Numerical upscaling for heterogeneous materials in fractured domains

Axel M{\aa}lqvist; Fredrik Hellman; Siyang Wang

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 20 references

Numerical upscaling for heterogeneous materials in fractured domains

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multiscale method now provably upscales fractured, heterogeneous domains by modeling fractures as interfaces.

desk verdict Solid LOD extension to interface-fracture problems with a new interpolation operator and exponential decay; the main proof has a fixable sign typo and the theory stops at edge-aligned fractures, so treat the general-geometry claims as numerical. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03822 v2 pith:JMI2SKLE submitted 2019-08-10 math.NA cs.NA

Fredrik Hellman , Axel M{aa}lqvist , Siyang Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1276S05

keywords localizedorthogonaldecompositionfractureddomainsinterfacemodelsmultiscaleupscalingheterogeneousdiffusionexponentialdecaynode-averaginginterpolationerroranalysis

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

This paper tries to make multiscale simulation of flow in fractured, heterogeneous materials both provably accurate and computationally cheap. It treats thin highly conductive fractures as interfaces in an elliptic diffusion problem with rapidly oscillating coefficients, and applies the localized orthogonal decomposition idea to that interface problem. The central claim is that, with a carefully chosen interpolation operator that averages over the fracture rather than over neighboring elements, the multiscale correctors decay exponentially away from their support. If true, this justifies replacing globally supported correctors by small-patch computations, giving a sparse upscaled model reusable across many forcing terms or time steps.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the localized orthogonal decomposition, which splits the solution space into a coarse finite element space $V_H$ and a fine space $V_f$ defined as the kernel of an interpolation operator $I_H$. Correctors $\varphi_T$ are obtained by solving local problems $a(\varphi_T,w)=a_T(v,w)$ for $w\in V_f$, and the multiscale space is built from $Qv-v$ where $Q$ sums the correctors. The load-bearing novel object is a node-averaging interpolation operator whose nodal variables near the fracture are computed by integrating over fracture edges or segments rather than over whole triangles. This fracture-aware averaging lets the interpolation satisfy the local error and H1 stability bounds of Assumption 1, which in turn yields a ring-wise energy contraction and hence exponential decay of the correctors.

What would settle it

For a fixed coarse mesh, take a single curved fracture that cuts through triangle interiors and drive the geometry parameter used in Example 1 to large values; if the dual-basis norm $\|\psi\|_\sigma$ grows without bound while the mesh size $H$ is fixed, then the $H$-independent stability bound (23) fails, and the exponential-decay theorem loses its premise for that configuration. Equivalently, numerically measure the corrector energy $\|\nabla\varphi_T\|_{U^c_k(T)}$ on such a fracture: exponential decay for all thresholds would support the claim, while polynomial decay would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the multiscale correctors in an interface-enriched elliptic problem decay exponentially fast away from the element that generates them, and that this decay survives the presence of the highly conductive interface. Concretely, for $k\ge 5$ the energy of $\varphi_T$ on the complement of the $k$-layer patch is bounded by $C_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\eta}\exp(-Ck)(\|\nabla v\|_T+\|\nabla_\tau v\|_{\Gamma_T})$, with the constant independent of $k$. From this, the localized method satisfies the a priori bound $\vert\vert\vert u-u^k_{ms}\vert\vert\vert \le C_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\eta}(H+k^{1/2}\exp(-Ck))(\|f\|_\Omega+\|f_\Gamma\|_\Gamma)$ for patch size $k\ge 7$: optimal first-order accuracy in the coarse mesh size plus an exponentially small localization error.

