Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Weak solutions to a full compressible magnetohydrodynamic flow interacting with thermoelastic structure

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 The paper proves that a two-dimensional full compressible, non-resistive magnetohydrodynamic flow coupled to a linear thermoelastic shell admits a weak solution on a time interval that lasts until the shell degenerates.

desk verdict First weak-existence theorem for MHD-structure interaction, built on known machinery, but with a load-bearing unproved lemma (A.4) that must be supplied before the proof is verifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23539 v2 pith:OMUWI5SW submitted 2025-05-29 math.AP

Kuntal Bhandari , Bingkang Huang , Šárka Nečasová This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 35D3074F1035M1374F0576W05
keywords fluid-structureinteractioncompressiblemagnetohydrodynamicsweaksolutionsthermoelasticshellmovingdomainsoperatorsplittingnon-resistiveMHDartificialpressure
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 aims to prove that a two-dimensional compressible, electrically and thermally conducting fluid confined by a linear thermoelastic shell has a weak solution, even though the fluid domain moves with the shell. The fluid satisfies the full compressible, non-resistive magnetohydrodynamic equations with the magnetic field acting only in the vertical direction; the shell satisfies linear thermoelasticity; the two are coupled by continuity of velocity and temperature on the interface and by the shell feeling the fluid's pressure and stress. The main result, Theorem 1.1, states that for adiabatic exponent $\gamma>5/3$ and natural initial data, a weak solution exists on a time interval $(0,T)$, and either $T$ can be taken arbitrarily large or the solution stops because the shell displacement reaches the degeneracy thresholds $\alpha_{\partial\Omega}$ or $\beta_{\partial\Omega}$. If correct, this supplies what the authors identify as the first existence theory for weak solutions of a magnetohydrodynamic fluid-structure interaction, filling a gap relative to the existing Navier-Stokes fluid-structure literature. The interest is that the moving boundary, heat exchange, and magnetic transport are handled together without requiring the usual domination condition between magnetic field and density.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a sequence of approximations: a cut-off flow map $f_{\varphi_w}(t,y)=y+f_\Lambda(\tilde d(y))w(t,\varphi^{-1}(\pi(y)))n(\pi(y))$ extends the moving domain to a fixed ball; a time-marching operator splitting solves the fluid and thermoelastic-shell subproblems alternately, with penalization terms that force interface velocity and temperature to match as the time step vanishes; and the artificial-pressure parameter $\delta$ is removed last. The analytic core inside these limits is the ratio pair $(\mathcal{R}_\varrho,\mathcal{R}_b)=(\varrho/(\varrho+b), b/(\varrho+b))$, with $0\le\mathcal{R}\le1$, together with Lemma A.4, an almost-compactness statement saying that on a sequence of moving domains the ratios converge in the weighted sense $\int_0^T\int_B (\varrho_i+b_i)|\mathcal{R}_i-\mathcal{R}|^p\to0$. This is what turns weak compactness of density and magnetic field into pointwise strong convergence, which is needed to identify the pressure and pass to the renormalized equations.

