Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 51 references

An improved fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method with target-value reconstruction for compressible flows

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Fixing a hidden boundary shift cuts immersed-boundary errors by 77-85%

desk verdict Clean analysis of a systematic boundary shift in one-sided diffuse-interface IBMs, with a simple, cheap correction that works well across 2D and 3D compressible flows. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07432 v1 pith:RJDOLIDX submitted 2026-07-08 physics.flu-dyn

Qian Mao , Song Zhao , Pierre Boivin , Julien Favier This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn PACS 47.11.-j47.40.-x47.11.Df
keywords immersedboundarymethoddiffuseinterfacecompressibleflowlatticeBoltzmannconditionenforcementtarget-valuereconstructionone-sidedspreadingshockstand-offdistance
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 identifies a systematic geometric error in one-sided immersed boundary methods for compressible flow simulation. When the forcing term that enforces boundary conditions is spread only to the interior side of a boundary (a strategy that avoids unphysical pressure leaks), the effective location where the boundary condition is actually imposed shifts inward from the true geometric boundary. The authors quantify this displacement analytically and show it causes the simulated body to be effectively smaller than intended, degrading shock positions and surface quantities. They propose a target-value reconstruction: rather than directly imposing the desired boundary values, they compute corrected target values at the displaced effective-boundary location using linear interpolation between the geometric boundary and a nearby interior projection point, so that the intended condition is recovered at the true boundary after spreading. The correction is confined to the target-value evaluation step and leaves the interpolation and spreading operators unchanged, adding at most 1.4% computational overhead. The method handles both Dirichlet conditions (no-slip velocity, isothermal temperature) and Neumann conditions (adiabatic walls). Tested on cylinders, star geometries, airfoils, and spheres in subsonic through supersonic regimes, the corrected method reduces no-slip boundary errors by 77% and isothermal errors by 85% relative to the uncorrected version, while retaining second-order grid convergence and matching body-fitted reference solutions.

What carries the argument

The target-value reconstruction uses three points along the boundary normal: the geometric boundary point B where conditions are prescribed, the projection point P at a fixed normal distance inside the fluid where predicted flow values are interpolated, and the virtual point V located at the analytically computed effective boundary position. For Dirichlet conditions, linear interpolation between B and P yields the corrected target at V. For Neumann (zero-gradient) conditions, the target at V equals the value at P. These reconstructed targets replace the raw prescribed values in the forcing-term computation.

What would settle it

If one constructed a test case with strongly nonlinear near-wall profiles along the normal direction (e.g., a thin boundary layer on a sharply curved surface) and the linear interpolation between points B and P produced target values that degraded rather than improved boundary-condition accuracy, the core mechanism would be undermined. The paper's star geometries provide some curvature stress-testing, but the linear reconstruction has not been challenged under extreme near-wall gradient conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the asymmetric kernel support of one-sided spreading operators in diffuse-interface immersed boundary methods causes a quantifiable inward displacement of the effective boundary. This displacement is not a tunable artifact but a geometric consequence of averaging over interior Eulerian points only. The authors derive the displaced position from the spreading operator itself and show that compensating for it via linear target-value reconstruction at a virtual point restores boundary-condition accuracy to levels comparable with body-fitted methods, at negligible cost.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes the flow field varies linearly along the normal direction between the geometric boundary point and the projection point. For geometries with high curvature or flows with steep gradients very close to the wall, this linear assumption could introduce errors, though the paper reports no significant issues in its star-geometry tests.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a target-value reconstruction strategy for the fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method (FODIBM), aimed at correcting an inward displacement of the effective boundary caused by the asymmetric kernel support of the one-sided spreading operator. The authors derive the effective boundary shift analytically (Eq. 25), propose a linear reconstruction at a virtual point (Eqs. 26–29) to compensate, and demonstrate through convergence studies and 2D/3D validation cases that the correction reduces Dirichlet and isothermal boundary-condition errors by 77% and 85% respectively, at negligible computational cost. The method is coupled to a hybrid lattice Boltzmann solver and validated against body-fitted and experimental data across subsonic to supersonic regimes.

