pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16057 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn · physics.comp-ph

Implicit Velocity Correction Schemes for Scale-Resolving Simulations of Incompressible Flow: Stability, Accuracy, and Performance

Henrik W\"ustenberg , Alexandra Liosi , Spencer J. Sherwin , Joaquim Peir\'o , David Moxey This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph
keywords implicit time steppingvelocity correction schemeincompressible flowspectral hp elementsscale-resolving simulationimplicit large-eddy simulationCFL stabilitytime-to-solution
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Implicit velocity correction schemes extend the time step stability limit by up to two orders of magnitude in high-order incompressible flow simulations, cutting overall time-to-solution by a factor of eleven with only minor accuracy loss.

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

The paper compares two implicit formulations of the velocity correction scheme, a linear-implicit approach and a sub-stepping method, against a standard semi-implicit formulation in a high-order spectral/hp element framework. These are tested through implicit large-eddy simulation of the Imperial Front Wing benchmark, a complex high Reynolds number geometry. Both implicit schemes permit time steps up to 100 times larger than explicit limits. This increases the cost per step but reduces total time-to-solution by up to eleven times. Time steps up to twenty times the explicit limit leave laminar-turbulent transition and key flow statistics largely unchanged.

Core claim

Both the linear-implicit and sub-stepping implicit velocity correction schemes extend the stability limit by up to two orders of magnitude in time step size. While increasing the cost per time step, they reduce the overall time-to-solution by up to a factor of eleven. Accuracy analysis shows that time step sizes up to twenty times larger than the explicit limit have only minor impact on resolving laminar-turbulent transition and key flow statistics.

What carries the argument

The velocity correction scheme reformulated in linear-implicit and sub-stepping (semi-Lagrangian) implicit forms, used inside a high-order spectral/hp element discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.

If this is right

  • Time step sizes can increase by up to two orders of magnitude before stability is lost.
  • Overall time-to-solution drops by up to a factor of eleven despite higher cost per step.
  • Time steps twenty times larger than the explicit limit produce only small changes in transition location and flow statistics.
  • The schemes work on complex curved geometries that impose tight CFL limits.
  • The quantified trade-offs supply concrete guidance for choosing time integration in large-scale simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same implicit corrections could be tested on finer meshes or higher Reynolds numbers to see if the speed-up scales further.
  • Adaptive selection between implicit and explicit steps based on local CFL numbers might reduce cost even more without losing accuracy.
  • The approach may transfer to other high-order spatial discretizations used for incompressible flows.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the observed stability gains, performance improvements, and minor accuracy effects on the Imperial Front Wing benchmark will hold for other complex high-Re geometries without destabilizing the high-order discretization.

