Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Fully-Mixed Virtual Element Method for the Biot Problem

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lowest-order four-field virtual element method for Biot poroelasticity is stable and first-order convergent with constants independent of the mesh size, the storage coefficient, and the Lamé parameter λ.

desk verdict A competent four-field VEM paper for Biot whose main robustness theorem overreaches; the construction is genuinely new and the numerics back the convergence, but the claimed s0/λ-independence is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17729 v1 pith:OHUVOQ3D submitted 2025-04-24 math.NA cs.NA

Michele Botti , Daniele Prada , Anna Scotti , Michele Visinoni This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M1265M6074F1076S05
keywords VirtualElementMethodBiotporoelasticitymixedformulationpolyhedralmeshesstresssymmetrynearlyincompressiblerobusterroranalysisporomechanics
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 proposes and analyzes a lowest-order four-field virtual element discretization of Biot's poroelasticity equations, enforcing stress symmetry directly inside the discrete space rather than through a Lagrange multiplier. It claims the scheme is stable and first-order convergent on general polyhedral meshes, with error constants independent of mesh size, the storage coefficient $s_0$, and $\lambda$. If correct, the method yields simultaneous $O(h)$ accuracy for stress, displacement, velocity, and pressure, including nearly incompressible and zero-storage limits. Three-dimensional tests on hexahedral, tetrahedral, and Voronoi meshes support the predicted rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the three-dimensional symmetric Hellinger–Reissner virtual element stress space, where the normal traction on each face lies in the six-dimensional space $T_h(f)$ and the divergence is a rigid body motion. This space is coupled to a piecewise-rigid displacement space, a lowest-order virtual Raviart–Thomas velocity space, and a piecewise-constant pressure space. Local bilinear forms are made computable through $L^2$ projections onto constants plus face-based stabilization, and the discrete stress projection, the coupling terms, and the mixed terms are all recovered from the degrees of freedom; the stability analysis then runs on a time-integrated energy identity with weighted norms that expose the dependence on $s_0$ and $\lambda$.

What would settle it

Run the manufactured-solution test with a fixed positive storage coefficient, say $s_0 = 10^{-3}$, and a very large Lamé parameter, say $\lambda = 10^8$, refining both $h$ and $\Delta t$; if the error constants grow or the convergence rate falls below first order, the claimed robustness with respect to $s_0$ and $\lambda$ is not borne out. Separately, one can check the hypothesis directly: with $s_0>0$ fixed and $\lambda \to \infty$, $\kappa^{-1} \to 0$, so the inequality $s_0 \le C_3 \kappa^{-1}$ cannot hold for any finite $C_3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated in Theorem 3.4: for the semi-discrete problem, the errors in displacement, stress, velocity, and pressure satisfy a bound of the form $O(h)$ with a constant independent of $h$, $\lambda$, and $s_0$. The lowest-order fully discrete method, obtained with backward Euler in time, is then confirmed numerically to converge at first order in space. The distinctive feature is a four-field formulation in which the stress tensor lives in a symmetric $H(\mathrm{div})$-conforming virtual element space, so symmetry is strongly imposed and no Lagrange multiplier is needed; the divergence of the discrete stress lies in the space of rigid body motions, which makes the mixed terms computable from the degrees of freedom.