Load-bearing premise

The interpolation operator must satisfy a local approximation and H1 stability bound, and the paper proves this only when the fracture follows coarse element edges; for fractures that cut through elements or intersect, it relies on an indicator-based rule without an accompanying proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Coarse solves can be localized to patches of size $k\sim \log(1/H)$, so the offline cost scales as $O(k^{2s}H^{2s-2}h^{-2s})$ rather than requiring global fine-scale solves.
The upscaled representation can be reused for multiple right-hand sides and for time stepping; the acoustic wave experiment shows first-order convergence at long times.
The error bound is independent of the fine-scale oscillations in the permeability, so the coarse space does not need to resolve the rapidly varying coefficient.
The fracture-aware interpolation is essential: standard element-based averaging fails to produce decaying correctors, while the edge-based averaging restores exponential decay.
Choosing the patch size proportional to $\log(H^{-1})$ keeps the total error first order in $H$, matching the optimal rate for the underlying interface problem.

Reading between the lines

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

The indicator rule (26) with threshold $\Sigma$ is introduced heuristically for fractures that cut through elements; a natural extension would be to derive an a posteriori criterion that selects $\Sigma$ locally and provably restores Assumption 1.
The paper handles the high-conductivity asymptotic model; the same LOD construction would need modification to treat very low conductivity fractures, where the interface condition changes sign in the asymptotics.
The proof's patch-and-cutoff structure should carry over to three-dimensional fracture planes, but the interface-averaging dual basis on surface patches would need a separate verification.
The restriction $k\ge 7$ in Theorem 4 is likely not sharp, since the numerical experiments use $k=1$ to $4$; comparing actual errors with the exponential bound could reveal a sharper constant.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my take. The paper adapts localized orthogonal decomposition to elliptic problems with thin highly conductive structures modeled as codimension-one interfaces. What is new is the interface-adapted Scott–Zhang operator: nodal variables on and near the interface use interface segments as integration domains, which lets the fine space see the high-conductivity path. On top of that, the authors prove exponential decay of the correctors along the interface and an O(H + k^{1/2} exp(-Ck)) a priori error bound. The numerics are honest: aligned fractures verify the rate, and the more complicated immersed/intersecting geometries are tested separately.

The paper is clear about the scope of the theory. Assumption 1 is the load-bearing piece, and Lemma 1 proves it only when the fracture is a union of coarse element edges. For fractures cutting through element interiors, Section 4.2 gives a computable indicator with a threshold, and the text explicitly says the operator can be used for arbitrarily shaped Gamma without guarantees on the assumption. So the a priori bound for the fully general case rests on the numerical experiments, not on the theorem. That is a genuine limitation, but they state it plainly, and the aligned case is already a useful contribution.

The main defect is a sign error in the proof of Theorem 3. The printed expression g - I_H g + (1-I_H)(kappa g) does not equal (1-I_H)(g - kappa g); the identity needs a minus sign in front of the third term. With that flip the rest of the argument goes through, so this is a typographical slip rather than a conceptual hole. It should be fixed. One smaller point: in Theorem 2, the test function (1-I_H)(chi phi_T) is claimed to lie in V_f(U_k(T)), but because the interpolation operator uses one layer of neighbors, its support can extend one element layer beyond U_k(T). The argument still works if the patch index is shifted, so again a minor repair.

Overall the method is well motivated, the analysis is standard LOD machinery adapted to an interface setting, and the authors are transparent about what their theory does and does not cover. The math is coherent on its own terms. I would send this to a serious referee and expect a revise-and-resubmit. It belongs in a numerics journal and is worth citing for the interface-adapted LOD construction.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a localized orthogonal decomposition (LOD) method for second-order elliptic problems with rapidly varying diffusion and thin highly conductive fractures, modeled as codimension-one interfaces. After formulating the interface model and its weak form in Section 2, the method is constructed in Section 3: a fracture-aware Scott–Zhang-type interpolation operator (Section 4) defines the fine space as its kernel, elementwise correctors are computed and localized to patches of size k, and a Galerkin problem is solved in the resulting low-dimensional multiscale space. The error analysis (Section 5) proves exponential decay of the correctors (Theorem 1), bounds on the local and global truncation errors (Theorems 2 and 3), and the a priori estimate |||u−u^k_ms||| ≤ C_{α,β,γ,η}(H + k^{1/2} exp(−Ck))(‖f‖_Ω + ‖f_Γ‖_Γ) for k ≥ 7 (Theorem 4), all conditioned on Assumption 1 (local interpolation error bound (22) and H1 stability bound (23)). Lemma 1 verifies Assumption 1 when Γ is a union of coarse element edges; for fractures that cut through elements, intersect, or are immersed, Section 4.2 defines an indicator-based operator (eq. (26)) without a proof of the assumption. Numerical experiments (Section 6) verify the predicted first-order convergence for edge-aligned fractures, explore the indicator-based variant for intersected and immersed interfaces, and apply the upscaled operator to the acoustic wave equation.