What would settle it

Construct a sequence $(w_i,\varrho_i,b_i,u_i)$ satisfying the hypotheses of Lemma A.4 for which $\int_0^T\int_B (\varrho_i+b_i)|\varrho_i/(\varrho_i+b_i)-\varrho/(\varrho+b)|^p$ does not tend to zero; such a counterexample would directly falsify the lemma and therefore the proof of Sections 4.5 and 6.4, even though it would not by itself disprove Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 1.1: under constitutive relations (1.15)-(1.18), initial data (1.13)-(1.14), and $\gamma>5/3$, the coupled system (1.2), (1.9) with interface conditions (1.11)-(1.12) admits a weak solution in the sense of Definition 2.1 on some interval $(0,T)$, and the solution can be continued as long as the shell displacement stays between $\alpha_{\partial\Omega}$ and $\beta_{\partial\Omega}$. The proof proceeds by extending the time-dependent fluid domain to a fixed ball, approximating the transport coefficients and pressure with parameters $\omega,\zeta,\lambda,\xi,\delta$ and an artificial pressure $\delta(\varrho+b)^\beta$, then solving by a time-marching operator-splitting scheme in which the structure and fluid subproblems are solved alternately and the kinematic interface conditions are enforced by penalization. Passing to the limit first in the time step, then in the vanishing parameters, and finally in $\delta$, the paper obtains the moving-domain weak solution with density and magnetic field strongly convergent and satisfying the renormalized continuity and magnetic equations.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on Lemma A.4, an almost-compactness property for the ratios $\varrho/(\varrho+b)$ and $b/(\varrho+b)$ on a sequence of moving domains; the lemma is stated without proof and justified only by saying that techniques from two cited papers apply, so if that property fails, the strong convergence of density and magnetic field, and with it the final limit system, does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A weak solution exists for the fully coupled MHD-shell system, so the moving-boundary, heat-conducting, magnetized case enters the compressible fluid-structure existence theory.
  • The solution persists either for all positive time or until the shell self-contacts, meaning the displacement reaches $\alpha_{\partial\Omega}$ or $\beta_{\partial\Omega}$; the obstruction is geometric degeneracy rather than a breakdown of the partial differential equations.
  • Because the magnetic field is transported as a scalar $b$ satisfying $\partial_t b+\mathrm{div}(bu)=0$, the proof does not require a domination condition between $b$ and $\varrho$, which the paper states broadens the admissible initial data relative to earlier MHD theory.
  • The displacement regularity $w\in W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Gamma))\cap L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Gamma))$ keeps the moving boundary Lipschitz when $\Gamma$ is a circle, so trace theorems and the generalized Korn-Poincar\'e inequality apply on each time slice.
  • The limiting density and magnetic field satisfy the renormalized continuity and magnetic equations, which is exactly what the compactness argument needs to close the pressure limit and obtain the moving-domain weak solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the induction equation reduces to $\partial_t b+\mathrm{div}(bu)=0$, the same domain-extension and splitting machinery should apply to any passive scalar coupled to the same flow; the paper's own argument only uses this transport structure.
  • Editorial inference: the threshold $\gamma>5/3$ enters through the bootstrap to $\varrho\in L^2$ needed for renormalization, so one could test whether adding magnetic resistivity or stronger thermal diffusion would lower the required adiabatic exponent; the paper does not address that question.
  • Editorial inference: the ratio compactness of $(\varrho/(\varrho+b), b/(\varrho+b))$ treats the density and magnetic field like a two-fluid mixture, so the scheme may be transferable to compressible two-fluid or plasma models with a similar structure.
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 paper proves an existence theorem for weak solutions to a two-dimensional full compressible, non-resistive magnetohydrodynamic flow coupled to a linear thermoelastic Koiter shell, with full exchange of velocity and temperature at the moving interface. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that for initial data satisfying (1.13)-(1.14), constitutive relations (1.15)-(1.18), and adiabatic exponent gamma > 5/3, there exists T > 0 and a weak solution in the sense of Definition 2.1; either the solution can be extended indefinitely or the fluid domain degenerates as the shell displacement reaches the boundary values alpha_dOmega or beta_dOmega. The proof proceeds by extending the moving domain to a fixed ball B, introducing artificial pressure and regularization parameters, solving via operator splitting with penalized interface conditions, and then passing to the limits Delta t -> 0, omega,zeta,lambda,xi -> 0, and delta -> 0. The argument follows the standard Feireisl-type compactness strategy adapted to moving domains, with the main novelty being the treatment of the magnetic field as a transported scalar and the coupling to the thermoelastic shell.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this would be the first weak-solution existence result for a compressible MHD-structure interaction problem, and it would substantially extend the existing literature on compressible fluid-structure interaction by including magnetic effects and heat exchange. The paper contains no fitted parameters, all constants are explicit, and the strategy is coherent and follows a recognized limit-passing framework. The restriction to a one-dimensional shell (Gamma = R/Z) is used in a substantive way to retain enough regularity for the moving geometry, and the reduction of the magnetic field to a transported scalar is handled without artificial domination conditions between density and magnetic field. The main caveat is that several load-bearing compactness lemmas are stated without proof, so the current manuscript is not fully verifiable as printed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Lemma A.4] Lemma A.4 is stated without proof; the text only says 'Inspired by [51, Lemma 2.1] and [26, Lemma 2.9], we employ similar procedures to establish the almost compactness property.' This lemma is the key tool used in Lemma 4.2 (terms I2 and I3), in Lemma 6.2 through the uniform convergence step (6.20), and in Section 6.4 to obtain the pointwise convergence of rho_delta and b_delta. Without it, the effective-pressure identities (4.20) and (6.27) do not close and the strong convergence of density and magnetic field fails. Neither cited lemma is stated, and the manuscript does not verify that its hypotheses are satisfied by the sequences produced by the splitting scheme and the delta-approximation, including the moving-boundary terms and the extended coefficients. Since this almost-compactness is load-bearing for the central claim, Theorem 1.1 is not fully supported as written.
  2. [Sections 4.5 and 6.4, Lemmas 4.3 and 6.3] The effective-pressure identities (4.20) and (6.27) are stated as lemmas but their proofs are omitted, with the explanation that they are similar to [17, Section 3.6.5] or to previous discussion. These identities are used to derive (4.21)-(4.23) and, together with Lemma 6.2, to obtain the entropy production inequality (6.35), which is essential for the strong convergence of rho_delta and b_delta. Because the underlying domains are moving and the viscosity coefficients depend on the displacement w, a direct citation to a fixed-domain result is not sufficient; a proof or a precise reduction to the cited result must be supplied.
  3. [Sections 4.3 and 6.3] The Div-Curl argument leading to the strong convergence of temperature is presented too tersely and contains notational ambiguities. In particular, the weak-limit notation in (4.9)-(4.10) and (6.13)-(6.14) is not defined precisely, and the step from 'overline{ϑ^3 G(ϑ)} = overline{ϑ}^3 overline{G(ϑ)}' to 'ϑ^4 = ϑ^3 ϑ' is not explained. The argument is first performed on domains O disjoint from the moving interface, and the passage from such local statements to the global identity needed in (4.22) and (6.15) is not detailed. Since strong convergence of temperature is used in the effective-pressure identities and in the final limit, this part of the proof must be rewritten with explicit notation and a complete compactness argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (4.10)] The inequalities 'ϱsM(ϱ,ϑ)G(ϱ) ≥ overline{ϱ} \overline{sM(ϱ,ϑ)G(ϱ)}' and 'ϑ3G(ϑ) ≥ overline{ϑ^3 G(ϑ)}' should use a consistent and explicitly defined overline notation for weak limits of composed functions.
  2. [Section 6.2, proof of Lemma 6.1] In the renormalized continuity equation used for the terms J2 and I2, the formula 'a(ϱδ)t + div(a(ϱδ)uδ) + (a′(ϱδ)ϱδ − a(ϱ)) divuδ = 0' contains a typo: the last occurrence should be a(ϱδ), not a(ϱ); the analogous formula for bδ should be corrected similarly.
  3. [Appendix A, Lemma A.4] The statement of Lemma A.4 concludes 'lim_{i→∞} ∫_0^T ∫_B (ϱi + bi)|ai − a|^p = 0, for all p ∈ [1,∞) and t ∈ [0,T]'; the reference to t ∈ [0,T] is unclear because the integral is over (0,T)×B, and the limiting statement should be formulated with respect to the moving domains in a precise way.
