Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Time-continuous strongly conservative space-time finite element methods for the dynamic Biot model

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A family of space-time finite element methods for the dynamic Biot poroelasticity model is proven to converge at optimal order in time and space, uniformly over the whole time interval.

desk verdict Solid, honest first optimal-order error analysis for a strongly conservative space-time dynamic Biot discretization; worth serious review, with one gap to close in the cGP time-matrix argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19955 v1 pith:5HPJD332 submitted 2025-07-26 math.NA cs.NA

Johannes Kraus , Maria Lymbery , Kevin Osthues This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M1565N3076S0574F10
keywords dynamicBiotmodelporoelasticityspace-timefiniteelementmethodcontinuousGalerkin-PetrovtimediscretizationH(div)-conformingdiscontinuousGalerkinstrongmassconservationapriorierroranalysiswavepropagationinporousmedia
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 proves that a family of space-time finite element methods solves the dynamic Biot model—the equations for fluid flow, solid deformation, and wave propagation in a fluid-saturated porous medium—with optimal-order accuracy in both time and space. Theorem 5.14 bounds the error at every instant $t \in [0,T]$ by $c(\tau^{k+1}+h^{\ell+1})$, where $k$ is the polynomial degree of the continuous-in-time Galerkin ansatz and $\ell$ the degree of the $H(\mathrm{div})$-conforming Brezzi-Douglas-Marini space elements, measured in a norm combining the discontinuous Galerkin norm of the displacement with $L^2$ norms of velocity, flux, and pressure. This matters because the dynamic (wave-propagating) Biot model has far fewer provably convergent discretizations than the well-studied quasi-static consolidation model, and the proposed method is strongly conservative (mass balance holds pointwise) while producing a solution that is continuous in time. Numerical experiments with polynomial degrees one and two confirm the predicted second- and third-order convergence rates.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the error decomposition $x-x_{\tau,h}=\eta+e$, which separates interpolation and projection errors $\eta$ (built from the operators $R_h$, $S_h$, $P_h$ and time interpolation) from the discrete error $e$ living in the trial spaces; the whole analysis then runs on $e$. The load-bearing identity is Lemma 5.4: because the time test space is $\mathbb{P}_{k-1}$ on each interval, the relation $\partial_t e^u = e^v$ holds exactly at the $k$ interior Gauss points, which lets the coupled system's energy—the DG displacement form $a_h$, the kinetic energy with density matrix $M_\rho$, and the pressure energy—telescope into a one-slab energy inequality (Lemma 5.10). Two structural inputs keep that inequality coercive: the discontinuous Galerkin bilinear form $a_h$ of Section 4.2, which is coercive in the DG norm only when the stabilization parameter $\eta$ is large enough, and the positive definiteness of the cGP time Gram matrix from [35], used in Lemma 5.12 to bound the $L^2$-in-time norm of $e$. The pairing of Gauss-Lobatto interpolation for the starting data of each slab with Gauss-point collocation inside the slab is what makes the continuity estimate (Lemma 5.11) and the interval $L^2$ estimate (Lemma 5.12) fit together.