Significance. This is a solid contribution to the localized orthogonal decomposition literature. The main conceptual novelty is the fracture-aware Scott–Zhang interpolation operator (Section 4): the choice of the interface as the integration domain for nodal variables on and near Γ is convincingly shown (Figure 3) to be necessary for exponential decay of the correctors, and Lemma 1 verifies the required local error and stability bounds (Assumption 1) for edge-aligned fractures. The theoretical results are derived from explicitly stated assumptions with constants depending only on α, β, γ, and η; the predicted rates are falsifiable and parameter-free, and the numerical experiments of Section 6.1 confirm the first-order convergence while Section 6.2 shows the method's robustness for immersed and intersecting interfaces. The wave-equation experiment (Section 6.3) demonstrates a genuinely useful application: the offline-computed multiscale basis enables efficient multi-query and time-dependent simulation.

major comments (1)

[Assumption 1; Secs. 4, 5, 6.2] All central claims — exponential decay of the correctors (Theorem 1), the localization bounds (Theorems 2 and 3), and the a priori error bound (Theorem 4, eq. (35)) — are conditional on Assumption 1, eqs. (22)–(23). Lemma 1 verifies Assumption 1 only when Γ is a union of coarse element edges (Section 4.1). For the intersecting, immersed, and element-interior-cutting fractures that the paper emphasizes (Section 2.2), the indicator-based operator (26) of Section 4.2 is introduced, but the paper explicitly states that this operator can be used when Γ is arbitrarily shaped 'without guarantees on satisfying the assumption.' Consequently, the proven convergence does not cover exactly the general geometries highlighted in the abstract and tested in Section 6.2, where the support is numerical only. This is the load-bearing gap of the manuscript. It can be closed either by proving Assumption 1 for the indicator-based operator under explicit geometric hypotheses (for instance, a uniform bound on the dual-basis norms s_{N,T} in (26), e.g., via a lower bound on the angle between Γ and the coarse mesh), or by restricting Theorems 1–4 to the edge-aligned configuration and presenting the immersed/intersecting case as a numerically supported heuristic. A concrete probative check for the Section 6.2 configuration would be to report the stability constants in (23) and (22) over the fine space V_f, which would indicate whether the indicator keeps them independent of H.

minor comments (6)

