Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques

Thomas Wick
Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Heidelberg, INF 293/294 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 November 2010
Accepted 25 February 2011
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Finite elements
Fluid-structure interaction
Monolithic formulation
Biharmonic equation
a b s t r a c t
In this work, we compare different mesh moving techniques for monolithically-coupled uid-structure
interactions in arbitrary LagrangianEulerian coordinates. The mesh movement is realized by solving
an additional partial differential equation of harmonic, linear-elastic, or biharmonic type. We examine
an implementation of time discretization that is designed with nite differences. Spatial discretization
is based on a Galerkin nite element method. To solve the resulting discrete nonlinear systems, a Newton
method with exact Jacobian matrix is used. Our results show that the biharmonic model produces the
smoothest meshes but has increased computational cost compared to the other two approaches.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Fluid-structure interactions are of great importance in many
real-life applications, such as industrial processes, aero-elasticity,
and bio-mechanics. More specically, uid-structure interactions
are important to measuring the ow around elastic structures, the
utter analysis of airplanes [1], blood ow in the cardiovascular
system, and the dynamics of heart valves (hemodynamics) [2,3].
Typically, uid and structure are given in different coordinate
systems making a common solution approach challenging. Fluid
ows are given in Eulerian coordinates whereas the structure is
treated in a Lagrangian framework. We use a monolithic approach
(Fig. 1), where all equations are solved simultaneously. Here, the
interface conditions, the continuity of velocity and the normal
stresses, are automatically achieved. The coupling leads to addi-
tional nonlinear behavior of the overall system.
Using a monolithic formulation is motivated by upcoming
investigations of gradient based optimization methods [4], and
for rigorous goal oriented error estimation and mesh adaptation
[5], where a coupled monolithic variational formulation is an inev-
itable prerequisite.
For uid-structure interaction based on the arbitrary
LagrangianEulerian framework (ALE), the choice of appropriate
uid mesh movement is important. In general, an additional
elasticity equation is solved. For moderate deformations, one can
pose an auxiliary Laplace problem that is known as harmonic mesh
motion [6,7]. More advanced equations from linear elasticity are
also available [8,9]. For a partitioned uid-structure interaction
scheme, a comparison was made between different models [10].
The pseudo-material parameters in both approaches were used
to control the mesh deformation. If the parameters do not depend
on mesh position and geometrical information, both approaches
can only deal with moderate uid mesh deformations. This prob-
lem is resolved by using mesh-position dependent material param-
eters that are used to increase the stiffness of cells near the
interface [8]. There are several techniques for choosing these
parameters to retain an optimal mesh, such as a Jacobian-based
stiffening power [11] that is eventually governed by appropriate
re-meshing techniques. We use an ad hoc approach for these
parameters, measuring the distance to the elastic structure and
adapting the parameters to prevent mesh cell distortion as long
as possible.
Here, we also use (for mesh moving) the biharmonic equation
that others have studied for uid ows in ALE coordinates [12]. It
was also shown there, that using the biharmonic model provides
greater freedomin the choice of boundary and interface conditions.
In general, the biharmonic mesh motion model leads to a smoother
mesh (and larger deformations of the structure) compared to the
mesh motion models based on second order partial differential
equations. Larger deformations and structure touching the wall
are only possible with a fully Eulerian approach [6,7,13] or in the
ALE framework with a full or partial re-meshing of the mesh, i.e.,
generating a new set of mesh cells and sometimes also a new set
of nodes.
Although, the mesh behavior of the harmonic and the bihar-
monic mesh motion models were analyzed in [12] for different
applications, we upgrade these concepts to uid-structure interac-
tion problems. Moreover, we provide quantitative comparisons of
the three mesh motion models.
In the discretization section, we address aspects of the imple-
mentation of a temporal discretization, that is based on nite
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.019
E-mail address: thomas.wick@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uc
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
differences. In particular, we present the one step-h schemes [14]
and the Fractional step-h scheme [15] in ALE fashion for the
monolithic problem. Space discretization is done using a standard
Galerkin nite element approach. The solution of the discretized
system can be achieved with a Newton method, which is very
attractive because it provides robust and rapid convergence. The
Jacobian matrix is derived by exact linearization which is demon-
strated by an example. Because the development of iterative linear
solvers is difcult for fully coupled problems (however, sugges-
tions have been made [16,17]), and we are only interested in solv-
ing problems for a low amount of unknowns, we use a direct solver
to solve the linear systems.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In the second section, the
uid equations in articial coordinates, and structure equations for
two different material models, are introduced. After, the mixed for-
mulation of the biharmonic equation is introduced for two kinds of
boundary conditions. Finally, uid-structure interaction based on a
closed variational setting is proposed. Section 3 presents discreti-
zation in time and space of the uid-structure interaction prob-
lems. Moreover, the nonlinear problem is examined through an
exact computation of the Jacobian matrix. The computation of
the directional derivatives is shown. In Section 4, numerical tests
for four problems (in both two and three dimensions) are per-
formed, showing the advantages and the differences between the
three mesh motion models. The computations are performed using
the nite element software package deal.II [18].
2. Equations
In this section, we briey introduce the basic notation and the
equations describing both the uid (in the ALE-transformed coor-
dinate system) and structure (in its natural Lagrangian coordi-
nates). Then, we present the monolithic setting for the coupled
problem.
2.1. Notation
We denote by X & R
d
, d = 2, 3, the domain of the uid-structure
interaction problem. This domain is supposed to be time indepen-
dent but consists of two time dependent subdomains X
f
(t) and
X
s
(t). The interface between both domain is denoted by C
i
(t) =
oX
f
(t) \ oX
s
(t). The initial (or later reference) domains are denoted
by

X
f
and

X
s
, respectively, with the interface

C
i
. Further, we de-
note the outer boundary with @

X

C

C
D
[

C
N
where

C
D
and

C
N
denote Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries, respectively. We
adopt standard notation for the usual Lebesgue and Soboley spaces
and their extensions by means of the Bochner integral for time
dependent problems [19]. We use the notation (, )
X
for a scalar
product on a Hilbert space X and h, i
@X
for the scalar product on
the boundary oX. For the time dependent functions on a time inter-
val I, the Sobolev spaces are dened by X : L
2
I; X. Concretely,
we use L : L
2
I; L
2
X and V : H
1
I; H
1
X fv 2 L
2
I; H
1
X : @
t
v 2 L
2
I; H
1
Xg.
2.2. Fluid in articial coordinates
Let

A
f
^x; t :
^
X
f
I
t
! X
f
t be a piecewise continuously differ-
entiable invertible mapping. We dene the physical unknowns ^ v
f
and ^ p
f
in

X
f
by
^ v
f
^x; t v
f
x; t v
f

A
f
^x; t; t;
^ p
f
^x; t p
f
x; t p
f

A
f
^x; t; t:
Then, with

F
f
:
^
r

A
f
;

J
f
: det

F
f
;
we get the relations [20]:
rv
f

^
r^ v
f

F
1
f
; @
t
v
f
@
t
^ v
f

F
1
f
@
t

A
f

^
r^ v
f
;
_
X
f
f xdx
_

X
f
^
f ^x

Jd^x:
With help of these relations, we can formulate the NavierStokes
equations in articial coordinates:
Problem 2.1. (Variational uid problem, ALE framework) Find
f^ v
f
; ^ p
f
g 2 f^ v
D
f


Vg

L
f
, such that ^ v
f
0 ^ v
0
f
, for almost all time
steps t, and

J
f
^ q
f
@
t
^ v
f

F
1
f
^ v
f
@
t

A
f

^
r^ v
f
;
^
w
v

X
f

J
f
^ r
f

F
T
f
;
^
r
^
w
v

X
f
h^ g
f
;
^
w
v
i

C
i
[

C
N
0 8
^
w
v
2

V
f
;

div

J
f

F
1
f
^ v
f
;
^
w
p

X
f
0 8
^
w
p
2

L
f
;
with the transformed Cauchy stress tensor
^ r
f
: ^ p
f
I ^ q
f
m
f

^
r^ v
f

F
1

F
T ^
r^ v
T
f
:
The viscosity and the density of the uid are denoted by m
f
and ^ q
f
,
respectively. The function g
f
represents Neumann boundary condi-
tions for both physical boundaries (e.g., stress zero at outow
boundary), and normal stresses on

