Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Fourth- and higher-order finite element methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GePUP-FEM delivers fourth- and higher-order incompressible-flow simulations with equal-order elements, black-box time stepping, and no inf-sup condition.

desk verdict GePUP-FEM mostly delivers high-order velocity and solid benchmark physics, but the paper's own 3D pressure tables contradict its blanket accuracy claim, and that gap is left open. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06863 v1 pith:ISQJMTYM submitted 2025-06-07 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

Yang Li , Heyu Wang , Qinghai Zhang This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 65M6065N3065M2076D0576M10
keywords incompressibleNavier-StokesequationsGePUPformulationunconstrainedpressurePoissonequationfiniteelementmethodimplicit-explicitRunge-Kuttaadaptivemeshrefinementinf-supconditionflowpastacylinder/sphere
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 GePUP (generic projection and unconstrained pressure-Poisson) formulation can be turned into a high-order finite-element solver family with all the properties that have been hard to combine: fourth- and higher-order accuracy in time and space, black-box time integrators, multigrid-based efficiency with adaptive mesh refinement, and velocity-pressure spaces that need not satisfy the inf-sup condition. The central move is to solve for a non-solenoidal velocity $w$ whose divergence decays by a heat equation, then reconstruct the incompressible velocity and the pressure through Poisson solves at each time step, so that no saddle-point system ever appears. If the claim is right, mixed finite-element stabilization and projection-method coupling are replaced by decoupled elliptic solves, which would make high-order incompressible flow simulation substantially easier to build and extend. The paper reports fourth- and fifth-order convergence on Taylor-Green and Beltrami flows, and benchmark agreement for vortex shedding, drag, lift, and Strouhal number in the cylinder and sphere flows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GePUP system (28), a reformulation of the INSE whose evolutionary variable is a generic-projected velocity $w$. The divergence of $w$ is not zero but obeys $\partial(\nabla\cdot w)/\partial t = \nu\Delta(\nabla\cdot w)$ with no-flux boundary conditions, which makes any divergence error decay exponentially. From $w$, the divergence-free velocity is recovered as $u = w - \nabla\phi$, where $\phi$ solves a Poisson equation with boundary data $n\cdot g$; then the pressure $q$ solves the unconstrained pressure Poisson equation (33), whose right-hand side contains the convective and forcing divergence plus a boundary curl term. The discrete machinery pairs continuous equal-order Lagrange elements for all unknowns with an ERK-ESDIRK step that treats diffusion implicitly and convection and pressure explicitly, producing the algorithm (38): a sequence of mass-matrix and stiffness-matrix linear systems that geometric multigrid can solve.