What would settle it

Repeating the Imperial Front Wing simulation with a different high-Re complex geometry using the implicit schemes at twenty times the explicit time step and checking whether total runtime falls by more than five times while transition statistics stay within a few percent of the explicit case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16057 by Alexandra Liosi, David Moxey, Henrik W\"ustenberg, Joaquim Peir\'o, Spencer J. Sherwin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The algorithm of the velocity correction scheme in semi-implicit, sub-stepping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Computational domain and boundary conditions with wing elements. Note that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A cross-section of the near field mesh highlighting the fine boundary layer mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of wall units ∆x +, ∆y +, ∆z + for the time-averaged flow field on all wing elements. Note that ∆y + is the wall-normal direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-averaged velocity magnitude at the midplane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-averaged pressure and skin friction coefficients for the three wing elements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Power spectral density of the lift coefficient comparing semi-implicit prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power spectral density of turbulent kinetic energy at probe locations along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time-averaged CFL estimate for the mid-plane and semi-implicit scheme with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-average of the maximum local CFL estimate for all schemes at increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative average for the lift and drag coefficients with averaging window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative Average and rolling standard deviation for the pressure and stream [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The time-averaged lift coefficient Cl and drag coefficient Cd comparing the influence of the time-stepping scheme and increasing the time step size ∆t ≥ ∆tCFL. The error bars show the standard deviation. 6.2.2. Time-averaged surface coefficients The surface pressure and skin-friction coefficients provide a more sensitive measure of temporal accuracy than the integral forces, as they directly re￾flect the … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-averaged pressure and skin friction coefficients comparing the influence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Surface line integral convolution on the suction sides of the wing elements for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Power spectral density of the lift coefficient summed over all wing elements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Time-averaged pressure and skin friction coefficients comparing the influence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Power spectral density of the total lift coefficient. Comparison of the influence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Strong scaling of the semi-implicit, sub-stepping, and linear-implicit schemes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Reduction in time-to-solution relative to the semi-implicit reference as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Average iteration counts for the pressure solve and the sum of the three velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Average number of pseudo-time advection substeps required by the sub-stepping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_22.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Scale-resolving simulations of high Reynolds number incompressible flows are often limited by the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) stability restriction imposed by explicit time-stepping schemes, resulting in small time step sizes and long time-to-solution. In this work, we systematically compare two implicit formulations of the velocity correction scheme -- a linear-implicit approach and a sub-stepping (or semi-Lagrangian) method -- against a standard semi-implicit formulation within a high-order spectral/hp element framework. The schemes are assessed in terms of stability limits, temporal accuracy, and computational performance for implicit large-eddy simulation of the Imperial Front Wing benchmark, a complex high Reynolds number geometry with curved surfaces that imposes strict CFL constraints. Both implicit schemes extend the stability limit by up to two orders of magnitude in time step size. While increasing the cost per time step, they reduce the overall time-to-solution by up to a factor of eleven. Accuracy analysis shows that time step sizes up to twenty times larger than the explicit limit have only minor impact on resolving laminar-turbulent transition and key flow statistics. The results quantify the trade-off between stability, accuracy, and computational cost for implicit velocity correction schemes on complex geometries and provide guidance for selecting time integration strategies in large-scale scale-resolving simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper systematically compares two implicit formulations of the velocity correction scheme—a linear-implicit approach and a sub-stepping (semi-Lagrangian) method—against a standard semi-implicit formulation in a high-order spectral/hp element framework for incompressible flows. Through implicit large-eddy simulation of the Imperial Front Wing benchmark, it demonstrates that both implicit schemes extend the stability limit by up to two orders of magnitude in time step size, reduce overall time-to-solution by up to a factor of eleven, and maintain acceptable accuracy for time steps up to twenty times larger than the explicit limit with only minor impact on laminar-turbulent transition and key flow statistics.

Significance. Should the quantitative results be confirmed, this study offers important practical information on the trade-offs involved in using implicit time-stepping for scale-resolving simulations of high Reynolds number incompressible flows on complex geometries. It could help practitioners choose appropriate time integration strategies to improve computational efficiency in large-scale simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the results 'provide guidance for selecting time integration strategies in large-scale scale-resolving simulations' rests on the Imperial Front Wing benchmark being representative of CFL constraints, curved-surface meshing, and solver behavior in other high-Re incompressible flows, but no additional test cases are presented to support broader applicability.
  2. [Results] Results: the reported stability extensions (up to 100x), time-to-solution reductions (up to 11x), and accuracy tolerance (20x explicit CFL) lack accompanying details on error bars, statistical convergence checks, or raw data, which are needed to verify that post-hoc implementation choices do not affect the central quantitative outcomes.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract groups performance and accuracy results for the two implicit schemes; separating the individual outcomes for the linear-implicit versus sub-stepping approaches would improve clarity and allow readers to assess their distinct trade-offs.
  2. A short discussion of potential limitations or sensitivities of the high-order spectral/hp discretization when operating at the larger implicit time steps would strengthen the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the practical significance of our study on implicit velocity correction schemes. We address each major comment below in detail and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results and claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the results 'provide guidance for selecting time integration strategies in large-scale scale-resolving simulations' rests on the Imperial Front Wing benchmark being representative of CFL constraints, curved-surface meshing, and solver behavior in other high-Re incompressible flows, but no additional test cases are presented to support broader applicability.

    Authors: We agree that the Imperial Front Wing is a single benchmark case, albeit a challenging one featuring complex curved geometry, high Reynolds number, and strict local CFL constraints typical of many industrial applications. The study deliberately focuses on this representative configuration to quantify the stability-accuracy-cost trade-offs in a setting where explicit schemes are severely limited. In the revised manuscript we have qualified the abstract claim to read 'provide guidance for selecting time integration strategies in large-scale scale-resolving simulations of complex geometries' and have added a short paragraph in the conclusions discussing the expected generality to similar high-Re incompressible flows while acknowledging the absence of additional test cases. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: the reported stability extensions (up to 100x), time-to-solution reductions (up to 11x), and accuracy tolerance (20x explicit CFL) lack accompanying details on error bars, statistical convergence checks, or raw data, which are needed to verify that post-hoc implementation choices do not affect the central quantitative outcomes.

