Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

On the robustness of Dirichlet-Neumann coupling schemes for fluid-structure-interaction problems with nearly-closed fluid domains

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A leaky-piston analysis shows that Dirichlet–Neumann subiteration for incompressible FSI fails at a rate proportional to flow resistance, with the incompressibility dilemma emerging as the infinite-resistance limit.

desk verdict A genuinely useful practical insight — DN subiteration in nearly closed FSI degrades as τκ_f/ρ_s — but the model derivation has a real sign error and the linearization is heuristic, so treat the scaling law as well-supported empirical guidance, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04027 v1 pith:YKCB7222 submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CE cs.NAmath.NA

A. Aissa-Berraies , Ferdinando A. Auricchio , Gertjan van Zwieten , E. Harald van Brummelen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.NAmath.NA MSC 74F1076D0565M1265M60
keywords fluid-structureinteractionDirichlet-NeumanncouplingpartitionedmethodsnearlyclosedfluiddomainincompressibilitydilemmaaddeddampingVolterraoperatornonnormal
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 explains why partitioned fluid–structure interaction solvers that alternate Dirichlet and Neumann interface conditions lose robustness when the fluid domain is nearly closed, as in a valve that is about to shut. The mechanism is an added-damping effect: a volume-rate mismatch across the nearly impermeable part of the boundary produces a pressure change that acts back on the structure like a velocity-proportional damper. Working out the error recursion for a one-dimensional leaky-piston model, the authors find that the subiteration error is governed by $\varepsilon_{\tau,k} = (\alpha_m L_m + \alpha_d L_d)^k \varepsilon_{\tau,0}$ with $\alpha_d = \tau \kappa_f / m_s$, so that convergence degrades linearly with flow resistance and becomes unstable as resistance goes to infinity. Numerical experiments on a two-dimensional leaky-balloon problem reproduce the predicted dependence of the convergence rate on resistance, time step, and solid density. The practical conclusion is that plain Dirichlet–Neumann coupling is inherently unsuitable for nearly closed configurations, and the classical incompressibility dilemma is exactly the infinite-resistance limit of this added-damping effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the leaky-piston model: a one-dimensional incompressible fluid column of length $\ell_0$ with a permeable cover of resistance $\kappa_f$ on one end and a spring-mounted piston of mass $m_s$ on the other. From the reduced equations the paper extracts the Poincaré–Steklov operator mapping piston displacement to fluid pressure, $p_f(t,\ell(t))=\rho_f d_s d_s''-\kappa_f d_s'$, whose acceleration term is the added mass and whose velocity term is the added damping. In non-dimensional time the subiteration error obeys $\varepsilon_{\tau,k}=(\alpha_m L_m+\alpha_d L_d)^k\varepsilon_{\tau,0}$, where $L_m$ is (in the small-time-step limit) essentially the identity and $L_d$ is the Volterra operator $[L_d\varepsilon](s)=-\int_0^s \cos(\omega(s-\zeta))\,\varepsilon(\zeta)\,d\zeta$. The operators commute, which lets the error be expanded binomially into separate added-mass and added-damping powers; the paper's key analytical move is to show that $\|L_d\|=O(1)$ as $\tau\to0$ while $\alpha_d=\tau\kappa_f/m_s$, so the added-damping contribution has norm proportional to $\tau\kappa_f/\rho_s$.

