-3, which is integrated over the finite interval [0,8], the computed extrema depend directly on omega(0), so the benchmark is not reproducible without this datum. For Rot2d-2, the limit-cycle extrema may be independent of omega(0) after a sufficiently long transient, but the transient length and the precise definition of t0 should be made explicit. Please specify omega(0) for each unsteady case and, for Rot2d-2, state how the transient is discarded.
  2. [Section 2.3.1 and Tables 2, 4, 6, 8] The reference intervals inherit an unverified assumption that each configuration has a unique, stable stationary or periodic solution (for Rot2d-1 and Rot3d-1 a steady state with zero net torque, for Rot2d-2 a stable limit cycle). This assumption is never tested. Section 2.3.1 explicitly states that 'we were unable to find a suitable stable configuration at higher Reynolds numbers' in 3D, demonstrating that well-posedness is not guaranteed by the geometry and parameters alone. The numerical evidence is mutual convergence of the five presented methods, which rules out many implementation errors but not a common modeling bias or a coexisting attractor. Please provide a stability analysis of the reference states (e.g., Floquet multipliers for the limit cycle in Rot2d-2, eigenvalue analysis of the linearized steady state for Rot2d-1 and Rot3d-1) or, failing that, a reasoned discussion with numerical diagnostics that support uniqueness and stability.
  3. [Section 4, Tables 3 and 4] The procedure for constructing the reference intervals from the raw results is not documented. For example, Table 3 reports HDG (L,k)=(0,5) with CL,max=0.9555, which lies far outside the Table 4 interval [0.9674,0.9686]; similarly, several coarse-mesh runs for Rot2d-1 (e.g., the first TH row in Table 1) are excluded from the Table 2 interval. The reader cannot tell whether the intervals are based on the converged finer runs only, whether some runs are regarded as outliers, or whether some other selection rule is used. This makes the reference intervals irreproducible. Please state explicitly which runs were included for each quantity and the criterion (e.g., a threshold on estimated discretization error) used to exclude others.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Table 5] The EOLPS extrapolated row contains the entry 'change of sign' without specifying which quantity changes sign or how this affects the extrapolation; please clarify.
  2. [Section 4, paragraph 'Rot-2d1'] The text says 'reverence intervals'; this should be 'reference intervals'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'To eliviate the costs' should read 'To alleviate the costs'.
  4. [Section 2.3] There is a typo in 'rotating around it's centre of mass'; it should be 'its'.
  5. [Section 4] The problem names are inconsistent: 'Rot-2d1', 'Rot-2d2', and 'Rot-3d1' in Section 4 versus 'Rot2d-1' and 'Rot3d-1' in Section 2; please unify the notation.
  6. [Figure 3] The plots show time histories but do not indicate which method's results are displayed; a legend or caption note would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark reference intervals are computed outputs of independent numerical methods, not fitted parameters or renamed inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is to provide benchmark configurations and reference intervals for fluid-rigid body interaction quantities. The reference values are obtained by solving the stated Navier-Stokes / rigid-body rotation problem with several independent discretizations (Taylor-Hood, HDG, local projection stabilization, and SciPy-based variants), then taking ranges of the computed drag, lift, torque, pressure difference, angular velocity, and Strouhal number. No quantity of interest is defined in terms of the reference interval itself, and no parameter is fitted to the target results. The angular velocity in the stationary cases is determined by imposing zero net torque, which is the physical steady-state condition stated in the governing equations (J dω/dt = T), not a circular re-use of the benchmark output. The paper's own discussion, e.g. Section 2.3.1, notes limitations in finding a suitable stable configuration at higher Reynolds numbers in 3D; this is a well-posedness concern about the benchmark, not a circularity. The skeptically noted exclusion of some coarse-mesh runs from the reference intervals is a matter of reporting judgment and convergence assessment, not a case where the prediction is forced by construction. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; all constants are either benchmark definition inputs or standard solver parameters. The axioms are the governing equations, boundary conditions, and the assumed well-posedness of the benchmark states. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fluid obeys the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (Eq. 1).
    Used throughout; no alternative fluid model is considered.
  • domain assumption The rigid body is uniform density and rotates about a fixed center of mass according to J ∂tω = T (Eq. 3).
    This defines the rigid-body dynamics; it simplifies the problem to rotation only.
  • domain assumption The do-nothing boundary condition at the outflow (Eq. 2) is a valid approximation for the reference values.
    This is a common outflow treatment, but it affects the flow field and forces; the benchmark is defined by this choice.
  • standard math For the 2D circular obstacle, the pressure does not contribute to the torque.
    Since the tangent vector is orthogonal to the normal, the pressure force ∫ p n · t ds vanishes; this is exact for a circle.
  • domain assumption Unique stable steady states or periodic limit cycles exist for the specified parameters.
    The paper computes them via Newton's method but does not prove existence or uniqueness; the 3D higher-Re case was found unstable in Section 2.3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical benchmarking of fluid-rigid body interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFARTB7V