Significance. The central contribution — identifying and quantitatively correcting the effective boundary shift inherent to one-sided spreading — is well-motivated and addresses a genuine gap in the FODIBM framework. The boundary-shift analysis (Eq. 25) is clean and directly confirmed by the velocity profile in Fig. 3. The convergence study (Fig. 4) demonstrates approximately second-order accuracy. The validation suite is broad: 2D cylinder, star geometries, NACA0012 airfoil (three regimes), 3D sphere, and rotating sphere, all with quantitative comparisons to external reference data. The computational cost analysis (Table 3) showing <1.5% overhead is a practical strength. The reconstruction is parameter-free in the sense that the virtual-point location is determined by Eq. (25) rather than empirically tuned, which is a notable advantage over retraction-based approaches.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.2, Table 2: The Neumann boundary-condition error for FODIBM-R is reported as 1.10×10⁻², an 8% increase relative to FODIBM (1.02×10⁻²). The abstract states that the method 'applies to both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions' and 'substantially improves boundary-condition enforcement.' However, for the Neumann case the error slightly worsens. The text in §3.2 explains this is because the reconstructed target temperature for the adiabatic case reduces to M_V^t = M_P* (Eq. 29), which is identical to the FODIBM treatment. This is internally consistent, but the abstract's claim of improvement for Neumann conditions is not supported by the data. The authors should clarify in the abstract that the improvement is specific to Dirichlet conditions, or restrict the scope of the Neumann claim.
  2. §2.4, Eqs. (26)–(27): The linear reconstruction at the virtual point V uses M_P* sampled at the projection point P, which sits at d_n = 1.5Δx inside the body within the IBM forcing layer (delta function support radius d = 2). The value M_P* is obtained by interpolating from Eulerian points that are themselves influenced by IBM forcing. The manuscript does not analyze the sensitivity of the reconstruction to the quality of M_P*, particularly during transient startup, near shock-boundary interactions, or at geometric singularities (e.g., star concavities) where the one-sided support may be poorly conditioned. The validation cases (Re = 200–5000, moderate Mach numbers) may not stress this regime. A brief discussion of this limitation — or a sensitivity check on a case with strong wall-normal gradients — would strengthen the paper and clarify the applicability envelope.
minor comments (6)
  1. §2.4, Fig. 1: The schematic shows points B, V, and P, but the distances d_BV and d_PB are not labeled on the figure. Adding these labels would make Eqs. (26)–(29) immediately interpretable.
  2. §3.1, Fig. 4: The L∞ convergence rate is described as 'less pronounced' than the L2 rate. A quantitative slope estimate for the L∞ data would help the reader assess whether the rate degrades below second order.
  3. §3.4, Table 4: The shock stand-off distance Δs for FODIBM-R (0.71) is compared to body-fitted values of 0.73 (Ménez) and 0.70 (Takahashi). The scatter in reference data is comparable to the FODIBM-R improvement. A note on the uncertainty in reference values would contextualize the comparison.
  4. §3.7, Fig. 14 caption: The description of background contours (black solid = hybrid LBM, white dashed = FODIBM-R) is clear, but the domain dimensions reference D without defining D for the airfoil case (chord c is used for Re). Clarify whether D = c here.
  5. The Hermite weighting parameter τ is set to 0.98 (Appendix A, Eq. A.7) without sensitivity discussion. A brief note on whether results are sensitive to this choice would be helpful.
  6. References [5] and [6] are authored by the present authors and are tangential to the IBM methodology. They could be removed or the citation list streamlined for focus.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. Both major points are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, Table 2: The Neumann boundary-condition error for FODIBM-R is reported as 1.10×10⁻², an 8% increase relative to FODIBM (1.02×10⁻²). The abstract states that the method 'applies to both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions' and 'substantially improves boundary-condition enforcement.' However, for the Neumann case the error slightly worsens. The authors should clarify in the abstract that the improvement is specific to Dirichlet conditions, or restrict the scope of the Neumann claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The data in Table 2 show that the Neumann (adiabatic) boundary-condition error slightly increases from 1.02×10⁻² to 1.10×10⁻² (8%) with the reconstruction, because for zero-gradient Neumann conditions Eq. (29) reduces to M_V^t = M_P*, which is identical to the FODIBM treatment. The abstract's claim that the method 'substantially improves boundary-condition enforcement' is accurate for Dirichlet conditions (77% and 85% reductions) but is not supported for Neumann conditions. We will revise the abstract to clarify that the substantial improvement is specific to Dirichlet conditions, and that the method applies to both Dirichlet and Neumann conditions without degrading Neumann accuracy. The phrase 'substantially improves boundary-condition enforcement' will be qualified accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §2.4, Eqs. (26)–(27): The linear reconstruction at the virtual point V uses M_P* sampled at the projection point P, which sits at d_n = 1.5Δx inside the body within the IBM forcing layer. The value M_P* is obtained by interpolating from Eulerian points that are themselves influenced by IBM forcing. The manuscript does not analyze the sensitivity of the reconstruction to the quality of M_P*, particularly during transient startup, near shock-boundary interactions, or at geometric singularities (e.g., star concavities) where the one-sided support may be poorly conditioned. A brief discussion of this limitation or a sensitivity check would strengthen the paper.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. The quality of M_P* depends on the local flow field at Eulerian points within the forcing layer, which are themselves influenced by the IBM forcing. In principle, this could degrade reconstruction accuracy in regimes with strong wall-normal gradients, during transient startup, or at geometric singularities. We note that the star geometry cases (§3.6) do exercise concavities, and the results show good agreement with body-fitted reference data, providing some indirect evidence of robustness. However, we agree that a systematic discussion of this limitation is missing. We will add a paragraph to §2.4 (or §3) discussing the sensitivity of the reconstruction to M_P* quality, noting that: (1) the linear reconstruction assumes locally linear variation of flow variables along the normal, which may be violated near shocks or at singularities; (2) the validation cases presented (Re = 200–5000, moderate Mach numbers) do not stress extreme wall-normal gradients; and (3) the method's applicability envelope in such regimes remains to be fully characterized. We will also note this as a direction for future investigation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target-value reconstruction is derived from an independent boundary-shift analysis and validated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution—the target-value reconstruction (Eqs. 26–29)—is derived from an independent geometric analysis of the one-sided spreading operator's effective boundary position (Eq. 25). The virtual point location X*_l is computed from the weighted average of interior Eulerian points, not fitted to the target result. The reconstruction formula (Eq. 27) is a standard linear interpolation along the normal direction, not a renaming of a known result or a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The FODIBM framework components (scaling factor φ_l in Eq. 16, Lagrangian weight W_l in Eq. 17) are cited from [33] (authors' prior work), but these are foundational method components, not the load-bearing claim of this paper. The 77% and 85% error reductions are measured against the FODIBM without reconstruction and compared to external body-fitted and experimental data (Tables 4–8), not to a fitted subset of the same data. The self-citation to [33] provides the baseline method but does not constitute a circular derivation chain: the novelty here (boundary shift analysis and reconstruction) is developed independently within this paper. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The method introduces two geometric constructs (virtual and projection points) whose positions are determined by the boundary shift analysis and a fixed normal distance. Three numerical parameters are carried over from prior work. The linear interpolation assumption is the main ad hoc element.

