Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

A structure-preserving and thermodynamically compatible cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme for continuum mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme for the GPR model of continuum mechanics is shown to preserve total energy conservation, the entropy inequality, the determinant constraint, and the curl-free involutions exactly at the…

desk verdict Solid structure-preserving scheme with a real degenerate-case gap in the total-energy-conservation proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03081 v1 pith:NJOBN2F3 submitted 2025-06-03 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

Walter Boscheri , Michael Dumbser , Raphael Loubère , Pierre-Henri Maire This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 35L4065M08
keywords thermodynamicallycompatiblefinitevolumeschemesLagrangiancontinuummechanicsGPRmodelcellentropyinequalitynonlinearstabilitydeterminantconstraintpreservationcurlmovingunstructuredmesh
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 constructs a moving-mesh finite volume scheme for the GPR model of continuum mechanics, the unified hyperbolic model that covers nonlinear elastic solids and viscous, heat-conducting fluids, and claims that the scheme preserves all four structural properties of the continuous system at once at the semi-discrete level: total energy is conserved, entropy never decreases, the determinant of the distortion field stays tied to the mass density, and the distortion and thermal-impulse fields remain curl-free when sources vanish. The design discretizes the entropy inequality directly and lets total energy conservation follow from a thermodynamically compatible choice of nodal fluxes. If correct, this is the first Lagrangian scheme for the GPR model with all four properties simultaneously, and it provides provable nonlinear stability for the whole model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nodal correction factor $\alpha_p = \nu_p/\delta_p$ (Eq. 3.14). The denominator $\delta_p$ is the sum of squared velocity differences plus the square of a volume-integrated divergence term (Eq. 3.13), hence always non-negative; the numerator $\nu_p$ collects the unbalanced nodal energy fluctuations (Eq. 3.15). Choosing $\alpha_p$ this way makes the sum of total-energy fluctuations around each node equal the total-energy flux through the dual cell, which closes the energy-conservation proof. A second mechanism is the pair of discrete gradient and dual curl operators (Eqs. 3.19--3.20), which satisfy the discrete identity $\nabla^c_p \times \nabla^p_c \phi_p = 0$ (Lemma 3.1), used to prove curl preservation for $A$ and $J$.