What would settle it

Run DN subiteration on a two-dimensional nearly closed cavity with a Robin outflow strip, keep the added-mass coefficient small, and compare two runs with $\alpha_d$ held fixed by doubling $\kappa_f$ while halving $\tau$: the model predicts identical convergence histories, so any visible difference would refute the local-in-time linearization. A complementary check is to compute the spectrum of the discrete added-damping operator at practical mesh resolutions; the claim requires its spectral radius to remain zero (quasi-nilpotence) with only transient growth, whereas a nonzero spectral radius would give a persistent asymptotic convergence rate that the theory excludes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in an incompressible fluid–structure interaction problem with a nearly closed fluid domain, the failure of Dirichlet–Neumann subiteration is not an exotic consequence of the Fredholm alternative but a predictable linear mechanism: the fluid's pressure response to volume-rate deviations behaves like an added damping force on the structure. For the leaky-piston model (a one-dimensional incompressible fluid column with a permeable cover of resistance $\kappa_f$ at one end and a spring-mounted piston of mass $m_s$ at the other), the paper shows that the subiteration error satisfies $\varepsilon_{\tau,k}=(\alpha_m L_m+\alpha_d L_d)^k\varepsilon_{\tau,0}$, where $\alpha_m=\rho_f\ell_0/m_s$ is the usual added-mass coefficient and $\alpha_d=\tau\kappa_f/m_s$ is the added-damping coefficient. The added-damping operator $L_d$ is a compact, quasi-nilpotent Volterra operator, hence nonnormal: its spectral radius is zero, so asymptotic convergence is formally guaranteed, yet transient divergence is possible and the norm of the added-damping contribution scales as $\tau\kappa_f/\rho_s$. In the limit $\kappa_f\to\infty$ the scheme recovers the incompressibility dilemma, and the paper's leaky-balloon experiments confirm that the convergence rate is proportional to $\tau\kappa_f/\rho_s$ and essentially independent of $\rho_f$ when damping dominates, with the added-mass proportionality recovering at high $\rho_f$. The discovery thereby unifies two previously separate limitations of partitioned FSI methods, added mass and the incompressibility dilemma, under one operator.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that within each time step the fluid responds as if the domain had not yet moved, so the added-mass coefficient can be frozen at $\rho_f\ell_0$ and all $O(\tau)$ corrections discarded; if the deforming incompressible domain has memory effects that survive at practical time steps, the predicted scaling would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a nearly closed FSI configuration, the DN subiteration convergence rate deteriorates linearly with the flow resistance $\kappa_f$, matching the leaky-balloon measurements where the slope difference between two resistance values equals $\log_{10}(\kappa_f^\star/\kappa_f)$.
  • Reducing the time step $\tau$ improves the convergence rate proportionally, so the added-damping effect can be controlled by time-step selection even when resistance is large.
  • Increasing the structural density $\rho_s$ improves convergence inversely proportionally; for high-density structures the added-mass effect shifts into the added-damping-dominated regime.
  • For low fluid densities the convergence is essentially independent of $\rho_f$, while for high densities the added-mass effect takes over and the rate becomes proportional to $\rho_f$.
  • In the limit of infinite resistance the scheme becomes unstable, recovering the incompressibility dilemma; consequently plain DN coupling is inherently unsuitable for valve-type problems in which the fluid domain continuously transforms from open to nearly closed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $L_d$ is nonnormal with zero spectral radius, the model implies that robustness failures may show up as transient divergence rather than steady non-convergence; a practical monitor that only looks at asymptotic contraction will miss the divergence that actually breaks a valve simulation (this follows from the paper's operator analysis, though the paper does not spell out the monitoring imp
  • The $\alpha_d$ scaling suggests a concrete tuning prescription that the paper leaves implicit: under-relaxing the structure velocity, not just the displacement, should interact with the velocity-proportional added damping and might restore robustness without a fully implicit coupling.
  • The pressure-sensitivity relation $\lambda=-(\kappa_f-\kappa_f^\star)V'/\mathrm{meas}(\Gamma_f^r)$ implies that enlarging the permeable area of the leak path reduces the pressure kick for the same volume-rate mismatch; in valve design this means deliberate porosity or a shaped leakage path should mitigate DN instability, a design consequence the paper does not pursue.
  • The crossover from $\rho_f$-independent damping-dominated convergence to $\rho_f$-proportional added-mass-dominated convergence is a sharp quantitative prediction that could be tested on industrial solvers; measuring the slope crossover in a realistic three-dimensional valve would settle whether the leaky-piston model remains valid outside the model's one-dimensional assumptions.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the behavior of Dirichlet–Neumann partitioned subiteration for incompressible fluid-structure interaction when the fluid domain is nearly closed, i.e., the complementary boundary carries a Robin condition with a large resistance coefficient κ_f. A one-dimensional leaky-piston model is introduced in Section 4 and reduced to a linear error recursion whose iteration operator is a linear combination of an added-mass operator and a Volterra-type added-damping operator. The authors argue that the added-damping operator is nonnormal and quasi-nilpotent, has norm proportional to τκ_f/ρ_s, and can produce non-monotone transient convergence. Numerical experiments on a two-dimensional leaky balloon (Sections 5.2–5.3) show that the monolithic solution approaches the closed-domain limit as κ_f→∞ and that slopes of the DN subiteration pressure-update curves vary with κ_f, τ, ρ_s and ρ_f in a manner consistent with the predicted added-damping scaling. The paper concludes that plain DN coupling is inherently unsuitable for nearly closed configurations such as valves.

