Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

A parametric finite element method for the incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on an evolving surface

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces a parametric finite element method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on an evolving surface, using polynomial-degree ℓ≥2 surface elements, and proves a semidiscrete energy-stability estimate that mirrors th

desk verdict First stable parametric FEM for evolving-surface Navier–Stokes, but the convergence test is inconsistent and the key discrete identity is unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19198 v3 pith:AMWK47Y2 submitted 2025-08-26 math.NA cs.NA

Harald Garcke , Robert Nürnberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6076D0565M1235R01
keywords surfaceNavier–StokesequationsevolvingsurfacesparametricfiniteelementsisoparametricPℓsemidiscretestabilityestimateTaylor–Hoodcurvaturevectordiscretizationenergy
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims to give the first numerical method for incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on a moving surface for which a stability estimate can be proved. The method uses parametric finite elements of degree ℓ≥2 for both the surface and the fluid velocity, a P(ℓ−1) pressure space, and an auxiliary discretization of the curvature vector that encodes bending energy. Theorem 4.1 states a semidiscrete energy identity: the time derivative of kinetic plus bending energy, plus viscous dissipation, equals exactly the work done by the external forcing, provided a certain stabilization parameter θ equals 1. The same mechanism conserves the discrete surface area exactly. Numerical experiments—radially expanding spheres, a shrinking-stretching tube, a rotating-sphere Killing field, and a torus—support the method's practicality and show roughly third-order surface convergence for quadratic elements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the discrete curvature vector κ^h, defined by the discrete Laplace–Beltrami equation (4.7d), together with its discrete evolution identity, which the proof invokes as the parabolic-element analogue of (2.9) and cites to [18,22]. Paired with the θ=1 skew-symmetric transport term ½θρ⟨∇s·U^h, U^h·ξ⟩, this identity supplies the exact cancellation that makes the semidiscrete energy law close. The velocity-pressure pair is the classical Taylor–Hood Pℓ–P(ℓ−1) element, so the discrete solenoidal space is controlled in the flat limit, and the discrete material velocity (4.3) ensures that the basis functions are transported without time derivatives.

What would settle it

Compute the residual of the discrete curvature identity underlying (4.11) on a fixed P2 isoparametric mesh approximating a nontrivial surface—say a curved triangle on the unit sphere—with a prescribed discrete velocity V^h; any nonzero residual beyond quadrature error would falsify the proof of (4.8). Alternatively, compute the discrete inf-sup constant in (5.2) on the meshes used in Table 1; if it approaches zero as h→0, the full-system existence theorem fails on those meshes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that a discrete analogue of the curvature-evolution identity—the finite-element version of equation (2.9)—closes the discrete energy estimate. The θ=1 stabilization term is consistent because it vanishes in the continuous equations, but it supplies exactly the discrete contribution that is otherwise missing, since |U^h|² is generally not an admissible pressure test function in the discrete setting. The result is the stability identity (4.8), with the corollary that the discrete surface area is conserved exactly, (4.9). For the fully discrete scheme (5.1), which is linear at each time step, Theorem 5.1 proves unique solvability whenever a discrete LBB condition (5.2) hol