What would settle it

Rerun the manufactured-solution experiment of Section 6 while sweeping the stabilization parameter $\eta$ across its admissible range and refining time and space together: if the measured order in the energy norm falls below $k+1$ for any $\eta$ that should still make $a_h$ coercive, Theorem 5.14 is wrong. Independently, compute the matrix $\widetilde{M}=D^{-1/2}MD^{1/2}$ defined in Lemma 5.12 for the chosen degree $k$ and check positive definiteness numerically; an indefinite instance would break the $L^2$-in-time control and with it the global bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is Theorem 5.14: the space-time discretization that pairs the continuous Galerkin-Petrov (cGP($k$)) time scheme with $H(\mathrm{div})$-conforming $\mathrm{BDM}_{\ell+1}$ elements for displacement, velocity, and flux (discontinuous Galerkin type for displacement) and piecewise $\mathbb{P}_\ell$ pressure delivers $$|||x(t)-x_{\tau,h}(t)||| \le c\,\big(\$tau^{{k+1}}$+$h^{{\ell+1}}$\big) \qquad \forall t\in[0,T],$$ where the norm contains the DG norm of the displacement and the $L^2$ norms of velocity, flux, and pressure. The proof splits the error into an interpolation part and a discrete part, derives an energy identity on each time slab that holds exactly because the Petrov-Galerkin time structure forces $\partial_t e^u = e^v$ at the $k$ Gauss points (Lemma 5.4), transfers the energy continuously across slab boundaries (Lemma 5.11), controls the slab $L^2$ norm through positive definiteness of the time Gram matrix (Lemma 5.12), and closes with the discrete Gronwall lemma. The inclusions $\mathrm{div}(U_h)\subseteq P_h$ and $\mathrm{div}(W_h)\subseteq P_h$ are what make the method strongly mass conserving, and the experiments show clean second-order (cGP($1$), $\ell=1$) and third-order (cGP($2$), $\ell=2$) convergence.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the discontinuous Galerkin displacement form being coercive in the DG norm (guaranteed only when the stabilization parameter $\eta$ is large enough) and on the time-Galerkin Gram matrix being positive definite, yet the paper's numerical section never reports or verifies the chosen $\eta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any polynomial degrees $k\ge 1$ in time and $\ell\ge 0$ in space, the method converges with order $k+1$ in time and $\ell+1$ in space in the combined energy norm, uniformly over the whole time interval and not merely at discrete time levels.
  • Mass is conserved pointwise because the discrete spaces satisfy $\mathrm{div}(U_h)\subseteq P_h$ and $\mathrm{div}(W_h)\subseteq P_h$, so the method inherits the strong conservation property of the underlying $H(\mathrm{div})$-DG space discretization.
  • The discrete solution is continuous in time, so displacement, velocity, flux, and pressure are defined at every instant $t\in[0,T]$; quantities like energy can be evaluated anywhere in the time interval without interpolation or post-processing.
  • The analysis covers the genuinely dynamic regime with fluid inertia and the second-order dynamic Darcy law, extending provably convergent discretization theory beyond the quasi-static Biot models that dominate the literature.
  • The experiments verify the predicted orders 2 and 3 for the two lowest method variants, confirming that the theoretical convergence statement is realized on smooth solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constant $c$ in Theorem 5.14 and the coercivity threshold for $\eta$ are left implicit; a parameter-tracking version showing how the bound depends on the Lamé parameters, permeability, storage coefficient, and $\eta$ would be needed before the method is deployed in biomechanics or geophysics, where these parameters span many orders of magnitude.
  • Because the estimate controls the error pointwise in time, the same proof template should support a posteriori error estimation and space-time adaptivity driven by quantities evaluated at arbitrary instants, a natural use of the continuous-in-time structure that the paper does not pursue.
  • The machinery (Gauss-point collocation identity, Gram-matrix positivity, slab-wise energy continuity) should transfer to sibling hyperbolic-parabolic systems such as the multiple-network poroelasticity (MPET) equations, whose quasi-static versions already share the same $H(\mathrm{div})$-DG spaces; the dynamic MPET case is the obvious next target.
  • A cheap testable extension: swap the $\mathrm{BDM}_{\ell+1}\times\mathbb{P}_\ell$ pair for Raviart-Thomas elements, which also satisfy $\mathrm{div}(U_h)\subseteq P_h$; identical rates would suggest the analysis carries through with only the interpolation estimates changed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a family of space-time finite element methods for the dynamic Biot model in three-field form (displacement, fluid velocity, pressure). The time discretization is a continuous Galerkin-Petrov method cGP(k), and the space discretization uses H(div)-conforming BDM-type elements with a discontinuous Galerkin treatment of the displacement, giving pointwise mass conservation. The main theoretical result, Theorem 5.14, claims an a priori error estimate of order O(τ^{k+1} + h^{ℓ+1}) in a combined energy norm, uniformly in time. Numerical experiments for cGP(1) and cGP(2) with BDM_{ℓ+1} elements report matching convergence orders.