@misc{pith2026190804637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical benchmarking of fluid-rigid body interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFARTB7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04637}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a fluid-rigid body interaction benchmark problem, consisting of a solid spherical obstacle in a Newtonian fluid, whose centre of mass is fixed but is free to rotate. A number of different problems are defined for both two and three spatial dimensions. The geometry is chosen specifically, such that the fluid-solid partition does not change over time and classical fluid solvers are able to solve the fluid-structure interaction problem. We summarise the different approaches used to handle the fluid-solid coupling and numerical methods used to solve the arising problems. The results obtained by the described methods are presented and we give reference intervals for the relevant quantities of interest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial configuration of the two-dimensional benchmark problems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial configuration of the three-dimensional benchmark problems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The quantities of interest for the problem Rot-2d2 over two periods (left) and the quantities of interest for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sch¨ afer, S

    M. Sch¨ afer, S. Turek, Benchmark computations of laminar flow around a cylinder. (With support by F. Durst, E. Krause and R. Rannacher), in: E. Hirschel (Ed.), Flow Simulation with High-Performance Computers II. DFG priority research program results 1993-1995, no. 52 in Notes Numer. Fluid Mech., Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 547–566. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-322...

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Turek, J

    S. Turek, J. Hron, Proposal for numerical benchmarking of fluid-structure interaction between an elastic object and laminar incompressible flow, in: Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 371–385. doi:10.1007/3-540-34596-5_15

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-34596-5_15 2006

  3. [3]

    Hysing, S

    S. Hysing, S. Turek, D. Kuzmin, N. Parolini, E. Burman, S. Ganesan, L. Tobiska, Quantitative benchmark computations of two-dimensional bubble dynamics, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 60 (11) (2009) 1259–1288. doi:10.1002/fld.1934

    doi:10.1002/fld.1934 2009

  4. [4]

    H. M. Badr, S. C. R. Dennis, P. J. S. Young, Steady and unsteady flow past a rotating circular cylinder at low Reynolds numbers, Comput. & Fluids 17 (4) (1989) 579–609. doi:10.1016/0045-7930(89)90030-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0045-7930(89)90030-3 1989

  5. [5]

    Fabre, J

    D. Fabre, J. Tchoufag, V. Citro, F. Giannetti, P. Luchini, The flow past a freely rotating sphere, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 31 (5-6) (2016) 475–482. doi:10.1007/s00162-016-0405-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00162-016-0405-x 2016

  6. [6]

    K. D. Housiadas, R. I. Tanner, The angular velocity of a freely rotating sphere in a weakly viscoelastic matrix fluid, Phys. Fluids 23 (5) (2011) 051702. doi:10.1063/1.3583376

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3583376 2011

  7. [7]

    Ju´ arez, R

    H. Ju´ arez, R. Scott, R. Metcalfe, B. Bagheri, Direct simulation of freely rotating cylinders in viscous flows by high-order finite element methods, Comput. & Fluids 29 (5) (2000) 547–582. doi:10.1016/s0045-7930(99)00016-x

    work page doi:10.1016/s0045-7930(99)00016-x 2000

  8. [8]