C
i
. Later, this boundary repre-
sents the interface between the uid and structure. We note that
the specic choice of the transformation

A
f
is up to now arbitrary
and left open.
2.3. Structure in Lagrangian coordinates
Usually, structural problems are formulated in Lagrangian coor-
dinates, which means to nd a mapping from the physical domain
X
s
(t) to the reference domain

X
s
. The transformation

A
s
t :

X
s
I
t
! X
s
t is naturally given by the deformation itself:

A
s
^x; t ^x ^ u
s
^x; t;

F
s
:
^
r

A
s
I
^
r^ u
s
;

J
s
: det

F
s
:
1
Fig. 1. The monolithic solution approach for uid-structure interaction.
2 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
We observe two material models. First, the elastic compressible
(geometrically) nonlinear Saint VenantKirchhoff material (STVK).
It is well suited for (relatively) large displacements with the
limitation of small strains. The strain is dened by

E :
1
2

F
T
F I. Second, we employ the MooneyRivlin model (IMR)
that is useful in the description of incompressible-isotropic
rubber-like materials. It is also an adequate model for deformations
with large strains. The sought physical unknowns are the displace-
ment , the velocity ^ v, and a pressure ^ p
s
(in case of the IMR
material).
Problem 2.2. (Structure problems, Lagrangian framework) Find
f^ v
s
; ^ u
s
; ^ p
s
g 2 f^ v
D
s


V
0
s
g f^ u
D
s


V
0
s
g

L
s
, such that ^ u
s
0 ^ u
0
s
, for
almost all time steps t, and
^ q
s
@
t
^ v
s
;
^
w
v

Xs

J
s
^ r
s

F
T
s
;
^
r
^
w
v

Xs
h

J
s
^ r
s

F
T
s
^ n
s
;
^
w
v
i

C
i
[

C
N
^ q
s
^
f
s
;
^
w
v

Xs
8
^
w
v
2

V
s
@
t
^ u
s
^ v
s
;
^
w
u

Xs
0 8
^
w
u
2

V
s
;
2
where ^ q
s
is the structure density, ^ n
s
the outer normal vector on

C
i
and

C
N
, respectively. The Cauchy stress tensors for STVK material
and the IMR material, respectively, are given by
^ r
s
:

J
1
Fk
s
tr

EI 2l
s

F
T
; 3
^ r
s
: ^ p
s
I l
s

F
T
l
2

F
T

F
1
4
with the Lam coefcients l
s
, k
s
, and l
2
. For the STVK material, the
compressibility is related to the Poisson ratio m
s
(m
s
<
1
2
). External
volume forces are described by the term
^
f
s
.
2.4. The mixed formulation of the biharmonic equation
In this section, we focus on a mixed formulation of the bihar-
monic equation. To be convenient for later purposes we use the
hat notation as introduced before. Let

X & R
d
be a polygonal do-
main with boundary

C

C
1
[

C
2
.
In the following, we investigate nite element approximations
of the biharmonic equation

D
2
^ u
^
f in

X; 5
with boundary conditions
^ u
^
@
n
^ u 0 on

C
1
;

D^ u
^
@
n

D^ u 0 on

C
2
:
This equation is well-known from structure mechanics where ^ u de-
scribes the deection of a clamped plate under the vertical force
^
f .
To derive a mixed formulation in the sense of Ciarlet [21], we
introduce an auxiliary variable ^ w

D^ u obtaining two differential

equations:
^ w

D^ u in

X;

D^ w
^
f in

X; 6
with boundary conditions
^ u
^
@
n
^ u 0 on

C
1
;
^ w
^
@
n
^ w 0 on

C
2
:
In order to discretize (5) with a conforming Galerkin nite element
scheme, we derive a variational formulation with standard argu-
ments [21,22]:
Problem 2.3. Find f^ u; ^ wg 2

V
0

V such that
^ w;
^
w
w

^
r^ u;
^
r
^
w
w
0 8
^
w
w
2

V;

^
r^ w;
^
r
^
w
u
f ; w
u
8
^
w
u
2

V
0
:
Problem 2.3 has computational advantages compared to other var-
iational formulations of the biharmonic equation. This mixed for-
mulation avoids the use of H
2
-conforming nite elements for
spatial discretization. When working with a variational formulation
of the original Eq. 5, higher order nite elements are indispensable.
2.5. The coupled problem in ALE coordinates
Combining the reference domains

X
f
and

X
s
leads to the well-
established ALE formulation for uid-structure interactions. For
this purpose, we need to specify the transformation

A
f
in the
uid-domain. On the interface

C
i
, this transformation is given by
following the structure displacement:

A
f
^x; tj

C
i
^x ^ u
s
^x; tj

C
i
: 7
On the outer boundary of the uid domain, @

X
f
n

C
i
there holds

A
f
id. Inside

X
f
, the transformation should be as smooth and reg-
ular as possible, it is otherwise arbitrary.
There are several possible ways to pose the articial problem.
Often, the uid mesh movement is resolved by solving a (linear)
elasticity equation [6,8,23]. Solving the Laplace equation is the
simplest route, but it only works for small mesh deformations if
a constant number is chosen for the material parameter. Larger
deformations [11] are realized by solving a linear elasticity prob-
lem. As a third approach, we use the biharmonic operator for
deforming the mesh with two types of boundary conditions [12].
In the following section, we explain how to apply the different
mesh moving techniques and how to pose the boundary and inter-
face conditions. To extend ^ u
s
j

Xs
to the uid domain

X
f
, the
mapping

A
f
: id ^ u in

X
f
is dened. In two dimensional cong-
urations, the mesh moves in x- and y-direction, which allows nd-
ing a vector-valued articial displacement variable
^ u
f
: ^ u
1
f
; ^ u
2
f
_ _
: ^ u
x
f
; ^ u
y
f
_ _
:
We needthe single components of
f
belowto applydifferent types of
boundary conditions to the biharmonic mesh motion model. In the
following, the formal description of the rst two mesh motion mod-
els coincides and only differ in the denitionof the stress tensors ^ r
g
.
2.5.1. Mesh motion with harmonic model
The simplest model is based on the harmonic equation, which
reads in strong formulation:

div^ r
g
0; ^ u
f
^ u
s
on

C
i
; ^ u
f
0 on @

X
f
n

C
i
; 8
with ^ r
g
^ a
u
^
r^ u
f
, A detailed explication of the articial parameter
^ a
u
: ^ a
u
^x is given in Section 3.6.
2.5.2. Mesh motion with linear elastic model
The linear-elasticity equation is formally based on the well-
known momentum equations from structure mechanics. If we as-
sume a steady state process and neglect the body forces, we obtain
the following static-equilibrium equation:

div^ r
g
0; ^ u
f
^ u
s
on

C
i
; ^ u
f
0 on @

X
f
n

C
i
:
where ^ r
g
is formally equivalent to the STVK material in Eq. 3. It is
given by:
^ r
g
:

F
^
a
k
tr
^
I 2
^
a
l
^
: 9
The pseudo-material parameters ^ a
k
: ^ a
k
^x and ^ a
l
: ^ a
l
^x are
explained in Section 3.6. Further,
^

1
2

^
r^ u
f

^
r^ u
T
f
is the linearized
version of the strain tensor

E.
T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx 3
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
2.5.3. Mesh motion with biharmonic model
In this work, solving the biharmonic equation is introduced as a
third possible uid mesh deformation. It is based on the already
introduced mixed model in the strong formulation Eq. 6. As before,
articial material parameters are used to control the mesh motion.
Then
^ w
f

