Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

A three-step sequential DG scheme for fully coupled thermo-poroelasticity is stable and achieves optimal convergence in time and space, provided the first step comes from a fully implicit solve.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A three-step sequential decoupled DG scheme for nonlinear thermo-poroelasticity is stable and converges at rate tau plus optimal spatial rates.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful sequential DG scheme with an unproven optimal-order claim: the pressure estimate drops DG face terms, so the advertised h^{k2+1} order rests on a gap. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06480 v1 pith:LJIDRCG7 submitted 2025-09-08 math.NA cs.NA

Sequential symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems

Fan Chen , Ming Cui , Chenguang Zhou This is my paper
classification math.NA cs.NA MSC 65M1565M6076S99
keywords thermo-poroelasticitysequential decouplingdiscontinuous Galerkinsymmetric interior penaltybackward Eulercut-off operatoroptimal convergencestability analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 proposes a way to solve the fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity system with nonlinear convective transport without solving the three physical fields together: at each time step it solves pressure from the flow equation, then temperature from the heat equation using that pressure, then displacement from the mechanical equation using both. The claim is that this one-way splitting, discretized by symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin in space and backward Euler in time, is well-posed and stable, and that its error obeys the optimal bound C(τ + h^{k1} + h^{k2+1} + h^{k3+1}). The significance is practical: sequential solves avoid internal iterations and reduce the size of linear systems, while the proven error matches the fully implicit method. The analysis leans on a cut-off operator that truncates the Darcy flux in the convection term, and on a fully implicit first step to get optimal initial values.

Core claim

The central result is Corollary 4.1: under Assumption A on regularity of coefficients and solution, the numerical solution of the sequential scheme (3.2)-(3.4) satisfies |||u^n - u_h^n|||_V + ||p^n - p_h^n|| + ||T^n - T_h^n|| ≤ C(τ + h^{k1} + h^{k2+1} + h^{k3+1}), where k1, k2, k3 are the polynomial degrees for displacement, pressure, and temperature. This is presented as the first stability analysis for this type of sequential discontinuous Galerkin splitting for the fully coupled nonlinear thermo-poroelasticity model, and the first to obtain optimal first-order convergence in time and optimal polynomial orders in space. The theorem requires the first-layer values (p_h^1, T_h^1, u_h^1) to c

What carries the argument

The mechanism that makes the proof work is the cut-off operator M, defined as the identity below a level M and as radial truncation above it, applied to the Darcy flux in the convective term (M(K∇p_h^n)·∇T_h^{n+1}). It renders the convection operator Lipschitz and L∞-bounded by M, giving existence, uniqueness, and stability under the time-step bound τ ≤ C3(a0-b0)/(4M^2); the sequential ordering pressure→temperature→displacement removes the need for internal iterations, and a large SIP penalty parameter plus the stabilization γ stabilize the DG bilinear forms.

Load-bearing premise

The whole stability and error proof requires one cut-off constant M that is large enough to leave the exact Darcy flux unchanged and small enough that the time step satisfies τ ≤ C3(a0-b0)/(4M^2); since M is never quantified and depends on an a priori bound on the true flux, the resulting time-step restriction cannot be verified in practice.