What would settle it

Run the fourth-order scheme on the three-dimensional Beltrami flow at Re = 100 and compare the pressure $L^2$ error at $h = 1/16$ using the direct boundary curl evaluation from (36d) versus an $L^2$-projected or patch-recovered curl; if the rate rises from about 3.6 back to 4 while the velocity rate stays at 4, the suboptimal boundary curl is the bottleneck, but if it stays below 4, the formulation itself loses pressure order. Separately, on the lid-driven cavity at Re = $10^{4}$, compute the pressure error against a fine reference solution on nested meshes near the corners: failure of $q$ to converge in $H^1$ would indicate that the $H^1$ regularity assumption is violated by the corner singularity and would bound the generality of the $k$th-order pressure claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that GePUP-FEM is the first numerical method to combine all four features the authors target, and that this combination follows directly from the GePUP formulation: the evolutionary variable $w$ is free to be non-solenoidal, the divergence-free velocity $u$ is recovered from $w$ by a generic projection, and the pressure $q$ is extracted from an unconstrained pressure Poisson equation rather than enforced as a constraint. Consequently, at every Runge-Kutta stage the solver only solves a velocity diffusion problem and a sequence of Poisson problems, and the final step resets the solution to the projected field $u^{n+1}$. The paper further claims that the GePUP formulation is equivalent to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (INSE) when the initial condition $w(t_0)=u(t_0)$ is imposed, because the divergence of $w$ is driven to zero by heat-equation dynamics. The benchmarks are offered as evidence that the scheme attains the nominal order in time and space and recovers the correct physics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pressure belongs to $H^1(\Omega)$ on the domain being simulated and that the boundary curl integral in the pressure-extraction step can be evaluated at the nominal order; if a domain has corners or the direct curl evaluation from the finite-element solution is suboptimal, the claimed $k$th-order pressure accuracy can fail even when the velocity converges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fourth- and higher-order accuracy in both time and space is attainable without either the inf-sup condition or the internal coupling of pressure boundary conditions to a specific time integrator.
  • Because diffusion is implicit, the time step is limited only by convection, and each step decomposes into velocity and pressure Poisson-type solves, so geometric multigrid and adaptive mesh refinement apply directly.
  • Any divergence error introduced by discretization is not left uncontrolled; the heat equation for $\nabla\cdot w$ provides exponential decay, so slightly non-solenoidal intermediate velocities do not ruin stability.
  • Equal-order continuous Lagrange elements can be used for velocity and pressure, reducing implementation complexity relative to mixed methods that require inf-sup-stable pairs.
  • Benchmark agreements mean the solver can be used directly to study vortex shedding, drag and lift, and high-Reynolds transition problems where resolving multiple scales matters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension of the paper's own three-dimensional Beltrami tests would replace the direct finite-element curl in the boundary term of (36d) with an $L^2$-projected or patch-recovered curl; if the pressure rates recover the nominal order, the formulation is sound and the bottleneck is purely evaluational.
  • Because the GePUP chain decouples the time integrator from the spatial discretization, other high-order IMEX or fully implicit Runge-Kutta methods could be swapped in without rederiving the pressure update, and other element families beyond equal-order Lagrange elements would likely fit the same weak form.
  • The $H^1$-regularity premise in the pressure extraction suggests grading meshes toward corners in non-smooth domains; a study of pressure convergence on the lid-driven cavity would tell how far the $k$th-order pressure claim extends beyond smooth benchmarks.
  • The efficiency claim ultimately rests on geometric multigrid and adaptive mesh refinement, so an informative stress test would repeat the single-vortex and sphere runs at higher Reynolds numbers and report wall-clock scaling against degrees of freedom and target accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents GePUP-FEM, a method-of-lines finite element discretization of the GePUP reformulation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. The spatial discretization uses equal-order continuous Lagrange elements for velocity and pressure, and time stepping uses fourth- and fifth-order implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods, treating diffusion implicitly and convection and pressure-gradient terms explicitly. Each stage requires only Poisson-type solves for the velocity, a projection, and the pressure. The authors test the method on the Taylor-Green vortex, the three-dimensional Beltrami flow, and standard benchmarks (lid-driven cavity, flow past a cylinder, flow past a sphere), with geometric multigrid and adaptive mesh refinement. The advertised contributions are high-order accuracy in time and space, black-box time integration, efficiency, and inf-sup-free element choices.