^
a
u

D^ u
f
and
^
a
w

D^ w
f
0: 10
To simplify notation, we assume ^ a
u
^ a
w
1 in this section.
It is more convenient to consider the single component func-
tions ^ u
1
f
and ^ u
2
f
,
^ w
1
f

D^ u
1
f
and

D^ w
1
f
0;
^ w
2
f

D^ u
2
f
and

D^ w
2
f
0:
We focus on two types of boundary conditions. First, we pose the
rst type of boundary conditions
^ u
k
f

^
@
n
^ u
k
f
0 on

C n

C
i
for k 1; 2: 11
Second, we are concerned with a mixture of boundary conditions
(see Fig. 2)
^ u
1
f

^
@
n
^ u
1
f
0 and ^ w
1
f

^
@
n
^ w
1
f
0 on

C
in
[

C
out
;
^ u
2
f

^
@
n
^ u
2
f
0 and ^ w
2
f

^
@
n
^ w
2
f
0 on

C
wall
; 12
which we call second type of boundary conditions. The interface con-
ditions for
f
are given as usual, ^ u
f
^ u
s
on

C
i
:
Remark 2.1. Using the second type of boundary conditions in a
rectangular domain where the coordinate axes match the Cartesian
coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 2, leads to mesh movement
only in the tangential direction. This effect reduces mesh cell
distortion because only the perpendicular directions of
f
and w
f
are constrained to zero at the different parts of

C.
Up to now, the description of the problems has been derived in
a general manner that serves for both partitioned and monolithic
solution algorithms. In the following, we focus on a monolithic
description of the coupled problem. We dene a continuous vari-
able for all

X dening the deformation in

X
s
and supporting
the transformation in

X
f
. Thus, we skip the subscripts, and because
the denition of

A
f
coincides with the previous denition of

A
s
,
we dene in

X:

A : id ^ u;

F : I
^
r^ u;

J : det

F: 13
Furthermore, the velocity ^ v is a common continuous function for
both subproblems, whereas the pressure ^ p is discontinuous. For the
convenience for the reader, we only state the full variational formu-
lation of the harmonic and the linear-elastic mesh motion models.
Problem2.4 (Variational uid-structure interaction framework ). Find
f^ v; ^ u; ^ pg 2 f^ v
D

V
0
g f^ u
D

V
0
g

L, such that ^ v0 ^ v
0
and
(0) =
0
, for almost all time steps t, and

J ^ q
f
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
f

F
1
^ v @
t
^ u
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f

J ^ r
f

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
s
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

Xs

J ^ r
s

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

Xs
h^ g;
^
w
v
i

C
N
^ q
f

J
^
f
f
;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
s
^
f
s
;
^
w
v

Xs
0 8
^
w
v
2

V
0
;
@
t
^ u ^ v;
^
w
u

Xs
^ r
g
;
^
r
^
w
u

X
f
h^ r
g
^ n
f
;
^
w
u
i

C
i
0 8
^
w
u
2

V
0
;

div

F
1
^ v
f
;
^
w
p

X
f
^ p
s
;
^
w
p

Xs
0 8
^
w
p
2

L;
with ^ q
f
, ^ q
s
, m
f
, l
s
, k
s
,

F, and

J. The stress tensors ^ r
f
, ^ r
s
, and ^ r
g
are
dened in Problems 2.1, 2.2, and the Eqs. 8 and 9, respectively.
The Problem 2.4 is completed by appropriate choice of the two
coupling conditions on the interface. The continuity of velocity
across

C
i
is strongly enforced by requiring one common continu-
ous velocity eld on the whole domain

X. The continuity of normal
stresses is given by

J ^ r
s

F
T
^ n
s
; w
v

C
i

J ^ r
f

F
T
^ n
f
; w
v

C
i
: 14
By omitting this boundary integral jump over

C
i
the weak continu-
ity of the normal stresses becomes an implicit condition of the uid-
structure interaction problem.
Remark 2.2. The boundary terms on

C
i
in Problem 2.4 are
necessary to prevent spurious feedback of the displacement
variables and w . For more details on this, we refer to [7].
3. Discretization
In this section, we focus on the discretization in time and space
of the uid-structure interaction Problem 2.4. Our method of
choice are nite differences for time discretization and a Galerkin
nite element method for spatial treatment.
3.1. Variational formulation in an abstract setting
In the domain

X and the time interval I 0; T, we consider the
uid-structure interaction Problem 2.4 with harmonic or lin-
ear-elastic mesh motion in an abstract setting (the biharmonic
problem is straightforward): Find

U f^ v; ^ u; ^ pg 2
^
X, where

X
0
: f^ v
D

V
0
g f^ u
D

V
0
g

L, such that
_
T
0

Wdt
_
T
0

Wdt 8

W 2

X
0
: 15
The linear form

F

W and the semi-linear form

A

W are dened
by

W ^ q
s
^
f
s
;
^
w
v

Xs
; 16
and

J ^ q
f
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
f

F
1
^ v
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
f

F
1
^
@
t
^ u
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
h^ g;
^
w
v
i

C
N
^ q
f

J
^
f
f
;
^
w
v

X
f

J ^ r
f

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
s
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

Xs

J ^ r
s

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

Xs
@
t
^ u;
^
w
u

Xs
^ v;
^
w
u

Xs

^
a
u
^
r^ u;
^
r
^
w
u

X
f
h
^
a
u
^ n
f
^
r^ u;
^
w
u
i

C
i

div

F
1
^ v
f
;
^
w
p

X
f
^ p
s
;
^
w
p

Xs
: 17
The uid convection term in Eq. 17 is decomposed into two parts for
later purposes.
Fig. 2. Flow around cylinder with elastic beam with circle-center C = (0.2, 0.2) and
radius r = 0.05.
4 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
3.2. Time discretization
The abstract problem Eq. 15 can either treated by a full time
space Galerkin formulation, which has been investigated for uid
problems [25]. Alternatively, the Rothe method can be used in
cases where the time discretization is based on nite difference
schemes. A classical scheme for problems with a stationary limit
is the the (implicit) backward Euler scheme (BE), which is strongly
A-stable, but only from rst order, and dissipative. It is later used in
the numerical Examples 1,2 and 4.
The Fractional-step-h scheme is used for unsteady simulations
[15]. It has second-order accuracy and is strongly A-stable, and it
is therefore well-suited for computing solutions with rough data
and computations over long time intervals.
After semi-discretization in time, we obtain a sequence of gen-
eralized steady uid-structure interaction problems that are com-
pleted by appropriate boundary values for every time step. These
kinds of problems are now formulated as One-step h scheme [14].
This design has the advantage that it can easily be extended to
the Fractional-Step-h scheme.
We (formally) dene the following semi-linear forms and group
them into four categories: time equation terms (including the time
derivatives), implicit terms (e.g., the incompressibility of uid),
pressure terms, and all remaining terms (stress terms, convection,
etc.):

A
T

J ^ q
f
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
f

F
1
^
@
t
^ u
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
s
@
t
^ v;
^
w
v

Xs
@
t
^ u;
^
w
u

Xs
;

A
I

W
^
a
u
^
r^ u;
^
r
^
w
u

X
f
h
^
a
u
^ n
f
^
r^ u;
^
w
u
i

C
i

div

F
1
^ v
f
;
^
w
p

X
f
^ p
s
;
^
w
p

Xs
;

A
E

W ^ q
f

F
1
^ v
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f

J ^ r
f ;vu

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

X
f

J ^ r
s;vu

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

Xs
^ v;
^
w
u

Xs
;

A
P

J ^ r
f ;p

F
T
;
^
r
^
w
v

X
f
;
18
where the reduced tensors r
f,vu
, r
s,vu
, and r
f,p
, are dened as:
r
f ;vu
q
f
m
f

^
r^ v

F
1

F
T ^
r^ v
T
;
r
s;vu

J
1
Fk
s
tr

EI 2l
s

F
T
;
r
f ;p

J ^ p
f
I

F
T
:
The time derivative in

A
T

W is approximated by a backward
difference quotient. For the time step t
m
2 Im 1; 2; . . ., we com-
pute ^ v : ^ v
m
; ^ u : ^ u
m
via