Significance. The paper addresses a practically important failure mode of partitioned FSI that is not captured by the classical analysis of the fully closed incompressibility dilemma: the gradual deterioration of DN subiteration as the fluid domain approaches a closed configuration. The model-based identification of an added-damping operator with Volterra structure and norm ∝ τκ_f/ρ_s is conceptually useful, and the leaky-piston model is formulated with no fitted parameters. The numerical study is also valuable because it combines a monolithic reference solver with an industrial partitioned code, and the observed slope scalings support the qualitative transfer of the model result to a two-dimensional nearly closed configuration. If the technical gaps identified below are closed, the paper would provide a credible explanation and a practical warning for valve-like FSI problems.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (23)/(26)] There is a sign inconsistency in the derivation of the Poincaré–Steklov map. Integrating Eq. (22) with p_f(t,0)=-κ_f u_f(t) yields p_f(t,ℓ)=-ρ_f ℓ u_f'(t)-κ_f u_f(t), so Eq. (23) should read ℓ ρ_f u_f' = -p_f(t,ℓ)-κ_f u_f, not ℓ ρ_f u_f' = p_f(t,ℓ)+κ_f u_f. Consequently Eq. (26) has the wrong sign on the added-mass term. The added-damping term in Eq. (26) is unchanged, and the claimed ∝ τκ_f/ρ_s scaling of the added-damping operator survives, but the model derivation as written is not self-consistent; the error recursion (28) and the operator splitting (31)-(32) should be re-derived from the corrected pressure relation.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (27)-(30)] The linearization replacing d_{s,k-1}(t) by ℓ0 in Eq. (27) is justified only by the statement 'at the expense of an error O(τ)'. This is not sufficient because the retained added-damping coefficient α_d=τκ_f/m_s is itself O(τ). The discarded correction ρ_f(d_{s,k-1}-ℓ0)ε''_{k-1} is formally of the same order in τ, and the paper does not show that its operator norm is bounded by a fixed fraction of α_d in the norm used for the convergence estimate. To make the central scaling claim rigorous, the authors should either prove a relative bound for this correction (for example under a suitable scaling of κ_f relative to ρ_s/τ) or present the result as a formal asymptotic limit and verify the scaling numerically against the full model.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (33), and Section 5.3] The paper equates the norm scaling of the added-damping operator with a deterioration of the convergence rate, but the iteration operator in Eq. (33) has spectral radius α_m, independent of α_d, because L_m contains the identity and L_d is quasi-nilpotent. The added-damping effect therefore changes the transient behavior rather than the asymptotic contraction factor. The slopes measured in Figures 7-10 are taken over a small number of iterations and necessarily reflect this transient regime. The manuscript should state this distinction explicitly and relate the measured slopes to a finite-iteration bound on ∥(α_mL_m+α_dL_d)^k∥ for the relevant k, rather than to an asymptotic convergence rate.
  4. [Section 5.3, Figures 7-10] The generalization from the leaky-piston model to the two-dimensional leaky balloon rests on slopes read visually from log-linear plots of the pressure-update norm. No error bars, repeated-run variability, or sensitivity to the Ansys Fluent solver tolerance are reported, and relation (37) is only a slope-difference relation, not a test of the absolute contraction factor. Please provide quantitative slope estimates with uncertainties and, for at least one parameter set, compare the observed per-iteration contraction with the predicted α_d=τκ_f/ρ_s.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g. 'oberve' (Section 5.3), 'consitutive' (Section 5.2), 'Langrange' (Section 3.3), 'sensivity' (Section 4, introductory text), and 'subteration' (Section 5.3); these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1, after Eq. (31)] The sentence referring to 'the operators L_m and L_m' should refer to L_m and L_d.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text says the gauge points A and B are 'see Figure 3'; this appears to be a cross-reference error, as the relevant illustration is Figure 4.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] The sign convention in the Robin condition (3c) and its one-dimensional reduction p_f(t,0)=-κ_f u_f(t) depend on the choice of the outward normal and should be stated more explicitly; this would also help the reader verify Eq. (23).