Significance. If the numerical claims hold, GePUP-FEM would be a practically valuable alternative to mixed finite element methods for incompressible flow, offering high-order accuracy without saddle-point systems. The numerical evidence is broad: convergence studies in two and three dimensions, and benchmark quantities (drag, lift, Strouhal number) that match published values. The implementation is built on the open-source deal.II library, which supports reproducibility. However, the accuracy claim for pressure is not uniformly supported: the three-dimensional Beltrami tests show sub-nominal pressure rates, and the pressure extraction requires H^1 regularity that is not available on the non-smooth cavity domain where pressure convergence is not reported. In addition, the efficiency estimate contains a doubling error in the complexity calculation. These points need to be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1.2, Tables 3 and 4; Section 1.6] The unqualified accuracy claim in Section 1.6 ('fourth- and higher-order accuracy both in time and in space') is contradicted by the pressure results in the 3D Beltrami tests. For k=4, Table 3 gives pressure L2 rates of 4.14, 3.89, 3.61 and L∞ rates of 3.29, 3.59, 3.62; for k=5, Table 4 gives pressure L∞ rates of 4.55, 4.02, 3.90. The paper acknowledges these order reductions and attributes them to the sub-optimal direct evaluation of curl u_h in (36d), but does not fix or qualify the claim. Since the pressure is a primary output of the solver, the accuracy claim must be restricted to velocity only, or the boundary curl term must be evaluated at an order that restores the nominal pressure rates (e.g., by a projected or recovered curl).
  2. [3.1, Eq. (33); 4.2.2] The pressure extraction (33) is a Neumann problem that, as stated in Section 3.1, requires the pressure to belong to H^1(Omega). On the square lid-driven cavity, corner singularities generally make the exact pressure less regular than H^1, so the well-posedness and accuracy of (33) are not automatic. Yet the cavity benchmark reports only velocity profiles (Figure 3) and extrema (Table 7), with no pressure convergence study. The paper should either explicitly restrict the pressure accuracy claims to domains where the H^1 regularity holds, or demonstrate pressure convergence on a singular-domain test using mesh grading or a suitable pressure recovery.
  3. [4.1.2, CPU speedup estimate] The projected CPU time for the second-order CS scheme is miscalculated. For a two-dimensional second-order scheme, each uniform refinement h→h/2 multiplies the number of elements by 4 and halves the time step, so the total cost per refinement grows by a factor of 8, not by (2^3 × 2) = 16 as written. With the authors' numbers, the projected running time is approximately 307.53 × 8^{3.49} ≈ 4.4 × 10^5 s, giving a speedup of about 2.7 × 10^4 rather than the reported 3.08 × 10^5. The efficiency comparison should be corrected.
  4. [3.3, Eqs. (38a)-(38c)] The paper provides no stability or convergence analysis for the fully discrete IMEX scheme, and the explicit treatment of the nonlinear convection and the pressure-gradient terms is not accompanied by a CFL discussion beyond the definition of the Courant number in (39). Since the advertised accuracy includes moderate and high Reynolds number flows, a linearized stability analysis or a careful statement of the stability restriction would materially support the claim; as it stands, the purported robustness rests entirely on the numerical experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [1.6] The statement that GePUP-FEM is 'the first numerical method to possess all these features' is a strong priority claim that is difficult to verify; it should be rephrased as a claim about the proposed combination rather than an unqualified first.
  2. [4.2.1] The AMR indicator eta_K = h_K ||curl u_h||_{L∞(K)} is introduced heuristically, and the AMR results in the single-vortex test are validated only by visual comparison with [49]. A quantitative convergence study on a mesh sequence would make the efficiency comparison in Table 6 more convincing.
  3. [3.3, Eq. (38c)] The final update W^{n+1} = U^{n+1} is explained only heuristically; since the Runge-Kutta methods are stiffly accurate, the interaction between the projection step and the Butcher tableau should be clarified to show that the advertised temporal order is not degraded.
  4. [References] Reference [19] contains a typo in the title ('presssure' should be 'pressure'); the reference list should be proofread for similar issues.
  5. [Figure 5] The insets in Figure 5 are not labeled with their time intervals; adding axis labels or annotations would make the periodic shedding regime easier to read.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GePUP-FEM derivation is self-contained and the central claims are validated against independent analytic and benchmark data.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Section 2.2 re-derives the GePUP system (28) from the INSE through the explicit definitions w := Pu, the gradient field ∇q in (26), and the chosen divergence-decay law (27), rather than simply importing the formulation from the prior self-citation [4]. The asserted equivalence between GePUP and INSE is argued in the same section by imposing w(t0) = u(t0); whether that argument is fully rigorous is a correctness question, not a circular one. The pressure extraction (33) in Section 3.1 is an elliptic boundary value problem for q given the velocity u, and the paper explicitly states the required H^1 regularity; this is a stated assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The numerical validation in Section 4 compares against analytic Taylor-Green and Beltrami solutions and published cylinder/sphere benchmarks, so the accuracy and physics claims are externally checkable rather than being forced by the formulation. The acknowledged pressure order reduction in Section 4.1.2 (Tables 3-4) is an accuracy limitation attributed to sub-optimal direct curl evaluation; it does not amount to a circular reduction. Self-citations such as [4], [75], and [76] are contextual or future-work references and are not load-bearing for the paper's central numerical results. No equation in the paper is shown to be identical to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on the GePUP equivalence from [4], H^1-regular pressure extraction, and unproved stability of the IMEX discretization. No physical entity is invented. The numerical parameters (Courant number, AMR thresholds, maximum refinements) are tuning choices that do not encode the benchmark answers.