A
T

U
m;k

W ^ q
f

J
m
1
2
^ v ^ v
m1
k
;
^
w
v
_ _

X
f
^ q
f

F
1
^ u ^ u
m1
k

^
r^ v;
^
w
v
_ _

X
f
^ q
s
^ v ^ v
m1
k
;
^
w
v
_ _

Xs

^ u ^ u
m1
k
;
^
w
u
_ _

Xs
;
where

J
m
1
2

J
m

J
m1
2
,
m
: (t
m
), ^ v
m
: ^ vt
m
, and

J :

J
m
:

Jt
m
. The former time step is given by ^ v
m1
, etc.
3.2.1. Basic-h scheme
Let the previous solution

U
m1
f^ v
m1
; ^ u
m1
; ^ p
m1
g and the
time step k : k
m
= t
m
t
m1
be given.
Find

U
m
f^ v
m
; ^ u
m
; ^ p
m
g such that

A
T

U
m;k

W h

A
E

U
m

W

A
P

U
m

W

A
I

U
m

W
1 h

A
E

U
m1

W h

U
m

W 1 h

U
m1

W:
The concrete scheme depends on the choice for the parameter h. In
particular, we get the backward Euler scheme for h = 1, the Crank
Nicolson scheme for h
1
2
, and the shifted CrankNicolson for
h
1
2
k
m
[24].
3.2.2. Fractional-step-h scheme
We choose h 1

2
p
2
; h
0
1 2h, and a
12h
1h
; b 1 a. The
time step is split into three consecutive sub-time steps. Let
^
U
m1
f^ v
m1
; ^ u
m1
; ^ p
m1
g and the time step k : k
m
= t
m
t
m1
be
given.
Find

U
m
f^ v
m
; ^ u
m
; ^ p
m
g such that

A
T

U
m1h;k

W ah

A
E

U
m1h

W h

A
P

U
m1h

A
I

U
m1h

W
bh

A
E

U
m1

W h

U
m1

W;

A
T

U
mh;k

W ah

A
E

U
mh

W h
0

A
P

U
mh

A
I

U
mh

W ah
0

A
E

U
m1h

^
W h
0

U
mh

W;

A
T

U
m;k

W ah

A
E

U
m

W h

A
P

U
m

A
I

U
m

W bh

A
E

U
m1

W h

U
mh

W: 19
3.3. Spatial discretization
The time discretize equations are the starting point for the
Galerkin discretization in space. To this end, we construct nite
dimensional subspaces

X
0
h
&

X
0
to nd an approximate solution
to the continuous problem. In the context of monolithic ALE for-
mulations, the computations are done on the reference congura-
tion

X. We use two or three dimensional shape-regular meshes. A
mesh consists of quadrilateral or hexahedron cells

K. They perform
a non-overlapping cover of the computation domain

X & R
d
, d = 2,
3. The corresponding mesh is given by

T
h
f

Kg. The discretization

parameter in the reference conguration is denoted by
^
h and
is a cell-wise constant that is given by the diameter
^
h

K
of the
cell

K.
On

T
h
, conforming nite element spaces for ^ v
h
; ^ u
h
; ^ p
h
, and w
h
are denoted by the space

V
h
&

V. We prefer the biquadratic, dis-
continuous-linear Q
c
2
=P
dc
1
element. The denitions of the spaces
for the unknowns ^ v
h
and ^ p
h
on a time interval I
m
read:

V
h
: ^ v
h
2 C

X
h

d
; ^ v
h
j

K
2 Q
2

K
d
8

K 2

T
h
; ^ v
h
j

Cn

C
i
0
_ _
;

P
h
: ^ p
h
2

L
2

X
h
; ^ p
h
j

K
2 P
1

K 8

K 2

T
h
_ _
:
We consider for each

K 2

T
h
the bilinear transformation
^ r
K
:

K
unit
!
^
K, where

K
unit
denotes the unit square. Then, the Q
c
2
element is dened by
Q
c
2

K q ^ r
1
K
: q 2 span < 1; x; y; xy; x
2
; y
2
; x
2
y; y
2
x; x
2
y
2
>
_ _
with dim Q
c
2
9, which means nine local degrees of freedom. The
P
dc
1
element consists of linear functions dened by
P
dc
1

K q ^ r
1
K
: q 2 span < 1; x; y >
_ _
with dim P
dc
1

^
K 3.
T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx 5
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
Dening the displacement variables
h
and w
h
is straightfor-
ward. The property of the Q
c
2
=P
dc
1
element is continuity of
the velocity values across different mesh cells. However, the
pressure is dened by discontinuous test functions. In addition,
this element preserves local mass conservation, is of low
order, gains the inf-sup stability, and therefore is an optimal
choice for both uid problems and uid-structure interaction
problems.
Remark 3.1. Computation of uid-structure interaction with
biharmonic mesh motion has more computational cost at each
time step than just using a linear elasticity problem. This is because
an additional equation is added to the problem. Because we use a
direct solver for the linear sub-problems, the condition number
does not play a role. In the context of a Galerkin nite element
scheme, the spatial discretization of the mixed biharmonic equa-
tion is stable for equal-order discretization on polygonal domains,
which was part of our assumptions. Here, we work with Q
c
2
elements for
h
and w
h
.
3.4. Linearization
Time and spatial discretization results for each single time step
in a nonlinear quasi-stationary problem

U
m

W

F

W 8

W 2

X
0
h
;
which is solved by a Newton-like method. Given an initial guess U
0
m
,
nd for j = 0, 1, 2, . . . the update
^
d

U
m
of the linear defect-correction
problem

A
0

U
j
m

^
d

U
m
;

W

U
j
m

W

F

W;
U
j1
m
U
j
m
k
^
d

U
m
: 20
Here k 2 (0, 1] is used as damping parameter for line search
techniques. The directional derivative

A
0

U
^
d

U;

W; is dened
by

A
0

U
^
d

U;

W : lim
e!0
1
e

U e
^
d

W

A

W
_ _

d
de

A
h

U e
^
d

e0
:
Due to the large size of the Jacobian matrix and the strongly nonlin-
ear behavior of uid-structure interaction problems in the mono-
lithic ALE framework, calculating the Jacobian matrix can be
cumbersome. Nevertheless, in this context, we use the exact
Jacobian matrix to identify the optimal convergence properties of
the Newton method.
3.4.1. Implementation aspects
In this section, we present an example of one specic direc-
tional derivative that includes all of the necessary steps. Derivation
of the other expressions is straight forward, but for the conve-
nience of the reader, it is not shown here.
Let us consider the second term of the semi-linear form

A
T

W, Eq. 18, that is part of the uid convection term in ALE

coordinates. It holds

A
conv

W ^ q
f

F
1
^
@
t
^ u
^
r^ v;
^
w
v

X
f
^ q
f
^
r^ v

F
1
^
@
t
^ u;
^
w
v

X
f
:
In this case, the directional derivative

A
0
conv

U
^
d

U;

W in the direc-
tion
^
d

U fd^ v; d^ u; d^ pg is given by

A
0
conv

U
^
d

U;

W
^
rd^ v

F
1
^ u ^ u
m1
k
;
^
w
v
_ _

^
r^ v

F
1

0
d^ u
^ u ^ u
m1
k
;
^
w
v
_ _

^
r^ v

F
1
d^ u
k
;
^
w
v
_ _
: 21
In two dimensions the deformation matrix reads in explicit form:

F I
^
r^ u
1
^
@
1
^ u
1
^
@
2
^ u
1
^
@
1
^ u
2
1
^
@
2
^ u
2
_ _
;
which brings us to

F
1

1
^
@
2
^ u
2

^
@
2
^ u
1

^
@
1
^ u
2
1
^
@
2
^ u
2
_ _
and its directional derivative in direction d^ u d^ u
1
; d^ u
2
:

F
1

0
d^ u
^
@
2
d^ u
2

^
@
2
d^ u
1

^
@
1
d^ u
2
^
@
2
d^ u
2
_ _
:
This expression is part of the second term shown in Eq. 21. The
remaining expressions for directional derivatives can be derived
in an analogous way. For more details on computation of the direc-
tional derivatives on the interface, please refer to [6,7]. Accurate
determination of the directional derivatives is also indispensable
for optimization problems in which the performance of the Newton
algorithms heavily depend on [26].
3.5. Mesh renement
The computations are performed on globally-rened meshes
and heuristically-rened meshes. We use two kinds of heuristic
mesh renement. The rst step is geometric renement around
the interface. The second step is measurement of the smoothness
of the discrete solutions that also lead to local renement in the re-
gions around the interface.
3.6. Inuence of the articial parameters
We use an ad hoc method to dene the articial (material-)
parameters: ^ a
u
, ^ a
w
, ^ a
k
, and ^ a
l
. They are used to control the mesh
motion of the uid mesh. There are several choices for controlling
the inuence of these parameters. In one technique selective mesh
deformation is used that is based on the shape and volume changes
of the cells [8]. Another method is augmented by a stiffening power
that determines the rate by which smaller elements are stiffened
more than larger ones [11].
Mesh cells touching the interface are critical with respect to
mesh degeneration. Therefore, the aim of these parameters should
be to maintain the shape of the uid mesh cells, close to the inter-
face, by controlling the determinant

J of the transformation

F. The
parameters must be adjusted in a certain way for different tests
congurations which is problematic because the exact parameter
choice is a priori unknown. This problem does not occur when
using the biharmonic mesh motion model. An optimal, smooth
mesh is automatically achieved using this mesh motion model,
see Fig. 3 and [12]. Therefore, the material parameters ^ a
u
, ^ a
w
do
not depend on the mesh-position. For the harmonic mesh motion
model, we use ^ a
u
:
^
h
2

K
^ a
u
^x, with small parameter ^ a
u
^x > 0.
The parameters ^ a
k
and ^ a
l
for the linear-elasticity mesh model
can be dened in a similar way.
6 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
4. Numerical tests
In this section, we compare the different mesh motion models
using numerical tests. The rst three tests are two dimensional,
based on the Computational Structure Mechanics (CSM) test [27],
the large deformation membrane on uid test [28], and Fluid Struc-
ture Interaction (FSI) benchmark congurations [27,23,29]. We
compare our results to the results given in these articles and ex-
tend the CSM test to a new conguration to show the improved
performance of the biharmonic model with regard to the mesh
motion.
4.1. CSM tests
In these test cases, the uid is set to be initially at rest in

X
f
. An
external gravitational force
^
f
s
is applied only to the elastic beam,
producing a visible deformation. The tests are performed as
time-dependent problems (backward Euler), leading to a steady
state solution. For the harmonic and linear-elastic model, we use
the time step size k = 0.02 s; for the biharmonic model we use
k = 0.1 s.
In the rst test case CSM 1, the same parameters used by [27]
validate the code and are used to compare the different mesh mo-
tion approaches. In particular, we run one computation based on
the harmonic mesh motion model without a mesh-position depen-
dent material parameter. It turns out that the harmonic model
does not hold any more. The reference values are taken from
[27]. In the second example CSM 4, only the gravitational force is
increased causing the elastic beam to become much more
deformed.
4.1.1. Conguration
The computational domain (Fig. 2) has length L = 2.5 m and
height H = 0.41 m. The circle center is positioned at C =
(0.2 m, 0.2 m) with radius r = 0.05 m. The elastic beam has length
l = 0.35 m and height h = 0.02 m. The right lower end is positioned
at (0.6 m, 0.19 m), and the left end is attached to the circle.
Control points A(t) (with A(0) = (0.6, 0.2)) are xed at the trailing
edge of the structure, measuring x- and y-deections of the beam.
4.1.2. Boundary conditions
For the upper, lower, and left boundaries, the no-slip condi-
tions for velocity and no zero displacement for structure are given.
When using the second type of boundary conditions with the
biharmonic mesh motion model, the displacement should be zero
in normal direction and free in the tangential direction. This allows
the uid mesh the freedom to move along the boundary and re-
sults in a better partition of the uid mesh.
At the outlet

C
out
, the do-nothing outow condition is imposed
leading to a zero mean value of the pressure at this part of the
boundary.
4.1.3. Parameters
We choose for our computation the following parameters. For
the (resting) uid we use .
f
= 10
3
kg m
3
, m
f
= 10
3
m
2
s
1
. The
elastic structure is characterized by .
s
= 10
3
kg m
3
, m
s
= 0.4,
l
s
= 510
5
kg m
1
s
2
. The vertical force is chosen as
^
f
s
2 m s
2
.
4.1.4. Discussion of the CSM 1 test
We observe, that the harmonic mesh motion without the mesh-
position dependent parameter leads to mesh degeneration and,
therefore, does not hold in this example. A quantitative study can
be seen in Fig. 3, where the minimal values, min (

J), of the ALE-

transformation determinant

J are sketched as function plots. Our
results indicate that using the harmonic approach (which is the
simplest one) is sufcient for this numerical test.
4.1.5. Discussion of the CSM 4 test
Due to the higher gravitational force
^
f
s
4 m s
2
applied to the
structure, the beam is deformed to a greater extent than in the pre-
viously described test.
For this test case, only the biharmonic mesh motion model
equipped with the second type of boundary conditions leads to re-
sults. This effect occurs because the outermost mesh layer is not
deformed when using the rst type of boundary conditions. How-
ever, the second type can deal with this factor because the mesh is
allowed to move in a tangential direction along the outer boundary
and prevent mesh degeneration. The measurements can be ob-
served in Table 1. Screenshots of the meshes are given in the Figs.
4 and 5. A quantitative study of the min
^
J can be studied in Fig. 6.
We observe that the biharmonic mesh motion model leads to a
smoother uid mesh compared to the other two mesh motion
models. The function plots of the min(

J) in Figs. 3 and 6 indicate

that the global minimum of the biharmonic models is further away
from zero compared to the global minimums of the harmonic and
linear-elasticity approaches. In other words, the mesh distortion is
smaller when using the biharmonic mesh motion model.
4.2. Large deformation membrane on uid test
The purpose of this example is to test our framework for large
structural deformations [28]. We modify the given conguration
by enlarging the height of the membrane. We use the incompress-
ible MooneyRivlin model (which is capable to deal with large
deformations and large strains) to characterize the structure. The
test is driven by a pressure difference between

C
in
and

C
out
. We
choose the time step size k = 0.01 and the implicit Euler time step-
ping scheme.
4.2.1. Conguration and Parameters
The conguration is sketched in Fig. 7. We use the following
parameters to run the simulation: .
f
= 1000.0 kg m
3
, and
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
M
i
n

(
J
)
Time
Harmonic with constant parameter
Harmonic
Linear elasticity
Biharmonic 1st type bc
Biharmonic 2nd type bc
Fig. 3. Comparison of the min (

J) for the harmonic, linear-elastic, and biharmonic

mesh motion models for the CSM 1 test. Degeneration of the mesh cells corresponds
to negative values of

J, for the case using the harmonic mesh motion model with
constant parameter.
Table 1
Results for CSM 4 with biharmonic mesh motion and second type of boundary
conditions.
DoF u
x
(A)[ 10
3
m] u
y
(A)[ 10
3
m]
27744 25.2199 121.971
42024 25.2805 122.132
72696 25.3101 122.214
133992 25.3268 122.259
T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx 7
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
m
f
= 0.004 m
2
s
1
for the uid. For the structure, we use
.
s
= 800.0 kg m
3
, l
s
= 2.0 10
7
Pa, l
2
= 1.0 10
5
Pa.
4.2.2. Initial conditions and boundary conditions
On the lower boundary