free parameters (3)
  • dn/Δx = 1.5
    Distance from Lagrangian point to projection point along interface normal, set to 1.5 to ensure accurate Neumann BC enforcement (Section 2.3, citing prior work [33]).
  • d (delta function radius for projection point) = 1
    Radius of delta function for interpolation at projection point, set to 1 to avoid including solid-region information (Section 2.3).
  • τ (Hermite weighting parameter) = 0.98
    Weighting free parameter in the hybrid recursive collision model (Appendix A, Eq. A.7, citing [51]).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with ideal gas law accurately model the flows considered.
    Standard governing equations (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The hybrid LBM with total energy equation [34,35] correctly solves the compressible Navier-Stokes equations.
    The entire solver framework is taken as given (Section 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation along the normal direction is adequate for reconstructing target values between the boundary and projection points.
    Used in Eq. 26-27 for Dirichlet reconstruction. No higher-order alternative is tested.
  • domain assumption The improved Lagrangian weight Wl from [33] restores interpolation/spreading reciprocity.
    The correction builds on this prior result (Section 2.3, Eq. 17).
invented entities (2)
  • Virtual point V independent evidence
    purpose: Located at the effective boundary position X*_l to reconstruct target values that compensate for the inward shift.
    The virtual point position is determined quantitatively from Eq. 25, not prescribed empirically. Its effect is validated through boundary error reduction and flow predictions.
  • Projection point P independent evidence
    purpose: Used to evaluate predicted flow variables for Neumann BC enforcement and target-value reconstruction.
    Positioned at distance dn along the interface normal; validated through Neumann BC error analysis (Table 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An improved fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method with target-value reconstruction for compressible flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJDOLIDX

@misc{pith2026260707432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An improved fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method with target-value reconstruction for compressible flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJDOLIDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07432}
}
read the original abstract

Although one-sided spreading has been shown to improve the near-wall accuracy of diffuse-interface immersed boundary methods (DIBMs), the effect of its asymmetric kernel support on the effective boundary location remains insufficiently understood. In this work, a detailed analysis of the one-sided spreading operator reveals an inward displacement of the effective boundary relative to the geometric boundary. To compensate for this displacement, a target-value reconstruction strategy is developed to ensure consistency between the values imposed at the effective boundary and the prescribed conditions at the geometric boundary. The strategy is incorporated into the fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method (FODIBM) and applies to both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. Although confined to the target-value evaluation step, the modification substantially improves boundary-condition enforcement with negligible additional computational cost. Coupled with a hybrid lattice Boltzmann solver, the improved method consistently reduces L_2 and L_{\infty} error norms across different grid resolutions while retaining approximately second-order grid convergence. The no-slip and isothermal boundary-condition errors are reduced by 77% and 85%, respectively. Simulations involving various two- and three-dimensional geometries further show improved predictions relative to both the conventional DIBM and the original FODIBM. The results agree well with body-fitted reference solutions and experimental data, demonstrating accurate and computationally efficient simulations of compressible flows around complex geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the FODIBM-R. Each boundary point is associated with a projec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the computational mesh and boundary conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity profiles near the wall for supersonic flow past an adiabatic circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical convergence of the (a) L2 and (b) L∞ errors for supersonic flow past an adiabatic circular cylinder. 3.1. Numerical convergence of error norms To assess the overall accuracy of the present frameworks employing the FODIBM-R and FODIBM, a series of simulations …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of boundary errors on an adiabatic circular cylinder for FODIBM-R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Distribution of the pressure coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pressure (p) contours. (a) Present results obtained using the FODIBM-R. (b) Background contours with dashed lines are generated by a body-fitted method [37], while contours with solid lines are predicted by a DIBM [27]. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the pressure coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Pressure and (b) temperature profiles along the line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of the pressure coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Pressure and (b) temperature profile along the line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Pressure and (b) temperature profile along the line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of the pressure coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Pressure (p), streamwise velocity (u), and spanwise velocity (v) contours of compressible flow past a NACA0012 airfoil: (a) M a = 0.5, Re = 5000, AoA = 0◦ , (b) M a = 0.8, Re = 500, AoA = 10◦ , and (c) M a = 2, Re = 1000, AoA = 10◦ . The background contours with black…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distribution of the pressure coefficient ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Pressure coefficient (Cp) distributions and streamlines of the time-averaged flow field for subsonic flow past a rotating sphere at (a) Ω ∗ = 0.3 and (b) Ω ∗ = 0.6. First row: present results obtained using the FODIBM-R. Second row: reference results generated by a bo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Q. Mao, J. E. C. Cabezas, S. Zhao, P. Boivin, J. Favier, An explicit fully one-sided diffuse-interface immersed boundary method for compressible flows, J. Comput. Phys. (2026) 114721