free parameters (3)
  • AMR refinement and coarsening thresholds theta_R, theta_C = theta_R in {0.6, 0.7, 0.8}; theta_C = 0.1
    Doerfler marking parameters chosen separately for each test in Section 4.2; they influence the mesh sequence and efficiency but are not fitted to reference outputs.
  • Courant number Cr = 0.4, 0.8, or 1.2 depending on test
    Used in (39) to set the time step size; it is a standard stability and convergence control parameter, not fitted to the target data.
  • Maximum refinement level rmax for AMR = 2 to 5 depending on test
    Limits mesh resolution near bodies; Tables 8-10 show rmax=2 and rmax=3 give nearly identical forces, so the parameter is not load-bearing for the reported conclusions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GePUP formulation is equivalent to the INSE when w(t0) = u(t0).
    Section 2.2 sketches the equivalence using the heat equation for divergence and the initial condition (30), but full justification is delegated to [4].
  • domain assumption The pressure q is H^1(Omega)-regular so the elliptic pressure extraction (33) is well-posed.
    Section 3.1 explicitly states the pressure is required to have H^1 regularity, unlike mixed formulations where L^2 suffices.
  • domain assumption The IMEX-RK splitting with explicit convection and implicit diffusion is stable for the tested Reynolds numbers and AMR meshes.
    Section 3.3 introduces the splitting without a stability or error analysis; stability is inferred from the benchmark results.
  • ad hoc to paper The AMR indicator eta_K = h_K ||curl u_h||_Linf(K) adequately marks regions where resolution is needed.
    Section 4.2 defines the residual-like indicator and Doerfler marking, but no a posteriori error bound connects it to the target quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fourth- and higher-order finite element methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ISQJMTYM

@misc{pith2026250606863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fourth- and higher-order finite element methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ISQJMTYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06863}
}
read the original abstract

Inspired by the unconstrained pressure Poisson equation (PPE) formulation [Liu, Liu, \& Pego, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 60 (2007): 1443-1487], we previously proposed the generic projection and unconstrained PPE (GePUP) formulation [Zhang, J. Sci. Comput. 67 (2016): 1134-1180] for numerically solving the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (INSE) with no-slip boundary conditions. In GePUP, the main evolutionary variable does not have to be solenoidal with its divergence controlled by a heat equation. This work presents high-order finite-element solvers for the INSE under the framework of method-of-lines. Continuous Lagrange finite elements of equal order are utilized for the velocity and pressure finite element spaces to discretize the weak form of GePUP in space, while high-order implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods are then employed to treat the stiff diffusion term implicitly and the other terms explicitly. Due to the implicit treatment of the diffusion term, the time step size is only restricted by convection. The solver is efficient in that advancing the solution at each time step only involves solving a sequence of linear systems either on the velocity or on the pressure with geometric multigrid methods. Furthermore, the solver is enhanced with adaptive mesh refinement so that the multiple length scales and time scales in flows at moderate or high Reynolds numbers can be efficiently resolved. Numerical tests with various Reynolds numbers are performed for the single-vortex test, the lid-driven cavity, and the flow past a cylinder/sphere, demonstrating the high-order accuracy of GePUP-FEM both in time and in space and its capability of accurately and efficiently capturing the right physics. Moreover, our solver offers the flexibility in choosing velocity and pressure finite element spaces and is free of the standard inf-sup condition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of GePUP-FEM of the vorticity field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The vorticity field of GePUP-FEM at te = 60 on the locally refined mesh within (0, 0.35)2 for the single-vortex test. (a) streamlines 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of GePUP-FEM for the lid-driven cavity flow at Re = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of the vorticity field on the locally refined mesh within the subdomain (6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal variations of the drag and lift coefficients for the flow past a circular cylinder. The abscissa represents time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instantaneous vortical structures identified by the Q-criterion (43) for the unsteady flow past a sphere. Isocontours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal variations of the drag and lift coefficients for the flow past a sphere. The abscissa represents time while an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Zhang, GePUP: Generic projection and unconstrained PPE for fourth-order solutions of the incompressible Navier- Stokes equations with no-slip boundary conditions, J