Load-bearing premise

The semidiscrete stability estimate rests on an unproven discrete analogue of the curvature-evolution identity (2.9) holding exactly for curved Pℓ isoparametric elements (cited to [18,22]), and the full discrete system's solvability additionally assumes a discrete LBB condition (5.2) that the paper does not prove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any solution of the semidiscrete scheme (4.7) with θ=1 satisfies the energy identity (4.8): the time derivative of kinetic plus bending energy plus viscous dissipation equals the forcing work, with no uncontrolled growth.
  • The discrete surface area is conserved exactly in the semidiscrete setting, matching the continuous consequence of incompressibility.
  • The fully discrete scheme (5.1) is linear at each time step and has a unique solution whenever the discrete LBB condition (5.2) holds; even without it, the reduced divergence-free system is uniquely solvable for ρ>0 and μ>0.
  • For α=0 the curvature subsystem decouples and need not be computed, although the numerical experiments in the paper show that setting α=0 leads to visible surface oscillations and loss of convergence.
  • The paper thereby provides the first parametric finite element method for evolving-surface Navier–Stokes with a provable semidiscrete stability estimate, a property that prior parametric and level-set based methods for this problem lacked.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a rigorous proof of the discrete curvature-evolution identity for curved Pℓ isoparametric elements—currently cited only to [18,22]—would turn the stability estimate into a fully self-contained theorem, and the same proof would likely extend the identity to volume-conserving variants with a Lagrange multiplier λν as sketched in Remark 2.1.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed instability for α=0 suggests the bending-energy term acts not only as a physical force but as a parametric stabilizer of the moving mesh; whether a purely tangential variant can be stabilized is a natural testable question.
  • Beyond the paper: the discrete LBB condition (5.2) is the main open tool; computing the discrete inf-sup constant on the meshes used in the convergence table would convert the conditional existence result into an unconditional one for those meshes.
  • Beyond the paper: the convergence experiment shows O(h³) surface error for quadratic elements, consistent with cubic parametric approximation, but an a priori error analysis is not attempted; the stability estimate is the theoretical backbone.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a parametric finite element method of polynomial degree ℓ ≥ 2 for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on an evolving surface, using Taylor–Hood-like Pℓ–P(ℓ−1) velocity–pressure spaces on isoparametric surface elements. The main theoretical result is a semidiscrete energy stability estimate (Theorem 4.1) which, together with a discrete area-conservation identity, mimics the continuous energy law. A fully discrete, linearized scheme is then introduced, with existence and uniqueness proved conditional on a discrete LBB condition or for a reduced divergence-free system. Numerical experiments are presented for a radially pulsating sphere, a Killing field on a sphere, a deforming tube, and a torus, using ℓ = 2.

