Error Analysis for Quadtree-Type Mesh-Coarsening Algorithms Adapted to Pixelized Heterogeneous Microstructures

Andreas Fischer; Bernhard Eidel

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Error Analysis for Quadtree-Type Mesh-Coarsening Algorithms Adapted to Pixelized Heterogeneous Microstructures

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 Quadtree coarsening of pixelized microstructures cuts degrees of freedom by about 90 percent after two steps while raising discretization error by only about 15 percent.

desk verdict A solid, honest numerical study of quadtree coarsening for image-based FE homogenization; the central efficiency/error trade-off is plausible but rests on an estimator whose transfer beyond the calibration example is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09380 v1 pith:CG7GXNKJ submitted 2019-08-25 math.NA cs.NA

Andreas Fischer , Bernhard Eidel This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1565N5074Q05

keywords quadtreemeshcoarseningpixelizedmicrostructureserrorestimationsuperconvergentpatchrecoverystressnumericalhomogenizationadaptivefiniteelementseffectivityindex

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 asks whether pixel-based finite element meshes of microstructures can be aggressively coarsened inside material phases without losing the accuracy that matters for simulations. It answers yes: with two quadtree coarsening steps, the number of unknowns drops by about 90 percent while the discretization error, measured in the energy norm, rises by only about 15 percent. The evidence comes from two phase-aware error estimators, a modified superconvergent patch recovery and a cheaper elementwise-averaging scheme, whose effectivity indices stay between 0.95 and 1.07 across the examples. This matters because tomographic images produce highly resolved uniform meshes whose interior resolution is wasteful; coarsening them as a preprocessor could make high-resolution microstructure simulation affordable.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is quadtree coarsening: four square elements that share a node and lie inside one phase are merged into one element of side length 2h, and the nodes on the new element's edges become hanging nodes constrained to the midpoints of master-node edges, so they carry no degrees of freedom. Two marking rules decide what can be coarsened: hard coarsening forbids only phase-boundary elements, while soft coarsening also forbids elements touching constraint nodes or boundary-adjacent elements, giving gentler size gradients. The companion machinery is the modified superconvergent patch recovery, which reconstructs nodal stresses by least-squares fitting over patches lying entirely inside one material phase; nodes on interfaces are treated like boundary nodes by expanding the patch into the phase interior. A still cheaper variant averages elementwise nodal stresses obtained by inverting the shape-function interpolation at standard quadrature points, and the paper shows that this averaging estimator is almost as accurate as the modified patch recovery.

What would settle it

Recompute the reported error increases and effectivity indices with a reference mesh at least twice as fine as the eight-times rule, for example 2048 by 2048 or 4096 by 4096 on the cross example; if the true errors shift beyond the claimed fifteen percent or the effectivity indices move clearly outside 0.95 to 1.07, the central trade-off is miscalibrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a quantitative accuracy-efficiency trade-off for quadtree coarsening of pixelized microstructures: after two coarsening steps the degrees of freedom fall by roughly 90 percent while the micro discretization error increases by only about 15 percent, and a few more steps buy little while degrading accuracy. To make that measurement without expensive reference solutions, it introduces two error estimators for multiphase meshes—a modified superconvergent patch recovery and a simpler elementwise-averaging scheme—both of which reproduce reference-computed energy-norm errors with effectivity indices close to one (0.95 to 1.07), whereas the standard recovery scheme overestimates the error by more than 50 percent on a uniform mesh. The paper also shows that the effective stiffness of the composite and the macroscopic displacements change by under one percent even when the micro mesh keeps less than ten percent of its original unknowns.