Significance. The dynamic Biot model, including fluid inertia, is substantially less studied than the quasi-static model, and a strongly conservative, time-continuous space-time discretization with optimal-order error estimates is a useful contribution. The proof is parameter-free in the sense that no constants are fitted to data and the target problem is an external standard model. The main estimate is plausible and, if correct, gives optimal orders in both time and space. However, the analysis depends on several imported technical results, and one matrix positivity claim in Lemma 5.12 is stated imprecisely for a non-symmetric matrix. These issues are fixable and do not appear to require a change of the main approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lemma 5.12] The lower bound for Γ1 relies on the assertion that \tilde M = D^{-1/2} M D^{1/2} is positive definite. Since M is not symmetric for k≥2, the quadratic form v^T \tilde M v is controlled by the symmetric part (\tilde M + \tilde M^T)/2, and the statement as written is ambiguous: the paper neither defines what "positive definite" means for this nonsymmetric matrix nor checks the symmetric part. This property is load-bearing: it produces the term c1 Σ_i |||\tilde e_{n,i}|||^2 that later yields the L2-in-time control of |||e^x_{τ,h}||| in Lemma 5.12 and hence in (5.13) and Theorem 5.14. For k=2 a direct calculation gives a positive definite symmetric part, so this is not a demonstrated counterexample, but the general-k claim must either be proved or quoted with the exact statement from [35].
  2. [Lemmas 5.5, 5.13 and Theorem 5.14] Lemma 5.5 and Lemma 5.13 are the only sources of several regularity-dependent terms in Theorem 5.14 (for instance the constants C^{n,3}_{t,s}, C^{n,4}_{t,s} and the control of δ_n − δ_{n−1}), yet their proofs are only indicated by references to [5] and [36]. In the same vein, the Gronwall step in the proof of Theorem 5.14 absorbs ε A_n terms on both sides without displaying the required smallness condition or the initial-interval handling. Because these estimates carry the exact powers τ^{k+1} and h^{ℓ+1}, the manuscript should either provide complete proofs or state precisely which results are being imported from [5,36] and under which regularity assumptions they apply.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 5.14] The inverse estimate (3.4) is stated for f ∈ P_k(I_n;R), but in the proof of Theorem 5.14 it is applied to |||e^x_{τ,h}(·)|||^2, which is a polynomial of degree 2k. The inverse inequality remains true for any fixed polynomial degree, but the statement should be extended accordingly.
  2. [Section 6] The numerical experiments do not report the DG stabilization parameter η, although the coercivity of a_h and the projection estimates in Lemma 5.1 depend on η being sufficiently large. The paper should report η (and the initial mesh size h0) so that the experimental regime can be checked against the assumptions of Theorem 5.14.
  3. [Section 6, Tables 1 and 2] The measured quantity ||∇e_u||_{L∞(L2)} is not the same as the norm |||(·,·,·,·)||| used in Theorem 5.14. The authors should either report the actual energy-norm errors or explain why the gradient error exhibits the same order.
  4. [Section 5.2] The informal statement that "all occurring norms in the analysis are finite" should be replaced by a precise global regularity assumption in Theorem 5.14, for example listing the required Sobolev regularity of u, w, and p in time and space.
  5. [Problem 4.1 and reference [46]] The well-posedness of Problem 4.1 is attributed to [46]; since [46] is a homogenization paper, please verify that this citation indeed contains the stated well-posedness result for the three-field dynamic Biot system.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.14 is assembled from stated variational conditions, externally published lemmas, and a discrete Gronwall argument, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Theorem 5.14 follows from Lemmas 5.10–5.13 by a discrete Gronwall argument; the lemmas are proved from the residual equations (5.5) via quadrature exactness, the Galerkin orthogonality encoded in (5.8), projection estimates, and energy identities. No step in the proof assumes the target bound, and no parameter is fitted to data: the numerical experiments use manufactured solutions with known exact answers, so the observed orders are genuine confirmations, not recovered fit values. The load-bearing self-citations ([27] for the DG coercivity of a_h, [28] for pointwise mass conservation, [31] for the projection estimate in Lemma 5.1) are authored or co-authored by J. Kraus, but they qualify as independent support under the stated rules: they are published in separate refereed venues, their assumptions (e.g., stabilization parameter eta sufficiently large) are stated in the present paper, and they do not include the target result. The positive-definiteness of the time Gram matrix cited from external work [35] is a hypothesis the proof needs; whether the cited property of the non-symmetric matrix ilde M suffices for the lower bound on Gamma_1 in Lemma 5.12 is a mathematical correctness question to be checked, not a circularity, because the paper does not assume its conclusion. No self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no uniqueness import, and no renaming of a known result occurs. Score 1 reflects only that several analytic ingredients trace to the authors' own prior papers; the central convergence claim is new and independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The only hand-chosen method parameter is the DG stabilization eta, which is not reported in the experiments. The analysis relies on standard interpolation, projection, quadrature, and Gronwall results plus regularity assumptions; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • DG stabilization parameter eta = not specified in Section 6
    Penalty coefficient in a_h (Section 4.2); coercivity on U_h requires it sufficiently large, and numerical experiments do not report its value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Well-posedness of the continuous dynamic Biot problem (2.1)-(2.2)
    Invoked in Section 2 via Picard's theorem [57, Thm 6.2.1] and [46].
  • domain assumption Sufficient solution regularity: u in H^{ell+2}, time derivatives up to order k+3, and corresponding regularities for w and p, so all norm terms in Lemmas 5.5-5.9 are finite
    Required by Lemma 5.5 and Theorem 5.14; not satisfied by all solutions of the model.
  • domain assumption Coercivity and boundedness of a_h on U_h from [27], plus div(U_h) subset P_h and div(W_h) subset P_h
    Used in Section 4.2 to guarantee a well-posed discrete problem and local mass conservation.
  • standard math Standard BDM and Lagrange interpolation error estimates, including (3.2), Lemma 5.1, and the inverse estimate (3.4)
    Used throughout Section 5; these are standard finite element and polynomial approximation estimates.
  • standard math Positive definiteness of the time Gram matrix M-tilde = D^{-1/2} M D^{1/2} from [35]
    Used in Lemma 5.12 to lower-bound the quadrature form Gamma_1; central to the L2-in-time control.
  • standard math Discrete Gronwall lemma and Young's inequality
    Used in Theorem 5.14 to turn the one-step recurrences into a global error bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-continuous strongly conservative space-time finite element methods for the dynamic Biot model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HPJD332