C
in
and upper boundary

C
out
we pre-
scribe Robin-type boundary condition for the velocity and pressure
and homogeneous Dirichlet condition for the displacement. On all
remaining parts we prescribe homogeneous Dirichlet conditions
for the velocity and the displacement:
^ u 0 on

C
in
[

C
out
[

C
wall
;
^ v 0 on

C
wall
;
m
f
@
n
^ u ^ pI ^ n
f
^ p
inflow
^ n
f
on

C
in
;
m
f
@
n
^ u ^ pI ^ n
f
0 on

C
out
:
The pressure ^ p
in
is increased during the computation, i.e.,
^ p
in
t ^ p
initial
with ^ p
initial
5:0 10
6
Pa:
4.2.3. Quantities of comparison
(1) y-deection of the structure at the point A(t) with
A(0) = (0.0, 0.005) [m].
(2) Principal stretch of the uid cells under the membrane, i.e.
the stretch between the points (0.0, 0.005) [m] and
(0.0, 0.0025) [m].
(3) Measuring min

J.
4.2.4. Results
The qualitative behavior of the numerical results does agree
with the ndings in [28]. However, we use quadrilaterals for the
discretization, whereas the other authors use triangles. This is
one reason why we get a smaller maximal deformation of the
membrane (Figs. 8 and 9). Moreover, we use the same overall mesh
for the uid and the structure domains, which leads to high
Fig. 4. CSM 4 test with the harmonic and linear-elastic mesh motion models and gravitational force
^
f s 4ms
2
. Both models lead to mesh distortion close to the lower
boundary.
Fig. 5. CSM 4 test with biharmonic mesh motion model and gravitational force
^
f s 4ms
2
. In the left picture the mesh cells distort using the rst set of boundary conditions.
In the right picture the second kind of boundary conditions are used.
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
M
i
n

(
J
)
Time
Harmonic
Pseudo elasticity
Biharmonic 1st type bc
Biharmonic 2nd type bc
Fig. 6. Function plots of min (

J) for the mesh motion models of the CSM 4 test.

Degeneration of mesh cells corresponds to negative values of

J, arising in the rst
three models.
Fig. 7. Conguration: large deformation membrane on uid test.
8 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
anisotropies in the structure when working with a very thin mem-
brane (Fig. 10). For that reason, we enlarged the membrane to pre-
vent difculties due to the anisotropies.
4.3. Flexible beam in 2D
In this example, the three proposed mesh motion models are
applied to an unsteady uid-structure interaction problem. We
consider the numerical benchmark test FSI 2, which was proposed
in [27]. The conguration is the same as for the CSM tests, sketched
in Fig. 2. New results can be found in [23,30,31]. The Fractional-
Step-h scheme, as presented in Eq. 19, was used for time discreti-
zation with different time step sizes k.
Due to large deformations of the elastic beam, using the proper
mesh motion model becomes crucial (Fig. 11). The mesh-
dependent parameters used for the harmonic and linear-elastic ap-
proaches are the same as were used for the CSM tests discussed
previously.
4.3.1. Boundary conditions
A parabolic inow velocity prole is given on

C
in
by
v
f
0; y 1:5U
4yH y
H
2
; U 1:0 m s
1
:
At the outlet

C
out
the do-nothing outow condition is imposed
which lead to zero mean value of the pressure at this part of the
boundary. The remaining boundary conditions are chosen as in
the CSM test cases.
4.3.2. Initial conditions
For the non-steady tests one should start with a smooth in-
crease of the velocity prole in time. We use
v
f
t; 0; y
v
f
0; y
1cos
p
2
t
2
if t < 2:0 s
v
f
0; y otherwise:
_
The term v
f
(0, y) is already explained above.
4.3.3. Quantities of comparison and their evaluation
(1) x- and y-deection of the beam at A(t).
(2) The forces exerted by the uid on the whole body, i.e.,
drag force F
D
and lift force F
L
on the rigid cylinder and the
elastic beam. They form a closed path in which the forces
can be computed with the help of line integration. The
formula is evaluated on the xed reference domain

X and
reads:
F
D
; F
L

_

J ^ r
all

F
T
^ nd^s

S circle

J ^ r
f

F
T
^ n
f
d^s
_

Sbeam

J ^ r
f

F
T
^ n
f
d^s:
22
The quantities of interest for this time dependent test case
are represented by the mean value, amplitudes, and frequency of
x- and y-deections of the beam in one time period T of
oscillations.
4.3.4. Parameters
We choose for our computation the following parameters. For
the uid we use .
f
= 10
3
kg m
3
, m
f
= 10
3
m
2
s
1
. The elastic struc-
ture is characterized by .
s
= 10
4
kg m
3
, m
s
= 0.4, l
s
= 510
5
kg m
1
s
2
.
We observe the same qualitative behavior in each of our ap-
proaches for the quantities of interest (u
x
(A), u
y
(A), drag, and lift);
these results are in agreement with [30].
The computed values are summarized in Tables 24. The refer-
ence values are taken from [30]. In general, to verify convergence
with respect to space and time, at least three different mesh
levels and time step sizes should be presented. Three different
mesh levels are not possible when working with the simplest
approach: harmonic mesh motion. For the third mesh level,
the min (
^
J) becomes negative, and the ALE-mapping bursts off.
The x-displacements show the same behavior for all congura-
tions. For the y-displacements, we observe the same behavior on
the coarse mesh as we do for the harmonic and biharmonic ap-
proaches. However, the elastic approach yields nearly the same re-
sults on the different mesh levels.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
M
i
n

(
J
)
Time
Harmonic with constant parameter
Harmonic
Linear elasticity
Biharmonic 1st type bc
Fig. 8. Function plots of min (

J) for the mesh motion models of the membrane on

uid test. Degeneration of mesh cells corresponds to negative values of

J, arising in
the rst three models.
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
y
-
d
i
s
Time
global 1
global 2
global 3
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
y
-
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
Time
global 1
global 2
global 3
Fig. 9. Large deformation membrane uid test with the biharmonic mesh model for three different mesh levels. Left: vertical displacement of the point (0.0, 0.005). Right:
stretch of the cell under the membrane.
T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx 9
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
The drag values are similar for the rst two mesh levels for each
mesh motion model. The results on the nest mesh for the bihar-
monic approach match the reference values.
The most difcult task is to compute the lift values. These dif-
culties are a well-known phenomenon from uid mechanics and
the related benchmark computations. These values also varies in
the literature [27,30,31]. Nevertheless, on the nest meshes of
the linear-elastic and biharmonic mesh motion models, all of the
values have the same sign and come relatively close to the refer-
ence values.
4.4. 3D bar behind a square cross section
In the last example, we consider a conguration in three dimen-
sions. The steady state is derived in a similar fashion to the rst
example, using the backward Euler time stepping scheme. We
compare the harmonic mesh motion model with the biharmonic
model for moderate deformations.
4.4.1. Conguration and Parameters
The conguration (Fig. 12) is based on the uid benchmark
example proposed in [32].
We use the following parameters to drive the simulation:
.
f
= 1.0 kg m
3
, and m
f
= 0.01 m
2
s
1
for the uid. For the structure,
we use .
s
= 1.0 kg m
3
, m
s
= 0.4, and l
s
= 500.0 kg m
1
s
2
.
4.4.2. Initial conditions and boundary conditions
A constant parabolic inow velocity prole is given on