Load-bearing premise

The stability proof assumes, in Step 3 of Theorem 3.1, that $s_0 \le C_3 \kappa^{-1}$ holds 'without loss of generality'; this is not a consequence of the model definitions and fails for fixed positive $s_0$ as $\kappa \to \infty$, so the claimed independence of the stability constant from $s_0$ and $\lambda$ rests on that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On general polyhedral meshes, the method gives first-order accuracy for stress, displacement, velocity, and pressure without an extra Lagrange multiplier for stress symmetry.
  • The error and stability constants do not degrade when the storage coefficient tends to zero or the material approaches incompressibility, so the scheme is intended to cover the limiting cases that standard formulations struggle with.
  • Local mass and momentum conservation follow from the mixed form of both the flow and the mechanical subproblems, which is useful in subsurface and fracture-scale applications.
  • The fully discrete system retains a symmetric saddle-point structure with a symmetric coupling block, which is directly relevant for designing block preconditioners for practical poroelasticity simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof of robustness in Theorem 3.1, Step 3, assumes $s_0 \le C_3 \kappa^{-1}$ 'without loss of generality'; for fixed positive $s_0$ and $\lambda \to \infty$, this assumption fails, so the claimed independence from $s_0$ and $\lambda$ would be fully established only under a small-storage or large-$\kappa$ regime, and a numerical test with fixed $s_0>0$ and very large $\lambda$ would probe this
  • Because the stress space is symmetric and divergence-conforming, the same degree-of-freedom layout could be extended to hybrid-dimensional models where fractures are lower-dimensional flow domains, a direction the paper names as future work; the strongly symmetric stress space would then also serve contact and frictional interface conditions.
  • The structure of the coupling block suggests that the same four-field VEM could be paired with multigrid or preconditioned saddle-point solvers inherited from the two mixed subproblems, although no preconditioner is analyzed here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lowest-order four-field virtual element method for the quasi-static Biot poroelasticity problem. The unknowns are symmetric stress, displacement, Darcy velocity, and pore pressure; stress symmetry is imposed in the discrete VEM space, avoiding an extra Lagrange multiplier, and the method is formulated on polyhedral meshes with piecewise-constant coefficients. After describing the discrete spaces, computable bilinear forms, and the semi-discrete formulation, the authors prove a stability estimate (Theorem 3.1) and an a priori error estimate (Theorem 3.4) with constants stated to be independent of mesh size, storage coefficient s0, and Lamé parameter λ. The scheme is then combined with backward Euler and tested in 3D on cube, tetrahedral, CVT, and random Voronoi meshes, including a nearly incompressible case with s0 = 0, together with a footing benchmark. The central claim is first-order convergence robust to limiting material parameters.

Significance. If the parameter-robustness claim is established, the paper is a useful contribution to mixed VEM methods for poroelasticity: it removes a Lagrange multiplier for stress symmetry, supports general polyhedral meshes, and directly addresses the nearly incompressible and zero-storage limits relevant in geomechanics. The paper's strengths are the explicit construction of the discrete spaces and degrees of freedom, the detailed step-by-step stability proof, the treatment of non-homogeneous boundary conditions, and numerical experiments on four mesh families plus a standard benchmark. The main limitation is a single unsupported 'without loss of generality' assumption in Theorem 3.1, Step 3, which controls the simultaneous behavior of s0 and λ; until that point is repaired, the headline independence claim is not proven.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 3.1, Step 3 (bound for ∇·w̄_h, Eq. (34))] The sentence 'Owing to the definitions of the storativity coefficient s0 and bulk modulus κ, we can assume without loss of generality that s0 ≤ C3 κ^{-1} ≤ C3 μ^{-1}' is not a consequence of the model. Since κ = (2μ + 3λ)/3, for any fixed s0 > 0 the inequality fails as λ → ∞. This inequality is doing essential work: it converts the pointwise term ∥s0 p_h(t)∥ into a multiple of the energy term ∥s0^{1/2} p_h(t)∥ in (29), leading to the bound (34). Without it, the proof does not establish the claimed independence of the constant in (25) from s0 and λ. The numerical tests do not cover the missing regime: Test 2 uses s0 = 0 and Test 1 uses λ = 1 with s0 = 0.002. Please either replace the 'without loss of generality' claim by a proof that covers all s0 and λ, or explicitly restrict the robustness statement, for example to s0 ≤ Cκ^{-1} or to sequential limits taken in a specified order.
  2. [Theorem 3.4 (proof, paragraph after Eq. (44))] The proof of the error estimate says it proceeds 'as in the second and third steps of the proof of the stability estimate in Theorem 3.1'; it therefore inherits the unsupported assumption s0 ≤ C3 κ^{-1} from Theorem 3.1, Step 3. Since Theorem 3.4 claims a constant C independent of h, λ, and s0, the convergence result is not fully proven for fixed positive s0 as λ → ∞. The same repair as for Theorem 3.1 is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7)] The symbol tf denotes both the final time and, in the definition of Th(f), a tangent vector on a face; please use a different symbol for the tangent vector.
  2. [Section 2, boundary conditions (4)] The boundary-condition notation is inconsistent: after defining ∂Ω = ∂wΩ ∪ ∂pΩ, the flux condition in (4) is written on ∂qΩ instead of ∂wΩ.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (16)] The trace of the fourth-order tensor A used in ξ1,E = 1/2 tr(A|E) is not defined; please state explicitly that it is the trace of A as a map on the space of symmetric tensors.
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] The estimated convergence rates are printed as several numbers per curve, which is hard to read; a table listing mesh level, h, and the computed rates for each error would improve readability.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eq. (45)] The fully discrete scheme is not accompanied by a time-discretization error estimate; the paper states only that first-order convergence is observed numerically. A sentence clarifying that the a priori analysis is for the semi-discrete problem would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability and convergence estimates are derived from the discrete equations and external interpolation/inf-sup results; the flagged Step 3 assumption is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are new a priori stability and O(h) error estimates for a four-field virtual element discretization of Biot's problem. The proof chain is: discrete spaces and degrees of freedom are taken from prior VEM work ([21], [14], [39]); local projection and stabilization forms are defined in the paper; Theorem 3.1 proves stability through an energy estimate combined with inf-sup conditions and auxiliary bounds; Theorem 3.4 applies the same stability argument to the error equations and combines it with interpolation estimates (Lemma 3.2) and consistency bounds (Lemma 3.3). None of these steps fits a parameter to the convergence data or defines one unknown in terms of the target result. The numerical validation uses manufactured solutions and a standard benchmark without tuning, and the observed first-order rates are not used to derive the theorem. Some cited results come from overlapping authors ([21], [12], [39]), but they are external results with their own proofs, do not assume the present theorem, and the paper's estimates do not reduce to those citations by construction. The only notable weakness is non-circular: in Theorem 3.1, Step 3, the statement 'Owing to the definitions of the storativity coefficient s0 and bulk modulus κ, we can assume without loss of generality that s0 ≤ C3 κ^{-1}' is not a consequence of the model and is false for fixed positive s0 as λ → ∞; this threatens the claimed robustness in λ and s0, but it is a mathematical gap rather than a circular derivation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper relies on standard mesh regularity, piecewise-constant material coefficients, exact solution regularity, and cited VEM stability and interpolation results. The one ad hoc condition is s0 <= C3 kappa^{-1} in the robustness proof.