@misc{pith2026250719955,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-continuous strongly conservative space-time finite element methods for the dynamic Biot model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HPJD332}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19955}
}
abstract

We consider the dynamic Biot model (see [Biot, M. A. J. Appl. Phys. 33, 1482--1498 (1962)]) describing the interaction between fluid flow and solid deformation including wave propagation phenomena in both the liquid and solid phases of a saturated porous medium. This model couples a hyperbolic equation for momentum balance to a second-order in time dynamic Darcy law and a parabolic equation for the balance of mass and is here considered in three-field formulation with the displacement of the elastic matrix, the fluid velocity, and the fluid pressure being the physical fields of interest. A family of variational space-time finite element methods is proposed, which combines a continuous-in-time Galerkin ansatz of arbitrary polynomial degree with $H(\mathrm{div})$-conforming approximations of the displacement field, its time derivative, and the flux field--of discontinuous Galerkin (DG) type for displacements--with a piecewise polynomial pressure approximation, providing an inf-sup stable strongly conservative mixed method in each case. We prove error estimates in a combined energy norm in space for the maximum norm in time. The theoretical results are confirmed by numerical experiments for different polynomial orders in space and time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Automated Runge-Kutta-Nystr\"om time stepping for finite element methods in Irksome

    math.NA 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Irksome now automates Runge-Kutta-Nyström time stepping for second-order PDEs in Firedrake, producing smaller stage-coupled systems and faster solves than first-order Runge-Kutta methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    & Radu, F

    Bause, M., Anselmann, M., Köcher, U. & Radu, F. A. Convergence of a continuous Galerkin method for hyperbolic-parabolic systems.Comput. Math. Appl.158, 118–138 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [35]

    & Makridakis, C

    Karakashian, O. & Makridakis, C. A space-time finite element method for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation: The continuous Galerkin method.SIAM J. Numer. Anal.36 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [27]

    & Kraus, J

    Hong, Q. & Kraus, J. Parameter-robust stability of classical three-field formulation of Biot’s consolidation model. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal.,202–226 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [36]

    & Makridakis, C

    Karakashian, O. & Makridakis, C. Convergence of a continuous Galerkin method with mesh modification for nonlinear wave equations.Math. Comput.74, 85–102 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [1]

    & Catheline, S

    Aichele, J. & Catheline, S. Fluids alter elasticity measurements: Porous wave propagation accounts for shear wave dispersion in elastography.Front. Phys.9 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [2]