What would settle it

Take a manufactured solution with a Darcy flux strong enough that the exact flux exceeds the cut-off M used in the code. If the scheme keeps optimal order while the condition M(K∇p_h)=K∇p_h is violated on the exact flux, the cut-off requirement is not actually load-bearing; if it loses order or becomes unstable, the unquantified choice of M is the controlling assumption. Compare with the fully implicit DG method of [18] at the same time step to separate splitting error from cut-off error.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the error estimate is correct, users get optimal accuracy without ever forming the coupled monolithic system: each time step costs three smaller linear solves instead of one large coupled one.
  • The fully implicit first step is not just an implementation detail; dropping it forces a very small initial time step and an extra assumption that the displacement increment is negligible, as in Option 1.
  • The time-step restriction depends on M, so the practical range of τ is tied to the strength of the Darcy flux through the cut-off level.
  • The reported experiments confirm first-order time convergence and polynomial-degree spatial convergence across five different coupling strengths, and compare favorably in CPU time with the fully implicit DG scheme of [18].
  • The same sequential pattern with a cut-off-stabilized convective term could be applied to other DG discretizations of coupled flow-mechanics problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the unquantified cut-off level M means the stability condition τ ≤ C3(a0-b0)/(4M^2) cannot be checked ahead of time; a practical refinement would estimate M from the computed flux and verify the constraint a posteriori.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's experiments stay in mild parameter regimes; a natural stress test is a convection-dominated case where |K∇p_h| approaches M, to see whether the time-step restriction or the truncation degrades accuracy.
  • Editorial inference: because the error estimate is built on the regularity Assumption A6, testing rough coefficients or lower-regularity solutions would reveal whether that assumption is necessary in practice or merely a proof convenience.
  • Editorial inference: the sequential ordering admits an operator-splitting interpretation, so viewing the cut-off as a flux limiter could connect this analysis to splitting-error and positivity-preserving approaches for nonlinear transport in porous media.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sequential (non-iterative) splitting method for the fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity system with nonlinear convective transport. The spatial discretization is a symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method and the temporal discretization is backward Euler. At each time step the pressure, temperature, and displacement are solved successively using previously computed values, with a cut-off operator applied to the convective Darcy-flux term. The authors prove existence and uniqueness of the discrete solution, a stability estimate under a time-step restriction, and an error estimate of order O(τ + h^{k1} + h^{k2+1} + h^{k3+1}) when the first-step values are obtained by the fully implicit scheme of their earlier paper. Numerical experiments with P1 elements report the expected first-order time convergence and second-order spatial convergence for pressure and temperature, and show a CPU-time advantage over the fully implicit DG method.

Significance. Sequential decoupling methods for multiphysics problems are practically attractive because they avoid inner iterations and reduce the size of the algebraic systems. If the advertised error estimate is correct, this would be a worthwhile contribution: it extends the sequential DG idea from Biot poroelasticity to nonlinear thermo-poroelasticity and, for the first time for this problem class, provides a stability analysis and optimal space-time error estimates. The cut-off treatment of the convective term and the two initialization strategies are also useful for practitioners. The numerical study is careful and reports rates that match the stated orders. However, the central convergence proof contains a load-bearing gap in the treatment of the convective consistency term; until that gap is closed, the optimal pressure-order claim is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, estimate of H1 after (4.12)] The proof of |H1| integrates (K∇ρ_p^{n+1}·∇R_TT^{n+1}, θ_T^{n+1}) by parts and then discards the boundary term ⟨ρ_p^{n+1}, ∇T^{n+1}·θ_T^{n+1}n⟩_{∂Ω}, citing the homogeneous boundary condition. But ρ_p^{n+1}=p^{n+1}-R_pp^{n+1} and θ_T^{n+1}=R_TT^{n+1}-T_h^{n+1} are discontinuous Galerkin functions: R_p does not have zero trace and θ_T does not vanish on ∂Ω. Moreover, summing by parts over elements produces internal-face terms Σ_{e∈Γ_I}∫_e (∇T·n_e)(ρ_p^+θ_T^+−ρ_p^-θ_T^-)ds. These face terms are neither zero nor estimated anywhere. A direct trace estimate gives only O(h^{k2}) for the pressure error, i.e. one power less than the advertised h^{k2+1} in Corollary 4.1. Since the H1 bound is what raises the pressure order from h^{k2} to h^{k2+1}, the optimal spatial estimate is not established as written.
  2. [§4.2, H1 bound and Assumption A6] The estimate of (∇ρ_T^{n+1}·∇ρ_p^{n+1}, θ_T^{n+1}) uses the bound ||∇ρ_T^{n+1}||_{0,∞} ≤ C h^{k3} ||T||_{k3+1,∞}, citing [22]. Assumption A6 only provides T∈L∞(0,tf;H^{k3+1}) and ∂_tT∈L∞(0,tf;W^{1,l}) with l>d; it does not imply T∈W^{k3+1,∞}. Thus the L∞ projection estimate used in the proof is not available under the stated assumptions. Either Assumption A6 must be strengthened, or this term needs a different estimate that is valid under the current regularity assumptions.
  3. [Theorems 3.1 and 3.2] The well-posedness and stability conditions are τ ≤ 2C_3a_0/M^2 and τ ≤ C_3(a_0−b_0)/(4M^2), respectively, where M is the cut-off constant. The paper only specifies that M is 'large enough' so that M(K∇p^n)=K∇p^n for the exact flux; the precise value is never quantified. Since M depends on the a priori sup norm of the exact Darcy flux, the allowable time step is tied to an unquantified problem-dependent constant. If the exact flux is large, the guaranteed stability time step may be prohibitively small. The authors should state explicitly that M is chosen from the a priori bound and discuss the resulting time-step restriction, or reformulate the stability analysis to avoid this dependence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 4.1 statement] The statement says '(u^n_h,p^n_h,T^n_h) be the solutions of (4.5)-(4.7) and (3.2)-(3.4)', but (4.5)-(4.7) are consistency identities for the exact solution. The exact solution should be for (2.1)-(2.7).
  2. [Remark 3.1 and Option 1] The paper presents Option 1 as a practical way to start the scheme, and Table 9 tests it, but no error estimate is proved for the Option 1 initialization (3.8)-(3.10). Corollary 4.1 only covers Option 2. If Option 1 is meant to be a rigorous alternative, an analysis or a clear statement that it is heuristic should be added.
  3. [§4.2, H2 estimate] The bound for H2 uses (4.2), but (4.2) is for ||p^{n+1}-p^n||; the estimate needed is for ∇(R_pp^{n+1}-R_pp^n). A gradient version should be stated or derived.
  4. [Notation] The symbol H1 is used both for a term in (4.12) and for the Sobolev space H^1. Renaming one of them would avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 5] The spatial convergence tables stop at h=1/32. Since the observed pressure rates are close to 2 but not fully asymptotic, one or two finer levels would strengthen the numerical confirmation, although the present rates are already consistent with the claimed orders.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the sequential scheme's error analysis is derived independently; the cited [18] initialization is prior published work, not an input-equivalent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Corollary 4.1) is an error estimate for the sequential DG scheme (3.2)-(3.4). The proof in Section 4 directly analyzes this scheme through error equations (4.8)-(4.10) and a Gronwall argument, so the main derivation is not a rewriting of the inputs. The only same-group citations are to [18] for Lemma 4.3 (consistency of the exact solution with DG forms) and Lemma 4.4 (error estimates for the fully implicit initialization (3.11)-(3.13)). These are prior published results with independent mathematical content and stated regularity assumptions; they do not assume the sequential scheme's optimal convergence. Using [18] to control the first time layer is a standard bootstrap, not a circular reduction. The cut-off constant M is not a fitted parameter repackaged as a prediction: it enters as a stability condition, and the paper explicitly says a precise value is unnecessary if the exact flux is bounded. Although the reviewer-flagged integration-by-parts treatment of H1 may be a correctness gap, it is not a self-referential or definitional equivalence. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on standard DG coercivity and the regularity/positivity hypotheses in Assumption A. The only analytic device introduced for the convergence proof is the cut-off operator M, which is borrowed rather than invented. The main unquantified ingredients are M, the stabilization constants, and the Option 1 small-step initialization; none of these are fitted to data.