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    Mittal, H

    R. Mittal, H. Dong, M. Bozkurttas, F. Najjar, A. Vargas, A. V. Loebbecke, A versatile sharp interface immersed boundary method for incompressible flows with complex boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (2008) 4825–4852

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Schneiders, D

    L. Schneiders, D. Hartmann, M. Meinke, W. Schröder, An accurate moving boundary formulation in cut-cell methods, J. Comput. Phys. 235 (2013) 786–809

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    A. Jost, S. Glockner, Direct forcing immersed boundary methods: Im- provements to the ghost-cell method, J. Comput. Phys. 438 (2021) 110371

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    C. S. Peskin, The immersed boundary method, Acta Numer. 11 (2002) 479–517

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Q. Mao, U. D’Ortona, J. Favier, Fluid transport by a single active filament in a three-dimensional two-phase flow, Phys. Rev. Fluids 11 (2026) 013102

    work page 2026

  7. [6]

    Q. Mao, U. D’Ortona, J. Favier, Hydrodynamic coupling of a cilia– mucus system in herschel–bulkley flows, J. Fluid Mech. 994 (2024) A8

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Peskin, Flow patterns around hear valves: a numerical method, J

    C. Peskin, Flow patterns around hear valves: a numerical method, J. Comput. Phys. 10 (1972) 252–271

    work page 1972

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Goldstein, R

    D. Goldstein, R. Handler, L. Sirovich, Modeling a no-slip flow boundary with an external force field, J Comput Phys. 105 (1993) 354–366

    1993

  2. [9]

    E. A. Fadlun, R. Verzicco, P. Orlandi, J. Mohd-Yusof, Combined immersed-boundary finite-difference methods for three-dimensional complex flow simulations, J. Comput. Phys. 161 (2000) 35–60

    2000

  3. [10]

    Uhlmann, An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows, J

    M. Uhlmann, An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows, J. Comput. Phys. 209 (2005) 448–476

    2005

  4. [11]

    K. Luo, Z. Wang, J. Fan, K. Cen, Full-scale solutions to particle-laden flows: Multidirect forcing and immersed boundary method, Phys. Rev. E 76 (2007) 066709. 40

    2007

  5. [12]

    Z. Wang, J. Fan, K. Luo, Combined multi-direct forcing and immersed boundary method for simulating flows with moving particles, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 34 (2008) 283–302

    2008

  6. [13]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. Pan, Y. Zhang, S. Haeri, A relaxed multi-direct-forcing immersed boundary-cascaded lattice Boltzmann method accelerated on GPU, Comput. Phys. Commun. 248 (2020) 106980

    2020

  7. [14]

    J. Wu, C. Shu, Implicit velocity correction-based immersed boundary- lattice Boltzmann method and its applications, J. Comput. Phys. 228 (2009) 1963–1979

    2009

  8. [15]

    J. Wu, C. Shu, An improved immersed boundary-lattice Boltzmann method for simulating three-dimensional incompressible flows, J. Com- put. Phys. 229 (2010) 5022–5042

    2010

  9. [16]

    Gsell, U

    S. Gsell, U. d’Ortona, J. Favier, Explicit and viscosity-independent immersed-boundary scheme for the lattice Boltzmann method, Phys. Rev. E 100 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Gsell, J