    & Matthies, G

    Anselmann, M., Bause, M., Becher, S. & Matthies, G. Galerkin-collocation approximation in time for the wave equation and its post-processing.ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal.54, 2099–2123 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [3]

    Baker, G. A. Error estimates for finite element methods for second order hyperbolic equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal.13, 564–576 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [4]

    I., Zheltov, G

    Barenblatt, G. I., Zheltov, G. I. & Kochina, I. N. Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks [strata].J. Appl. Math. Mech.24, 1286–1303 (1960). 18

    work page 1960

Show all 68 references
  1. [6]

    & Osthues, K.C 1-conforming variational discretization of the biharmonic wave equation

    Bause, M., Lymbery, M. & Osthues, K.C 1-conforming variational discretization of the biharmonic wave equation. Comput. Math. Appl.119, 208–219 (2022)

    2022

  2. [7]

    & Matthies, G

    Becher, S. & Matthies, G. Variational time discretizations of higher order and higher regularity.BIT 61, 721–755 (2021)

    2021

  3. [8]

    Biot, M. A. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation.J. Appl. Phys.12, 155–164 (1941)

    1941

  4. [9]

    Biot, M. A. Generalized theory of acoustic propagation in porous dissipative media.J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 34, 1254–1264 (1962)

    1962

  5. [10]

    Biot, M. A. Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media.J. Appl. Phys.33, 1482– 1498 (1962)

    1962

  6. [11]

    Biot, M. A. Theory of deformation of a porous viscoelastic anisotropic solid.J. Appl. Phys.27, 459–467 (1956)

    1956

  7. [12]

    Biot, M. A. Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid.J. Appl. Phys.26, 182–185 (1955)

    1955

  8. [13]

    Biot, M. A. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. I. Low-frequency range. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.28, 168–178 (1956)

    1956

  9. [14]

    Biot, M. A. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. II. Higher frequency range. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.28, 179–191 (1956)

    1956

  10. [15]

    Biot, M. A. & Willis, D. G. The elastic coefficients of the theory of consolidation.J. Appl. Mech.24, 594–601 (1957)

    1957

  11. [16]

    I., Nordbotten, J

    Bjønarå, T. I., Nordbotten, J. M. & Park, J. Vertically integrated models for coupled two-phase flow and geomechanics in porous media.Water Resour. Res.52, 1398–1417 (2016)

    2016

  12. [17]

    & Fortin, M.Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications1st ed

    Boffi, D., Brezzi, F. & Fortin, M.Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications1st ed. (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  13. [18]

    W., Barnafi, N

    Both, J. W., Barnafi, N. A., Radu, F. A., Zunino, P. & Quarteroni, A. Iterative splitting schemes for a soft material poromechanics model.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.388, 114183 (2022)

    2022

  14. [19]

    Carlson, D. E. in Linear Theories of Elasticity and Thermoelasticity: Linear and Nonlinear Theories of Rods, Plates, and Shells(ed Truesdell, C.) 297–345 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1973)

    1973

  15. [20]

    Cheng, A. H.-D. Poroelasticity xxvi+877 (Springer, [Cham], 2016)

    2016

  16. [21]

    & Schötzau, D

    Cockburn, B., Kanschat, G. & Schötzau, D. A note on discontinuous Galerkin divergence-free solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations.J. Sci. Comput.31, 61–73 (2007)

    2007

  17. [22]

    Dafermos, C. M. On the existence and the asymptotic stability of solutions to the equations of linear thermoelasticity. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.29, 241–271 (1968)

    1968

  18. [23]

    L2-estimates for Galerkin methods for second order hyperbolic equations.SIAM J

    Dupont, T. L2-estimates for Galerkin methods for second order hyperbolic equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 10, 880–889 (1973)

    1973

  19. [24]

    & Belytschko, T

    Fries, T.-P. & Belytschko, T. The extended/generalized finite element method: An overview of the method and its applications.Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng.84, 253–304 (2010)

    2010

  20. [25]

    Gao,C.&Gray,K.E.Acoupledgeomechanicsandreservoirsimulatorwithastaggeredgridfinitedifference method. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.209, 109818 (2022)

    2022

  21. [26]

    Guo, L., Vardakis, J. C., Lassila, T.,et al.Subject-specific multi-poroelastic model for exploring the risk factors associated with the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.Interface Focus8, 20170019 (2018). 19