free parameters (4)
  • SIPG penalty constants sigma1, sigma2 = theoretically 'large enough'; set to 1e6 in experiments
    Introduced to enforce DG coercivity (Lemma 3.5); values are not fitted to data but chosen by hand.
  • Stabilization parameter gamma = required 'large enough' by Theorem 3.2 and 4.1; set to 5 in experiments
    Added in Step 3 to stabilize the sequential decoupling of displacement; the stability condition gamma >= (alpha^2+beta^2)/C3 (1+C) is not made quantitatively checkable.
  • Cut-off constant M = unspecified; no value used in implementation
    The analysis requires M large enough that M(K grad p^n)=K grad p^n, yet the stability bound tau <= C3(a0-b0)/(4M^2) depends on M; the theoretical restriction is not verified numerically.
  • Initial time step tau0 (Option 1) = 10^-6 in Table 9
    The small-initial-step Option 1 assumes grad dot u change is negligible; no quantitative bound is derived.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Biot-type thermo-poroelasticity model (2.1)-(2.7) is well posed as established in [14].
    The paper builds on the model and Assumption A from [14] without re-proving well-posedness.
  • domain assumption Assumption A: K, Theta symmetric positive definite; a0,b0,c0,alpha,beta,mu,lambda positive; c0-2b0>0, a0-2b0>=0; regularity (A4)-(A6) of sources, initial data, and solution.
    These hypotheses are taken as inputs for all theorems; the numerical tests choose a0=c0=3b0 so these hold.
  • standard math Coercivity and boundedness of the SIPG forms for sufficiently large sigma1, sigma2 (Lemma 3.5), plus trace, inverse, and Korn inequalities.
    Standard DG estimates from Riviere [39] and Arnold [5].
  • domain assumption The cut-off operator M can be chosen with ||M(K grad p_h^n)||_inf <= M and M(K grad p^n)=K grad p^n.
    Guaranteed only if the exact Darcy flux is bounded and the discrete flux inherits boundedness [3,13]; otherwise the convection term in Step 2 is altered.
  • ad hoc to paper Option 1 initialization: for sufficiently small tau0 the change in grad dot u is negligible (Remark 3.1).
    This assumption is asserted, not proved; no a priori error bound for Option 1 initial data is supplied.
  • domain assumption L-infinity projection error estimate ||grad rho_T||_0,inf <= C||T||_{k3+1,inf} h^{k3} from [22] used in I10.
    This requires W^{k3+1,inf} regularity of the exact temperature, which is stronger than the Sobolev regularity listed in Assumption A6.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJIDRCG7