    Authors: We appreciate this request for greater statistical rigor. The original manuscript already employed standard ILES practice of discarding initial transients and averaging over multiple flow-through times; we have now expanded the Results section to explicitly state the averaging intervals, to report that independent runs with perturbed initial conditions produced key statistics within 5 %, and to discuss the inherent difficulty of formal error bars in implicit LES. Raw time-series data are voluminous, but we have added a statement that they are available from the authors upon reasonable request. These additions allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported factors without altering the central quantitative findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparison of standard schemes on benchmark

full rationale

The manuscript is a direct numerical study comparing explicit and implicit velocity correction schemes within a high-order spectral/hp framework. It reports stability limits, accuracy, and wall-clock performance measured on the Imperial Front Wing geometry using the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations discretized in the standard way. No derivations, parameter fits, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing steps; the central claims are quantitative outcomes of the reported simulations rather than tautological restatements of inputs. The single-benchmark limitation is a question of external validity, not circularity in the presented chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions of incompressible flow and high-order spectral/hp discretization rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations govern the flow
    Core modeling choice for all simulations described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption High-order spectral/hp element method provides sufficient spatial accuracy
    Framework used for all reported results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1349 out tokens · 53592 ms · 2026-05-10T07:47:53.156277+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. E. Karniadakis, M. Israeli, S. A. Orszag, High-order splitting meth- odsfortheincompressibleNavier-Stokesequations, JournalofComputa- tionalPhysics97(2)(1991)414–443. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(91)90007-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(91)90007-8 1991

  2. [2]

    Guermond, J

    J. Guermond, J. Shen, Velocity-Correction projection methods for in- compressible flows, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 41 (1) (2003) 112–134. doi:10.1137/S0036142901395400

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036142901395400 2003

  3. [3]

    Jansson, M

    N. Jansson, M. Karp, A. Podobas, S. Markidis, P. Schlatter, Neko: A modern, portable, and scalable framework for high-fidelity com- putational fluid dynamics, Computers & Fluids 275 (2024) 106243. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2024.106243

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2024.106243 2024

  4. [4]

    Arndt, N

    D. Arndt, N. Fehn, G. Kanschat, K. Kormann, M. Kronbichler, P. Munch, W. A. Wall, J. Witte, ExaDG: High-order discontinuous Galerkinfortheexa-scale, in: Softwareforexascalecomputing-SPPEXA 2016-2019, Springer International Publishing Cham, 2020, pp. 189–224

    2016

  5. [5]

    Fehn, Robust and efficient discontinuous galerkin methods for incom- pressible flows, Ph.D

    N. Fehn, Robust and efficient discontinuous galerkin methods for incom- pressible flows, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität München (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Merzari, P

    E. Merzari, P. Fischer, M. Min, S. Kerkemeier, A. Obabko, D. Shaver, H. Yuan, Y. Yu, J. Martinez, L. Brockmeyer, L. Fick, G. Busco, A. Yildiz, Y. Hassan, Toward exascale: Overview of large eddy sim- ulations and direct numerical simulations of nuclear reactor flows with 42 the spectral element method in nek5000, Nuclear Technology 206 (9) (2020) 1308–1324...

    work page doi:10.1080/00295450.2020.1748557 2020

  7. [7]

    Fischer, S

    P. Fischer, S. Kerkemeier, M. Min, Y.-H. Lan, M. Phillips, T. Rath- nayake, E. Merzari, A. Tomboulides, A. Karakus, N. Chalmers, T. Warburton, NekRS, a GPU-Accelerated spectral element Navier-Stokes solver, Parallel Computing 114 (2022) 102982. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2022.102982

    work page doi:10.1016/j.parco.2022.102982 2022

  8. [8]

    C. D. Cantwell, D. Moxey, A. Comerford, A. Bolis, G. Rocco, G. Men- galdo, D. De Grazia, S. Yakovlev, J.-E. Lombard, D. Ekelschot, B. Jordi, H. Xu, Y. Mohamied, C. Eskilsson, B. Nelson, P. Vos, C. Biotto, R. M. Kirby, S. J. Sherwin, Nektar++: an open-source spectral/hp element framework, Computer Physics Communications 192 (2015) 205–219. doi:10.1016/j.cp...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.008 2015

  9. [9]

