pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01662 · v1 · pith:T3GCFS7Xnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn · cs.NA· math.NA

Comparative analysis of resistive immersed surface and immersed boundary methods for aortic valve simulation

Han Zhao , Alexander D. Kaiser , Fanwei Kong , Aaron L. Brown , Zinan Hu , David Codoni , Sujal Dave , Alison L. Marsden This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 05:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn cs.NAmath.NA
keywords aortic valveresistive immersed surfaceimmersed boundary methodfluid-structure interactionhemodynamicstransvalvular pressure gradientcomputational fluid dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The resistive immersed surface method reproduces large-scale aortic valve hemodynamics within 15% of fully coupled immersed boundary results at roughly 60% lower cost.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper compares a resistive immersed surface workflow that embeds a valve with prescribed leaflet motion against a fully coupled immersed boundary simulation that resolves elastic leaflet deformation through two-way fluid-structure interaction. The comparison covers both trileaflet and bicuspid aortic valve geometries and focuses on whether the simpler method recovers bulk flow features and mean transvalvular pressure gradients. A sympathetic reader would care because fully coupled simulations remain expensive, so a cheaper alternative that still supplies usable hemodynamic quantities could expand the range of valve studies that are computationally feasible. The reported results show relative errors on mean pressure gradient below 15 percent that tighten to 5 percent once inlet conditions are matched.

Core claim

The RIS method represents the valve as a surface with prescribed kinematics embedded in the fluid domain and introduces a penalty force that drives the surrounding fluid velocity toward the prescribed leaflet velocity; when applied to trileaflet and bicuspid configurations, this formulation captures the large-scale flow structures and predicts the mean transvalvular pressure gradient with a relative error within 15% of the fully coupled IB simulation, improving to within 5% when inlet boundary conditions are matched, while reducing computational cost by approximately 60%.

What carries the argument

The resistive immersed surface formulation that applies a penalty force to align fluid velocity with prescribed leaflet motion.

If this is right

  • RIS supplies usable hemodynamic predictions once representative leaflet kinematics are available.
  • The method lowers modeling complexity relative to fully coupled two-way FSI.
  • Pressure-gradient accuracy improves when inlet boundary conditions are aligned between the two approaches.
  • The observed 60% cost reduction applies across both trileaflet and bicuspid valve geometries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Patient-specific imaging data that supplies leaflet motion could allow RIS to replace more expensive FSI runs in clinical modeling workflows.
  • The same prescribed-kinematics trade-off may hold for simulations of mitral or pulmonary valves.
  • Direct comparison against in-vivo pressure or flow measurements would test whether the 5-15% error band remains acceptable for diagnostic use.

Load-bearing premise

The leaflet motion supplied to the RIS method is sufficiently close to the motion that emerges from the fully coupled IB simulation under the tested flow conditions.

What would settle it

Extracting leaflet kinematics directly from an IB run, feeding those kinematics into an RIS simulation with matched inlets, and finding that the resulting mean transvalvular pressure gradient still differs by more than 15% would falsify the reported level of agreement.

read the original abstract

Numerical modeling of aortic valve dynamics is essential for understanding the complex fluid-structure interaction (FSI) governing valve biomechanics in health and disease. Immersed methods provide a flexible computational framework for simulating the large deformations of valve leaflets and associated blood flow without requiring body-fitted meshes. Among these approaches, the Resistive Immersed Surface (RIS) and Immersed Boundary (IB) methods are widely used. However, systematic comparative analysis of these methods for realistic aortic valve simulations has not been performed. In this work, we compare a prescribed-kinematics RIS workflow implemented in SimVascular's svMultiPhysics solver with a fully coupled IB workflow using IBAMR for trileaflet and bicuspid aortic valve configurations. The RIS method represents the valve as a surface with prescribed kinematics embedded in the fluid domain and introduces a penalty force that drives the surrounding fluid velocity toward the prescribed leaflet velocity. This formulation reduces modeling complexity and provides useful hemodynamic predictions when representative leaflet kinematics are available. In contrast, the IB method models the leaflets as elastic structures fully immersed in the fluid domain and resolves leaflet deformation through fully coupled two-way FSI. The study focuses on the extent to which RIS reproduces bulk hemodynamic features and transvalvular pressure gradients. Results show that the RIS method captures the large-scale flow structures and predicts the mean transvalvular pressure gradient with a relative error within 15% of the fully coupled IB simulation, improving to within 5% when inlet boundary conditions are matched, while reducing computational cost by approximately 60%.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares a prescribed-kinematics Resistive Immersed Surface (RIS) implementation in SimVascular's svMultiPhysics solver against a fully coupled Immersed Boundary (IB) implementation in IBAMR for trileaflet and bicuspid aortic valve FSI. It reports that RIS reproduces large-scale flow structures and the mean transvalvular pressure gradient to within 15% relative error of the IB result (improving to 5% when inlet boundary conditions are matched), while reducing computational cost by ~60%.