    S. Gsell, J. Favier, Direct-forcing immersed-boundary method: A simple correction preventing boundary slip error, J. Comput. Phys. 435 (2021) 110265

    2021

  11. [18]

    Cheylan, T

    I. Cheylan, T. Fringand, J. Jacob, J. Favier, Analysis of the immersed boundary method for turbulent fluid-structure interaction with lattice Boltzmann method, J. Comput. Phys. 492 (2023) 112418

    2023

  12. [19]

    Q. Mao, J. Zhao, Y. Liu, H. J. Sung, Hydrodynamic benefits of protrud- ing eyes and mouth in a self-propelled flexible stingray, Phys. Fluids. 33 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Q. Mao, Y. Liu, H. J. Sung, Snap-through dynamics of a buckled flexible filament in a uniform flow, J. Fluid Mech. 969 (2023) A33

    2023

  14. [21]

    L. Wang, G. Currao, F. Han, A. Neely, J. Young, F. Tian, An immersed boundary method for fluid–structure interaction with compressible mul- tiphase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 346 (2017) 131–151

    2017

  15. [22]

    Ménez, P

    L. Ménez, P. Parnaudeau, M. Beringhier, E. D. Silva, Assessment of volume penalization and immersed boundary methods for compressible 41 flows with various thermal boundary conditions, J. Comput. Phys. 493 (2023) 112465

    2023

  16. [23]

    Riahi, M

    H. Riahi, M. Meldi, J. Favier, E. Serre, E. Goncalves, A pressure- corrected immersed boundary method for the numerical simulation of compressible flows, J. Comput. Phys. 374 (2018) 361–383

    2018

  17. [24]

    Midani, V

    I. Midani, V. Ledermann, E. Constant, M. Spel, L. Stainier, P. Boivin, J. Favier, Immersed boundary formulation for complex geometries in hypersonic flows: Application to atmospheric reentry, Comput. Fluids (2025) 106715

    2025

  18. [25]

    Lerogeron, P

    H. Lerogeron, P. Boivin, V. Faucher, J. Favier, A numerical framework for fast transient compressible flows using lattice Boltzmann and im- mersed boundary methods, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 126 (2025) e7647

    2025

  19. [26]

    Y. Qiu, C. Shu, J. Wu, Y. Sun, L. Yang, T. Guo, A boundary condition- enforced immersed boundary method for compressible viscous flows, Comput. Fluids 136 (2016) 104–113

    2016

  20. [27]

    Y. Sun, L. Yang, C. Shu, Y. Chen, A diffuse-interface immersed bound- ary method for simulation of compressible viscous flows with stationary and moving boundaries, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 92 (2020) 149– 168

    2020

  21. [28]

    Breugem, A second-order accurate immersed boundary method for fully resolved simulations of particle-laden flows, J

    W.-P. Breugem, A second-order accurate immersed boundary method for fully resolved simulations of particle-laden flows, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (2012) 4469–4498

    2012

  22. [29]

    K. Luo, Z. Wang, J. Tan, J. Fan, An improved direct-forcing immersed boundary method with inward retraction of Lagrangian points for sim- ulation of particle-laden flows, J. Comput. Phys. 376 (2019) 210–227

    2019

  23. [30]

    C. Ji, A. Munjiza, J. Williams, A novel iterative direct-forcing immersed boundary method and its finite volume applications, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (2012) 1797–1821

    2012

  24. [31]

    Peng, L.-P

    C. Peng, L.-P. Wang, Force-amplified, single-sided diffused-interface im- mersed boundary kernel for correct local velocity gradient computation 42 and accurate no-slip boundary enforcement, Phys. Rev. E 101 (2020) 053305

    2020

  25. [32]

    B. Wu, Y. Liu, L. Fu, One-side diffuse-interface immersed boundary method for compressible flows, J. Comput. Phys. 523 (2025) 113667

    2025

  26. [34]