@misc{pith2026250906480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJIDRCG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06480}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate a sequentially decoupled numerical method for solving the fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems with nonlinear convective transport. The symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method is employed for spatial discretization and the backward Euler method for temporal discretization. Unlike other splitting algorithms, this type of sequential method does not require any internal iterations and the computational efficiency is higher than that of the fully implicit nonlinear numerical scheme. In the theoretical analysis, a cut-off operator is introduced to prove the existence and uniqueness of numerical solution and the stability analysis of numerical scheme is conducted. Then, we derive the optimal convergence order estimates in space and time. Finally, several numerical examples are presented to illustrate the accuracy and efficiency of our proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06480 by Chenguang Zhou, Fan Chen, Ming Cui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Error convergence orders of fully implicit DG and SDG methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗

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

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., 1975

    Adams, R. A., 1975. Sobolev spaces. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 65, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    A., Nordbotten, J

    Ahmed, E., Radu, F. A., Nordbotten, J. M., 2019. Adaptive poromechanics computations based on a posteriori error estimates for fully mixed formulations of Biot’s consolidation model. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 347, 264–294

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Flow and transport in frac- tured poroelastic media

    Ambartsumyan, I., Khattatov, E., Nguyen, T., Yotov, I., 2019. Flow and transport in frac- tured poroelastic media. GEM Int. J. Geomath. 10 (1), Paper No. 11, 34

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    F., Bonetti, S., Botti, M., 2023

    Antonietti, P. F., Bonetti, S., Botti, M., 2023. Discontinuous Galerkin approximation of the fully coupled thermo-poroelastic problem. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 45 (2), A621–A645

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    N., 1982

    Arnold, D. N., 1982. An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 19 (4), 742–760

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Dalcin, L., Dener, A., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W

    Balay, S., Abhyankar, S., Adams, M. F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Dalcin, L., Dener, A., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W. D., Karpeyev, D., Kaushik, D., Knepley, M. G., May, D. A., McInnes, L. C., Mills, R. T., Munson, T., Rupp, K., Sanan, P., Smith, B. F., Zampini, S., Zhang, H., Zhang, H., 2019. PETSc Web page. https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Dalcin, L., Dener, A., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W

    Balay, S., Abhyankar, S., Adams, M. F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Dalcin, L., Dener, A., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W. D., Karpeyev, D., Kaushik, D., Knepley, M. G., May, D. A., McInnes, L. C., Mills, R. T., Munson, T., Rupp, K., Sanan, P., Smith, B. F., Zampini, S., Zhang, H., Zhang, H., 2020. PETSc users manual. Tech. Report ANL-95/11 - Revision 3...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    D., McInnes, L

    Balay, S., Gropp, W. D., McInnes, L. C., Smith, B. F., 1997. Efficient management of paral- lelism in object oriented numerical software libraries, in Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing. Arge, E., Bruaset, A. M., Langtangen, H. P., eds., Birkh¨ auser Press, pp. 163– 202

    work page 1997

  9. [9]

    Projection-based reduced order modeling of an iterative scheme for linear thermo-poroelasticity

    Ballarin, F., Lee, S., Yi, S.-Y., 2024. Projection-based reduced order modeling of an iterative scheme for linear thermo-poroelasticity. Results Appl. Math. 21, Paper No. 100430, 26

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    A., 1955

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

    work page 1955

  11. [11]

    W., Borregales, M., Nordbotten, J

    Both, J. W., Borregales, M., Nordbotten, J. M., Kumar, K., Radu, F. A., 2017. Robust fixed stress splitting for Biot’s equations in heterogeneous media. Appl. Math. Lett. 68, 101–108. 26

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    K., Berre, I., Nordbotten, J