What would settle it

Take a triangular mesh around one node $p$, set all cell velocities equal to the nodal velocity $v_p$, and choose cell data so that $\sum_c l_{pc} v_c\cdot(v_c-v_p)=0$ and $|\omega_p|\nabla^c_p\cdot(\rho_c\beta_c)=0$ but with $\nu_p\neq 0$ due to pressure, stress, or temperature variation around the node; then evaluate the semi-discrete total-energy residual $\sum_c w_c\cdot dq/dt$. A nonzero residual under the other assumptions of Theorem 3.2 would show that exact total energy conservation does not hold in that configuration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the semi-discrete scheme (3.5), with nodal values (3.9)--(3.11) and the scalar correction factor $\alpha_p = \nu_p/\delta_p$ defined by (3.12)--(3.14), satisfies discrete counterparts of the first and second laws of thermodynamics together with the algebraic determinant constraint and the curl-free involutions. Total energy conservation is obtained as a corollary of a thermodynamically compatible discretization of the entropy equation, not as a separately enforced conservation law; the entropy inequality holds by construction because the entropy production terms are sums of squares. Theorems 3.2--3.5 prove the four properties under the stated boundary assumptions, with curl preservation requiring vanishing sources and exact time integration.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the scheme conserves total energy assumes that whenever the denominator $\delta_p$ of the nodal correction factor is zero, the numerator $\nu_p$ is also zero; the paper sets the correction factor to zero in that case without proving this, and configurations with uniform nodal velocity but nonuniform pressure, stress, or temperature could violate it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user of the scheme gets unconditional semi-discrete nonlinear stability: total energy is conserved while entropy production is non-negative, so the method cannot blow up through spurious energy growth.
  • The same discretization covers elastic solids and viscous heat-conducting fluids, because the GPR model reduces to the compressible Navier-Stokes equations in the stiff relaxation limit and the structural properties are preserved on both sides of that limit.
  • The determinant constraint $|A_c| = \rho_c(t)/\rho_c(0)$ holds by construction, so density and distortion field remain mutually compatible on the moving mesh without post-processing.
  • For vanishing relaxation sources, initially curl-free distortion and thermal impulse stay curl-free at the semi-discrete level, preventing spurious vorticity in these fields.
  • Numerical tests show first-order convergence on the isentropic vortex and, on the beryllium plate test, a first-order thermodynamically compatible scheme whose dissipation is comparable to a second-order Lagrangian scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correction factor is derived from a nodal total-energy flux balance rather than from GPR-specific terms, the same construction likely transfers to other thermodynamically compatible hyperbolic systems such as magnetohydrodynamics or multiphase flow.
  • The curl-preservation theorems assume exact time integration; a fully discrete analogue would require a time integrator that also preserves the discrete curl-gradient identity, which appears to be an open next step.
  • The unresolved $\delta_p=0$ branch suggests a targeted numerical experiment: run a uniform-velocity flow with imposed pressure, stress, or temperature gradients around nodes and monitor the total-energy residual; the paper does not report such a test.
  • The discrete identity $\nabla^c_p \times \nabla^p_c \phi_p = 0$ is the same algebraic skeleton used in compatible discretizations of linear acoustics, so the scheme may serve as a foundation for higher-order div-curl-grad compatible Lagrangian methods.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a semi-discrete cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme for the GPR model of continuum mechanics on moving unstructured meshes. The scheme is designed to satisfy four structural properties at the discrete level: discrete total energy conservation, a discrete entropy inequality, exact compatibility between density and determinant of the distortion field, and exact preservation of curl-free conditions for the distortion field and thermal impulse. The entropy inequality is discretized directly, and total energy conservation is derived via a nodal scalar correction factor α_p. The paper proves these properties in Theorems 3.2–3.5 and validates the scheme on vortex, viscous shock, solid rotor, and elastic vibration benchmarks.