    S. Kang, H. Choi, S. Lee, Laminar flow past a rotating circular cylinder, Phys. Fluids 11 (11) (1999) 3312–3321. doi: 10.1063/1.870190

    doi:10.1063/1.870190 1999

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Mittal, B

    S. Mittal, B. Kumar, Flow past a rotating cylinder, J. Fluid Mech. 476 (feb 2003). doi:10.1017/s0022112002002938

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Shaafi, S

    K. Shaafi, S. N. Naik, S. Vengadesan, Effect of rotating cylinder on the wake-wall interactions, Ocean Eng. 139 (2017) 275–286. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.04.044

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Stojkovi´ c, M

    D. Stojkovi´ c, M. Breuer, F. Durst, Effect of high rotation rates on the laminar flow around a circular cylinder, Phys. Fluids 14 (9) (2002) 3160–3178. doi:10.1063/1.1492811

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    Y. Xia, J. Lin, X. Ku, T. Chan, Shear-induced autorotation of freely rotatable cylinder in a channel flow at moderate Reynolds number, Phys. Fluids 30 (4) (2018) 043303. doi:10.1063/1.5021877

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Heywood, R

    J. Heywood, R. Rannacher, S. Turek, Artificial boundaries and flux and pressure conditions for the incompressible Navier- Stokes equations, Int. J. Numer. Math. Fluids. 22 (1992) 325–352. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19960315)22:5<325:: AID-FLD307>3.0.CO;2-Y

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    Taylor, P

    C. Taylor, P. Hood, A numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations using the finite element technique, Comput. & Fluids 1 (1) (1973) 73 – 100. doi:10.1016/0045-7930(73)90027-3

    1973 doi

  7. [15]

    Boffi, Stabiliy of higher order triangular Hood-Taylor methods for the stationary Stokes equations, Math

    D. Boffi, Stabiliy of higher order triangular Hood-Taylor methods for the stationary Stokes equations, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 04 (02) (1994) 223–235. doi:10.1142/s0218202594000133

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    Franca, T

    L. Franca, T. Hughes, Two classes of mixed finite element methods, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 69 (1988) 89–129. doi:10.1016/0045-7825(88)90168-5

    1988 doi

  9. [17]

    Sch¨ oberl, NETGEN an advancing front 2d/3d-mesh generator based on abstract rules, Comput

    J. Sch¨ oberl, NETGEN an advancing front 2d/3d-mesh generator based on abstract rules, Comput. Vis. Sci. 1 (1) (1997) 41–52. doi:10.1007/s007910050004

    1997 doi

  10. [18]

    J. Sch¨ oberl, C++ 11 Implementation of Finite Elements in NGSolve, Preprint, ASC Report 30/2014, Institute for Analysis and Scientific Computing, Vienna University of Technology (2014). URL http://www.asc.tuwien.ac.at/~schoeberl/wiki/publications/ngs-cpp11.pdf

    2014

  11. [19]

    Intel math kernel library, https://software.intel.com/en-us/mkl (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Babuˇ ska, A

    I. Babuˇ ska, A. Miller, The post-processing approach in the finite element method. I. calculations of displacements, stresses and other higher derivatives of the displacements, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 20 (1984) 1085–1109. doi:10. 1002/nme.1620200610

    1984

  13. [21]

    Richter, Fluid-structure Interactions

    T. Richter, Fluid-structure Interactions. Models, Analysis and Finite Elements, Vol. 118 of Lecture notes in computational science and engineering, Springer, 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63970-3

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Ascher, S

    U. Ascher, S. Ruuth, B. Wetton, Implicit-explicit methods for time-dependent partial differential equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 32 (3) (1995) 797–823. doi:10.1137/0732037

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    John, Reference values for drag and lift of a two-dimensional time-dependent flow around a cylinder, Internat

    V. John, Reference values for drag and lift of a two-dimensional time-dependent flow around a cylinder, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 44 (7) (2004) 777–788. doi:10.1002/fld.679