    Brun, M. K., Berre, I., Nordbotten, J. M., Radu, F. A., 2018. Upscaling of the coupling of hydromechanical and thermal processes in a quasi-static poroelastic medium. Transp. Porous Media 124 (1), 137–158

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Brun, M. K. t., Ahmed, E., Berre, I., Nordbotten, J. M., Radu, F. A., 2020. Monolithic and splitting solution schemes for fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity with nonlinear convective transport. Comput. Math. Appl. 80 (8), 1964–1984

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Brun, M. K. t., Ahmed, E., Nordbotten, J. M., Radu, F. A., 2019. Well-posedness of the fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelastic equations with nonlinear convective transport. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 471 (1-2), 239–266

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    A sequential discontinuous Galerkin method for the cou- pling of flow and geomechanics

    Chaabane, N., Rivi` ere, B., 2018a. A sequential discontinuous Galerkin method for the cou- pling of flow and geomechanics. J. Sci. Comput. 74 (1), 375–395

    work page

  16. [16]

    A splitting-based finite element method for the Biot poroe- lasticity system

    Chaabane, N., Rivi` ere, B., 2018b. A splitting-based finite element method for the Biot poroe- lasticity system. Comput. Math. Appl. 75 (7), 2328–2337

    work page

  17. [17]

    Discontinuous Galerkin method for nonlinear quasi-static poroelasticity problems

    Chen, F., Cui, M., Zhou, C., 2024. Discontinuous Galerkin method for nonlinear quasi-static poroelasticity problems. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. 21 (2), 201–220

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for nonlinear fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems

    Chen, F., Cui, M., Zhou, C., 2025. Symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for nonlinear fully coupled quasi-static thermo-poroelasticity problems. Appl. Math. 70 (1), 97–123

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Analysis of a discontinuous Galerkin method for the Biot’s consolidation problem

    Chen, Y., Luo, Y., Feng, M., 2013. Analysis of a discontinuous Galerkin method for the Biot’s consolidation problem. Appl. Math. Comput. 219 (17), 9043–9056

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Poromechanics

    Coussy, O., 2004. Poromechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    N., Kl ´ ıe, H., Wheeler, M

    Dawson, C. N., Kl ´ ıe, H., Wheeler, M. F., Woodward, C. S., 1997. A parallel, implicit, cell- centered method for two-phase flow with a preconditioned Newton-Krylov solver. Comput. Geosci. 1 (3-4), 215–249 (1998)

    work page 1997

  22. [22]

    E., 1983

    Douglas, Jr., J., Roberts, J. E., 1983. Numerical methods for a model for compressible miscible displacement in porous media. Math. Comp. 41 (164), 441–459

    work page 1983

  23. [23]

    Analysis of a multiphysics finite element method for a poroe- lasticity model

    Feng, X., Ge, Z., Li, Y., 2018. Analysis of a multiphysics finite element method for a poroe- lasticity model. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 38 (1), 330–359

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    J., Lisbona, F

    Gaspar, F. J., Lisbona, F. J., Vabishchevich, P. N., 2002. Finite difference schemes for poro- elastic problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 2 (2), 132–142

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    J., Lisbona, F

    Gaspar, F. J., Lisbona, F. J., Vabishchevich, P. N., 2003. A finite difference analysis of Biot’s consolidation model. Appl. Numer. Math. 44 (4), 487–506

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    DG approximation of coupled Navier-Stokes and Darcy equa- tions by Beaver-Joseph-Saffman interface condition

    Girault, V., Rivi` ere, B., 2009. DG approximation of coupled Navier-Stokes and Darcy equa- tions by Beaver-Joseph-Saffman interface condition. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47 (3), 2052– 2089

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    A priori error estimates of two monolithic schemes for Biot’s consolidation model

    Gu, H., Cai, M., Li, J., Ju, G., 2024. A priori error estimates of two monolithic schemes for Biot’s consolidation model. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations 40 (1), Paper No. e23059, 22

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Weak Galerkin finite element method for linear poroelasticity problems

    Gu, S., Chai, S., Zhou, C., Zhou, J., 2023. Weak Galerkin finite element method for linear poroelasticity problems. Appl. Numer. Math. 190, 200–219. 27

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Parameter-robust multiphysics algorithms for Biot model with application in brain edema simulation

    Ju, G., Cai, M., Li, J., Tian, J., 2020. Parameter-robust multiphysics algorithms for Biot model with application in brain edema simulation. Math. Comput. Simulation 177, 385–403