Significance. If the four properties are indeed obtained simultaneously, this is an important step: no existing GPR scheme achieves all four. The direct discretization of the entropy inequality with energy conservation as a consequence is conceptually clean, and the numerical tests show the expected machine-precision preservation on standard problems. The proofs are explicit algebraic calculations, which is a strength. However, the central proof of total energy conservation has a degenerate-case gap, and the proofs of the determinant and J-curl properties omit terms present in the scheme; these issues are fixable but currently leave the claims incompletely supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.14)] The proof of Theorem 3.2 sets αp = 0 when δp = 0 (text after Eq. (3.14)) without establishing that νp = 0. If δp = 0 then vc = vp for all c ∈ C(p) and Σc lpcnpc · ρcβc = 0; the pressure and stress parts of νp vanish by (3.3), but the thermal part Σc lpcnpc · (Tcρcβc − Tcρpβp − Tpρcβc) reduces to Σc fcTc − (Σc lpcnpcTc) · ρpβp with fc = lpcnpc · ρcβc and Σc fc = 0, which is not identically zero under admissible nodal variations of T and ρβ. Hence the nodal identity (3.12) need not hold at such states, and the telescoping argument that reduces the energy equation to (3.33) does not close. The numerical tests do not exercise this degenerate state, so they do not resolve the gap.
  2. [Theorem 3.3, Eq. (3.35)] The proof of Theorem 3.3 divides (3.5d) by mc and writes dAc/dt = −Ac/|ωc| Σ lpcnpc(vp − vc), omitting the source term −(1/θ1)Γc present in (3.5d). With the source term, d|Ac|/dt contains the extra contribution −(|Ac|/(ρc θ1)) tr(Ac^{-1}Γc). The claimed identity d|Ac|/dt = d(ρc/ρc(0))/dt therefore requires the discrete trace-free property tr(Ac^{-1}Γc) = 0, which is neither stated nor proved. Since the scheme is applied with nonzero relaxation sources (e.g., the viscous shock in §4.2), this is a load-bearing gap; please add the missing term and proof, or restrict the theorem to vanishing sources.
  3. [Theorem 3.5, Eq. (3.46)] In passing from (3.5e) to (3.46), the auxiliary field is defined as λp = Tp + αp|ωp|∇c p·(ρcβc), but the last term in (3.5e) contains (αp + εp)|ωp|∇c p·(ρcβc). Thus the proof of exact preservation of ∇×J = 0 does not cover the scheme with numerical viscosity εp > 0, even though Theorem 3.5 is stated for the general scheme (3.5). The omission is easily repaired by including εp in the definition of λp, but as written the proof does not close for the viscous variant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.8)] The second summation index 'Σ_{p∈P(c)}' should be 'Σ_{c∈C(p)}'.
  2. [Theorem 3.4 proof] 'Inserting (3.41) into (3.41)' should read 'Inserting (3.41) into (3.40)'.
  3. [Throughout] The term 'distorsion' should be 'distortion' (e.g., Abstract, Section 2, Section 5).
  4. [Lemma 3.1] The definition of the edge midpoint values in (3.22) and the subsequent telescoping argument would benefit from a short notational guide linking e±_pc to the two edges meeting at node p.
  5. [Figure 8] The right panel's horizontal axis is labeled 'Time step' but appears to cover a shorter range than the left panel; please align the reporting intervals or clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scheme's structural properties are enforced by explicit construction and proved in-paper, not by fitted predictions or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are constructive design properties, not predictions extracted from fitted data. The correction factor alpha_p is defined in Eq. (3.14) precisely so that the nodal total-energy identity (3.12) holds, and Theorem 3.2 then verifies the global telescoping summation; this is an explicit construction, not a circular derivation. The discrete entropy inequality is obtained directly from the nonnegative quadratic terms (3.16)-(3.18), so it is by construction and fully disclosed. Determinant and curl preservation (Theorems 3.3-3.5) are proven from the scheme's update equations and the discrete vector-calculus identity (3.21), which is proved in Lemma 3.1; the references to [44] and [4] for that lemma are supplementary, not load-bearing. The scalar-correction-factor framework is credited to the authors' prior work [10] and to Abgrall et al., but all relevant equations are restated and verified in this paper, so no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work is invoked to force the choice of scheme. The only substantive concern, namely that for delta_p = 0 the paper sets alpha_p = 0 without proving nu_p = 0, is a potential gap in the energy-conservation proof, not a circularity; it affects correctness risk, not the circularity score. External benchmarks, including the exact viscous shock solution and standard solid/fluid tests, provide independent checks of the scheme's behavior. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The structural claims rest on standard PDE assumptions (convex internal energy, positive temperature), the usual semi-discrete idealization of exact time integration for involution preservation, and the paper's own nodal flux construction. No physical constant is fitted to data for the proofs. The only tunable numerical knob is the viscosity coefficient εp.