Load-bearing premise

The overkill reference solution taken as the true error must itself be converged, and the paper's rule that it be at least eight times finer per spatial dimension is a heuristic based on one convergence study, not a proven criterion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two coarsening steps are enough to capture most of the efficiency gain; with the meshes studied, later steps cut few additional unknowns while the error climbs faster.
Soft coarsening should be preferred over hard coarsening: with comparable degrees of freedom it reproduces the uniform mesh's error and strain distributions, whereas hard coarsening shows deviations from hanging-node constraints.
Reference-solution error computation can be replaced by the modified SPR or the averaging estimator, both of which keep effectivity indices near one on multiphase meshes.
Coarsened micro meshes with under ten percent of the original unknowns change macroscopic quantities by less than one percent, so the preprocessing step is nearly invisible at the macroscale.
The more regular the phase geometry, the better the trade-off: a circular inclusion keeps accuracy with the mesh reduced to eight percent of its original degrees of freedom.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to use the averaging estimator as an in-loop error indicator that stops coarsening locally where elementwise error is high, rather than fixing the number of global coarsening steps.
The eight-times-finer reference rule is a heuristic; at higher stiffness contrasts or with sharp corners the 'true error' itself may not be converged, so the 15 percent figure deserves a recheck before being used as a general budget.
In three dimensions, octree coarsening of voxel data should amplify the efficiency gain because volume grows as the cube of element size, but the reference-mesh requirement becomes harder to satisfy and the same error analysis would need to be repeated.
The reported elementwise error maps suggest a concrete testable criterion: threshold coarsening by relative elementwise error per phase interior, and the optimal stopping step should emerge from the error map itself rather than from the uniform step count.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a read if you work on image-based FE or error estimation for multiphase microstructures. The paper does exactly what it says: it quantifies how much you can coarsen a pixelized mesh before the micro discretization error grows too much. The genuinely new pieces are the phase-aware modification of SPR and the cheaper averaging-based estimator, and the validation on the Cross example is convincing — effectivity indices between 0.95 and 1.07 for both estimators across all coarsening levels. That is real evidence, not just a plausibility argument.

The central efficiency claim — two coarsening steps cut roughly 90% of the unknowns while the estimated micro-error rises only about 15% — is consistent across all the examples, and the paper is honest about when coarsening stops paying off. The macro-level insensitivity of the homogenized tensor and displacements is a nice practical result.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. True error is only computed on the Cross benchmark (Sec. 4.1). Section 4.1.4 then explicitly says, in effect, that the estimators were so good there that true-error checks are no longer needed. Everything after that — the Heisenberg, Circle, Diamond/SiC, and seahorse examples — uses the estimator as if its effectivity were already established on irregular phase boundaries with hanging nodes and small side patches. That is a genuine gap. The estimator could drift on those meshes, and if it does, the headline 15% number and the tables in Sec. 4.2-4.5 would be miscalibrated. I don't think this is fatal: the recovery method is standard, the phase-aware patches are a sensible correction, and no fitting is done to the reference solution. But one additional overkill computation on, say, the Heisenberg microstructure would have made the paper much stronger.

Also note the reader's flag about hard and soft ndof: the table caption for the 2nd hard-coarsened mesh says 75,424 dof while the text says 175,424. It looks like a typo (the table lists 115,290 for step 3, and 175,424 would land between steps 1 and 3), but it should be fixed. The reference refinement criterion of eight-times-finer is a heuristic, but it is a standard kind of heuristic for overkill solutions and the convergence table gives it some support.

Net: this is a competent, useful engineering paper. It deserves peer review — I would send it out. The revision request should center on validation of the estimator on at least one irregular, non-Cross microstructure against a true overkill solution. With that, the efficiency claim would rest on much firmer ground.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two quadtree-based mesh-coarsening algorithms (a "hard" and a "soft" variant) for pixelized heterogeneous microstructures, applied as a preprocessing step for subsequent finite-element homogenization computations. It introduces a modified superconvergent patch recovery (SPR) scheme that respects phase boundaries with stiffness jumps, alongside a cheaper averaging-based estimator. The error estimators are validated against overkill reference solutions on a simple Cross benchmark (Tables 2-3), and then used to quantify the trade-off between degree-of-freedom reduction and discretization-error increase for several microstructures: a Heisenberg portrait, a circular inclusion, a Diamond/SiC composite, and a three-phase seahorse tessellation. The main reported conclusions are that (i) soft coarsening outperforms hard coarsening, (ii) two coarsening steps reduce the number of degrees of freedom by about 90% with an error increase of at most about 15%, and (iii) the homogenized macroscopic response is largely insensitive to the micro coarsening.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper provides a quantitative and practical basis for choosing coarsening levels in image-based finite-element analysis, which is a common bottleneck in computational materials science. The proposed phase-aware SPR modification and the averaging estimator are simple, parameter-free, and achieve effectivity indices close to unity on the validation benchmark (Table 3: theta between 0.95 and 1.07). The systematic comparison of coarsening algorithms and the extensive numerical documentation (Tables 1-13 and figures) are strengths. However, the transferability of the estimator to the more complex microstructures is not established, which currently limits the generality of the central trade-off claim.