  5. [Section 4.1] The asymptotic statement d_{s,k}=ℓ0+O(τ) should specify the norm and the limit in which it holds, since d_{s,k} is a function on (0,τ).
  6. [Section 5.3, Figures 7-10] The numbers attached to the slope triangles (e.g., '1', '0.77', '0.37') are not explained in the text; a short description of how these slopes are computed would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the added-damping scaling law is derived from an explicit leaky-piston model and checked against independent simulations, not obtained by fitting or by importing the conclusion through self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the DN subiteration error obeys ε_{τ,k} = (α_m L_m + α_d L_d)^k ε_{τ,0} with α_d = τκ_f/m_s, is derived in Section 4 from the leaky-piston equations (22)-(30). The coefficient α_d is not fitted to numerical data; it arises from integrating the Robin boundary condition p_f(t,0) = -κ_f u_f into the pressure relation (26) and then scaling time by τ in (29). The subsequent statement that ∥α_d L_d∥ ∝ τκ_f/m_s is an algebraic consequence of α_d = τκ_f/m_s and ∥L_d∥ = O(1), not a hidden reuse of the conclusion. The Volterra and nonnormality properties of L_d are established in Section 4.2 from the explicit kernel (32b) and the standard compact-normal-operator argument; the citations to the authors' prior works [49,50] are ancillary and not load-bearing. The numerical experiments in Section 5 are genuinely predictive in spirit: they compare measured slope differences to the predicted logarithmic ratios, e.g. Eq. (37), a⋆ - a = log10(κ⋆_f/κ_f), and the analogous relations for τ, ρ_s and ρ_f for the leaky-balloon problem. The theory's constants are not tuned to the simulations. The manuscript does contain a sign inconsistency in the integration of Eq. (22) leading to Eq. (23)/(26), and the linearization 'at the expense of an error O(τ)' in Eq. (28) is not rigorously quantified relative to the retained O(τ) term α_d; however, these are correctness or rigor concerns, not circularity. The scaling law is not an input to the derivation under another name, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The analysis is parameter-free in the sense that no constants are fitted to the numerical data: α_d and α_m are formed from problem parameters via Eq. (29). The main postulates are the one-dimensional leaky-piston reduction, the O(τ) linearization, and the uniform-flow scenario used to derive Eqs. (20)-(21). The added-damping effect is a name for a term that emerges from the model, not a new physical entity.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fluid is modeled as incompressible Navier-Stokes and the structure as hyperelastic, with the standard kinematic and dynamic interface conditions.
    Defines the class of FSI problems under study; see Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper One-dimensional reduction of the leaky-piston problem: free slip on lateral walls and uniform lateral velocity and pressure, so incompressibility forces the fluid velocity to be spatially uniform.
    Enables the scalar ODE model in Section 4.1; it is not derived from the full multi-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations.
  • domain assumption In per-time-step subiteration, d_{s,k-1} = ℓ0 + O(τ), so the added-mass coefficient can be linearized to ρ_f ℓ0 and O(τ) terms can be ignored.
    Invoked after Eq. (27) in Section 4.1; the central scaling law is derived in this small-time-step limit.
  • ad hoc to paper In Section 3.3, the normal fluid velocity and pressure are uniform on the Robin boundary and the tangential velocity vanishes.
    Used to derive the pressure-sensitivity relation (21); the authors note the scenario can be constructed by suitable boundary data.
  • standard math Volterra integral operators L_d are compact and quasi-nilpotent, hence nonnormal, and standard spectral theory applies.
    Used to infer nonmonotone convergence behavior; see Section 4.2 and reference [26].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the robustness of Dirichlet-Neumann coupling schemes for fluid-structure-interaction problems with nearly-closed fluid domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKCB7222