  4. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.31)] The test-function condition in the split fluid sub-problem is written as 'ϕ|Γwn+1 = ψ', while later formulations such as (3.38) use 'ϕ|Γw(t) = ψn'; the normal and orientation conventions should be stated consistently, and the penalization term should use the same normal convention throughout.
  5. [Section 6.5] The maximal interval of existence is dispatched in one sentence with a reference to [12,34]; since Theorem 1.1 explicitly states the alternative 'T → +∞ or degeneracy', the argument should explain how the lower bound (3.49) and the continuation procedure rule out other obstructions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a standard approximation/limit chain; the unproved Appendix A lemma is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an existence theorem obtained by a multi-level approximation argument: domain extension, operator splitting, penalization, and passages to the limit Δt→0, (ω,ζ,λ,ξ)→0, and δ→0. No parameter is fitted to data, no target quantity is inserted as an input, and no equation defining the solution is used to construct the approximation sequence. The cited prior results ([26], [28], [35], [36], [51]) are independent tools for different or simpler systems—two-fluid models, moving-domain Navier-Stokes-Fourier flows, or fixed-domain non-resistive MHD—not for the present MHD-thermoelastic-shell theorem. Some of these references share an author with the present paper (Nečasová), but that is ordinary self-citation and not load-bearing in a circular sense. The one genuinely concerning passage is Appendix A: Lemma A.4, the almost-compactness property for the ratios ϱ/(ϱ+b) and b/(ϱ+b), is stated without proof and justified only by 'Inspired by [51, Lemma 2.1] and [26, Lemma 2.9], we employ similar procedures.' This lemma is used in the strong-convergence steps of Lemmas 4.2 and 6.2, so if it fails, Theorem 1.1 is not fully supported. However, a missing or deferred proof is a correctness/completeness risk, not circularity: Lemma A.4 is not derived from the theorem it is used to prove, and the cited lemmas are not the target result. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem uses no fitted parameters. The listed approximation parameters are artifacts of the proof and vanish in the limit. The key unproved lemmas are A.4, 4.3, and 6.3. The physical model constants (gamma, a, alpha_1, alpha_2, mu, eta, kappa) are inputs, not free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • artificial pressure exponent beta and coefficient delta = beta >= max{4, gamma}; delta -> 0
    Introduced ad hoc in (3.7) to raise integrability of the pressure; removed by the delta -> 0 limit in Section 6.
  • extension coefficients omega, zeta, lambda, xi = xi = omega^(1/2) = zeta^(1/2) = lambda^(1/6); all -> 0
    Parameters in (3.1)-(3.6) controlling viscosity, heat conductivity, radiation, and dissipation outside the fluid domain; scaling (5.4) makes the outside-domain integrals vanish.
  • time step Delta t = Delta t -> 0
    Operator-splitting step (3.21); the interface coupling is recovered in the limit Delta t -> 0.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Existence of weak solutions to the fluid subproblem in a fixed domain is taken from [35] and [28,29].
    Section 3.5 says the fluid subproblem proof 'does not significantly deviate' from [35], and the moving-domain tools are imported from [28,29].
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma A.4: sequences of density/magnetic-field ratios in moving domains converge almost compactly under the stated energy bounds.
    Stated in Appendix A without proof; used in Sections 4.5 and 6.4 to obtain strong convergence of rho and b. The proof is deferred to techniques in [51] and [26].
  • ad hoc to paper Effective-pressure compactness identities in Lemmas 4.3 and 6.3 hold as stated.
    Proofs are omitted and referred to as 'similar' to [17, Section 3.6.5]; these identities are used to derive the entropy-production inequality for div u.
  • standard math DiPerna-Lions renormalization theory and Div-Curl/Young-measures machinery apply on the moving domains considered here.
    Used to pass limits in the continuity, magnetic, and entropy equations; citations to [13], [17], [48].
  • standard math Generalized Korn-Poincare inequality (Lemma A.1) holds uniformly on the time-dependent Lipschitz domains.
    Taken from [17, Theorem 11.20]; used to control velocity in W^{1,2} from the entropy dissipation.
  • domain assumption Initial data and transport coefficients can be extended to a fixed ball so that rho and b vanish outside the physical domain for all time (Lemma A.3).
    Section 3.1 and Lemma A.3; the proof follows Lemma 4.4 in [26] and is omitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak solutions to a full compressible magnetohydrodynamic flow interacting with thermoelastic structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMUWI5SW