Significance. If the central stability proof is valid, this would be the first parametric finite element method for incompressible surface Navier–Stokes equations on evolving surfaces with a provable semidiscrete energy stability estimate and discrete area conservation. Such a result is of genuine interest to the computational surface PDE community. The paper is mostly clearly written, and the authors are honest about the conditional nature of the fully discrete well-posedness result (discrete LBB condition). However, the numerical convergence experiment in §7 and the unproved discrete curvature identity used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 are load-bearing weaknesses that currently prevent the main claims from being fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7 / Appendix B] The convergence experiment is incompatible with the discrete incompressibility constraint. The manufactured solution in Appendix B is purely radial, u = r'(t) ν, and satisfies ∇s·u = 2 r'(t)/r(t) ≠ 0; it is explicitly stated that the second equation is replaced by this nonzero divergence. However, the fully discrete scheme (5.1) enforces (5.1b), i.e. <∇s·U^{m+1}, η>_{Γ^m} = 0 for all η ∈ S^h_{ℓ−1}(Γ^m). On a sphere with constant curvature and for the constant test function η = 1, the exact radial field gives <∇s·u,1> = 2 r'(t)/r(t) H^2(Γ(t)) ≠ 0, so the exact solution cannot satisfy the discrete constraint. The convergence rates reported in Table 1 therefore cannot be for the scheme (5.1) as stated, unless some undocumented modification or source term is used. This needs to be corrected: either the scheme must be modified to include a divergence source term consistent with the non-diverg
  2. [§4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The proof of the semidiscrete stability estimate relies on the discrete analogue of the curvature evolution identity (2.9), invoked in the proof as 'similarly to (2.9) ... see [18,22]' after Eq. (4.10). This identity is exactly what converts <F^h,V^h> into -1/2 d/dt <κ^h,κ^h> and is therefore essential: if it fails, the energy balance (4.8) collapses. The cited references may establish it for piecewise-linear (P1) surfaces, but this paper uses Pℓ isoparametric elements with ℓ ≥ 2, where the discrete curvature κ^h is defined by (4.7d) on curved elements. No proof is given that the identity carries over verbatim. The authors should either provide a proof in an appendix or give a precise reference that covers exactly the Pℓ isoparametric setting. This is a load-bearing point and cannot remain a citation-only step.
  3. [§5, Theorem 5.1 and (5.2)] The fully discrete existence and uniqueness result is conditional on an unproven discrete LBB condition (5.2). The authors do provide a reduced-system fallback and a transparent discussion, which is good. However, since the paper's introduction claims a fully practical method, it would be useful to state more prominently in the abstract or introduction that the fully discrete well-posedness holds under (5.2) or, failing that, for the reduced divergence-free system. This is not a fatal issue, but it should be clearly flagged as a limitation of the current analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Notation, Eq. (4.8)] In Theorem 4.1, the right-hand side of (4.8) is written as <g, U^h>_{Γ^h(t)}, while the semidiscrete equation (4.7a) contains <g^h, ξ>. Please clarify whether g^h is a projection/interpolation of g and use consistent notation.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.7a)] The term θ/2 ρ <∇s·U^h, U^h·ξ> is included with θ ∈ {0,1}. It would help to state explicitly in a remark that for θ=1 the scheme is consistent because the continuous term vanishes when ∇s·u=0, which is already mentioned after (4.7) but could be highlighted.
  3. [§7, Table 1] The table caption states τ = h_0^3, but the meaning of h_0 in the column headers is not defined in the text. Please define h_0 and explain how EOC is computed.
  4. [Figures 1–5] The energy plots in Figures 1–5 lack axis labels in the printed version. Adding axis labels (e.g., 'time' and 'energy') would improve readability.
  5. [§2, Eq. (2.9)] The identity (2.9) is central to the continuous stability argument. It would be helpful to include a reference to the derivation or a short explanation of the notation (∇s κ)^T, since the paper already uses several different matrix transposes.
  6. [References] Reference [22] (Elliott–Stinner) and [18] (Dziuk) are cited for the discrete curvature identity, but the exact statement needed for Pℓ surfaces is not pointed to. Please cite the specific equation or theorem in those references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the semidiscrete energy-stability estimate is derived from the scheme's own equations plus an external curvature identity; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is Theorem 4.1, an energy identity for the semidiscrete scheme (4.7). Its proof is not circular: it combines (i) testing the momentum equation (4.7a) with U^h, (ii) the transport formula (4.5)/(4.12), and (iii) the discrete curvature-force identity (4.11). The identity (4.11) is introduced as 'similarly to (2.9) ... see [18,22]', i.e. as an external known identity from Dziuk and from Elliott--Stinner, not as a consequence of this paper's own theorems. The force F^h is indeed defined through (4.7e) so that its L^2 pairing with the discrete velocity is the negative half time-derivative of the discrete bending energy; this is a standard discrete variational design, not a fitted input. The stability theorem still has content because it depends on the nontrivial discrete identity (4.11) actually holding for P_l isoparametric evolving surfaces; the paper does not prove that identity for l >= 2. That is an omitted proof / correctness risk, but not circularity: the identity is not the theorem's conclusion and is not justified by a self-citation. The LBB condition (5.2) is explicitly assumed, and the paper admits it 'does not seem to be easily possible to extend the ideas in the proof of Lemma 3.1 to the discrete setting'; Theorem 5.1 is therefore conditional, which is again a limitation rather than circular reasoning. Self-citations [5,6,8,9] are used for time-discretization structure and Schur-complement solvers, not for the energy-stability proof. The numerical convergence experiment is checked against an analytic radially symmetric solution from Appendix B, an external benchmark. No quantity is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. Consequently there is no circular step.