    Q. Zhang, GePUP: Generic projection and unconstrained PPE for fourth-order solutions of the incompressible Navier- Stokes equations with no-slip boundary conditions, J. Sci. Comput. 67 (3) (2016) 1134–1180

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    C. L. Fefferman, Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation, in: J. Carlson, A. Jaffe, A. Wiles (Eds.), The Millennium Prize Problems, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2006, pp. 57–67

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Smale, Mathematical problems for the next century, Math

    S. Smale, Mathematical problems for the next century, Math. Intelligencer 20 (2) (1998) 7–15

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    Devlin, The Millennium Problems: The Seven Greatest Unsolved Mathematical Puzzles of Our Time, Basic Books, New York, 2003

    K. Devlin, The Millennium Problems: The Seven Greatest Unsolved Mathematical Puzzles of Our Time, Basic Books, New York, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Boffi, F

    D. Boffi, F. Brezzi, M. Fortin, Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Burman, M

    E. Burman, M. A. Fern´ andez, Continuous interior penalty finite element method for the time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations: space discretization and convergence, Numer. Math. 107 (2007) 39–77

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Codina, J

    R. Codina, J. Principe, O. Guasch, S. Badia, Time dependent subscales in the stabilized finite element approximation of incompressible flow problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (21) (2007) 2413–2430

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Benzi, G

    M. Benzi, G. H. Golub, J. Liesen, Numerical solution of saddle point problems, Acta Numer. 14 (2005) 1–137

    work page 2005

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Chorin, Numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, Math. Comp. 22 (104) (1968) 745–762

    1968

  2. [10]

    Temam, Sur l’approximation de la solution des ´ equations de Navier–Stokes par la m´ ethode des pas fractionnaires II, Arch

    R. Temam, Sur l’approximation de la solution des ´ equations de Navier–Stokes par la m´ ethode des pas fractionnaires II, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 33 (1969) 377–385

    1969

  3. [11]

    D. L. Brown, R. Cortez, M. L. Minion, Accurate projection methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 168 (2) (2001) 464–499. 26

    2001

  4. [12]

    J. L. Guermond, P. Minev, J. Shen, An overview of projection methods for incompressible flows, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (44-47) (2006) 6011–6045

    2006

  5. [13]

    L. H. Howell, J. B. Bell, An adaptive mesh projection method for viscous incompressible flow, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18 (4) (1997) 996–1013

    1997

  6. [14]

    D. F. Martin, P. Colella, D. Graves, A cell-centered adaptive projection method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in three dimensions, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (3) (2008) 1863–1886

    2008

  7. [15]

    Trebotich, D

    D. Trebotich, D. T. Graves, An adaptive finite volume method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in complex geometries, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 10 (1) (2015) 43–82

    2015

  8. [16]

    Blomquist, S

    M. Blomquist, S. R. West, A. L. Binswanger, M. Theillard, Stable nodal projection method on octree grids, J. Comput. Phys. 499 (2024) 112695

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. B. Bell, P. Colella, H. M. Glaz, A second-order projection method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 85 (2) (1989) 257–283

    1989

  10. [18]

    J. Kim, P. Moin, Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 59 (2) (1985) 308–323

    1985

  11. [19]

    P. M. Gresho, R. L. Sani, On presssure boundary conditions for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 7 (10) (1987) 1111–1145

    1987

  12. [20]

    Sanderse, B

    B. Sanderse, B. Koren, Accuracy analysis of explicit Runge-Kutta methods applied to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (8) (2012) 3041–3063

    2012

  13. [21]

    Johnston, J.-G

    H. Johnston, J.-G. Liu, Accurate, stable and efficient Navier-Stokes solvers based on explicit treatment of the pressure term, J. Comput. Phys. 199 (1) (2004) 221–259

    2004

  14. [22]