@misc{pith2026250523539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak solutions to a full compressible magnetohydrodynamic flow interacting with thermoelastic structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMUWI5SW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23539}
}
read the original abstract

This paper is concerned with an interaction problem between a full compressible, electrically conducting fluid and a thermoelastic shell in a two-dimensional setting. The shell is modelled by linear thermoelasticity equations, and encompasses a time-dependent domain which is filled with a fluid described by full compressible (non-resistive) magnetohydrodynamic equations. The magnetohydrodynamic flow and the shell are fully coupled, resulting in a fluid-structure interaction problem that involves heat exchange. We establish the existence of weak solutions through domain extension, operator splitting, decoupling, penalization of the interface condition, and appropriate limit passages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23539 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 2D fluid domain Ωw(t) determined by the shell Γw(t) at time t. 2.2. Weak formulations. We present the definition of weak solutions to the fluid-structure system (1.2), (1.9) with the kinematic and dynamic conditions (1.11)-(1.12), initial data (1.14), and constitutive relations (1.15), (1.16), (1.17) and (1.18). Compared to the classical definition of the weak solutions to the full compressible MHD, the equation… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Feireisl and A

    E. Feireisl and A. Novotn ´y, Singular limits in thermodynamics of viscous fluids , vol. 2, Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    Bahouri, J.-Y

    H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, and R. Danchin, Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations , vol. 343 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], Springer, Heidelberg, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Bene ˇsov´a, M

    B. Bene ˇsov´a, M. Kampschulte, and S. Schwarzacher , A variational approach to hyperbolic evolutions and fluid-structure interactions, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 26 (2024), pp. 4615–4697

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Bhandari, B

    K. Bhandari, B. Huang, and ˇS. Ne ˇcasov´a, Weak solutions to the heat conducting compressible self-gravitating flows in time-dependent domains , Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 34 (2024), pp. 659–704

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Bodn ´ar, G

    T. Bodn ´ar, G. P. Galdi, and ˇS. Neˇcasov´a, Fluid-structure interaction and biomedical applications , Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Basel, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    M. E. Bogovski ˘ı, Solutions of some problems of vector analysis, associated with the operators div and grad, in Theory of cubature formulas and the application of functional analysis to problems of mathematical physics, vol. No. 1, 1980 of Proc. Sobolev Sem., Akad. Nauk SSSR Sibirsk. Otdel., Inst. Mat., Novosibirsk, 1980, pp. 5–40, 149

    work page 1980

  7. [6]

    Boulakia and S

    M. Boulakia and S. Guerrero , On the interaction problem between a compressible fluid and a Saint-Venant Kirchhoff elastic structure , Adv. Differential Equations, 22 (2017), pp. 1–48

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Breit and S

    D. Breit and S. Schwarzacher , Compressible fluids interacting with a linear-elastic shell , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 228 (2018), pp. 495–562

    work page 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    , Navier-Stokes-Fourier fluids interacting with elastic shells , Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), 24 (2023), pp. 619–690. MHD-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEM 45

    2023

  2. [9]

    Buka ˇc, S

    M. Buka ˇc, S. ˇCani´c, R. Glowinski, J. Tamba ˇca, and A. Quaini , Fluid-structure interaction in blood flow cap- turing non-zero longitudinal structure displacement , J. Comput. Phys., 235 (2013), pp. 515–541

    2013

  3. [10]

    Cabannes, Theoretical Magnetofluiddynamics, vol

    H. Cabannes, Theoretical Magnetofluiddynamics, vol. 13, Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    ˇCani´c, M

    S. ˇCani´c, M. Gali ´c, and B. Muha , Analysis of a 3d nonlinear, moving boundary problem describing fluid-mesh- shell interaction , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 373 (2020), pp. 6621–6681

    2020

  5. [12]

    Chambolle, B

    A. Chambolle, B. Desjardins, M. J. Esteban, and C. Grandmont , Existence of weak solutions for the unsteady interaction of a viscous fluid with an elastic plate , J. Math. Fluid Mech., 7 (2005), pp. 368–404

    2005

  6. [13]

    R. J. DiPerna and P.-L. Lions, Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and Sobolev spaces, Invent. Math., 98 (1989), pp. 511–547

    1989

  7. [14]

    Ducomet and E

    B. Ducomet and E. Feireisl , The equations of magnetohydrodynamics: on the interaction between matter and radiation in the evolution of gaseous stars , Comm. Math. Phys., 266 (2006), pp. 595–629

    2006

  8. [15]

    Feireisl, P

    E. Feireisl, P. Gwiazda, Y.-S. Kwon, and A. ´Swierczewska-Gwiazda, Mathematical theory of compressible magnetohydrodynamics driven by non-conservative boundary conditions , J. Math. Fluid Mech., 25 (2023), p. 27

    2023

  9. [16]

    Feireisl, O

    E. Feireisl, O. Kreml, ˇS. Neˇcasov´a, J. Neustupa, and J. Stebel, Weak solutions to the barotropic Navier-Stokes system with slip boundary conditions in time dependent domains , J. Differential Equations, 254 (2013), pp. 125–140