    Moxey, C

    D. Moxey, C. D. Cantwell, Y. Bao, A. Cassinelli, G. Castiglioni, S. Chun, E. Juda, E. Kazemi, K. Lackhove, J. Marcon, G. Mengaldo, D. Serson, M. Turner, H. Xu, J. Peiró, R. M. Kirby, S. J. Sherwin, Nektar++: Enhancing the capability and application of high-fidelity spectral/hp element methods, Computer Physics Communications 249 (Journal Ar- ticle) (2020)...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.107110 2020

  10. [10]

    H. Baek, G. E. Karniadakis, Sub-iteration leads to accuracy and stabil- ity enhancements of semi-implicit schemes for the navier-stokes equa- tions, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (12) (2011) 4384–4402. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.011 2011

  11. [11]

    Maday, A

    Y. Maday, A. T. Patera, E. M. Rønquist, An operator-integration-factor splitting method for time-dependent problems: Application to incom- pressible fluid flow, Journal of Scientific Computing 5 (4) (1990) 263–

    1990

  12. [12]

    doi:10.1007/BF01063118

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01063118

  13. [13]

    Couzy, Spectral element discretization of the unsteady Navier-Stokes equations and its iterative solution on parallel computers, Ph.D

    W. Couzy, Spectral element discretization of the unsteady Navier-Stokes equations and its iterative solution on parallel computers, Ph.D. thesis, EPFL, Lausanne (1995). doi:10.5075/epfl-thesis-1380

    work page doi:10.5075/epfl-thesis-1380 1995

  14. [14]

    M. O. Deville, P. F. Fischer, E. H. Mund, High-Order Methods for Incompressible Fluid Flow, Vol. 9, Cambridge university press, 2002. 43

    2002

  15. [15]

    Sherwin, A substepping navier-stokes splitting scheme for spectral/hp element discretisations, in: Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2002, Elsevier, 2003, pp

    S. Sherwin, A substepping navier-stokes splitting scheme for spectral/hp element discretisations, in: Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2002, Elsevier, 2003, pp. 43–52

    2002

  16. [16]

    D. Xiu, G. E. Karniadakis, A Semi-Lagrangian High-Order method for Navier-Stokes equations, Journal of Computational Physics 172 (2) (2001) 658–684. doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6847

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6847 2001

  17. [17]

    D. Xiu, S. J. Sherwin, S. Dong, G. E. Karniadakis, Strong and auxiliary forms of the Semi-Lagrangian method for incompressible flows, Journal of Scientific Computing 25 (1) (2005) 323–346. doi:10.1007/s10915-004- 4647-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-004- 2005

  18. [18]

    J. C. Simo, F. Armero, Unconditional stability and long-term behavior of transient algorithms for the incompressible Navier-Stokes and euler equations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 111 (1) (1994) 111–154. doi:10.1016/0045-7825(94)90042-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0045-7825(94)90042-6 1994

  19. [19]

    S. Dong, J. Shen, An unconditionally stable rotational velocity- correction scheme for incompressible flows, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (19) (2010) 7013–7029. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.05.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.05.037 2010

  20. [20]

    L. Lin, Z. Yang, S. Dong, Numerical approximation of in- compressible Navier-Stokes equations based on an auxiliary en- ergy variable, Journal of Computational Physics 388 (2019) 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.03.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.03.012 2019

  21. [21]

    L. Lin, N. Ni, Z. Yang, S. Dong, An energy-stable scheme for in- compressible Navier-Stokes equations with periodically updated coef- ficient matrix, Journal of Computational Physics 418 (2020) 109624. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109624

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109624 2020

  22. [22]

    F. F. Buscariolo, Imperial front wing (ifw) geometry (Aug. 2019). doi:10.14469/hpc/6049

    work page doi:10.14469/hpc/6049 2019

  23. [23]

    J. M. Pegrum, Experimental study of the vortex system generated by a formula 1 front wing, Phd thesis, Imperial College London (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    J.-E. W. Lombard, A high-fidelity spectral/hp element LES study of formula 1 front-wing and exposed wheel aerodynamics, Phd thesis, Im- perial College London (2017). doi:10.25560/68250. 44

    work page doi:10.25560/68250 2017

  25. [25]

    F. F. Buscariolo, J. Hoessler, D. Moxey, A. Jassim, K. Gouder, J. Basley, Y. Murai, G. R. S. Assi, S. J. Sherwin, Spectral/hp element simulation of flow past a formula one front wing: Validation against experiments, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 221 (2022) 104832. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2021.104832

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2021.104832 2022

  26. [26]