major comments (3)

[4.1.4, Tables 3-5, 8, 13] The error estimators are validated only against true errors on the Cross benchmark (Table 3), after which Sec. 4.1.4 explicitly discontinues error computation and all subsequent error-increase factors (Tables 4, 5, 8, 13) are produced with the same estimators without further validation. The Cross microstructure has straight interfaces and, by the paper's own assessment in Sec. 4.1.3, its phase-boundary error is not dominant; it is therefore a weak basis for assuming that the effectivity indices remain near unity on the irregular pixelized interfaces, hanging-node neighborhoods, and different coupling conditions of Secs. 4.2-4.5. If the effectivity index drifts on those meshes, the reported error-increase factors and the "not more than about 15%" conclusion (Sec. 5(iv)) would be miscalibrated. Please validate the estimator against an overkill reference solution on at least one additional microstructure (e.g., the Diamond/SiC example), or provide a quantitative argument bounding the expected drift of theta.
[3.2.3] The treatment of patches with fewer than four elements is underspecified. Sec. 3.2.3 states that for patches with one, two, or three superconvergent points "the number of terms in vector P in equation (5) may have to be reduced," but it does not state the exact rule (e.g., minimal-degree polynomial, constrained least squares, or use of neighboring patches). Since such degenerate patches arise precisely at hanging nodes and at scattered pixelized interfaces (Fig. 8), which are abundant in the coarsened meshes of the later examples, the implementation is not reproducible and the estimator's accuracy on these patches is unclear. Please provide the exact reduction rule and, ideally, a small numerical test for a degenerate-patch configuration.
[4.1.2, Table 2] The criterion that the reference discretization be "at least eight times finer per dimension" is justified by a single convergence study (Table 2), in which the error changes between the 1024x1024 and 1536x1536 references are still about 1% for the uniform mesh. Because all effectivity indices are computed against this reference, any residual lack of convergence in the reference solution would directly bias the validation. Please quantify the sensitivity of theta to the reference resolution, for example by recomputing the effectivity indices of Table 3 with the two finest reference discretizations.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The word "discretitization" should be "discretization".
[2.2] In Algorithm 3, the terms "boundary element nodes" and "constraint element nodes" are not precisely defined; please add a short definition of these sets in the text or in the pseudocode.
[4.5, Table 13 caption] The caption of Table 13 mentions "Dirichlet, Neumann, PBC" but only periodic boundary condition results are shown in the table; please correct the caption.
[4.2.3, Figure 16 caption] The caption for Fig. 16(c) reports ndof=175 424, whereas Table 4 gives ndof=75 424 for the second hard-coarsening step; this appears to be a typo.
[4.4.1] The sentence about the prime factorization of 1098 is cryptic; please clarify why this property of the initial discretization is relevant to the coarsening procedure.
[3.2.4, Eq. (12)] In Eq. (12), the inverse of the shape-function matrix N_i(x_qn) is taken; please explicitly state that this inverse is well-defined for the 4-node quadrilateral with the standard 2x2 Gauss-point arrangement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper validates error estimators against an independent overkill solution and applies parameter-free coarsening algorithms; later use of the estimators is inductive validation, not construction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The coarsening algorithms (Algorithms 1-3) mark elements using only phase-boundary and hanging-node information; they contain no fitted parameters and no reference to the error quantities later reported. The modified SPR and averaging estimators are defined from FE stresses/strains alone and are then assessed against a true error based on an overkill reference solution (Sec. 4.1, Tables 2-3), which is an independent benchmark rather than a calibration target. The effectivity index near one on the Cross example is used to justify discarding further true-error computations (Sec. 4.1.4), so the error-increase factors in Tables 4, 5, 8, 13 are estimates whose accuracy is assumed to transfer, not values forced by the validation data. That transferability concern is a soundness or external-validity issue, not a circularity issue: the later error estimates are still computed from the actual FE solutions on each coarsened mesh, not read off from the Cross benchmark. Self-citations to the authors' FE-HMM work are contextual background for the homogenization framework and material parameters, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz claim is imported solely through those citations. The paper is therefore self-contained for the purpose of circularity analysis, and no specific reduction of a prediction to an input can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the overkill reference being converged, on the superconvergence assumptions of the recovery estimator, and on the hanging node constraints adding negligible error. No new physical entities are introduced; the only hand-chosen parameter is the 8x reference refinement factor.