free parameters (1)
  • εp, numerical viscosity coefficient = not reported; can be set to zero
    Introduced in Eq. (3.5) and used in Eq. (3.18) to add entropy dissipation. Its value is not specified, so each test implicitly chooses a variant of the scheme.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The specific internal energy E1(τ,S) is convex.
    Stated in Section 2 before Eq. (2.5): the paper assumes convexity to assure thermodynamic stability, which supports the entropy production terms being nonnegative.
  • domain assumption Temperature T is positive.
    Assumed after Eq. (2.5). Positivity of Tc makes Πc and πc nonnegative, which is needed for the discrete entropy inequality.
  • domain assumption Time integration is exact in the curl-preservation theorems.
    Theorems 3.4 and 3.5 explicitly require exact time integration. The fully discrete Runge-Kutta implementation therefore only approximately preserves curl-free constraints, despite the abstract's 'exactly at the discrete level' phrasing.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions in Theorem 3.2 are periodic or have zero normal fluxes of v, σ, and β.
    Global total-energy conservation is proved under these boundary conditions, stated at the top of Theorem 3.2.
  • domain assumption Initially curl-free data: A_c(0) = ∇ξ_p and J_c(0) = ∇Z_p.
    Theorems 3.4 and 3.5 require the initial distortion and thermal impulse to be discrete gradients. Standard initialization A = I and J = 0 satisfies this, but the preservation theorem only covers such data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A structure-preserving and thermodynamically compatible cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme for continuum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJOBN2F3

@misc{pith2026250603081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A structure-preserving and thermodynamically compatible cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme for continuum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJOBN2F3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03081}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we present a novel structure-preserving scheme for the discretization of the Godunov-Peshkov-Romenski (GPR) model of continuum mechanics written in Lagrangian form. This model admits an extra conservation law for the total energy (first principle of thermodynamics) and satisfies the entropy inequality (second principle of thermodynamics). Furthermore, in the absence of algebraic source terms, the distortion field of the continuum and the specific thermal impulse satisfy a curl-free condition, provided the initial data are curl-free. Last but not least, the determinant of the distortion field is related to the density of the medium, i.e. the system is also endowed with a nonlinear algebraic constraint. The objective of this work is to construct and analyze a new semi-discrete thermodynamically compatible cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume scheme on moving unstructured meshes that satisfies the following structural properties of the governing PDE exactly at the discrete level: i) compatibility with the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. discrete total energy conservation; ii) compatibility with the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. discrete entropy inequality; iii) exact discrete compatibility between the density and the determinant of the distortion field; iv) exact preservation of the curl-free property of the distortion field and of the specific thermal impulse in the absence of algebraic source terms. We show that it is possible to achieve all above properties simultaneously. Unlike in existing schemes, we choose to directly discretize the entropy inequality, hence obtaining total energy conservation as a consequence of an appropriate and thermodynamically compatible discretization of all the other equations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. Abgrall. A general framework to construct schemes satisfying additional conservation re- lations. Application to entropy conservative and entropy dissipative schemes. J. Comput. Phys., 372:640–666, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Abgrall, P

    R. Abgrall, P. Bacigaluppi, and S. Tokareva. A high-order nonconservative approach for hy- perbolic equations in fluid dynamics. Computers and Fluids , 169:10–22, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Abgrall, S

    R. Abgrall, S. Busto, and M. Dumbser. A simple and general framework for the construction of thermodynamically compatible schemes for computational fluid and solid mechanics. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 440:127629, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Abgrall, M

    R. Abgrall, M. Dumbser, and P.-H. Maire. A simple and general framework for the construc- tion of exactly div-curl-grad compatible discontinuous galerkin finite element schemes on unstructured simplex meshes. J. Comput. Phys. submitted

    work page

  5. [5]

    Barsukow, R

    W. Barsukow, R. Loub` ere, and P.-H. Maire. A node-conservative vorticity preserving finite volume method for linear acoustics on unstructured grids. Mathematics of Computation , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bauer, D.E.Burton, E.J

    A.L. Bauer, D.E.Burton, E.J. Caramana, R.Loub` ere, M.J. Shashkov, and P.P. Whalen. The internal consistency, stability, and accuracy of the discrete, compatible formulation of La- grangian hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. , 218:572–593, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    R. Becker. Stosswelle und Detonation. Physik, 8:321, 1923

    work page 1923

  8. [8]

    Boscheri, S

    W. Boscheri, S. Chiocchetti, and I. Peshkov. A cell-centered implicit-explicit lagrangian scheme for a unified model of nonlinear continuum mechanics on unstructured meshes. J. Comput. Phys., 451:110852, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Boscheri, M