    2018

  22. [28]

    Linear Algebra Appl.e2242 (2019)

    Hong, Q., Kraus, J., Lymbery, M.,et al.Conservative discretizations and parameter-robust preconditioners for Biot and multiple-network flux-based poroelasticity models.Numer. Linear Algebra Appl.e2242 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    Models Methods Appl

    Hong, Q., Kraus, J., Lymbery, M.,et al.Parameter-robust Uzawa-type iterative methods for double saddle point problems arising in Biot’s consolidation and multiple-network poroelasticity models.Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.30, 2523–2555 (2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    & Wheeler, M

    Hong, Q., Kraus, J., Lymbery, M. & Wheeler, M. F. Parameter-robust convergence analysis of fixed-stress split iterative method for multiple-permeability poroelasticity systems.Multiscale Model. Simul.18, 916– 941 (2020)

    2020

  25. [31]

    & Zikatanov, L

    Hong, Q., Kraus, J., Xu, J. & Zikatanov, L. A robust multigrid method for discontinuous Galerkin dis- cretizations of Stokes and linear elasticity equations.Numer. Math.132, 23–49 (2016)

    2016

  26. [32]

    Howell, G. W. Derivative error bounds for Lagrange interpolation: an extension of Cauchy’s bound for the error of Lagrange interpolation.J. Approx. Theory67, 164–173 (1991)

    1991

  27. [33]

    Hu, X., Rodrigo, C., Gaspar, F. J. & Zikatanov, L. T. A nonconforming finite element method for the Biot’s consolidation model in poroelasticity.J. Comput. Appl. Math.310, 143–154 (2017)

    2017

  28. [34]

    & Riviere, B

    Kanschat, G. & Riviere, B. A finite element method with strong mass conservation for Biot’s linear consolidation model.J. Sci. Comput.77, 1762–1779 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Kraus,J.,Lederer,P.L.,Lymbery,M.,Osthues,K.&Schöberl,J.HybridizeddiscontinuousGalerkin/hybrid mixed methods for a multiple network poroelasticity model with application in biomechanics.SIAM J. Sci. Comput.45, B802–B827 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    L., Lymbery, M

    Kraus, J., Lederer, P. L., Lymbery, M. & Schöberl, J. Uniformly well-posed hybridized discontinuous Galerkin/hybridmixeddiscretizationsforBiot’sconsolidationmodel. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 384 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Sandilya, R

    Kumar, S., Oyarzúa, R., Ruiz-Baier, R. & Sandilya, R. Conservative discontinuous finite volume and mixed schemes for a new four-field formulation in poroelasticity.ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal.54, 273–299 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Lee, J. J. Analysis and preconditioning of parameter-robust finite element methods for Biot’s consolidation model. BIT 63, Paper No. 42, 23 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Lee, J. J. Robust error analysis of coupled mixed methods for Biot’s consolidation model.J. Sci. Comput. 69, 610–632 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    J., Mardal, K.-A

    Lee, J. J., Mardal, K.-A. & Winther, R. Parameter-robust discretization and preconditioning of Biot’s consolidation model.SIAM J. Sci. Comput.39, A1–A24 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    & Wheeler, M

    Lee, S. & Wheeler, M. F. Enriched Galerkin methods for two-phase flow in porous media with capillary pressure. J. Comput. Phys.367, 65–86 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    & Yi, S.-Y

    Lee, S. & Yi, S.-Y. Locking-free and locally-conservative enriched Galerkin method for poroelasticity.J. Sci. Comput.94, Paper No. 26, 23 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    & Ligursky, T

    Michalec, Z., Blaheta, R., Hasal, M. & Ligursky, T. Fully coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical model with oversaturation and its validation to experimental data from FEBEX experiment.Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 139, 104567 (2021). 20

    2021

  38. [46]

    & Rohan, E

    Mielke, A. & Rohan, E. Homogenization of elastic waves in fluid-saturated porous media using the Biot model. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.23 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Finite Element Methods for Maxwell’s Equations1st ed

    Monk, P. Finite Element Methods for Maxwell’s Equations1st ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    Murad, M. A. & Loula, A. F. D. Improved accuracy in finite element analysis of Biot’s consolidation problem. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.95, 359–382 (1992)