    Farag, T

    G. Farag, T. Coratger, G. Wissocq, S. Zhao, P. Boivin, P. Sagaut, A unified hybrid lattice-Boltzmann method for compressible flows: Bridg- ing between pressure-based and density-based methods, Phys. Fluids 33 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Wissocq, T

    G. Wissocq, T. Coratger, G. Farag, S. Zhao, P. Boivin, P. Sagaut, Restoring the conservativity of characteristic-based segregated models: Application to the hybrid lattice Boltzmann method, Phys. Fluids 34 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    T. J. Poinsot, S. Lelef, Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows, J. Comput. Phys. 101 (1992) 104–129

    1992

  29. [37]

    L. Yang, C. Shu, J. Wu, A hybrid lattice Boltzmann flux solver for simulation of viscous compressible flows, Adv. Appl. Math. Mech. 8 (2016) 887–910

    2016

  30. [38]

    Takahashi, T

    S. Takahashi, T. Nonomura, K. Fukuda, A numerical scheme based on an immersed boundary method for compressible turbulent flows with shocks: Application to two-dimensional flows around cylinders, J. Appl. Math. 2014 (2014) 252478

    2014

  31. [39]

    H. W. Liepmann, A. Roshko, Elements of gasdynamics, Courier Corpo- ration, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    Jawahar, H

    P. Jawahar, H. Kamath, A high-resolution procedure for Euler and Navier–Stokes computations on unstructured grids, J. Comput. Phys. 164 (2000) 165–203

    2000

  33. [41]

    De Palma, M

    P. De Palma, M. De Tullio, G. Pascazio, M. Napolitano, An immersed- boundary method for compressible viscous flows, Comput. fluids 35 (2006) 693–702. 43

    2006

  34. [42]

    Y. Feng, S. Guo, J. Jacob, P. Sagaut, Solid wall and open boundary conditions in hybrid recursive regularized lattice Boltzmann method for compressible flows, Phys. Fluids 31 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Tsetoglou, D

    I. Tsetoglou, D. Ricot, S. Zhao, E. Serre, P. Boivin, A mass and energy conserving boundary treatment for hybrid Lattice-Boltzmann/Finite- Volume simulations, in: ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE, Begel House Inc., 2025, p. 8

    2025

  36. [44]

    D. J. Mavriplis, A. Jameson, Multigrid solution of the Navier-Stokes equations on triangular meshes, AIAA J. 28 (1990) 1415–1425

    1990

  37. [45]

    M. O. Bristeau, Numerical simulation of compressible Navier-Stokes flows: a GAMM workshop, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    P. A. Forsyth, H. Jiang, Nonlinear iteration methods for high speed lam- inar compressible Navier-Stokes equations, Comput. Fluids 26 (1997) 249–268

    1997

  39. [47]

    Nagata, T

    T. Nagata, T. Nonomura, S. Takahashi, Y. Mizuno, K. Fukuda, Direct numerical simulation of flow past a transversely rotating sphere up to a Reynolds number of 300 in compressible flow, J. Fluid Mech. 857 (2018) 878–906

    2018

  40. [48]

    Nagata, T

    T. Nagata, T. Nonomura, S. Takahashi, Y. Mizuno, K. Fukuda, Investi- gation on subsonic to supersonic flow around a sphere at low Reynolds number of between 50 and 300 by direct numerical simulation, Phys. Fluids 28 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    J. W. Heberle, Data on shape and location of detached shock waves on cones and spheres, 2000, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1949

    2000

  42. [50]

    Giacobello, A

    M. Giacobello, A. Ooi, S. Balachandar, Wake structure of a transversely rotating sphere at moderate Reynolds numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 621 (2009) 103–130

    2009

  43. [51]

    Jacob, O

    J. Jacob, O. Malaspinas, P. Sagaut, A new hybrid recursive regularised Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook collision model for lattice Boltzmann method- based large eddy simulation, J. Turbul. 19 (2018) 1051–1076. 44

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.