C
in
by
v
f
t; 0; y 16:0Uyz
H yH z
H
4
; U 0:45 m s
1
:
Fig. 10. Large deformation membrane on uid test. The mesh deformation using the biharmonic model at the times t = 0.12 (left) and t = 0.7 (right) are displayed.
Fig. 11. FSI 2 test case: mesh (left) and velocity prole in vertical direction (right) at time t = 16.14 s.
Table 2
Results for the FSI 2 benchmark with the harmonic mesh motion model. The mean value and amplitude are given for the four quantities of interest: u
x
, u
y
[m], F
D
, F
L
[N]. The
frequencies f
1
[s
1
] and f
2
[s
1
] of u
x
and u
y
vary in a range of 3.83 3.87 (Ref. 3.86) and 1.91 1.94 (Ref. 1.93), respectively.
DoF k[s] u
x
(A)[ 10
3
] u
y
(A)[ 10
3
] F
D
F
L
5032 3.0e3 14.62 13.17 1.06 79.87 210.78 73.97 1.83 295.8
5032 2.0e3 14.66 13.19 1.02 78.30 211.83 73.72 1.83 295.8
5032 1.0e3 14.70 13.20 0.94 80.39 210.17 75.34 0.40 298.4
5032 0.5e3 14.63 13.17 1.08 80.34 212.61 74.31 0.84 297.4
19488 3.0e3 13.73 11.79 1.20 78.20 207.72 72.63 0.21 227.1
19488 2.0e3 13.59 11.79 1.25 77.96 207.52 72.07 2.03 226.5
19488 1.0e3 13.63 11.77 1.24 78.11 201.96 73.15 1.86 231.2
19488 0.5e3 13.59 11.77 1.23 78.06 203.59 70.37 1.25 221.5
(Ref.) 0.5e3 14.85 12.70 1.30 81.70 215.06 77.65 0.61 237.8
10 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
At the outlet