    2013

  10. [18]

    Feireisl, A

    E. Feireisl, A. Novotn ´y, and H. Petzeltov ´a, On the existence of globally defined weak solutions to the Navier- Stokes equations, J. Math. Fluid Mech., 3 (2001), pp. 358–392

    2001

  11. [19]

    Feireisl and H

    E. Feireisl and H. Petzeltov ´a, On integrability up to the boundary of the weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations of compressible flow , Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 25 (2000), pp. 755–767

    2000

  12. [20]

    G. P. Galdi , An introduction to the mathematical theory of the Navier-Stokes equations , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, second ed., 2011. Steady-state problems

    2011

  13. [21]

    Grandmont , Existence of weak solutions for the unsteady interaction of a viscous fluid with an elastic plate , SIAM J

    C. Grandmont , Existence of weak solutions for the unsteady interaction of a viscous fluid with an elastic plate , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 40 (2008), pp. 716–737

    2008

  14. [22]

    Grandmont and M

    C. Grandmont and M. Hillairet , Existence of global strong solutions to a beam-fluid interaction system , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 220 (2016), pp. 1283–1333

    2016

  15. [23]

    Grandmont, M

    C. Grandmont, M. Hillairet, and J. Lequeurre , Existence of local strong solutions to fluid-beam and fluid-rod interaction systems, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 36 (2019), pp. 1105–1149

    2019

  16. [24]

    Guidoboni, R

    G. Guidoboni, R. Glowinski, N. Cavallini, and S. ˇCani´c, Stable loosely-coupled-type algorithm for fluid-structure interaction in blood flow , J. Comput. Phys., 228 (2009), pp. 6916–6937

    2009

  17. [25]

    Ignatova, I

    M. Ignatova, I. Kukavica, I. Lasiecka, and A. Tuffaha , On well-posedness and small data global existence for an interface damped free boundary fluid-structure model , Nonlinearity, 27 (2014), pp. 467–499

    2014

  18. [26]

    Kalousek, S

    M. Kalousek, S. Mitra, and ˇS. Ne ˇcasov´a, The existence of a weak solution for a compressible multicomponent fluid-structure interaction problem, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 184 (2024), pp. 118–189

    2024

  19. [27]

    Kreml, V

    O. Kreml, V. M ´acha, ˇS. Ne ˇcasov´a, T. Piasecki, and A. Wr ´oblewska-Kami´nska, Mathematical Theory of Compressible Fluids on Moving Domains , Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Springer, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Kreml, V

    O. Kreml, V. M ´acha, ˇS. Ne ˇcasov´a, and A. Wr ´oblewska-Kami´nska, Flow of heat conducting fluid in a time- dependent domain, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 69 (2018), pp. 1–27

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kreml, V

    O. Kreml, V. M ´acha, ˇS. Neˇcasov´a, and A. Wr ´oblewska-Kami´nska, Weak solutions to the full Navier-Stokes- Fourier system with slip boundary conditions in time dependent domains , J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 109 (2018), pp. 67–92

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kreml, ˇS

    O. Kreml, ˇS. Ne ˇcasov´a, and T. Piasecki , Compressible Navier-Stokes system on a moving domain in the Lp − Lq framework, in Waves in flows—the 2018 Prague-Sum Workshop lectures, Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, [2021]©2021, pp. 127–158

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kukavica and A

    I. Kukavica and A. Tuffaha, Well-posedness for the compressible Navier-Stokes-Lam´ e system with a free interface, Nonlinearity, 25 (2012), pp. 3111–3137

    2012

  24. [32]

    J. E. Lagnese , Boundary stabilization of thin plates , SIAM, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    J. M. Lee , Introduction to smooth manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Springer, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Lengeler and M

    D. Lengeler and M. Ru ˇziˇcka, Weak solutions for an incompressible Newtonian fluid interacting with a koiter type shell , Arch. Ration. Mech. and Anal., 211 (2014), pp. 205–255

    2014

  27. [35]

    Li and Y

    Y. Li and Y. Sun, On global-in-time weak solutions to a two-dimensional full compressible nonresistive mhd system , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 53 (2021), pp. 4142–4177