    J.-G. Liu, J. Liu, R. L. Pego, Stability and convergence of efficient Navier-Stokes solvers via a commutator estimate, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 60 (10) (2007) 1443–1487

    2007

  15. [23]

    J.-G. Liu, J. Liu, R. L. Pego, Error estimates for finite-element Navier-Stokes solvers without standard inf-sup conditions, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. B 30 (6) (2009) 743–768

    2009

  16. [24]

    Liu, Open and traction boundary conditions for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J

    J. Liu, Open and traction boundary conditions for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 228 (19) (2009) 7250–7267

    2009

  17. [25]

    J.-G. Liu, J. Liu, R. L. Pego, Stable and accurate pressure approximation for unsteady incompressible viscous flow, J. Comput. Phys. 229 (9) (2010) 3428–3453

    2010

  18. [26]

    J. Jia, J. Liu, Stable and spectrally accurate schemes for the Navier-Stokes equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33 (5) (2011) 2421–2439

    2011

  19. [27]

    Shirokoff, R

    D. Shirokoff, R. R. Rosales, An efficient method for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on irregular domains with no-slip boundary conditions, high order up to the boundary, J. Comput. Phys. 230 (23) (2011) 8619–8646

    2011

  20. [28]

    R. R. Rosales, B. Seibold, D. Shirokoff, D. Zhou, High-order finite element methods for a pressure Poisson equation reformulation of the Navier-Stokes equations with electric boundary conditions, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 373 (2021) 113451

    2021

  21. [29]

    G. E. Karniadakis, M. Israeli, S. A. Orszag, High-order splitting methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 97 (2) (1991) 414–443

    1991

  22. [30]

    N. A. Petersson, Stability of pressure boundary conditions for Stokes and Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 172 (1) (2001) 40–70

    2001

  23. [31]

    Leriche, E

    E. Leriche, E. Perchat, G. Labrosse, M. O. Deville, Numerical evaluation of the accuracy and stability properties of high-order direct Stokes solvers with or without temporal splitting, J. Sci. Comput. 26 (1) (2006) 25–43

    2006

  24. [32]

    Li, A split-step finite-element method for incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with high-order accuracy up-to the boundary, J

    L. Li, A split-step finite-element method for incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with high-order accuracy up-to the boundary, J. Comput. Phys. 408 (2020) 109274

    2020

  25. [33]

    F. Meng, J. W. Banks, W. D. Henshaw, D. W. Schwendeman, Fourth-order accurate fractional-step IMEX schemes for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on moving overlapping grids, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 366 (2020) 113040

    2020

  26. [34]

    D. R. Q. Pacheco, R. Schussnig, T.-P. Fries, An efficient split-step framework for non-Newtonian incompressible flow problems with consistent pressure boundary conditions, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 382 (2021) 113888

    2021

  27. [35]

    U. M. Ascher, S. J. Ruuth, R. J. Spiteri, Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 25 (2) (1997) 151–167

    1997

  28. [36]

    C. A. Kennedy, M. H. Carpenter, Additive Runge-Kutta schemes for convection-diffusion-reaction equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 44 (1) (2003) 139–181

    2003

  29. [37]

    C. A. Kennedy, M. H. Carpenter, Higher-order additive Runge-Kutta schemes for ordinary differential equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 136 (2019) 183–205

    2019

  30. [38]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, D. Davydov, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, J.-P. Pelteret, B. Turcksin, D. Wells, The DEAL.II finite element library: Design, features, and insights, Comput. Math. Appl. 81 (2021) 407–422

    2021

  31. [39]

    Burstedde, L

    C. Burstedde, L. C. Wilcox, O. Ghattas, p4est: Scalable algorithms for parallel adaptive mesh refinement on forests of octrees, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33 (3) (2011) 1103–1133

    2011

  32. [40]

    Kronbichler, K

    M. Kronbichler, K. Kormann, A generic interface for parallel cell-based finite element operator application, Comput. & Fluids 63 (2012) 135–147

    2012

  33. [41]