@misc{pith2026250604027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the robustness of Dirichlet-Neumann coupling schemes for fluid-structure-interaction problems with nearly-closed fluid domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKCB7222}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04027}
}
read the original abstract

Partitioned methods for fluid-structure interaction (FSI) involve solving the structural and flow problems sequentially. These methods allow for separate settings for the fluid and solid subsystems and thus modularity, enabling reuse of advanced commercial and open-source software. Most partitioned FSI schemes apply a Dirichlet-Neumann (DN) split of the interface conditions. The DN scheme is adequate in a wide range of applications, but it is sensitive to the added-mass effect, and it is susceptible to the incompressibility dilemma, i.e. it completely fails for FSI problems with an incompressible fluid furnished with Dirichlet boundary conditions on the part of its boundary complementary to the interface. In this paper, we show that if the fluid is incompressible and the fluid domain is nearly-closed, i.e. it carries Dirichlet conditions except for a permeable part of the boundary carrying a Robin condition, then the DN partitioned approach is sensitive to the flow resistance at the permeable part, and convergence of the partitioned approach deteriorates as the flow resistance increases. The DN scheme then becomes unstable in the limit as the flow resistance passes to infinity. Based on a simple model problem, we show that in the nearly-closed case, the convergence rate of the DN partitioned method depends on a so-called added-damping effect. The analysis gives insights that can aid to improve robustness and efficiency of partitioned method for FSI problems with contact, e.g. valve applications. In addition, the results elucidate the incompressibility dilemma as a limit of the added-damping effect passing to infinity, and the corresponding challenges related to FSI problems with nearly closed fluid-domain configurations. Via numerical experiments, we consider the generalization of the results of the simple model problem to more complex nearly-closed FSI problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a fluid-structure-interaction problem with a nearly-closed fluid do [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the leaky-piston model problem. The cylinder is at its left boundary connected to a reservoir at constant pressure via a permeable cover, causing a flow resistance described by a Robin-type condition. At the right boundary, the cylinder is closed by a piston which is connected to the environment by an elastic spring. hence, the velocity uf(t, ·) =: uf(t) is uniform in the spatial dependence. The mome… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of nonmonotonous convergence of subiteration with DN coupling for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the leaky-balloon inflation test case. The fluid domain consists of a 2 × 1 inlet channel connected to a 3 × 3 square (blue). The square part is surrounded by a hyperelastic solid with thickness 1/5 (gray). The top and bottom boundaries of the inlet cha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pressure at gauge point A (left) and horizontal displacement at gauge point B (right) for the fully closed scenario (κf = ∞) and for κf ∈ {103 , 5 × 103 , 104 , 5 × 104} [kg/m2 s]. The reference result for the fully closed case has been obtained with DN coupling with a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the leaky-balloon configuration: deformation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of the convergence behavior of subiteration on the flow resistance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the convergence behavior of subiteration on the time step, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependence of the convergence behavior of subiteration on the solid density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dependence of the convergence behavior of subiteration on the fluid density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ansys | engineering simulation software

    work page

  2. [2]

    Christoph Ager, Benedikt Schott, Anh Tu Vuong, Alexander Popp, and Wolfgang A. Wall. A consistent approach for fluid-structure-contact inter- actionbasedonaporousflowmodelforroughsurfacecontact.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 119:1345–1378, 9 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Aissa-Berraies, E.H

    A. Aissa-Berraies, E.H. van Brummelen, and F. Auricchio. Numerical in- vestigation of fluid–structure interaction in a pilot-operated microfluidic valve.Journal of Fluids and Structures, 132:104226, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    A. Aitken. On Bernoulli’s numerical solution of algebraic equations.Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 46:289–305, 1926

    work page 1926

  5. [5]

    Astorino, F

    M. Astorino, F. Chouly, and M.A.’ Fernández. Robin based semi-implicit coupling in fluid-structure interaction: Stability analysis and numerics. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 31(6):4041–4065, 2024/04/18 2009

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Badia, F

    S. Badia, F. Nobile, and C. Vergara. Fluid-structure partitioned procedures based on Robin transmission conditions.J. Comput. Phys., 227:7027–7051, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Bavo, Giorgia Rocatello, Francesco Iannaccone, Joris Deg- roote, Jan Vierendeels, and Patrick Segers