    2021

  28. [36]

    M´acha, B

    V. M´acha, B. Muha, ˇS. Neˇcasov´a, A. Roy, and S. Trifunovi´c, Existence of a weak solution to a nonlinear fluid- structure interaction problem with heat exchange , Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 47 (2022), pp. 1591–1635

    2022

  29. [37]

    Maity, J.-P

    D. Maity, J.-P. Raymond, and A. Roy , Maximal-in-time existence and uniqueness of strong solution of a 3D fluid-structure interaction model, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 52 (2020), pp. 6338–6378

    2020

  30. [38]

    Maity, A

    D. Maity, A. Roy, and T. Takahashi , Existence of strong solutions for a system of interaction between a com- pressible viscous fluid and a wave equation , Nonlinearity, 34 (2021), pp. 2659–2687

    2021

  31. [39]

    Maity and T

    D. Maity and T. Takahashi , Existence and uniqueness of strong solutions for the system of interaction between a compressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier fluid and a damped plate equation , Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 59 (2021), pp. Paper No. 103267, 34

    2021

  32. [40]

    Mitra, Local existence of strong solutions of a fluid-structure interaction model, J

    S. Mitra, Local existence of strong solutions of a fluid-structure interaction model, J. Math. Fluid Mech., 22 (2020), p. 38

    2020

  33. [41]

    Muha and S

    B. Muha and S. ˇCani´c, Existence of a weak solution to a nonlinear fluid–structure interaction problem modeling the flow of an incompressible, viscous fluid in a cylinder with deformable walls , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 207 (2013), pp. 919–968

    2013

  34. [42]

    Muha and S

    B. Muha and S. ˇCani´c, Existence of a solution to a fluid-multi-layered-structure interaction problem, J. Differential Equations, 256 (2014), pp. 658–706. 46 BHANDARI, HUANG, AND NE ˇCASOV ´A

    2014

  35. [43]

    Muha and S

    B. Muha and S. ˇCani´c, Existence of a weak solution to a fluid–elastic structure interaction problem with the navier slip boundary condition , J. Differential Equations, 260 (2016), pp. 8550–8589

    2016

  36. [44]

    , Fluid-structure interaction between an incompressible, viscous 3d fluid and an elastic shell with nonlinear koiter membrane energy , Interfaces Free Bound., 17 (2016), pp. 465–495

    2016

  37. [45]

    Muha and S

    B. Muha and S. Schwarzacher, Existence and regularity of weak solutions for a fluid interacting with a non-linear shell in three dimensions , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 39 (2022), pp. 1369–1412

    2022

  38. [46]

    Poul, On dynamics of fluids in astrophysics , J

    L. Poul, On dynamics of fluids in astrophysics , J. Evolution Equations, 9 (2009), pp. 37–66

    2009

  39. [47]

    Raymond and M

    J.-P. Raymond and M. V anninathan, A fluid-structure model coupling the Navier-Stokes equations and the Lam´ e system, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 102 (2014), pp. 546–596

    2014

  40. [48]

    Tartar, Compensated compactness and applications to partial differential equations , in Nonlinear analysis and mechanics: Heriot-Watt symposium, vol

    L. Tartar, Compensated compactness and applications to partial differential equations , in Nonlinear analysis and mechanics: Heriot-Watt symposium, vol. 4, 1979, pp. 136–212

    1979

  41. [49]

    Trifunovi´c and Y.-G

    S. Trifunovi´c and Y.-G. W ang, On the interaction problem between a compressible viscous fluid and a nonlinear thermoelastic plate, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 55 (2023), pp. 3509–3566

    2023

  42. [50]

    V asseur, H

    A. V asseur, H. Wen, and C. Yu, Global weak solution to the viscous two-fluid model with finite energy , J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 125 (2019), pp. 247–282

    2019

  43. [51]

    Wen, On global solutions to a viscous compressible two-fluid model with unconstrained transition to single-phase flow in three dimensions , Calc

    H. Wen, On global solutions to a viscous compressible two-fluid model with unconstrained transition to single-phase flow in three dimensions , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 60 (2021), pp. 1–38. (Kuntal Bhandari) Institute of Mathematics, Czech Academy of Sciences,...

    2021

Pith tools

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