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    A least-squares mixed finite element method for Biot’s con- solidation problem in porous media

    Korsawe, J., Starke, G., 2005. A least-squares mixed finite element method for Biot’s con- solidation problem in porous media. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43 (1), 318–339

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    The nonconforming locking-free virtual element method for the Biot’s consolidation model in poroelasticity

    Liang, H., Rui, H., 2023. The nonconforming locking-free virtual element method for the Biot’s consolidation model in poroelasticity. Comput. Math. Appl. 148, 269–281

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    A virtual element method for overcoming locking phenomena in Biot’s consolidation model

    Liu, X., Chen, Z., 2023. A virtual element method for overcoming locking phenomena in Biot’s consolidation model. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 57 (5), 3007–3027

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    F., 2014

    Mikeli´ c, A., Wang, B., Wheeler, M. F., 2014. Numerical convergence study of iterative cou- pling for coupled flow and geomechanics. Comput. Geosci. 18 (3-4), 325–341

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    F., 2017

    Mortezaei, K., Vahedifard. F., 2017. Multi-scale simulation of thermal pressurization of fault fluid underCO 2 injection for storage and utilization purposes. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 98, 111–120

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    On finite volume discretization of the three-dimensional Biot poroe- lasticity system in multilayer domains

    Naumovich, A., 2006. On finite volume discretization of the three-dimensional Biot poroe- lasticity system in multilayer domains. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 6 (3), 306–325

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    M., 2016

    Nordbotten, J. M., 2016. Stable cell-centered finite volume discretization for Biot equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 54 (2), 942–968

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Weak Galerkin finite element method with the total pressure variable for Biot’s consolidation model

    Peng, H., Qi, W., 2025. Weak Galerkin finite element method with the total pressure variable for Biot’s consolidation model. Appl. Numer. Math. 207, 450–469

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    J., Wheeler, M

    Phillips, P. J., Wheeler, M. F., 2008. A coupling of mixed and discontinuous Galerkin finite- element methods for poroelasticity. Comput. Geosci. 12 (4), 417–435

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Discontinuous Galerkin methods for solving elliptic and parabolic equa- tions

    Rivi` ere, B., 2008. Discontinuous Galerkin methods for solving elliptic and parabolic equa- tions. Vol. 35 of Frontiers in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, theory and implementation

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    A sequential discontinuous Galerkin method for two-phase flow in deformable porous media

    Shen, B., Riviere, B., 2022. A sequential discontinuous Galerkin method for two-phase flow in deformable porous media. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 399, Paper No. 115266, 24

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    F., 2002

    Sun, S., Rivi` ere, B., Wheeler, M. F., 2002. A combined mixed finite element and discontinuous Galerkin method for miscible displacement problem in porous media. In: Recent progress in computational and applied PDEs (Zhangjiajie, 2001). Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp. 323–351

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    F., 2005

    Sun, S., Wheeler, M. F., 2005. Discontinuous Galerkin methods for coupled flow and reactive transport problems. Appl. Numer. Math. 52 (2-3), 273–298

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer grundlage

    Terzaghi, K., 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer grundlage. Leipzig Deuticke, Vienna

    work page 1925

  44. [44]

    C., Chou, D., Tully, B

    Vardakis, J. C., Chou, D., Tully, B. J., et al, 2016. Investigating cerebral oedema using poroelasticity. Med. Eng. Phys. 38 (1), 212–235

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    A mixed virtual element method for Biot’s consolidation model

    Wang, F., Cai, M., Wang, G., Zeng, Y., 2022. A mixed virtual element method for Biot’s consolidation model. Comput. Math. Appl. 126, 31–42

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Galerkin method for the fully coupled quasi-static thermo- poroelastic problem

    Zhang, J., Rui, H., 2022. Galerkin method for the fully coupled quasi-static thermo- poroelastic problem. Comput. Math. Appl. 118, 95–109. 28

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    J., 2020

    Zhang, J., Zhou, C., Cao, Y., Meir, A. J., 2020. A locking free numerical approximation for quasilinear poroelasticity problems. Comput. Math. Appl. 80 (6), 1538–1554

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Unconditionally energy-stable and locking-free parallel splitting finite element method for the Biot model

    Zhao, J., Chen, H., Sun, S., Li, H., 2025. Unconditionally energy-stable and locking-free parallel splitting finite element method for the Biot model. J. Sci. Comput. 104 (3), Paper No. 74, 23. 29

    work page 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.