    Slaughter, D

    J. Slaughter, D. Moxey, S. Sherwin, Large eddy simulation of an inverted multi-element wing in ground effect, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 110 (4) (2023) 917–944. doi:10.1007/s10494-023-00404-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10494-023-00404-7 2023

  27. [27]

    Ntoukas, G

    G. Ntoukas, G. Rubio, O. Marino, A. Liosi, F. Bottone, J. Hoessler, E. Ferrer, A comparative study of explicit and implicit large eddy sim- ulations using a high-order discontinuous galerkin solver: Application to a formula 1 front wing, Results in Engineering 25 (2025) 104425. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104425

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104425 2025

  28. [28]

    Lindblad, J

    D. Lindblad, J. Isler, M. Moragues Ginard, S. J. Sherwin, C. D. Cantwell, Nektar++: Developmentofthecompressibleflowsolverforjet aeroacoustics, Computer Physics Communications 300 (2024) 109203. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109203

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109203 2024

  29. [29]

    J. L. Guermond, P. Minev, J. Shen, An overview of projection methods for incompressible flows, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 195 (44) (2006) 6011–6045. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2005.10.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2005.10.010 2006

  30. [30]

    S. J. Sherwin, Hierarchical hp finite elements in hybrid domains, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 27 (1) (1997) 109–119. doi:10.1016/S0168-874X(97)00008-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-874x(97)00008-5 1997

  31. [31]

    Dubiner, Spectral methods on triangles and other domains, Journal of Scientific Computing 6 (4) (1991) 345–390

    M. Dubiner, Spectral methods on triangles and other domains, Journal of Scientific Computing 6 (4) (1991) 345–390. doi:10.1007/BF01060030

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01060030 1991

  32. [32]

    Sagaut, Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows an intro- duction, third edition

    P. Sagaut, Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows an intro- duction, third edition. Edition, Scientific computation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin ;, 2006

    2006

  33. [33]

    Tadmor, Convergence of spectral methods for nonlinear conserva- tion laws, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 26 (1) (1989) 30–44

    E. Tadmor, Convergence of spectral methods for nonlinear conserva- tion laws, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 26 (1) (1989) 30–44. doi:10.1137/0726003. 45

    work page doi:10.1137/0726003 1989

  34. [34]

    R. C. Moura, M. Aman, J. Peiró, S. J. Sherwin, Spatial eigenanal- ysis of spectral/hp continuous galerkin schemes and their stabilisa- tion via DG-Mimicking spectral vanishing viscosity for high reynolds number flows, Journal of Computational Physics 406 (2020) 109112. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109112

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109112 2020

  35. [35]

    Mengaldo, D

    G. Mengaldo, D. Moxey, M. Turner, R. C. Moura, A. Jassim, M. Taylor, J. Peiró, S. Sherwin, Industry-Relevant implicit Large-Eddy simulation of a High-Performance road car via spectral/hp element methods, SIAM Rev. 63 (4) (2021) 723–755. doi:10.1137/20M1345359

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1345359 2021

  36. [36]

    Mengaldo, D

    G. Mengaldo, D. De Grazia, D. Moxey, P. E. Vincent, S. J. Sherwin, Dealiasingtechniquesforhigh-orderspectralelementmethodsonregular and irregular grids, Journal of Computational Physics 299 (2015) 56–81. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.06.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.06.032 2015

  37. [37]

    E. Ferrer, An interior penalty stabilised incompressible discon- tinuous galerkin-fourier solver for implicit large eddy simula- tions, Journal of Computational Physics 348 (2017) 754–775. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.07.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.07.049 2017

  38. [38]

    S. Dong, G. E. Karniadakis, C. Chryssostomidis, A robust and accu- rate outflow boundary condition for incompressible flow simulations on severely-truncated unbounded domains, Journal of Computational Physics 261 (2014) 83–105. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.12.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.12.042 2014

  39. [39]

    R. J. Guyan, Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices, AIAA Jour- nal 3 (2) (1965) 380–380, publisher: American Institute of Aero- nautics and Astronautics _eprint: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.2874. doi:10.2514/3.2874. URLhttps://doi.org/10.2514/3.2874

    work page doi:10.2514/3.2874 1965

  40. [40]

    B. IRONS, Structural eigenvalue problems - elimination of un- wanted variables, AIAA Journal 3 (5) (1965) 961–962, pub- lisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics _eprint: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.3027. doi:10.2514/3.3027. URLhttps://doi.org/10.2514/3.3027

    work page doi:10.2514/3.3027 1965

  41. [41]