    Bangerth, C

    W. Bangerth, C. Burstedde, T. Heister, M. Kronbichler, Algorithms and data structures for massively parallel generic adaptive finite element codes, ACM Trans. Math. Software 38 (2) (2011) 14:1–14:28

    2011

  34. [42]

    T. C. Clevenger, T. Heister, G. Kanschat, M. Kronbichler, A flexible, parallel, adaptive geometric multigrid method for FEM, ACM Trans. Math. Software 47 (1) (2020) 7:1–7:27

    2020

  35. [43]

    G. I. Taylor, A. E. Green, Mechanism of the production of small eddies from large ones, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A, Math. 27 Phys. Sci. 158 (895) (1937) 499–521

    1937

  36. [44]

    N. C. Nguyen, J. Peraire, B. Cockburn, An implicit high-order hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 230 (4) (2011) 1147–1170

    2011

  37. [45]

    C. R. Ethier, D. A. Steinman, Exact fully 3D Navier-Stokes solutions for benchmarking, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 19 (5) (1994) 369–375

    1994

  38. [46]

    Piatkowski, S

    M. Piatkowski, S. M¨ uthing, P. Bastian, A stable and high-order accurate discontinuous Galerkin based splitting method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 356 (2018) 220–239

    2018

  39. [47]

    D¨ orfler, A convergent adaptive algorithm for Poisson’s equation, SIAM J

    W. D¨ orfler, A convergent adaptive algorithm for Poisson’s equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 33 (3) (1996) 1106–1124

    1996

  40. [48]

    Pfeiler, D

    C.-M. Pfeiler, D. Praetorius, D¨ orfler marking with minimal cardinality is a linear complexity problem, Math. Comp. 89 (326) (2020) 2735–2752

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. B. Bell, P. Colella, L. H. Howell, An efficient second-order projection method for viscous incompressible flow, in: AIAA 10th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 24-26, 1991, pp. 360–367

    1991

  42. [50]

    U. Ghia, K. N. Ghia, C. T. Shin, High-Re solutions for incompressible flow using the Navier-Stokes equations and a multigrid method, J. Comput. Phys. 48 (3) (1982) 387–411

    1982

  43. [51]

    Erturk, T

    E. Erturk, T. C. Corke, C. G¨ okc¨ ol, Numerical solutions of 2-D steady incompressible driven cavity flow at high Reynolds numbers, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 48 (7) (2005) 747–774

    2005

  44. [52]

    Auteri, N

    F. Auteri, N. Parolini, L. Quartapelle, Numerical investigation on the stability of singular driven cavity flow, J. Comput. Phys. 183 (1) (2002) 1–25

    2002

  45. [53]

    Bruneau, M

    C.-H. Bruneau, M. Saad, The 2D lid-driven cavity problem revisited, Comput. & Fluids 35 (3) (2006) 326–348

    2006

  46. [54]

    C. H. K. Williamson, Vortex dynamics in the cylinder wake, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28 (1996) 477–539

    1996

  47. [55]

    Braza, P

    M. Braza, P. Chassaing, H. H. Minh, Numerical study and physical analysis of the pressure and velocity fields in the near wake of a circular cylinder, J. Fluid Mech. 165 (1986) 79–130

    1986

  48. [56]

    C. Liu, X. Zheng, C. H. Sung, Preconditioned multigrid methods for unsteady incompressible flows, J. Comput. Phys. 139 (1) (1998) 35–57

    1998

  49. [57]

    E. M. Kolahdouz, A. P. S. Bhalla, B. A. Craven, B. E. Griffith, An immersed interface method for discrete surfaces, J. Comput. Phys. 400 (2020) 108854

    2020

  50. [58]

    Calhoun, A Cartesian grid method for solving the two-dimensional streamfunction-vorticity equations in irregular regions, J

    D. Calhoun, A Cartesian grid method for solving the two-dimensional streamfunction-vorticity equations in irregular regions, J. Comput. Phys. 176 (2) (2002) 231–275

    2002

  51. [59]

    Mah ´ ır, Z

    N. Mah ´ ır, Z. Alta¸ c, Numerical investigation of convective heat transfer in unsteady flow past two cylinders in tandem arrangements, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 29 (5) (2008) 1309–1318