    W. Boscheri, M. Dumbser, M. Ioriatti, I. Peshkov, and E. Romenski. A structure-preserving staggered semi-implicit finite volume scheme for continuum mechanics. J. Comput. Phys. , 424:109866, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Boscheri, M

    W. Boscheri, M. Dumbser, and P.-H. Maire. A new thermodynamically compatible finite volume scheme for Lagrangian gas dynamics. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 44:A1723–A1751, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Boscheri, R

    W. Boscheri, R. Loub` ere, J.P. Braeunig, and P.-H. Maire. A geometrically and thermodynami- cally compatible finite volume scheme for continuum mechanics on unstructured polygonal meshes. J. Comput. Phys. , 507:112957, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Boscheri, R

    W. Boscheri, R. Loub` ere, and P.-H. Maire. A 3D cell-centered ADER MOOD finite volume method for solving updated Lagrangian hyperelasticity on unstructured grids. J. Comput. Phys., 449:110779, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Braeunig

    J.P. Braeunig. Reducing the entropy production in a collocated Lagrange–Remap scheme. J. Comput. Phys. , 314:127–144, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Busto, M

    S. Busto, M. Dumbser, I. Peshkov, and E. Romenski. On thermodynamically compatible finite volume schemes for continuum mechanics. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 44:A1723–A1751, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Caramana and R.Loub` ere

    E.J. Caramana and R.Loub` ere. The force/work differencing of exceptional points in the discrete, compatible formulation of Lagrangian hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. , 216:1–18, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Carr´ e, S

    G. Carr´ e, S. Del Pino, B. Despr´ es, and E. Labourasse. A cell-centered Lagrangian hydrody- namics scheme on general unstructured meshes in arbitrary dimension. J. Comput. Phys. , 228:5160–5183, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Chatterjee and U.S

    N. Chatterjee and U.S. Fjordholm. Convergence of second-order, entropy stable methods for multi-dimensional conservation laws. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 54(4):1415– 1428, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Cheng and C.W

    T. Cheng and C.W. Shu. Entropy stable high order discontinuous Galerkin methods with suitable quadrature rules for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. , 345:427– 461, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Derigs, A

    D. Derigs, A. R. Winters, G. Gassner, S. Walch, and M. Bohm. Ideal GLM-MHD: About the entropy consistent nine-wave magnetic field divergence diminishing ideal magnetohydrody- namics equations. J. Comput. Phys. , 364:420–467, 2018. 20 W. BOSCHERI, M. DUMBSER, R. LOUB `ERE AND P...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Dumbser, I

    M. Dumbser, I. Peshkov, E. Romenski, and O. Zanotti. High order ADER schemes for a unified first order hyperbolic formulation of continuum mechanics: Viscous heat–conducting fluids and elastic solids. J. Comput. Phys. , 314:824–862, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    U. S. Fjordholm, S. Mishra, and E. Tadmor. Arbitrarily high-order accurate entropy stable essentially nonoscillatory schemes for systems of conservation laws.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 50(2):544–573, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Fjordholm and S

    U.S. Fjordholm and S. Mishra. Accurate numerical discretizations of non-conservative hyper- bolic systems. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 46(1):187–206, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Freist¨ uhler

    H. Freist¨ uhler. Relativistic barotropic fluids: a Godunov–Boillat formulation for their dynamics and a discussion of two special classes. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 232:473–488, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Friedrichs

    K.O. Friedrichs. Symmetric positive linear differential equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 11:333–418, 1958

    1958

  17. [25]

    Friedrichs and P.D

    K.O. Friedrichs and P.D. Lax. Systems of conservation equations with a convex extension. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA , 68:1686–1688, 1971

    1971

  18. [26]

    S. K. Godunov and E. I. Romenskii. Nonstationary equations of nonlinear elasticity theory in Eulerian coordinates. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. , 13(6):868–884, nov 1972