free parameters (1)
  • stabilization constants xi_{1,E} and xi_{2,E} = xi_{1,E}=tr(A|_E)/2, xi_{2,E}=tr(K^{-1}|_E)/2 in tests
    Chosen by hand to scale with compliance and inverse permeability. The analysis only needs positivity and shape-regular bounds, so these do not fit the target convergence result, but they are a tuning choice in the method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mesh assumptions A1, A2, A3: elements star-shaped with respect to a ball, faces star-shaped with respect to a disk, and edges not too small.
    Required for the VEM interpolation estimates and stability bounds used throughout Section 3.
  • domain assumption Lamé parameters and permeability are piecewise constant over each mesh; mean-value approximation does not reduce the lowest-order convergence.
    Stated in Section 3.1 and used to justify computability and the lowest-order approximation.
  • domain assumption Exact solution regularity: sigma in H1 with div sigma in H1, u in H1, w in H1 with div w in H1, p in H1.
    Needed for Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.4 error estimates; not guaranteed by the underlying Biot model in general.
  • standard math Discrete inf-sup stability and interpolation estimates from [21], [14], and [12] hold.
    The paper cites these external results for the Hellinger-Reissner VEM spaces and the mixed VEM spaces instead of reproving them. Two of the cited works include current coauthors.
  • ad hoc to paper The condition s0 <= C3 kappa^{-1} with C3 independent of model parameters.
    Introduced in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 3.1 to control the divergence of the filtration displacement. It is not a consequence of the model definitions and fails for fixed positive s0 as lambda goes to infinity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully-Mixed Virtual Element Method for the Biot Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHUVOQ3D

@misc{pith2026250417729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully-Mixed Virtual Element Method for the Biot Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHUVOQ3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17729}
}
read the original abstract