[Theorem 3 proof] In the third displayed equation of the proof, the expression 'g−IHg + (1−IH)(κg)' is not equal to '(1−IH)(g−κg)' as printed. Replacing the plus sign before '(1−IH)(κg)' with a minus sign yields 'g−IHg − (1−IH)(κg)', which equals '(1−IH)(g−κg)' because g ∈ V_f and hence IHg = 0; with this correction the displayed identity and the subsequent argument are valid.
[Theorem 2 proof] The test function v = (1−IH)(χφ_T) is claimed to belong to V_f(U^k(T)). Since χφ_T is supported in U^k(T), the interpolation step extends the support by one layer of elements (as the proof of Theorem 1 assumes for the same reason), so v lies in V_f(U^{k+1}(T)) as defined and the best-approximation estimate (19) does not directly apply. The proof is repaired by taking the cutoff as χ = 1−η^{k−2}_T, whose support lies in U^{k−1}(T), so that (1−IH)(χφ_T) ∈ V_f(U^k(T)); the statement is unchanged up to an index shift.
[Theorem 1, proof] The final sentence of the proof, 'we see the exponential decay property with Ck = (k_5/2) log(1+C^{-1}_{α,β,γ,η})', conflates the product C·k with a new symbol and, strictly speaking, defines a constant C that depends on k. Please write the bound as '≤ exp(−Ck) for a constant C independent of k', for example with C = (1/10) log(1+C^{-1}_{α,β,γ,η}) up to the floor in k_5.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'sinlge' (Section 2), 'ocsillation' (Section 2), 'augument' (Section 2.2), 'expoenetial' (Section 5.1), 'we integration domains are all neighboring elements' (Section 3.2, caption of Figure 3), and 'We note the the data' (Section 6.3).
[Sections 2 and 5.3] Theorem 4 bounds the error relative to the solution of the interface model (6); the O(ε) modeling error of the asymptotic model, mentioned in Section 2, is not included in (35). A sentence stating that the total error relative to the original thin-fracture problem is O(ε + H + k^{1/2} exp(−Ck)) would set readers' expectations correctly.
[Sections 4.2 and 6.2] The indicator threshold Σ in (26) is a free parameter, and the experiments of Section 6.2 show a clear sensitivity to it (Σ = 500 outperforms Σ = 10). Some guidance on choosing Σ, or at least a statement of how the constants in Assumption 1 would depend on Σ, would be valuable for practitioners.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the error estimates are derived from stated assumptions; the non-aligned fracture gap is a rigor limitation, not circular reuse.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and conditional on explicit hypotheses. The central result, Theorem 4 in equation (35), follows from the Galerkin best approximation property, the localized corrector bound, and the interpolation error and stability estimates of Assumption 1. Assumption 1 is not a restatement of Theorem 4; it is a separate condition on the interpolation operator, and Lemma 1 verifies it for edge-aligned fractures using the classical Scott-Zhang theory from reference [20]. The construction of the indicator-based interpolation operator in Section 4.2 is a design choice, and the paper explicitly states that for arbitrarily shaped fractures the operator is used 'without guarantees on satisfying the assumption'; this is an honest limitation in the theory, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The exponential decay and localization results are proved through energy estimates and cut-off functions rather than imported from the authors' prior work, and citations to [10] and [14] are for background and related methods rather than load-bearing justifications of the present error bound. No equality reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper's numerical experiments verify convergence rather than serve as input to the proof, so there is no meaningful circularity.

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

The central result rests on the asymptotic interface model from prior work, uniform ellipticity, and Assumption 1 on the new interpolation operator. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the threshold Sigma that governs integration domains for non-aligned fractures. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

indicator threshold Sigma = 10 and 500 in the experiments
Used in (26) to decide which nodes get interface-based integration domains for non-edge-aligned fractures. The paper does not derive a value; numerical results show Sigma=500 outperforms Sigma=10.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The asymptotic interface model (4) is the right governing equation, with fracture permeability A_Gamma=O(1) after rescaling A_epsilon~O(epsilon^{-1}) and modeling error O(epsilon).
The paper starts from this model and does not analyze the reduction from the thin-layer problem; validity is inherited from [2,3,16].
domain assumption Permeabilities are uniformly bounded with 0<alpha<=A_i,A_Gamma<=beta<infinity.
Used for coercivity and stability in Lemmas 2 and Theorems 1-4; stated in (5).
ad hoc to paper Assumption 1: the interpolation operator satisfies the local error bound (22) and H1 stability bound (23).
Theorems 1-4 rest on it. Lemma 1 proves it for Gamma a union of coarse edges; for general Gamma the paper supplies no proof and states 'without guarantees'.
standard math The coarse triangulation is quasi-uniform and shape regular (9).
Standard finite element assumption used in interpolation estimates and patch counting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical upscaling for heterogeneous materials in fractured domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMI2SKLE