free parameters (1)

reference refinement factor = 8x per spatial dimension (at least)
Chosen in Sec. 4.1.2 as the condition for a reliable overkill reference solution; it determines the 'true errors' used to validate all estimators. Not derived, only supported by observed convergence in Table 2 for one example.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The overkill reference solution is sufficiently converged to represent the exact solution for error computation.
Sec. 4.1.2: 'the discretization of the reference solution should at least be eight times finer per dimension of space than the discretization of the original, uniform mesh.' If this fails, the true errors and effectivity indices are unreliable.
standard math Superconvergence of stress and strain at element centers (Barlow points) for rectangular bilinear elements.
Sec. 3.2.1 invokes Barlow points and the Zienkiewicz-Zhu SPR framework; the recovery-based estimator depends on this property.
domain assumption Hanging node constraints (Eq. 1) enforce C0 continuity exactly and contribute negligible error.
Sec. 2.1 uses x_hanging = 1/2(x_master1 + x_master2); the error analysis does not separate constraint effects from discretization error.
domain assumption The fixed macro displacement field from the original mesh provides a representative loading for comparing micro meshes.
Sec. 4, second paragraph: 'the macroscopic displacement field obtained from the original, uniform mesh in the RAE will be used and only the postprocessing is executed for all micro meshes.'

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error Analysis for Quadtree-Type Mesh-Coarsening Algorithms Adapted to Pixelized Heterogeneous Microstructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CG7GXNKJ

@misc{pith2026190809380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error Analysis for Quadtree-Type Mesh-Coarsening Algorithms Adapted to Pixelized Heterogeneous Microstructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CG7GXNKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09380}
}