C
out
the do-nothing outow condition is imposed,
leading to zero mean value of the pressure on this part of the
boundary.
4.4.3. Quantities of comparison
(1) x-, y-, and z-deection of the beam at A(t) with
A(0) = (8.5, 2.5, 2.73) [m].
(2) Drag and lift around square cross section and elastic beam,
with help of Eq. 22.
4.4.4. Results
The results for the different quantities of interest are in agree-
ment between both of the mesh motion models, as illustrated in
Table 5.
4.4.5. Computational cost for the numerical tests. Finally, we summa-
rize our observations with regard to the computational cost per
Newton step. In each nonlinear step (see Eq. 20), the Jacobian ma-
trix and the residual are evaluated and then solved by a direct sol-
ver (UMFPACK). Our results indicate that using the biharmonic
equation is much more expensive in each Newton step. Concretely,
the cost in two dimensions is ve times higher for the biharmonic
mesh motion model compared to the other two models. In three
dimensions the factor for low amount of degrees of freedom
(DoF) is again ve. Whereas for 624 cells in three dimensions the
factor becomes 70. It seems to be the linear solver, but it is still
an open question. A detailed study is given in Table 6. This result
indicate, using the biharmonic model with UMFPACK in three
dimensions becomes prohibitive in a sequential solution process.
Table 3
Results for the FSI 2 benchmark with the linear-elastic mesh motion model. The mean value and amplitude are given for the four quantities of interest: u
x
, u
y
[m], F
D
, F
L
[N]. The
frequencies f
1
[s
1
] and f
2
[s
1
] of u
x
and u
y
vary in a range of 3.83 3.90 (Ref.3.86) and 1.91 1.95 (Ref. 1.93), respectively.
DoF k[s] u
x
(A)[ 10
3
] u
y
(A)[ 10
3
] F
D
F
L
5032 3.0e3 13.93 12.48 1.20 78.02 205.11 69.01 0.21 284.2
5032 2.0e3 13.88 12.55 1.21 77.72 204.63 68.06 0.39 277.4
5032 1.0e3 13.99 12.62 1.23 78.03 201.65 70.81 0.15 277.9
19488 3.0e3 13.47 11.70 1.28 77.52 205.86 70.05 0.34 225.3
19488 2.0e3 13.54 11.71 1.29 77.77 206.71 70.02 0.31 226.5
19488 1.0e3 13.60 11.77 1.28 77.99 205.49 70.46 0.29 228.0
29512 3.0e3 13.00 11.33 1.26 76.09 202.92 67.09 0.20 216.0
29512 2.0e3 13.06 11.37 1.28 76.29 203.74 67.17 0.48 216.6
29512 1.0e3 13.11 11.42 1.26 76.50 203.28 67.69 0.54 217.7
(Ref.) 0.5e3 14.85 12.70 1.30 81.70 215.06 77.65 0.61 237.8
Table 4
Results for the FSI 2 benchmark with the biharmonic mesh motion model and second type of boundary conditions. The mean value and amplitude are given for the four quantities
of interest: u
x
, u
y
[m], F
D
, F
L
[N]. The frequencies f
1
[s
1
] and f
2
[s
1
] of u
x
and u
y
vary in a range of 3.83 3.88 (Ref.3.86) and 1.92 1.94 (Ref.1.93), respectively.
DoF k[s] u
x
(A)[ 10
3
] u
y
(A)[ 10
3
] F
D
F
L
27744 3.0e3 13.63 11.80 1.27 78.72 207.22 71.13 0.57 230.6
27744 2.0e3 13.72 11.84 1.26 78.38 208.12 71.18 0.30 232.6
27744 1.0e3 13.74 11.85 1.28 78.48 209.46 71.43 0.06 231.7
27744 0.5e3 13.66 11.81 1.28 78.32 208.96 71.60 0.06 238.2
42024 3.0e3 13.34 11.57 1.40 77.08 204.81 68.54 0.79 221.5
42024 2.0e3 13.36 11.55 1.28 77.18 205.61 68.67 0.51 223.0
42024 1.0e3 13.38 11.58 1.31 77.44 206.11 68.26 0.62 221.2
42024 0.5e3 13.27 11.52 1.23 77.25 207.05 68.87 0.30 230.6
72696 3.0e3 14.43 12.46 1.35 80.71 212.50 76.40 0.18 234.6
72696 2.0e3 14.49 12.44 1.19 80.66 213.49 76.39 0.13 235.7
72696 1.0e3 14.49 12.46 1.16 80.63 213.39 75.25 0.23 234.2
72696 0.5e3 14.40 12.39 1.25 80.55 213.55 76.06 0.30 240.2
(Ref.) 0.5e3 14.85 12.70 1.30 81.70 215.06 77.65 0.61 237.8
inflow bc
outflow bc
x
z
y
4.1 m
25 m
4.1 m
4.5 m
1 m
3 m
1 m
1.37 m
1.5 m
A(t)
Fig. 12. Conguration: ow around square cross section with elastic beam.
Table 5
Results for steady 3D FSI test case with harmonic (four upper rows) and biharmonic
(four lower rows) mesh motion. Evaluation of x-, y-, and z-deections (in [m]); each
scaled by 10
6
. In the last two columns drag and lift forces are displayed (in [N]).
Cells DoF u
x
(A) u
y
(A) u
z
(A) F
D
F
L
78 5856 9.5106 32.7193 4.0278 0.6633 0.0502
281 19694 23.8909 17.7207 2.9588 0.7647 0.1996
624 39312 17.1212 0.4168 2.7161 0.7753 0.0103
4992 286368 18.6647 0.1522 3.0243 0.7556 0.0113
78 8628 9.5115 32.7149 4.0277 0.6632 0.0502
281 28979 23.794 17.2999 2.9692 0.7671 0.1964
624 57720 17.123 0.41921 2.7155 0.7753 0.0103
4992
T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx 11
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019
Due to enormous memory usage for direct solvers, one should
use iterative solvers [16,17]. Further, adaptive mesh renement
is an efcient tool to reduce the computational cost [6,13,33].
5. Conclusions
In this work, three different types of uid mesh movement for
uid-structure problems are used and compared: harmonic, lin-
ear-elastic, and biharmonic structure extension. Our results show
that the biharmonic mesh model works ne for large displace-
ments of the elastic structure and leads to a smoother uid mesh.
Compared to the harmonic and linear-elastic mesh motion models,
the biharmonic equation is easier to use. This ease of use is the re-
sult of the articial parameters that do not depend on the mesh po-
sition for the biharmonic model in our proposed method. On the
contrary, our results suggest that the biharmonic approach is more
expensive, because of the second displacement variable. In upcom-
ing works, we will study different mesh motion models for unstea-
dy three dimensional congurations. Here, it is indispensable to
use economic local mesh-renement because of the prohibitive
computational cost of using global mesh renement. Therefore,
we propose to use discretization in a closed variational setting that
can be extended to a full timespace Galerkin discretization for the
whole problem. This setting is the basis for an automatic mesh
adaption with the dual weighted residual (DWR) method, which
also allows for a goal-oriented a posteriori error estimation. Here,
the adjoint solutions will have to be derived; for this task, a closed
semilinear form is indispensable.
Acknowledgement
The nancial support by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgeme-
inschaft) and the IGK 710 is gratefully acknowledged. Further,
the author thanks Dr. Th. Richter and Dr. M. Besier for discussions.
References
[1] Piperno S, Farhat C. Paritioned procedures for the transient solution of coupled
aeroelastic problems Part II: Energy transfer analysis and three-dimensional
applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2001;190:314770.
[2] Figueroa CA, Vignon-Clementel IE, Jansen KE, Hughes TJR, Taylor CA. A coupled
momentum method for modeling blood ow in three-dimensional deformable
arteries. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2006;195:5685706.
[3] Nobile F, Vergara C. An effective uid-structure interaction formulation for
vascular dynamics by generalized Robin conditions. SIAM J Sci Comput
2008;30(2):73163.
[4] Becker R, Kapp H, Rannacher R. Adaptive nite element methods for optimal
control of partial differential equations: basic concepts. SIAM J Optim Control
2000;39:11332.
[5] Becker R, Rannacher R. An optimal control approach to error control and mesh
adaptation in nite element methods. In: Iserles A, editor. Acta
Numerica. Cambridge University Press; 2001.
[6] Th. Dunne, Adaptive nite element approximation of uid-structure inter-
action based on eulerian and arbitrary LagrangianEulerian variational for-
mulations, Dissertation, University of Heidelberg; 2007.
[7] Richter T, Wick T. Finite elements for uid-structure interaction in ALE and
fully Eulerian coordinates. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 2010;199(4144):
263342.
[8] Tezduyar TE, Behr M, Mittal S, Johnson AA. Computation of unsteady
incompressible ows with the nite element methodsspace- time
formulations. In: Smolinski P, Liu WK, Hulbert G, Tamma K, editors. Iterative
strategies and massively parallel implementations, new methods in transient
analysis, vol. AMD-143. New York: ASME; 1992. p. 724.
[9] Sackinger PA, Schunk PR, Rao RR. A NewtonRaphson pseudo-solid domain
mapping technique for free and moving boundary problems: a nite element
implementation. J Comput Phys 1996;125(1):83103.
[10] Yigit S, Schfer M, Heck M. Grid movement techniques and their inuence on
laminar uid-structure interaction problems. J Fluids Struct 2008;24(6):
81932.
[11] Stein K, Tezduyar T, Benney R. Mesh moving techniques for uid-structure
interactions with large displacements. J Appl Math 2003;70:5863.
[12] Helenbrook BT. Mesh deformation using the biharmonic operator. Int J Numer
Meth Eng 2001:130.
[13] Dunne Th, Rannacher R, Richter T. Numerical simulation of uid-structure
interaction based on monolithic variational formulations. In: Galdi GP,
Rannacher R, et al., editors. Numerical uid structure interaction. Springer;
2010.
[14] Turek S. Efcient solvers for incompressible ow problems. Springer-Verlag;
1999.
[15] R. Glowinski, J. Periaux. Numerical methods for nonlinear problems in uid
dynamics. Proc Int Semin Sci Supercomput. Paris, Feb. 26, North Holland;
1987.
[16] Heil M. An efcient solver for the fully coupled solution of large-displacement
uid-structure interaction problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech 2004;193:
123.
[17] Badia S, Quaini A, Quarteroni A. Splitting methods based on algebraic
factorization for uid-structure interaction. SIAM J Sci Comput 2008;30(4):
1778805.
[18] W. Bangerth, R. Hartmann, G. Kanschat. Differential equations analysis library.
Technical Reference; 2010. <http://www.dealii.org>.
[19] Wloka J. Partielle differentialgleichungen. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner; 1987.
[20] Quarteroni A, Formaggia L. Mathematical modeling and numerical simulation
of the cardiovascular system. In: Ayache N, editor. Modelling of living systems.
Ciarlet PG, Lions JL, editors. Handbook of numerical analysis
series. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002.
[21] Ciarlet PG, Raviart P-A. A mixed nite element method for the
biharmonic equation. In: de Boor C, editor. Mathematical aspects of nite
elements in partial differential equations. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p.
12545.
[22] Ciarlet PG. The nite element method for elliptic problems. North-Holland;
1987.
[23] In: Bungartz H-J, Schfer M, editors. Fluid-structure interaction: modelling,
simulation, optimization, Springer series: Lecture Notes in Computational
Science and Engineering 2006; 53(VIII).
[24] Heywood JG, Rannacher R. Finite-element approximation of the nonstationary
NavierStokes problem. Part IV: Error analysis for second order time
discretization. SIAM J Numer Anal 1990;27(2):35384.
[25] Schmich M, Vexler B. Adaptivity with dynamic meshes for space-time nite
element discretizations of parabolic equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 2008;30(1):
36993.
[26] Becker R, Meidner D, Vexler B. Efcient numerical solution of parabolic
optimization problems by nite element methods. Optim Methods Softw
2007;22(5):81333.
[27] Hron J, Turek S. Proposal for numerical benchmarking of uid-structure
interaction between an elastic object and laminar incompressible ow. In:
Fluid-structure interaction: modeling, simulation, optimization. In: Bungartz,
Hans-Joachim, Schafer, Michael, editors. Lecture notes in computational
science and engineering, vol. 53. Springer; 2006. p. 14670.
[28] Bathe K-J, Ledezma GA. Benchmark problems for incompressible uid ows
with structural interactions. Comput Struct 2007;85:62844.
[29] Bungartz H-J, Schfer M, editors. Fluid-structure interaction II: modelling,
simulation, optimization. Springer series: Lecture Notes in Computational
Science and Engineering 2010.
[30] Turek S, Hron J, Madlik M, Razzaq M, Wobker H, Acker JF. Numerical
simulation and benchmarking of a monolithic multigrid solver for uid-
structure interaction problems with application to hemodynamics.
Ergebnisberichte des Instituts fr Angewandte Mathematik 403, Fakultt fr
Mathematik, TU Dortmund 2010.
[31] Degroote J, Haelterman R, Annerel S, Bruggeman P, Vierendeels J. Performance
of partitioned procedures in uid-structure interaction. Comput Struct
2010;88:44657.
[32] Schaefer M, Turek S. Benchmark computations of laminar ow around a
cylinder. In: Hirschel EH, editor. Notes on numerical uid mechanics, vol.
52. Vieweg; 1996. p. 54766.
[33] Bathe K-J, Zhang H. A mesh adaptivity procedure for CFD and uid-structure
interactions. Comput Struct 2009;87:60417.
Table 6
CPU Times per Newton step for solving the linear equations on a Intel Xeon machine
with a 2.40 GHz processor and sequential programming.
Test case Cells DoF Mesh motion model CPU time (in s)
CSM 1 992 19488 linear-elastic 2.2 0.2
CSM 1 2552 51016 linear-elastic 7.8 1.0
CSM 1 4664 93992 linear-elastic 26.0 2.6
CSM 1 992 27744 biharmonic 6.2 0.5
CSM 1 2552 72696 biharmonic 67.5 13.5
CSM 1 4664 133992 biharmonic 206.8 37.6
3D FSI 78 5856 harmonic 0.4 0.02
3D FSI 281 19694 harmonic 6.0 0.2
3D FSI 624 39312 harmonic 25.2 2.8
3D FSI 78 8628 biharmonic 10.8 0.3
3D FSI 281 28979 biharmonic 206.0 6.6
3D FSI 624 57720 biharmonic 2475 495.0
12 T. Wick / Computers and Structures xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wick T. Fluid-structure interactions using different mesh motion techniques. Comput Struct (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.compstruc.2011.02.019