    Karniadakis, S

    G. Karniadakis, S. Sherwin, Spectral/hp Element Methods for Compu- tational Fluid Dynamics, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2013. 46

    2013

  42. [42]

    M. R. Hestenes, E. Stiefel, others, Methods of Conjugate Gradients for Solving Linear Systems, Vol. 49, NBS Washington, DC, 1952

    1952

  43. [43]

    Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, SIAM, 2003

    Y. Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, SIAM, 2003

    2003

  44. [44]

    S. J. Sherwin, M. Casarin, Low-Energy basis preconditioning for elliptic substructured solvers based on unstructured spectral/hp element dis- cretization, Journal of Computational Physics 171 (1) (2001) 394–417. doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6805

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6805 2001

  45. [45]

    Pellegrini, Scotch and PT-Scotch Graph Partitioning Software: An Overview, in: Combinatorial Scientific Computing, Chapman and Hal- l/CRC, 2012, p

    F. Pellegrini, Scotch and PT-Scotch Graph Partitioning Software: An Overview, in: Combinatorial Scientific Computing, Chapman and Hal- l/CRC, 2012, p. 373. doi:10.1201/b11644-15. URLhttps://inria.hal.science/hal-00770422

    work page doi:10.1201/b11644-15 2012

  46. [46]

    Chevalier, F

    C. Chevalier, F. Pellegrini, PT-Scotch: A tool for efficient parallel graph ordering, Parallel Computing 34 (6-8) (2008) 318–331, arXiv:0907.1375 [cs]. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2007.12.001. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1375

    work page doi:10.1016/j.parco.2007.12.001 2008

  47. [47]

    C. D. Cantwell, S. J. Sherwin, R. M. Kirby, P. H. J. Kelly, From h to p efficiently: Strategy selection for operator evaluation on hexahedral and tetrahedral elements, Computers & Fluids 43 (1) (2011) 23–28, sympo- sium on High Accuracy Flow Simulations. Special Issue Dedicated to Prof. Michel Deville. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.08.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.08.012 2011

  48. [48]

    A. S. O’Sullivan, E. Ferrer, Large eddy simulations strategies for formula 1 front wings,benefits and challenges compared to rans modeling, SSRN preprint (Feb. 2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    K. S. Kirilov, J. Peiró, J. Zhou, M. D. Green, D. Moxey, High-Order Curvilinear Mesh Generation from Third-Party Meshes, SIAM, 2024, Ch.High-OrderCurvilinearMeshGenerationFromThird-PartyMeshes, pp. 93–105. doi:10.1137/1.9781611978001.8

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611978001.8 2024

  50. [50]

    Siemens Digital Industries Software, Simcenter STAR-CCM+, version 2021.1 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    M. D. Green, K. S. Kirilov, M. Turner, J. Marcon, J. Eich- städt, E. Laughton, C. D. Cantwell, S. J. Sherwin, J. Peiró, D. Moxey, NekMesh: an open-source high-order mesh generation 47 framework, Computer Physics Communications 298 (2024) 109089. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109089

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109089 2024

  52. [52]

    N. J. Georgiadis, D. P. Rizzetta, C. Fureby, Large-Eddy simulation: Current capabilities, recommended practices, and future research, AIAA Journal 48 (8) (2010) 1772–1784. doi:10.2514/1.J050232

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j050232 2010

  53. [53]

    P. Welch, The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified pe- riodograms, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15 (2) (1967) 70–73. doi:10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901

    work page doi:10.1109/tau.1967.1161901 1967

  54. [54]

    K. P. WhiteJR, An effective truncation heuristic for bias reduc- tion in simulation output, SIMULATION 69 (6) (1997) 323–334. doi:10.1177/003754979706900601

    work page doi:10.1177/003754979706900601 1997

  55. [55]

    Bergmann, C

    M. Bergmann, C. Morsbach, G. Ashcroft, E. Kügeler, Statistical error estimation methods for Engineering-Relevant quantities from Scale-Resolving simulations, J. Turbomach 144 (3) (Oct. 2021). doi:10.1115/1.4052402

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4052402 2021

  56. [56]

    Beckett, J

    G. Beckett, J. Beech-Brandt, K. Leach, Z. Payne, A. Simpson, L. Smith, A. Turner, A. Whiting, ARCHER2 Service Description, Tech. rep., Zen- odo (Dec. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.14507040. URLhttps://zenodo.org/records/14507040 48

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14507040 2024