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Lehrenfeld, J

    C. Lehrenfeld, J. Sch¨ oberl, High order exactly divergence-free hybrid discontinuous galerkin methods for unsteady incom- pressible flows, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 307 (2016) 339–361. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2016.04.025

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    V. John, A. Linke, C. Merdon, M. Neilan, L. G. Rebholz, On the divergence constraint in mixed finite element methods for incompressible flows, SIAM Rev. 59 (3) (2017) 492–544

    2017

  18. [26]

    P. W. Schroeder, A. Linke, C. Lehrenfeld, G. Lube, Towards computable flows and robust estimates for inf-sup stable FEM applied to the time-dependent incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, SeMA Journal (2018) 1–25 doi:10.1007/ s40324-018-0157-1 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s4...

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    P. W. Schroeder, V. John, P. L. Lederer, C. Lehrenfeld, G. Lube, J. Sch¨ oberl, On reference solutions and the sensitivity of the 2d kelvin–helmholtz instability problem, Comput. Mathem. Appl. 77 (4) (2019) 1010–1028

    2019

  20. [28]

    Lehrenfeld, Hybrid Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Incompressible Flow Problems, Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen (May 2010)

    C. Lehrenfeld, Hybrid Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Incompressible Flow Problems, Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen (May 2010). 16

    2010

  21. [29]

    Becker, M

    R. Becker, M. Braack, A finite element pressure gradient stabilization for the Stokes equations based on local projections, Calcolo 38 (4) (2001) 173–199. doi:10.1007/s10092-001-8180-4

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Braack, T

    M. Braack, T. Richter, Solutions of 3D Navier-Stokes benchmark problems with adaptive finite elements, Comput. & Fluids 35 (4) (2006) 372–392. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.02.001

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    Failer, T

    L. Failer, T. Richter, A parallel Newton multigrid framework for monolithic fluid-structure interactions, arXiv Preprint (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02401

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kimmritz, T

    M. Kimmritz, T. Richter, Parallel multigrid method for finite element simulations of complex flow problems on locally refined meshes, Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 18 (4) (2010) 615–636. doi:10.1002/nla.744

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Logg, K.-A

    A. Logg, K.-A. Mardal, G. N. Wells, et al., Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method, Springer, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    M. S. Alnæs, J. Blechta, J. Hake, A. Johansson, B. Kehlet, A. Logg, C. Richardson, J. Ring, M. E. Rognes, G. N. Wells, The fenics project version 1.5, Archive of Numerical Software 3 (100) (2015). doi:10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    FEniCS project, https://fenicsproject.org/download/, accessed: 2018-04-01

    2018

  28. [36]

    P. R. Amestoy, A. Guermouche, J.-Y. L’Excellent, S. Pralet, Hybrid scheduling for the parallel solution of linear systems, Parallel Comput. 32 (2) (2006) 136–156. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2005.07.004

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Heiland, dolfin navier scipy: a python SciPy FEniCS interface, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3238622 (Jun 2019)

    J. Heiland, dolfin navier scipy: a python SciPy FEniCS interface, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3238622 (Jun 2019). doi:10.5281/zenodo.3238622

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Jones, T

    E. Jones, T. Oliphant, P. Peterson, et al., SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, online; www.scipy.org; accessed July 5th, 2019 (2001). URL http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  31. [39]

    Benner, J

    P. Benner, J. Heiland, Time-dependent Dirichlet conditions in finite element discretizations, ScienceOpen Res. (2015) 1–18doi:10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-MATH.AV2JW3.v1

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    R. P. Brent, An algorithm with guaranteed convergence for finding a zero of a function, Comput. J. 14 (1971) 422–425. doi:10.1093/comjnl/14.4.422

    1971 doi

  33. [41]

    J. Kim, P. Moin, Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 59 (1985) 308–323. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(85)90148-2

    1985 doi

  34. [42]

    Marion, R

    M. Marion, R. Temam, Navier-Stokes equations: Theory and approximation, in: P. G. Ciarlet, J. L. Lions (Eds.), Nu- merical Methods for Fluids., Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 503–688. doi:10.1016/s1570-8659(98) 80010-0. 17

    1998 doi

Pith tools

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