@misc{pith2026190803822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical upscaling for heterogeneous materials in fractured domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMI2SKLE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03822}
}

read the original abstract

We consider numerical solution of elliptic problems with heterogeneous diffusion coefficients containing thin highly conductive structures. Such problems arise e.g. in fractured porous media, reinforced materials, and electric circuits. The main computational challenge is the high resolution needed to resolve the data variation. We propose a multiscale method that models the thin structures as interfaces and incorporate heterogeneities in corrected shape functions. The construction results in an accurate upscaled representation of the system that can be used to solve for several forcing functions or to simulate evolution problems in an efficient way. By introducing a novel interpolation operator, defining the fine scale of the problem, we prove exponential decay of the shape functions which allows for a sparse approximation of the upscaled representation. An a priori error bound is also derived for the proposed method together with numerical examples that verify the theoretical findings. Finally we present a numerical example to show how the technique can be applied to evolution problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03822 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Modeling the fracture domain Ω as an interface Γ. Further, we assume that there exists a smooth curve Γ such that the fracture Ω can be parametrized as Ω = n z ∈ Ω | z = x + cn(x), x ∈ Γ and c ∈ h − 2 , 2 io , where n(x) is the unit normal vector to the interface Γ at x. The normal vector n(x) varies along the interface Γ, but the distances from x to Γ1 and Γ2 are equal. . The small constant represents the … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Intersected and immersed interfaces. 2.2 Intersected and immersed interfaces The weak form (6) can be generalized to the case where multiple interfaces intersect with each other, and to interfaces that are immersed in the domain. An example is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Integration domains σ for a node N (center point) when Γ (dashed line) is a union of coarse element edges. 4.1 The fracture is a union of edges First, we consider the case when the fracture Γ is a union of edges. Let E Γ H be the set of all closed element edges comprising Γ, i.e. Γ = S E Γ H. We let T Γ(N) = {T ∈ T (N) : N ∈ E and E ⊂ T for some E ∈ EΓ H}, i.e. the adjacent triangles with at least one edge connected… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of the geometry when a = 3 in Example 1. Example 1 (Dual basis norm). Let a triangle T have vertices N1 = (0, 0), N2 = (−1, 1), and N3 = (1, 1). The fracture Γ is defined as a circle with midpoint (0, a) and radius r such that the circle intersects with th…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Integration domains σ for a node N (center point) when Γ (dashed line) is not a union of element edges. Γ is in the node patch but far from the node. Because of this interplay between the mesh and the fracture geometry, we define T Γ(N) to adaptively discard (by the me…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Abdulle, A., Henning, P.: Localized orthogonal decomposition method for the wave equa- tion with a continuum of scales. Math. Comp. 86, 549–587 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

Alboin, C., Jaﬀr´ e, J., Eoberts, J.E., Serres, C.: Modeling fractures as interfaces for ﬂow and transport in porous media. Contemp. Math. 295, 13–24 (2002)

work page 2002
[3]

ESAIM: Math

Angot, P., Boyer, F., Hubert, F.: Asymptotic and numerical modelling of ﬂows in fractured porous media. ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 43, 239–275 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Computat

Burman, E., Hansbo, P., Larson, M.G.: A simple ﬁnite element method for elliptic bulk problems with embedded surfaces. Computat. Geosci. (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Burman, E., Hansbo, P., Larson, M.G., Samvin, D.: A cut ﬁnite element method for elliptic bulk problems with embedded surfaces. Int. J. Geomath. 10 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Capatina, D., Luce, R., El-Otmany, H., Barrau, N.: Nitsche’s extended ﬁnite element method for a fracture model in porous media. Appl. Anal. 95, 2224–2242 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

ESAIM: Math

D’Angelo, C., Scotti, A.: A mixed ﬁnite element method for Darcy ﬂow in fractured porous media with non-matching grids. ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 46, 465–489 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

Elfverson, D., Georgoulis, E.H., M˚ alqvist, A., Peterseim, D.: Convergence of a discontinu- ous Galerkin multiscale method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 51, 3351–3372 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 20 references