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

The scheme contains no fitted constants or ad hoc physical entities. The auxiliary variables kappa^h and F^h are standard in Willmore flow approximations. The analysis relies on standard identities from prior work and on an unproven discrete LBB condition.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Well-posedness and sufficient regularity of solutions to the continuous problem (1.1)
    The formal energy estimates in Section 3 assume existence and smoothness of the solution; cited to [46,1].
  • ad hoc to paper Discrete curvature identity: 1/2 d/dt <kappa^h,kappa^h> = ... (display in proof of Theorem 4.1)
    Asserted 'similarly to (2.9) ... see [18,22]' without proof in this paper; it is load-bearing for the semidiscrete stability estimate.
  • standard math Transport identity (4.5) from [20, Lem. 9.9]
    Used to compute time derivatives of L2 inner products on the evolving discrete surface.
  • domain assumption Discrete LBB condition (5.2)
    Assumed in Theorem 5.1 for existence/uniqueness of the full fully discrete system including the pressure; the authors note it is unproven for this setting and provide a reduced-system fallback.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A parametric finite element method for the incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on an evolving surface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMWK47Y2

@misc{pith2026250819198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A parametric finite element method for the incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on an evolving surface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMWK47Y2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19198}
}
abstract

In this paper we consider the numerical approximation of the incompressible surface Navier--Stokes equations on an evolving surface. For the discrete representation of the moving surface we use parametric finite elements of degree $\ell \geq 2$. In the semidiscrete continuous-in-time setting we are able to prove a stability estimate that mimics a corresponding result for the continuous problem. Some numerical results, including a convergence experiment, demonstrate the practicality and accuracy of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19198 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (ρ = µ = α = 1) The surface Γm at times t = 0, 0.6, 1, 2. Below we show plots of E m (left) and E m α (right) over time. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (ρ = 104 · µ = α = 1) The surface Γm at times t = 0, 0.6, 1, 2. Below we show plots of E m (left) and E m α (right) over time. discrete bending energy E m α in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (ρ = µ = α = 1) The surface Γm, together with a visualization of the velocity field U⃗ m at times t = 0, 1. Below we show plots of E m (left) and E m α (right) over time. numerical results, where we used J = 2760 elements to represent the discrete surfaces. We are also interested in the special case α = 0. In all our numerical experiments with α = 0 we experienced strong instabilities and oscillations in the discret… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (ρ = µ = α = 1) The surface Γm at times t = 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 10, 30. Below we show plots of E m (left) and E m α (right) over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (ρ = µ = 1, α = 0) The surface Γm at times t = 0, 0.5, 1, 2. Below we show plots of E m (left) and E m α (right) over time. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abels, Y

    H. Abels, Y. Liu, and A. Poiatti , Local well-posedness of a model for fluidic elastic biomembranes. in preparation, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Arroyo and A

    M. Arroyo and A. DeSimone , Relaxation dynamics of fluid membranes , Phys. Rev. E, 79 (2009), p. 031915

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    J. W. Barrett, H. Garcke, and R. N ¨urnberg, Parametric approximation of Willmore flow and related geometric evolution equations , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 31 (2008), pp. 225–253

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Math., 120 (2012), pp

    , Parametric approximation of isotropic and anisotropic elastic flow for closed and open curves , Numer. Math., 120 (2012), pp. 489–542

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Methods Appl

    , Eliminating spurious velocities with a stable approximation of viscous incom- pressible two-phase Stokes flow , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 267 (2013), pp. 511–530

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    , A stable parametric finite element discretization of two-phase Navier–Stokes flow, J. Sci. Comp., 63 (2015), pp. 78–117

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    , Computational parametric Willmore flow with spontaneous curvature and area difference elasticity effects, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54 (2016), pp. 1732–1762

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Math., 134 (2016), pp

    , A stable numerical method for the dynamics of fluidic membranes , Numer. Math., 134 (2016), pp. 783–822

    work page 2016

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    , Parametric finite element approximations of curvature driven interface evolu- tions, in Handb. Numer. Anal., A. Bonito and R. H. Nochetto, eds., vol. 21, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2020, pp. 275–423

    2020

  2. [10]

    Bonito, R

    A. Bonito, R. H. Nochetto, and M. S. Pauletti , Parametric FEM for geo- metric biomembranes, J. Comput. Phys., 229 (2010), pp. 3171–3188

    2010

  3. [11]

    Brandner, T

    P. Brandner, T. Jankuhn, S. Praetorius, A. Reusken, and A. Voigt , Finite element discretization methods for velocity-pressure and stream function for- mulations of surface Stokes equations , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 44 (2022), pp. A1807– A1832