    Alessandra M. Bavo, Giorgia Rocatello, Francesco Iannaccone, Joris Deg- roote, Jan Vierendeels, and Patrick Segers. Fluid-structure interaction sim- ulation of prosthetic aortic valves: Comparison between immersed bound- ary and arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian techniques for the mesh representa- tion.PLOS ONE, 11:e0154517, 4 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Bazilevs, V

    Y. Bazilevs, V. M. Calo, T. J. R. Hughes, and Y. Zhang. Isogeometric fluid-structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and computations.Comput. Mech., 43:3–37, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    A. E.J. Bogaers, S. Kok, B. D. Reddy, and T. Franz. Extending the ro- bustness and efficiency of artificial compressibility for partitioned fluid– structure interactions.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- neering, 283:1278–1295, 1 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    An evaluation of quasi-newton methods for application to fsi problems in- volving free surface flow and solid body contact.Computers & Structures, 173:71–83, 2016

    Alfred EJ Bogaers, Schalk Kok, B Dayanand Reddy, and Thierry Franz. An evaluation of quasi-newton methods for application to fsi problems in- volving free surface flow and solid body contact.Computers & Structures, 173:71–83, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Someeffectsofdifferentconstitutive laws on fsi simulation for the mitral valve.Scientific Reports, 9(1):1–15, 2019

    Li Cai, Ying Wang, Hao Gao, Xingshuang Ma, Guangyu Zhu, Ruihang Zhang, XiaoqinShen, andXiaoyuLuo. Someeffectsofdifferentconstitutive laws on fsi simulation for the mitral valve.Scientific Reports, 9(1):1–15, 2019. 32

    2019

  4. [12]

    Added-mass effect in the design of partitioned algorithms for fluid–structure problems.Com- puter methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 194(42-44):4506–4527, 2005

    Paola Causin, Jean-Frédéric Gerbeau, and Fabio Nobile. Added-mass effect in the design of partitioned algorithms for fluid–structure problems.Com- puter methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 194(42-44):4506–4527, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Ansys workbench system coupling: a state-of-the-art compu- tational framework for analyzing multiphysics problems.engineering with Computers, 34(2):385–411, 2018

    Satish Kumar Chimakurthi, Steve Reuss, Michael Tooley, and Stephen Scampoli. Ansys workbench system coupling: a state-of-the-art compu- tational framework for analyzing multiphysics problems.engineering with Computers, 34(2):385–411, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Performance of a new partitioned procedure versus a monolithic procedure in fluid–structure interaction.Computers & Structures, 87(11):793–801, 2009

    Joris Degroote, Klaus-Jürgen Bathe, and Jan Vierendeels. Performance of a new partitioned procedure versus a monolithic procedure in fluid–structure interaction.Computers & Structures, 87(11):793–801, 2009. Fifth MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics

    2009

  7. [15]

    Performance of partitioned procedures in fluid– structure interaction.Computers & Structures, 88:446–457, 4 2010

    Joris Degroote, Robby Haelterman, Sebastiaan Annerel, Peter Brugge- man, and Jan Vierendeels. Performance of partitioned procedures in fluid– structure interaction.Computers & Structures, 88:446–457, 4 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Joris Degroote, Abigail Swillens, Peter Bruggeman, Robby Haelterman, Patrick Segers, and Jan Vierendeels. Simulation of fluid–structure inter- action with the interface artificial compressibility method.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 26(...

    2010

  9. [17]

    Donea, S

    J. Donea, S. Giuliani, and J. P. Halleux. An arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian finite element method for transient dynamic fluid-structure interactions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 33:689–723, 1982

    1982

  10. [18]

    Cfd-based nonlinear computational aeroelasticity.Ency- clopedia of computational mechanics, 2004

    Charbel Farhat. Cfd-based nonlinear computational aeroelasticity.Ency- clopedia of computational mechanics, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Explicit robin–neumann schemes for the coupling of incompressible fluids with thin- walled structures.Comput

    Miguel A Fernández, Jimmy Mullaert, and Marina Vidrascu. Explicit robin–neumann schemes for the coupling of incompressible fluids with thin- walled structures.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 267:566–593, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    A newton method using exactjacobiansforsolvingfluid–structurecoupling.Comput Struct, 83:127– 142, 2005

    Miguel Angel Fernández and Marwan Moubachir. A newton method using exactjacobiansforsolvingfluid–structurecoupling.Comput Struct, 83:127– 142, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    Förster, W.A