[9]

Engwer, C., Henning, P., M˚ alqvist, A., Peterseim, D.: Eﬃcient implementation of the localized orthogonal decomposition method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 350, 123–153 (2019)

2019
[10]

Mul- tiscale Model

Hellman, F., M˚ alqvist, A.: Contrast independent localization of multiscale problems. Mul- tiscale Model. Simul. 15, 1325–1355 (2017)

2017
[11]

Hou, T.Y., Wu, X.: A multiscale ﬁnite element method for elliptic problems in composite materials and porous media. J. Comput. Phys. 134, 169–189 (1997)

1997
[12]

Hughes, T.J.R., Feij´ oo, G.R., Mazzei, L., Quincy, J.: The variational multiscale method - paradigm for computational mechanics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 166, 3–24 (1998)

1998
[13]

Kornhuber, R., Peterseim, D., Yserentant, H.: An analysis of a class of variational multi- scale methods based on subspace decomposition. Math. Comp. 87, 2765–2774 (2018)

2018
[14]

M˚ alqvist, A., Peterseim, D.: Localization of elliptic multiscale problems. Math. Comp.83, 2583–2603 (2014)

2014
[15]

BIT Numer

Maier, R., Peterseim, D.: Explicit computational wave propagation in micro-heterogeneous media. BIT Numer. Math. 59, 443–462 (2019)

2019
[16]

Martin, V., Jaﬀr´ e, J., Roberts, J.E.: Modeling fractures and barriers as interfaces for ﬂow in porous media. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26, 1667–1691 (2005) 26

2005
[17]

Odsæter, L.H., Kvamsdal, T., Larson, M.G.: A simple embedded discrete fracture-matrix model for a coupled ﬂow and transport problem in porous media. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 343, 572–601 (2019)

2019
[18]

Esaim: Math

Owhadi, H., Zhang, L., Berlyand, L.: Polyharmonic homogenization, rough polyharmonic splines and sparse super-localization. Esaim: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 48, 517–552 (2014)

2014
[19]

Peterseim, D., Scheichl, R.: Robust numerical upscaling of elliptic multiscale problems at high contrast. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mat. 16, 579–603 (2016)

2016
[20]

Scott, L.R., Zhang, S.: Finite element interpolation of nonsmooth functions satisfying boundary conditions. Math. Comp. 54, 483–493 (1990) 27

1990

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abdulle, A., Henning, P.: Localized orthogonal decomposition method for the wave equa- tion with a continuum of scales. Math. Comp. 86, 549–587 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Alboin, C., Jaﬀr´ e, J., Eoberts, J.E., Serres, C.: Modeling fractures as interfaces for ﬂow and transport in porous media. Contemp. Math. 295, 13–24 (2002)

work page 2002

[3] [3]

ESAIM: Math

Angot, P., Boyer, F., Hubert, F.: Asymptotic and numerical modelling of ﬂows in fractured porous media. ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 43, 239–275 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Computat

Burman, E., Hansbo, P., Larson, M.G.: A simple ﬁnite element method for elliptic bulk problems with embedded surfaces. Computat. Geosci. (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Burman, E., Hansbo, P., Larson, M.G., Samvin, D.: A cut ﬁnite element method for elliptic bulk problems with embedded surfaces. Int. J. Geomath. 10 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Capatina, D., Luce, R., El-Otmany, H., Barrau, N.: Nitsche’s extended ﬁnite element method for a fracture model in porous media. Appl. Anal. 95, 2224–2242 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

ESAIM: Math

D’Angelo, C., Scotti, A.: A mixed ﬁnite element method for Darcy ﬂow in fractured porous media with non-matching grids. ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 46, 465–489 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Elfverson, D., Georgoulis, E.H., M˚ alqvist, A., Peterseim, D.: Convergence of a discontinu- ous Galerkin multiscale method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 51, 3351–3372 (2013)

work page 2013