read the original abstract

Pixel- and voxel-based representations of microstructures obtained from tomographic imaging methods is an established standard in computational materials science. The corresponding highly resolved, uniform discretitization in numerical analysis is adequate to accurately describe the geometry of interfaces and defects in microstructures and, therefore, to capture the physical processes in these regions of interest. For the defect-free interior of phases and grains however, the high resolution is in view of only weakly varying field properties not necessary such that mesh-coarsening in these regions can improve efficiency without severe losses of accuracy in simulations. The present work proposes two different variants of adaptive, quadtree-based mesh-coarsening algorithms applied to pixelized images that serves the purpose of a preprocessor for consecutive finite element analyses, here, in the context of numerical homogenization. Error analysis is carried out on the microscale by error estimation which itself is assessed by true error computation. A modified stress recovery scheme for a superconvergent error estimator is proposed which overcomes the deficits of the standard recovery scheme for nodal stress computation in cases of interfaces with stiffness jump. By virtue of error analysis the improved efficiency by the reduction of unknowns is put into relation to the increase of the discretization error. This quantitative analysis sets a rational basis for decisions on favorable meshes having the best trade-off between accuracy and efficiency as will be underpinned by various examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09380 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Original mesh with two different material phases (left), original mesh with marked elements following algorithm 2 (center) and resulting coarsened mesh (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Once coarsened mesh with two different material phases (left), once coarsened mesh with marked elements following algorithm 2 (center) and resulting twice coarsened mesh (right). If the coarsening criterion from algorithm 2 is applied to the already coarsened micro mesh from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (23 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Original mesh with two different material phases (left), original mesh with marked elements following algorithm 2 (center) and resulting coarsened mesh (right). The process of the softer coarsening criterion from algorithm 3 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Projection from a coarse micro mesh (red boundary) onto the quadrature points (marked by blue rectangles) of an finer element (yellow) for linear shape functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Recovery of nodal stresses for the central node of the patch from stresses at the surrounding superconvergent points. A bi-linear polynomial is fitted through the stress and strain values at the superconvergent points (marked with black circle) in order to reconstruct …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Recovery of nodal stresses at phase boundary, the stiffer (green) material leads to higher stresses than the weaker (yellow) material [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Two examples for irregular patches, one caused by the scattered element phase distribution at the interface (left), the other one caused by a hanging node (right). Nevertheless, there are several cases of element arrangements at interfaces which prevent the generation …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Averaging method for a node attached to four elements. The central obtains from all adjacent elements a set of elementwise stress and strain where the unique nodal values result from averaging. The situation for four adjacent elements is displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: It exhibits length l in x-direction, height h in y-direction, and thickness t in z-direction. It holds l = 5000 [L], b = 1000 [L], t = 100 [L]. The side length of the square representative area element (RAE) is = 1 [L]. To avoid macroscopic influences the macro disc…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Macroproblem: Cantilever beam, geometry and boundary conditions. All simulations are run for plane strain condition and unless otherwise stated for PBC. For all microstructures with two phases one phase exhibits the Young’s modulus of silicon carbide SiC with ESiC = 2…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Cross microstructure. (a) Structure with two phases, (b) micro mesh after three coarsening steps with the soft coarsening method. In the first example a microstructure of a cross-shaped stiff inclusion in a softer square matrix is considered. For a periodic metamater…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Cross microstructure. Error distribution on the microdomain with different colorscaling. major errors all over the phase boundary and minor errors in the inside of the phases. The major errors of the phase boundaries are then dominant compared to the minor errors in t…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: DFG-Heisenberg. (a) Microstructure with two different phases, (b) 5th soft-coarsened quadtree mesh. mesh coarsening algorithm is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: DFG-Heisenberg. Discretization error in the energy-norm on the micro scale for soft and hard coarsening. Errors are estimated using the averaging method and the modified SPR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: DFG-Heisenberg. Distribution of the relative elementwise error in the energy-norm for different mesh versions. (a). The major errors are located at the phase boundaries, while in the inside of the single phases there are only minor errors. Only in the area around the …

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: DFG-Heisenberg. Normal strain component εxx the initial, uniform mesh and two adaptively refined meshes. Data in 10−2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Circle microstructure. (a) Microstructure with two phases, (b) 5th softcoarsened mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Circle microstructure. Estimated micro discretization error in the energynorm on the micro scale for the circular inclusion micro structure for different micro-macro coupling conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Diamond/SiC-microstructure. (a) Microstructure with two phases, (b) representative area element chosen for computations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Diamond/SiC- microstructure. Coarsened meshes of Diamond/SiC microstructure. taken into account. Again we employ averaging in error estimation along with the soft mesh coarsening algorithm. Notice in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Diamond/SiC- microstructure. Estimated micro discretization error in the energy-norm on the micro scale for the diamond/SiC microstructure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_21.png]

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Seahorse microstructure. (a) Tesselation made of three different material phases, (b) mesh after five soft-coarsening steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png]

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: Seahorse microstructure. (a) Estimated discretization error in the energynorm, (b) computation time over number of degrees of freedom. (a) original, uniform mesh ndof=3 276 800 (b) 5th soft coarsening step ndof=282 044 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_23.png]

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: Seahorse microstructure: Distribution of the relative elementwise micro discretization error for (a) uniform, original micro mesh and (b) 5th soft-coarsened micro mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_24.png]