Poroelasticity describes the interaction of deformation and fluid flow in saturated porous media. A fully-mixed formulation of Biot's poroelasticity problem has the advantage of producing a better approximation of the Darcy velocity and stress field, as well as satisfying local mass and momentum conservation. In this work, we focus on a novel four-fields Virtual Element discretization of Biot's equations. The stress symmetry is strongly imposed in the definition of the discrete space, thus avoiding the use of an additional Lagrange multiplier. A complete a priori analysis is performed, showing the robustness of the proposed numerical method with respect to limiting material properties. The first order convergence of the lowest-order fully-discrete numerical method, which is obtained by coupling the spatial approximation with the backward Euler time-advancing scheme, is confirmed by a complete 3D numerical validation. A well known poroelasticity benchmark is also considered to assess the robustness properties and computational performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From left to right, the degrees of freedom are denoted as: blue sphere for displacement, green square for stress, red sphere for pressure, and orange square for velocity. Stress space We introduce our local approximation space for the stress field: Σh(E) := n τ h ∈ Hs(div; E) : ∃ w∗ ∈ H1 (E) such that τ h = C∇sw∗ ; (τ h n)|f ∈ Th(f) ∀f ∈ ∂E; ∇· τ h ∈ RM(E) o . Accordingly, for the local space Σh(E), for each face f … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of adopted meshes for convergence assessment numerical tests. where NE is the number of the elements in the mesh Th and hE is the diameter of the polyhedron E. To assess the spatial accuracy of the method, we take a suitably small time interval ∆t and compute the following relative errors on a sequence of successively refined meshes: Eu := ∥u − uh∥Ω ∥u∥Ω , Eσ,Π := P E∈Th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Test 1: a compressible material. where E⋆, E˜ ⋆ denote one of the four errors defined in (46) generated on two consecutive meshes of size h and h˜, respectively. As we can notice, for the errors Ew,Π and Eσ,Π the convergence order is approximately 1; for the error Ep using Cube and Tetra meshes, the convergence rate is close to 1, while using CVT and Rand meshes the convergence order appears larger than 1; the same … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Test 2: a nearly-incompressible material with null storage coefficient. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scheme for poroelasticity footing: Γ1 is the upper boundary face and Γ2 (the green area) is the area where we apply the uniform load force (green arrows). Property Value Unit Young’s modulus 3 × 104 Pa Poisson’s ratio 0.2 Permeability tensor K 10−4 m2/(Pa s) Biot–Willi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pressure field (expressed in Pa) on the deformed domain at t = 0.2s. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fully mixed virtual element schemes for a new model of steady-state poroelastic stress-assisted diffusion in the brain

    math.NA 2025-10 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fully mixed virtual element scheme for poroelastic stress-assisted diffusion is proposed with claimed optimal error estimates, but the central well-posedness proof relies on a false inf-sup condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    Botti, L

    M. Botti, L. Mascotto, G. Vacca, and M. Visinoni. Stability and interpolation estimates of Hellinger–Reissner virtual element spaces. Submitted, 2 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    J. H. Adler, F. J. Gaspar, X. Hu, P. Ohm, C. Rodrigo, and L. T. Zikatanov. Ro- bust preconditioners for a new stabilized discretization of the poroelastic equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 42, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Ahmad, A

    B. Ahmad, A. Alsaedi, F. Brezzi, L. D. Marini, and A. Russo. Equivalent projectors for virtual element methods. Comput. Math. Appl. , 66(3):376–391, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Ahmed, F

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

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    D. N. Arnold, R. S. Falk, and R. Winther. Mixed finite element methods for linear elasticity with weakly imposed symmetry. Math. Comput., 76(260), 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    D. N. Arnold and R. Winther. Mixed finite elements for elasticity. Numer. Math., 92:401–419, 2002. 25

    work page 2002

  7. [6]

    Artioli, S

    E. Artioli, S. De Miranda, C. Lovadina, and L. Patruno. A stress/displacement virtual element method for plane elasticity problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 325:155–174, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Artioli, S

    E. Artioli, S. De Miranda, C. Lovadina, and L. Patruno. A family of virtual element methods for plane elasticity problems based on the Hellinger–Reissner principle. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 340:978–999, 2018

    2018

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Beir˜ ao da Veiga, C

    L. Beir˜ ao da Veiga, C. Lovadina, and A. Russo. Stability analysis for the virtual element method. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 27(13):2557–2594, 2017

    2017

  2. [9]

    Boffi, F

    D. Boffi, F. Brezzi, and M. Fortin. Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications, volume 44. Springer Berlin, Heidelberge, 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Borio, F

    A. Borio, F. P. Hamon, N. Castelletto, J. A. White, and R. R. Settgast. Hybrid mimetic finite-difference and virtual element formulation for coupled poromechanics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , 383:113917, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Botti, D

    M. Botti, D. A. Di Pietro, O. Le Maˆ ıtre, and P. Sochala. Numerical approximation of poroelasticity with random coefficients using polynomial chaos and hybrid high- order methods. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , 361:112736, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    S. C. Brenner and L. Y. Sung. Virtual element methods on meshes with small edges or faces. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 28(7):1291–1336, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Brezzi, R

    F. Brezzi, R. S. Falk, and L. D. Marini. Basic principles of mixed virtual element methods. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 48(4):1227–1240, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    B¨ urger, S