    C. Förster, W.A. Wall, and E. Ramm. Artificial added mass instabilities in sequential staggered coupling of nonlinear structures and incompressible viscous flows.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 196:1278–1293, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Analysis and optimization of robin–robin partitioned procedures in fluid-structure inter- action problems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 48(6):2091–2116, 2010

    Luca Gerardo-Giorda, Fabio Nobile, and Christian Vergara. Analysis and optimization of robin–robin partitioned procedures in fluid-structure inter- action problems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 48(6):2091–2116, 2010. 33

    2010

  15. [23]

    Haelterman, A.E.J

    R. Haelterman, A.E.J. Bogaers, K. Scheufele, B. Uekermann, and M. Mehl. Improving the performance of the partitioned qn-ils procedure for fluid– structure interaction problems: Filtering.Computers & Structures, 171:9– 17, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    The quasi-newtonleastsquaresmethod: Anewandfastsecantmethodanalyzed for linear systems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47:2347–2368, 2009

    RobHaelterman, JorisDegroote, DirkVanHeule, andJanVierendeels. The quasi-newtonleastsquaresmethod: Anewandfastsecantmethodanalyzed for linear systems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47:2347–2368, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    M. Heil. An efficient solver for the fully-coupled solution of large- displacement fluid-structure interaction problems.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 193:1–23, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Kato.Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators

    T. Kato.Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators. Number 132 in Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaft. Springer, Berlin, corr. pr. 2nd ed. edition, 1984

    1984

  19. [27]

    Asolutionforthe incompressibility dilemma in partitioned fluid–structure interaction with pure dirichlet fluid domains.Computational Mechanics, 38:417–429, 3 2006

    UlrichKüttler, ChristianeFörster, andWolfgangA.Wall. Asolutionforthe incompressibility dilemma in partitioned fluid–structure interaction with pure dirichlet fluid domains.Computational Mechanics, 38:417–429, 3 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Ulrich Küttler and Wolfgang A. Wall. Fixed-point fluid–structure interac- tion solvers with dynamic relaxation.Computational Mechanics 2008 43:1, 43:61–72, 2 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Fluid- structure interaction analysis on membrane behavior of a microfluidic pas- sive valve.Membranes, 10:1–14, 2020

    Zhen Hao Lin, Xiao Juan Li, Zhi Jiang Jin, and Jin Yuan Qian. Fluid- structure interaction analysis on membrane behavior of a microfluidic pas- sive valve.Membranes, 10:1–14, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Numerical analysis of the di- aphragm valve throttling characteristics.Processes, 7, 2019

    Yingnan Liu, Liang Lu, and Kangwu Zhu. Numerical analysis of the di- aphragm valve throttling characteristics.Processes, 7, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Improved ale mesh velocities for moving bodies.Communications in numerical methods in engineering, 12(10):599– 608, 1996

    Rainald Löhner and Chi Yang. Improved ale mesh velocities for moving bodies.Communications in numerical methods in engineering, 12(10):599– 608, 1996

    1996

  24. [32]

    Michler, S.J

    C. Michler, S.J. Hulshoff, E.H. van Brummelen, and R. de Borst. A monolithic approach to fluid-structure interaction.Computers and Fluids, 33:839–848, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Michler, E

    C. Michler, E. H. van Brummelen, and R. de Borst. An interface newton- krylov solver for fluid-structure interaction.International Journal for Nu- merical Methods in Fluids, 47:1189–1195, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    D. P. Mok.Partitionierte Lösungsansätze in der Strukturdynamik und der Fluid-Struktur-Interaktion. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 2001. 34

    2001

  27. [35]

    Analysis of membrane behavior of a normally closed microvalve using a fluid-structure interaction model.Micromachines, 8(12):355, 2017

    Guru Prasath Natarajan, Sung-Jin Kim, and Chang-Wan Kim. Analysis of membrane behavior of a normally closed microvalve using a fluid-structure interaction model.Micromachines, 8(12):355, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Hydrodynamic characteristics of a butterfly valve — prediction of torque characteristics.ISA Transactions, 34:327–333, 12 1995