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: Seahorse microstructure: Normal strain component εxx of the initial, uniform mesh and 5th soft-coarsened micro mesh. All data in 10−2 . 4.5.3 Micro Strains The distribution of the normal strain component εxx of the seahorse microstructure for periodic micro-macro coup…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Abdulle, Analysis of the heterogeneous multiscale FEM for problems in elasticity, Math

A. Abdulle, Analysis of the heterogeneous multiscale FEM for problems in elasticity, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 16(4) (2006) 615--635

work page 2006
[2]

Abdulle, The finite element heterogeneous multiscale method: a computational strategy for multiscale PDEs, Math

A. Abdulle, The finite element heterogeneous multiscale method: a computational strategy for multiscale PDEs, Math. Sci. Appl., Vol. 31 31 (2009) 133--181

work page 2009
[3]

Abdulle, W

A. Abdulle, W. E., B. Engquist, E. Vanden-Eijnden, The heterogeneous multiscale method, Acta Numer. 466 (2012) 1--87

work page 2012
[4]

Effective description of anisotropic wave dispersion in mechanical band-gap metamaterials via the relaxed micromorphic model

M.V. d'Agostino, G. Barbagallo, I.-D. Ghiba, B. Eidel, P. Neff, A. Madeo, Effective description of anisotropic wave dispersion in mechanical band-gap metamaterials via the relaxed micromorphic model, submitted, arXiv preprint 1709.07054 (2018)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[5]

Allaire, Homogenization and two-scale convergence, SIAM J

G. Allaire, Homogenization and two-scale convergence, SIAM J. Math. Anal 23 (1992) 1482--1518

work page 1992
[6]

Babu s ka, W.C

I. Babu s ka, W.C. Rheinboldt, A-posteriori error estimates for the finite element method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 12 (1978) 1597--1615

work page 1978
[7]

Barlow, Optimal stress locations in finite element models, Int

J. Barlow, Optimal stress locations in finite element models, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 10 (1976) 243--251

work page 1976
[8]

Cioranescu, P

D. Cioranescu, P. Donato, An Introduction to Homogenization, Oxford University Press, New York (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 43 references

[9]

W. E, B. Engquist, The heterogeneous multi-scale methods, Commun. Math. Sci. 1 (2003) 87--132

2003
[10]

W. E, B. Engquist, X. Li, W. Ren, E. Vanden-Eijnden, Heterogeneous multiscale methods: a review, Commun. Comput. Phys 2 (2007) 367--450

2007
[11]

Eidel, A

B. Eidel, A. Fischer, The heterogeneous multiscale finite element method FE-HMM for the homogenization of linear elastic solids, PAMM 16 (2016) 521--522

2016
[12]

Eidel, A

B. Eidel, A. Fischer, The heterogeneous multiscale finite element method FE-HMM for the homogenization of linear elastic solids and a comparison with the FE ^2 method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 329 (2018) 332--368

2018
[13]

Eidel, A

B. Eidel, A. Fischer, A. Gote, A nonlinear FE-HMM formulation along with a novel algorithmic structure for finite deformation elasticity, PAMM 18 (2018) 1--2

2018
[14]

Eidel, A

B. Eidel, A. Gote, M. Ruby, L. Holzer, L. Keller, X. Jiang, Estimating the effective elasticity properties of a diamond-SiC composite thin film by 3D reconstruction and numerical homogenization, Diam. Relat. Mater. 97 (2019) 107406

2019
[15]

Eidel, A

B. Eidel, A. Fischer, A. Gote, A nonlinear finite element heterogeneous multiscale method for the homogenization of hyperelastic solids and a novel staggered two-scale solution algorithm, submitted, arXiv preprint black 1908.08292 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[16]

Feyel, J.L

F. Feyel, J.L. Chaboche, FE2 multiscale approach for modelling the elastoviscoplastic behaviour of long fibre SiC/Ti composite materials, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 183 (2000) 309--330

2000
[17]

Fischer, B

A. Fischer, B. Eidel, Convergence and error analysis of FE-HMM/FE2 for energetically consistent micro-coupling conditions in linear elastic solids, Eur. J. Mech. A Solid. 77 (2019) 103735