    1972

  19. [27]

    S.K. Godunov. An interesting class of quasilinear systems. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 139(3):521– 523, 1961

    1961

  20. [28]

    S.K. Godunov. Symmetric form of the equations of magnetohydrodynamics. Numerical Methods for Mechanics of Continuous Media , 3(1):26–31, 1972

    1972

  21. [29]

    Godunov and E.I

    S.K. Godunov and E.I. Romenski. Elements of continuum mechanics and conservation laws . Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Hiltebrand and S

    A. Hiltebrand and S. Mishra. Entropy stable shock capturing space-time discontinuous Galerkin schemes for systems of conservation laws. Numerische Mathematik , 126(1):103–151, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Hu and C.W

    C. Hu and C.W. Shu. Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes on triangular meshes. J. Comput. Phys. , 150:97–127, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    Kluth and B

    G. Kluth and B. Despr´ es. Discretization of hyperelasticity on unstructured mesh with a cell- centered Lagrangian scheme. J. Comput. Phys. , 229(24):9092 – 9118, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Liu, C.W

    Y. Liu, C.W. Shu, and M. Zhang. Entropy stable high order discontinuous Galerkin methods for ideal compressible MHD on structured meshes. J. Comput. Phys. , 354:163–178, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Loub` ere, P.-H

    R. Loub` ere, P.-H. Maire, and B. Rebourcet. Staggered and colocated finite volume schemes for Lagrangian hydrodynamics. Handbook of numerical analysis , 17:319–352, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Maire, I

    P.-H. Maire, I. Bertron, R. Chauvin, and B. Rebourcet. Thermodynamic consistency of cell- centered Lagrangian schemes. Computers and Fluids , 203:104527, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Menikoff and B

    R. Menikoff and B. J. Plohr. The Riemann problem for fluid flow of real materials. 61(1):75 – 130, 1989

    1989

  29. [37]

    Peshkov and E

    I. Peshkov and E. Romenski. A hyperbolic model for viscous Newtonian flows. Continuum Mech. Thermodyn., 28:85–104, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Ranocha, L

    H. Ranocha, L. Dalcin, and M. Parsani. Fully discrete explicit locally entropy-stable schemes for the compressible Euler and Navier–Stokes equations.Comput. Math. Appl., 80(5):1343– 1359, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    D. Ray, P. Chandrashekar, U. S. Fjordholm, and S. Mishra. Entropy stable scheme on two- dimensional unstructured grids for euler equations. Communications in Computational Physics, 19(5):1111–1140, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Romenski, D

    E. Romenski, D. Drikakis, and E.F. Toro. Conservative models and numerical methods for compressible two-phase flow. J. Sci. Comput. , 42:68–95, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Romenski

    E.I. Romenski. Hyperbolic systems of thermodynamically compatible conservation laws in continuum mechanics. Math. Comput. Modell. , 28(10):115–130, 1998

    1998

  34. [42]

    Ruggeri and A

    T. Ruggeri and A. Strumia. Main field and convex covariant density for quasilinear hyperbolic systems. Relativistic fluid dynamics. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Sect. A (N.S.) , 34:65–84, 1981

    1981

  35. [43]

    Sambasivan, M.J

    S.K. Sambasivan, M.J. Shashkov, and D.E. Burton. A finite volume cell-centered Lagrangian hydrodynamics approach for solids in general unstructured grids. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 72:770–810, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Sidilkover

    D. Sidilkover. Spurious vorticity in Eulerian and Lagrangian methods. J. Comput. Phys. , 520:113510, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    E. Tadmor. The numerical viscosity of entropy stable schemes for systems of conservation laws I. Math. Comput. , 49:91–103, 1987

    1987

  38. [46]

    E. Tadmor. Entropy stability theory for difference approximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time-dependent problems. Acta Numerica, 12:451–512, 2003

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.