    Kazuhiko Ogawa and Takeyoshi Kimura. Hydrodynamic characteristics of a butterfly valve — prediction of torque characteristics.ISA Transactions, 34:327–333, 12 1995

    1995

  29. [37]

    Opstal, van.Numerical methods for inflatables with multiscale ge- ometries

    T.M. Opstal, van.Numerical methods for inflatables with multiscale ge- ometries. PhD thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Eindhoven, December 2013. Proefschrift

    2013

  30. [38]

    Piperno.Simulation Numérique de Phénomènes d’Interaction Fluide- Structure

    S. Piperno.Simulation Numérique de Phénomènes d’Interaction Fluide- Structure. PhD thesis, école Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, France,

  31. [39]

    Raback, J

    P. Raback, J. Ruokolainen, M. Lyly, and E. Järvinen. Fluid-structure interaction boundary conditions by artificial compressibility. InECCOMAS CFD, volume 2001. ECCOMAS, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    The influence of ge- ometric imperfections in cardiovascular fsi simulations.Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 74:1675–1689, 2017

    Lars Radtke, Marcel König, and Alexander Düster. The influence of ge- ometric imperfections in cardiovascular fsi simulations.Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 74:1675–1689, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Th. Richter. A monolithic geometric multigrid solver for fluid-structure interactions in ALE formulation.Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., 104:372–390, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Saeedi, R

    M. Saeedi, R. Wüchner, and K.-U. Bletzinger. Multi-fidelity fluid- structure interaction analysis of a membrane wing.International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 9(1):169 – 176, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Stein, T

    K. Stein, T. Tezduyar, and R. Benney. Mesh moving techniques for fluid- structure interactions with large displacements.J. Appl. Mech., 70:58–63, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    G.G. Stokes. On the effect of the internal friction of fluids on the motion of pendulums.Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 10:8–106, 1851

  37. [45]

    Trefethen

    L.N. Trefethen. Pseudospectra of linear operators.SIAM Rev., 39(3):383– 406, 1997

    1997

  38. [46]

    E. H. van Brummelen. Added mass effects of compressible and incompress- ible flows in fluid-structure interaction.J. Appl. Mech., 76(2):021206–1/7, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    E. H. van Brummelen, T. H. B. Demont, and G. J. van Zwieten. An adap- tive isogeometric analysis approach to elasto-capillary fluid-solid interac- tion.Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., 122(19):5331–5352, 2023/11/02 2021. 35

    2023

  40. [48]

    E. H. van Brummelen and PJB Geuzaine. Fundamentals of fluid-structure interaction.Encyclopedia of aerospace engineering, pages 153–1, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    van Brummelen

    E.H. van Brummelen. Partitioned iterative solution methods for fluid– structure interaction.Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 65(1-3):3–27, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    van Brummelen and R

    E.H. van Brummelen and R. de Borst. On the nonnormality of subitera- tion for a fluid-structure-interaction problem.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 27:599–621, 2006

    2006

  43. [51]

    van Brummelen, K.G

    E.H. van Brummelen, K.G. van der Zee, and R. de Borst. Space/time multigrid for a fluid-structure-interaction problem.Appl. Num. Math., 58(12):1951–1971, 2008

    1951

  44. [52]

    van Brummelen, K.G

    E.H. van Brummelen, K.G. van der Zee, V.V. Garg, and S. Prudhomme. Flux evaluation in primal and dual boundary-coupled problems.J. Appl. Mech., 79:010904–8, 2012

    2012

  45. [53]

    van Opstal, E.H

    T.M. van Opstal, E.H. van Brummelen, and G.J. van Zwieten. A finite-element/boundary-element method for three-dimensional, large- displacement fluid-structure-interaction.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 284:637–663, February 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    van Zwieten, G.J

    J.S.B. van Zwieten, G.J. van Zwieten, and W. Hoitinga. nutils (ver. 7.0), 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Analy- sis and stabilization of fluid-structure interaction algorithm for rigid-body motion.https://doi.org/10.2514/1.3660, 43:2549–2557, 5 2012

    Jan Vierendeels, Kris Dumont, Erik Dick, and Pascal Verdonck. Analy- sis and stabilization of fluid-structure interaction algorithm for rigid-body motion.https://doi.org/10.2514/1.3660, 43:2549–2557, 5 2012. 36

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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