    2022

  4. [12]

    Brandner, A

    P. Brandner, A. Reusken, and P. Schwering , On derivations of evolving surface Navier–Stokes equations , Interfaces Free Bound., 24 (2022), pp. 533–563

    2022

  5. [13]

    Brazda, M

    K. Brazda, M. Kruˇ z ´ık, and U. Stefanelli , Generalized minimizing move- ments for the varifold Canham–Helfrich flow, Adv. Calc. Var., 17 (2024), pp. 727–751

    2024

  6. [14]

    S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott , The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods (second edition), Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002. 25

    2002

  7. [15]

    T. A. Davis , Algorithm 832: UMFPACK V4.3—an unsymmetric-pattern multi- frontal method, ACM Trans. Math. Software, 30 (2004), pp. 196–199

    2004

  8. [16]

    , Algorithm 915, SuiteSparseQR: Multifrontal multithreaded rank-revealing sparse QR factorization , ACM Trans. Math. Software, 38 (2011), pp. 1–22

    2011

  9. [17]

    Demlow, Higher-order finite element methods and pointwise error estimates for elliptic problems on surfaces , SIAM J

    A. Demlow, Higher-order finite element methods and pointwise error estimates for elliptic problems on surfaces , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47 (2009), pp. 805–827

    2009

  10. [18]

    Dziuk , Computational parametric Willmore flow , Numer

    G. Dziuk , Computational parametric Willmore flow , Numer. Math., 111 (2008), pp. 55–80

    2008

  11. [19]

    Dziuk and C

    G. Dziuk and C. M. Elliott , Finite element methods for surface PDEs , Acta Numer., 22 (2013), pp. 289–396

    2013

  12. [20]

    C. M. Elliott and T. Ranner , A unified theory for continuous-in-time evolv- ing finite element space approximations to partial differential equations in evolving domains, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 41 (2021), pp. 1696–1845

    2021

  13. [21]

    C. M. Elliott and T. Sales, Navier–Stokes–Cahn–Hilliard equations on evolving surfaces, Interfaces Free Bound., 27 (2025), pp. 285–348

    2025

  14. [22]

    C. M. Elliott and B. Stinner, Modeling and computation of two phase geometric biomembranes using surface finite elements, J. Comput. Phys., 229 (2010), pp. 6585– 6612

    2010

  15. [23]

    Fries, Higher-order surface FEM for incompressible Navier–Stokes flows on manifolds, Internat

    T.-P. Fries, Higher-order surface FEM for incompressible Navier–Stokes flows on manifolds, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 88 (2018), pp. 55–78

    2018

  16. [24]

    Hardering and S

    H. Hardering and S. Praetorius , Parametric finite-element discretization of the surface Stokes equations: inf-sup stability and discretization error analysis , IMA J. Numer. Anal., (2025). (to appear)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Heine , Computations of Form and Stability of Rotating Drops with Finite Elements, PhD thesis, University of Aachen, Aachen, 2003

    C.-J. Heine , Computations of Form and Stability of Rotating Drops with Finite Elements, PhD thesis, University of Aachen, Aachen, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    D. Hu, P. Zhang, and W. E , Continuum theory of a moving membrane , Phys. Rev. E, 75 (2007), p. 041605

    2007

  19. [27]

    Jankuhn, M

    T. Jankuhn, M. A. Olshanskii, and A. Reusken, Incompressible fluid problems on embedded surfaces: modeling and variational formulations, Interfaces Free Bound., 20 (2018), pp. 353–377

    2018

  20. [28]

    Jankuhn, M

    T. Jankuhn, M. A. Olshanskii, A. Reusken, and A. Zhiliakov , Error anal- ysis of higher order trace finite element methods for the surface Stokes equation , J. Numer. Math., 29 (2021), pp. 245–267

    2021

  21. [29]

    H. Koba, C. Liu, and Y. Giga , Energetic variational approaches for incompress- ible fluid systems on an evolving surface , Quart. Appl. Math., 75 (2017), pp. 359–389. 26