2019
[18]

Geers, V.G

M.G.D. Geers, V.G. Kouznetsova, W.A.M. Brekelmans, Computational homogenization, in: R. Pippan, P. Gumbsch (Eds.), Multiscale Modelling of Plasticity and Fracture by Means of Dislocation Mechanics, CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, (2010) 327--394

2010
[19]

Hill, Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theoretical principles, J

R. Hill, Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theoretical principles, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 11 (1963) 357--372

1963
[20]

Hill, On constitutive macro-variables for heterogeneous solids at finite strain, Proc

R. Hill, On constitutive macro-variables for heterogeneous solids at finite strain, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 326 (1972) 131--147

1972
[21]

Holzer, M

L. Holzer, M. Cantoni, Review of FIB-tomography. In: Ivo Utke, Stanislav Moshkalev, and Phillip Russell (Eds.), Nanofabrication Using Focused Ion and Electron Beams: Principles and Applications Oxford University Press, New York (2012) 410--435

2012
[22]

Ketcham, W.D

R.A. Ketcham, W.D. Carlson, Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery: applications to the geosciences, Comput. Geosci. 27 (2001) 381--400

2001
[23]

Kouznetsova, W.A.M

V. Kouznetsova, W.A.M. Brekelmans, F.P.T. Baaijens, An approach to micro-macro modeling of heterogeneous materials, Comput. Mech. 27 (2002) 37--48

2002
[24]

Kouznetsova, M.G.D

V. Kouznetsova, M.G.D. Geers, W.A.M. Brekelmans, Multi-scale constitutive modelling of heterogeneous materials with a gradient-enhanced computational homogenization scheme, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 54 (2002) 1235--1260

2002
[25]

Legrain, P

G. Legrain, P. Cartraud, I. Perreard, N. Mo\" e s, An X-FEM and level set computational approach for image-based modelling: application to homogenization, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 86 (2011) 915--934

2011
[26]

W.D. Lian, G. Legrain, P. Cartraud, Image-based computational homogenization and localization: comparison between X-FEM/levelset and voxel-based approaches, Comput. Mech. 51 (2013) 279--293

2013
[27]

Michel, H

J.C. Michel, H. Moulinec, P. Suquet, Effective properties of composite materials with periodic microstructure: a computational approach, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 172 (1999) 109--143

1999
[28]

Miehe, J

C. Miehe, J. Schr\" o der, J. Schotte, Computational homogenization analysis in finite plasticity simulation of texture development in polycrystalline materials, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 171 (1999) 387--418

1999
[29]

Miehe, J

C. Miehe, J. Schotte, J. Schr\" o der, Computational homogenization analysis in finite plasticity simulation of texture development in polycrystalline materials, Comput. Mat. Sci. 16 (1-4) (1999) 372--382

1999
[30]

Miska, D

N. Miska, D. Balzani, Quantification of uncertain macroscopicmaterial properties resulting from variations of microstructure morphology based on statistically similar volume elements: application to dual-phase steel microstructures, Comput. Mech. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007...

2019 doi
[31]

Nambiar, K

R.V. Nambiar, K. Lawrence, The Zienkiewciz-Zhu error estimator for multiple material problems, Commun. Appl. Numer. M. 8 (1992) 273--277

1992
[32]

Nguyen, A

T. Nguyen, A. Ghazlan, A. Kashani, S. Bordas, T. Ngo, 3D meso-scale modelling of foamed concrete based on X-ray computed tomography, Constr. Build. Mater. 188 (2018) 583--598

2018
[33]

Pennycook, P.D

S.J. Pennycook, P.D. Nellist (Eds.), Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy, Imaging and Analysis, Springer, New York (2011)

2011
[34]

Peri\' c , E.A

D. Peri\' c , E.A. de Souza Neto, R.A.Feij\' o o, M. Partovi, A.J. Carneiro Molina, On micro-to-macro transitions for multi-scale analysis of non-linear heterogeneous materials: unified variational basis and finite element implementation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 87 (2010) 149--170