    2008

  52. [60]

    S. Xu, Z. J. Wang, An immersed interface method for simulating the interaction of a fluid with moving boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 216 (2) (2006) 454–493

    2006

  53. [61]

    T. A. Johnson, V. C. Patel, Flow past a sphere up to a Reynolds number of 300, J. Fluid Mech. 378 (1999) 19–70

    1999

  54. [62]

    Ormi` eres, M

    D. Ormi` eres, M. Provansal, Transition to turbulence in the wake of a sphere, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1) (1999) 80–83

    1999

  55. [63]

    A. G. Tomboulides, S. A. Orszag, Numerical investigation of transitional and weak turbulent flow past a sphere, J. Fluid Mech. 416 (2000) 45–73

    2000

  56. [64]

    J. C. R. Hunt, A. A. Wray, P. Moin, Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows, Proceedings of the Summer Program, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University (1988)

    1988

  57. [65]

    Bagchi, M

    P. Bagchi, M. Y. Ha, S. Balachandar, Direct numerical simulation of flow and heat transfer from a sphere in a uniform cross-flow, J. Fluids Eng. 123 (2) (2001) 347–358

    2001

  58. [66]

    Mittal, H

    R. Mittal, H. Dong, M. Bozkurttas, F. M. Najjar, A. Vargas, A. von Loebbecke, A versatile sharp interface immersed boundary method for incompressible flows with complex boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (10) (2008) 4825–4852

    2008

  59. [67]

    G. S. Constantinescu, K. D. Squires, LES and DES investigations of turbulent flow over a sphere at Re = 10,000, Flow Turbul. Combust. 70 (1-4) (2003) 267–298

    2003

  60. [68]

    J. Kim, D. Kim, H. Choi, An immersed-boundary finite-volume method for simulations of flow in complex geometries, J. Comput. Phys. 171 (1) (2001) 132–150

    2001

  61. [69]

    Hartmann, M

    D. Hartmann, M. Meinke, W. Schr¨ oder, A strictly conservative Cartesian cut-cell method for compressible viscous flows on adaptive grids, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 200 (9) (2011) 1038–1052

    2011

  62. [70]

    Giacobello, A

    M. Giacobello, A. Ooi, S. Balachandar, Wake structure of a transversely rotating sphere at moderate Reynolds numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 621 (2009) 103–130

    2009

  63. [71]

    Burman, D

    E. Burman, D. Garg, J. Guzman, Implicit-explicit time discretization for Oseen’s equation at high Reynolds number with application to fractional step methods, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 61 (6) (2023) 2859–2886

    2023

  64. [72]

    B¨ ansch, A

    E. B¨ ansch, A. Brenner, A posteriori error estimates for pressure-correction schemes, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 54 (4) (2016) 2323–2358

    2016

  65. [73]

    Gross, A

    S. Gross, A. Reusken, Numerical Methods for Two-phase Incompressible Flows, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  66. [74]

    Richter, Fluid-structure Interactions: Models, Analysis and Finite Elements, Springer, Cham, 2017

    T. Richter, Fluid-structure Interactions: Models, Analysis and Finite Elements, Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  67. [75]

    Zhang, A

    Q. Zhang, A. Fogelson, MARS: An analytic framework of interface tracking via mapping and adjusting regular semi- algebraic sets, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 54 (2) (2016) 530–560

    2016

  68. [76]

    Zhang, Fourth- and higher-order interface tracking via mapping and adjusting regular semianalytic sets represented by cubic splines, SIAM J

    Q. Zhang, Fourth- and higher-order interface tracking via mapping and adjusting regular semianalytic sets represented by cubic splines, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 40 (6) (2018) A3755–A3788

    2018

  69. [77]

    Burman, S

    E. Burman, S. Claus, P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, A. Massing, CutFEM: Discretizing geometry and partial differential equations, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 104 (7) (2015) 472–501

    2015

  70. [78]

    Lehrenfeld, M

    C. Lehrenfeld, M. Olshanskii, An Eulerian finite element method for PDEs in time-dependent domains, ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 53 (2) (2019) 585–614. 28

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.