    2017

  22. [30]

    Krause, E

    V. Krause, E. Kunze, and A. Voigt , A surface finite element method for the Navier–Stokes equations on evolving surfaces , PAMM, 23 (2023), p. e202300014

    2023

  23. [31]

    Krause and A

    V. Krause and A. Voigt , A numerical approach for fluid deformable surfaces with conserved enclosed volume , J. Comput. Phys., 486 (2023), p. 112097

    2023

  24. [32]

    Miura, On singular limit equations for incompressible fluids in moving thin domains, Quart

    T.-H. Miura, On singular limit equations for incompressible fluids in moving thin domains, Quart. Appl. Math., 76 (2018), pp. 215–251

    2018

  25. [33]

    Neunteufel, J

    M. Neunteufel, J. Sch¨oberl, and K. Sturm, Numerical shape optimization of the Canham-Helfrich-Evans bending energy, J. Comput. Phys., 488 (2023), p. 112218

    2023

  26. [34]

    Nitschke, S

    I. Nitschke, S. Reuther, and A. Voigt , Discrete exterior calculus (DEC) for the surface Navier–Stokes equation, in Transport processes at fluidic interfaces, Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 177–197

    2017

  27. [35]

    A., 476 (2020), pp

    , Liquid crystals on deformable surfaces , Proc. A., 476 (2020), pp. 20200313, 23

    2020

  28. [36]

    Nitschke, A

    I. Nitschke, A. Voigt, and J. Wensch , A finite element approach to incom- pressible two-phase flow on manifolds , J. Fluid Mech., 708 (2012), pp. 418–438

    2012

  29. [37]

    M. A. Olshanskii, A. Reusken, and P. Schwering, An Eulerian finite element method for tangential Navier–Stokes equations on evolving surfaces , Math. Comp., 93 (2024), pp. 2031–2065

    2024

  30. [38]

    M. A. Olshanskii, A. Reusken, and A. Zhiliakov, Inf-sup stability of the trace P2–P1 Taylor–Hood elements for surface PDEs , Math. Comp., 90 (2021), pp. 1527– 1555

    2021

  31. [39]

    Rahimi and M

    M. Rahimi and M. Arroyo , Shape dynamics, lipid hydrodynamics, and the com- plex viscoelasticity of bilayer membranes , Phys. Rev. E, 86 (2012), p. 011932

    2012

  32. [40]

    Reusken , Analysis of the Taylor–Hood surface finite element method for the surface Stokes equation , Math

    A. Reusken , Analysis of the Taylor–Hood surface finite element method for the surface Stokes equation , Math. Comp., 94 (2025), pp. 1701–1719

    2025

  33. [41]

    Reuther, I

    S. Reuther, I. Nitschke, and A. Voigt , A numerical approach for fluid de- formable surfaces, J. Fluid Mech., 900 (2020), pp. R8, 12

    2020

  34. [42]

    Reuther and A

    S. Reuther and A. Voigt , The interplay of curvature and vortices in flow on curved surfaces, Multiscale Model. Simul., 13 (2015), pp. 632–643

    2015

  35. [43]

    Reuther and A

    S. Reuther and A. Voigt, Solving the incompressible surface Navier–Stokes equa- tion by surface finite elements , Phys. Fluids, 30 (2018), p. 012107

    2018

  36. [44]

    D. S. Rodrigues, R. F. Ausas, F. Mut, and G. C. Buscaglia , A semi- implicit finite element method for viscous lipid membranes , J. Comput. Phys., 298 (2015), pp. 565–584

    2015

  37. [45]

    Schmidt and K

    A. Schmidt and K. G. Siebert , Design of Adaptive Finite Element Software: The Finite Element Toolbox ALBERTA , vol. 42 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005. 27

    2005

  38. [46]

    W ang, P

    W. W ang, P. Zhang, and Z. Zhang , Well-posedness of hydrodynamics on the moving elastic surface , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 206 (2012), pp. 953–995. 28

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.