2010
[35]

S. Saeb, P. Steinmann, A. Javili, Aspects of computational homogenization at finite deformations: a unifying review from Reuss' to Voigt's bound, Appl. Mech. Rev. 68 (2016) 050801

2016
[36]

Saputra, H

A. Saputra, H. Talebi, D. Tran, C. Birk and C. Song, Automatic image-based stress analysis by the scaled boundary finite element method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 109 (2017) 697--738

2017
[37]

Saputra, V

A.A. Saputra, V. Sladek, J. Sladek, and C. Song, Micromechanics determination of effective material coefficients of cement-based piezoelectric ceramic composites, J. Intel. Mat. Syst. Str. 29(5) (2018) 845--862

2018
[38]

Saxena, R

N. Saxena, R. Hofmann, F.O. Alpak, J. Dietderich, S. Hunter, R.J. Day-Stirrat, Effect of image segmentation & voxel size on micro-CT computed effective transport & elastic properties, Mar. Petrol. Geol. 86 (2017) 972--990

2017
[39]

o der, A numerical two-scale homogenization scheme: the FE ^2 -method, in: J. Schr\

J. Schr\" o der, A numerical two-scale homogenization scheme: the FE ^2 -method, in: J. Schr\" o der, K. Hackl (Eds.), Plasticity and Beyond, CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, (2014) 1--64

2014
[40]

Suquet, Elements of homogenization for inelastic solid mechanics, in: E

P. Suquet, Elements of homogenization for inelastic solid mechanics, in: E. Sanchez-Palencia, A. Zaoui (Eds.), Homogenization Techniques for Composite Media, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1987) 193--287

1987
[41]

Zienkiewicz, J.Z

O.C. Zienkiewicz, J.Z. Zhu, A simple error estimator and adaptive procedure for practical engineerng analysis, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 24 (1987) 337--357

1987
[42]

Zienkiewicz, J.Z

O.C. Zienkiewicz, J.Z. Zhu, The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. part 1: the recovery technique, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 33 (1992) 1331--1364

1992
[43]

Zienkiewicz, J.Z

O.C. Zienkiewicz, J.Z. Zhu, The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. part 2: error estimates and adaptivity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 33 (1992) 1365--1382

1992

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abdulle, Analysis of the heterogeneous multiscale FEM for problems in elasticity, Math

A. Abdulle, Analysis of the heterogeneous multiscale FEM for problems in elasticity, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 16(4) (2006) 615--635

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Abdulle, The finite element heterogeneous multiscale method: a computational strategy for multiscale PDEs, Math

A. Abdulle, The finite element heterogeneous multiscale method: a computational strategy for multiscale PDEs, Math. Sci. Appl., Vol. 31 31 (2009) 133--181

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Abdulle, W

A. Abdulle, W. E., B. Engquist, E. Vanden-Eijnden, The heterogeneous multiscale method, Acta Numer. 466 (2012) 1--87

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Effective description of anisotropic wave dispersion in mechanical band-gap metamaterials via the relaxed micromorphic model

M.V. d'Agostino, G. Barbagallo, I.-D. Ghiba, B. Eidel, P. Neff, A. Madeo, Effective description of anisotropic wave dispersion in mechanical band-gap metamaterials via the relaxed micromorphic model, submitted, arXiv preprint 1709.07054 (2018)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Allaire, Homogenization and two-scale convergence, SIAM J

G. Allaire, Homogenization and two-scale convergence, SIAM J. Math. Anal 23 (1992) 1482--1518

work page 1992

[6] [6]

Babu s ka, W.C

I. Babu s ka, W.C. Rheinboldt, A-posteriori error estimates for the finite element method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 12 (1978) 1597--1615

work page 1978

[7] [7]

Barlow, Optimal stress locations in finite element models, Int

J. Barlow, Optimal stress locations in finite element models, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 10 (1976) 243--251

work page 1976

[8] [8]

Cioranescu, P

D. Cioranescu, P. Donato, An Introduction to Homogenization, Oxford University Press, New York (1999)

work page 1999