    1992

  41. [49]

    Murad, M. A. & Loula, A. F. D. On stability and convergence of finite element approximations of Biot’s consolidation problem.Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.37, 645–667 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    E., Glisson, C

    Ong, R. E., Glisson, C. L., Herrell, S. D., Miga, M. I. & Galloway, R.A deformation model for non-rigid registration of the kidneyin Medical Imaging 2009: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Modeling (eds Miga, M. I. & Wong, K. H.)7261 (SPIE, 2009), 72613A

    2009

  43. [51]

    & Ruiz-Baier, R

    Oyarzúa, R. & Ruiz-Baier, R. Locking-free finite element methods for poroelasticity. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 54, 2951–2973 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Phillips, P. J. & Wheeler, M. F. A coupling of mixed and continuous Galerkin finite element methods for poroelasticity. I. The continuous in time case.Comput. Geosci.11, 131–144 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Phillips, P. J. & Wheeler, M. F. A coupling of mixed and continuous Galerkin finite element methods for poroelasticity. II. The discrete-in-time case.Comput. Geosci.11, 145–158 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Phillips, P. J. & Wheeler, M. F. A coupling of mixed and discontinuous Galerkin finite-element methods for poroelasticity.Comput. Geosci.12, 417–435 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Pitre, J. J. & Bull, J. L. in Handbook of Thermal Science and Engineering(ed Kulacki, F. A.) 1–27 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    New stabilized discretizations for poroelasticity and the Stokes’ equations

    Rodrigo, C., Hu, X., Ohm, P., et al. New stabilized discretizations for poroelasticity and the Stokes’ equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.341, 467–484 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    & Waurick, M.Evolutionary equations - Picard’s theorem for partial differential equations and applications1st ed

    Seifert, C., Trostorff, S. & Waurick, M.Evolutionary equations - Picard’s theorem for partial differential equations and applications1st ed. (Birkhäuser Cham, 2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Showalter, R. E. Diffusion in poro-elastic media.J. Math. Anal. Appl.251 (2000)

    2000

  51. [59]

    K., De Basabe, J

    Vamaraju, J., Sen, M. K., De Basabe, J. & Wheeler, M. Enriched Galerkin finite element approximation for elastic wave propagation in fractured media.J. Comput. Phys.372, 726–747 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    C., Guo, L., Peach, T

    Vardakis, J. C., Guo, L., Peach, T. W.,et al.Fluid-structure interaction for highly complex, statistically defined, biological media: homogenisation and a 3D multi-compartmental poroelastic model for brain biomechanics. J. Fluids Struct.91. 102641 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Wheeler, M. F. L∞ estimates of optimal orders for Galerkin methods for one-dimensional second order parabolic and hyperbolic equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal.10, 908–913 (1973)

    1973

  54. [62]

    F., Girault, V

    Wheeler, M. F., Girault, V. & Lu, X. OptimalL2 a priori error estimates for the Biot system.Matematica 1, 317–341 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    A coupling of nonconforming and mixed finite element methods for Biot’s consolidation model

    Yi, S.-Y. A coupling of nonconforming and mixed finite element methods for Biot’s consolidation model. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations29, 1749–1777 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Convergence analysis of a new mixed finite element method for Biot’s consolidation model

    Yi, S.-Y. Convergence analysis of a new mixed finite element method for Biot’s consolidation model. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations30, 1189–1210 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Finite element methods for coupled thermoelasticity and coupled consolidation of clay.RAIRO Anal

    Ženíšek, A. Finite element methods for coupled thermoelasticity and coupled consolidation of clay.RAIRO Anal. Numér.18, 183–205 (1984)

    1984

  58. [66]

    The existence and uniqueness theorem in Biot’s consolidation theory.Aplikace matematiky29, 194–211 (1984)

    Ženíšek, A. The existence and uniqueness theorem in Biot’s consolidation theory.Aplikace matematiky29, 194–211 (1984). 21

    1984

  59. [67]

    Zienkiewicz, O. C. Basic formulation of static and dynamic behaviours of soil and other porous media. Appl. Math. Mech.3, 457–468 (1982)

    1982

  60. [68]

    Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Shiomi, T. Dynamic behaviour of saturated porous media; The generalized Biot formulation and its numerical solution.Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.8, 71–96 (1984). 22

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.