    R. B¨ urger, S. Kumar, D. Mora, R. Ruiz-Baier, and N. Verma. Virtual element methods for the three–field formulation of time–dependent linear poroelasticity. Adv. Comput. Math. , 47, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Cao and L

    S. Cao and L. Chen. Anisotropic error estimates of the linear virtual element method on polygonal meshes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 56(5):2913–2939, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    A. H. D. Cheng. Poroelasticity. Springer Cham, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    E. B. Chin, F. Dassi, G. Manzini, and N. Sukumar. Numerical integration in the virtual element method with the scaled boundary cubature scheme. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 125(20):e7549, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Coulet, I

    J. Coulet, I. Faille, V. Girault, N. Guy, and F. Nataf. A fully coupled scheme using virtual element method and finite volume for poroelasticity. Comput. Geosci., 24:381–403, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    F. Dassi. Vem++, a c++ library to handle and play with the Virtual Element Method. Numerical Algorithms, 2025. 26

    2025

  13. [21]

    Dassi, C

    F. Dassi, C. Lovadina, and M. Visinoni. A three-dimensional Hellinger-Reissner virtual element method for linear elasticity problems.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 364:112910, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    F. J. Gaspar, F. J. Lisbona, C. W. Oosterlee, and P. N. Vabishchevich. An efficient multigrid solver for a reformulated version of the poroelasticity system. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , 196(8):1447–1457, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Grytz, I

    R. Grytz, I. A. Sigal, J. W. Ruberti, G. Meschke, and J. C. Downs. Lamina cribrosa thickening in early glaucoma predicted by a microstructure motivated growth and remodeling approach. Mech. Mater., 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

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

    2017

  17. [25]

    Korsawe and G

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

    2005

  18. [26]

    Kreuzer and P

    C. Kreuzer and P. Zanotti. Inf-sup stable discretization of the quasi-static Biot’s equations in poroelasticity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02939, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. Oyarz´ ua, R. Ruiz-Baier, and R. Sandilya. Conservative discontinuous finite volume and mixed schemes for a new four-field formulation in poroelasticity. ESAIM: M2AN, 54(1):273–299, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

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

    2016

  21. [29]

    S. E. Mousavi and N. Sukumar. Numerical integration of polynomials and discon- tinuous functions on irregular convex polygons and polyhedrons. Comput. Mech., 47:535–554, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    M. A. Murad and A. F. D. Loula. On stability and convergence of finite element approximations of Biot’s consolidation problem. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. , 37(4):645–667, 1994

    1994

  23. [31]

    Oyarz´ ua and R

    R. Oyarz´ ua and R. Ruiz-Baier. Locking-free finite element methods for poroelas- ticity. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 54(5):2951–2973, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Rodrigo, X

    C. Rodrigo, X. Hu, P. Ohm, J. H. Adler, F.J. Gaspar, and L.T. Zikatanov. New sta- bilized discretizations for poroelasticity and the stokes’ equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , 341, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    C. H. Rycroft. VORO++: A three-dimensional Voronoi cell library in C++. Chaos, 19:041111, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    H. Si. TetGen, a Delaunay-Based Quality Tetrahedral Mesh Generator. ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 41(2):1–36, February 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Sommariva and M

    A. Sommariva and M. Vianello. Tetrafreeq: Tetrahedra-free quadrature on polyhe- dral elements. Appl. Numer. Math. , 200:389–398, 2024. 27

    2024

  28. [36]

    Sreekumar, S

    A. Sreekumar, S. P. Triantafyllou, F.-X. B´ ecot, and F. Chevillotte. Multiscale vem for the biot consolidation analysis of complex and highly heterogeneous domains. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. , 375:113543, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    X. Tang, Z. Liu, B. Zhang, and M. Feng. On the locking-free three-field virtual element methods for Biot’s consolidation model in poroelasticity. ESAIM: M2AN, 55:S909–S939, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Tchonkova, J

    M. Tchonkova, J. Peters, and S. Sture. A new mixed finite element method for poro-elasticity. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. , 32(6):579–606, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Visinoni

    M. Visinoni. A family of three-dimensional virtual elements for Hellinger-Reissner elasticity problems. Comput. Math. Appl. , 155:97–109, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    S.-Y. Yi. Convergence analysis of a new mixed finite element method for Biot’s consolidation model. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. , 30(4):1189–1210, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    L. Zhao, E. Chung, and E. J. Park. A locking-free staggered DG method for the Biot system of poroelasticity on general polygonal meshes. IMA J. Numer. Anal. , 43(5):2777–2816, 09 2022. 28

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.