Significance. If the quantitative error bounds hold under verified conditions, the work demonstrates that RIS can provide a lower-cost route to bulk hemodynamic outputs when representative leaflet kinematics are supplied, supporting its use for parametric studies where full two-way FSI is not required.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Results] Abstract and §Results: The headline claims of 15% (or 5%) relative error in mean transvalvular pressure gradient and 60% cost reduction are presented without reported mesh-convergence studies, grid-refinement data, or error bars on the pressure-gradient metric. This leaves open whether the observed differences arise from the RIS vs. IB formulation or from under-resolved discretizations.
  2. [Abstract, Methods] Abstract and Methods: The comparison assumes the prescribed leaflet kinematics supplied to RIS are representative of the velocity field that emerges from the fully coupled IB simulation. No quantitative measure (e.g., surface L2 velocity difference, maximum opening-angle deviation, or tip-velocity mismatch) is supplied to allow readers to judge the magnitude of any kinematic discrepancy that could contaminate the pressure-gradient comparison.
  3. [Methods] Methods: No sensitivity analysis to the RIS penalty parameter is reported. Because the penalty force directly enforces the prescribed velocity, the reported error bounds may depend on the specific value chosen; this parameter dependence should be quantified to support the claim that the method difference, rather than parameter tuning, drives the observed agreement.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that RIS 'captures the large-scale flow structures' but does not specify the quantitative metric (e.g., vortex-core location error or integrated kinetic-energy difference) used to support this statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, Results] Abstract and §Results: The headline claims of 15% (or 5%) relative error in mean transvalvular pressure gradient and 60% cost reduction are presented without reported mesh-convergence studies, grid-refinement data, or error bars on the pressure-gradient metric. This leaves open whether the observed differences arise from the RIS vs. IB formulation or from under-resolved discretizations.

    Authors: We agree that explicit mesh-convergence studies and error bars are needed to support the quantitative claims. The current work reports results at resolutions typical for each solver but does not include refinement data for the pressure-gradient metric. We will add grid-refinement studies for both methods, reporting convergence behavior and associated uncertainty estimates to confirm that the observed differences originate from the RIS versus IB formulations rather than discretization effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract, Methods] Abstract and Methods: The comparison assumes the prescribed leaflet kinematics supplied to RIS are representative of the velocity field that emerges from the fully coupled IB simulation. No quantitative measure (e.g., surface L2 velocity difference, maximum opening-angle deviation, or tip-velocity mismatch) is supplied to allow readers to judge the magnitude of any kinematic discrepancy that could contaminate the pressure-gradient comparison.

    Authors: The manuscript does not supply quantitative kinematic comparison metrics. We will add such measures in the revised Methods and Results sections, including surface L2 velocity differences and opening-angle deviations between the prescribed RIS kinematics and the IB leaflet motion. These data will allow readers to assess the degree of kinematic agreement and its possible contribution to the reported pressure-gradient differences. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: No sensitivity analysis to the RIS penalty parameter is reported. Because the penalty force directly enforces the prescribed velocity, the reported error bounds may depend on the specific value chosen; this parameter dependence should be quantified to support the claim that the method difference, rather than parameter tuning, drives the observed agreement.

    Authors: We acknowledge that sensitivity to the RIS penalty parameter was not examined. We will perform and report a parameter-sensitivity study in the revised Methods section, varying the penalty coefficient over a relevant range and documenting its effect on the transvalvular pressure gradient. This will demonstrate robustness within the regime where the prescribed kinematics are adequately enforced. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct comparison of two independent simulation frameworks

full rationale

The paper conducts a side-by-side numerical comparison between a prescribed-kinematics RIS implementation and a fully coupled IB FSI solver on the same valve geometries. Hemodynamic outputs (flow structures, transvalvular pressure gradient) are computed separately in each code and then differenced; no quantity is obtained by fitting a parameter to the target data and then relabeling the fit as a prediction, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain or an ansatz imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the work relies on standard penalty-force and elastic-structure formulations from prior immersed-method literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5841 in / 1101 out tokens · 29937 ms · 2026-07-03T05:30:07.418831+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Lancet368(9540), 1005–1011 (2006)

    Nkomo, V .T., Gardin, J.M., Skelton, T.N., Gottdiener, J.S., Scott, C.G., Enriquez-Sarano, M.: Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. The Lancet368(9540), 1005–1011 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Nature Reviews Cardiology8(3), 162–172 (2011)

    Iung, B., Vahanian, A.: Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult. Nature Reviews Cardiology8(3), 162–172 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    The Lancet373(9667), 956–966 (2009)

    Carabello, B.A., Paulus, W.J.: Aortic stenosis. The Lancet373(9667), 956–966 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Circulation Research113(2), 179–185 (2013)

    Carabello, B.A.: Introduction to aortic stenosis. Circulation Research113(2), 179–185 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Journal of the American College of Cardiology77(4), 25–197 (2021)

    Otto, C.M., Nishimura, R.A., Bonow, R.O., Carabello, B.A., Erwin, J.P., Gen- tile, F., Jfneid, H., Krieger, E.V ., Mack, M., McLeod, C., O’Gara, P.T., Rigolin, V .H., Sundt, T.M., Thompson, A., Toly, C.: 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Associat...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering11(1), 109–134 (2009)

    Taylor, C.A., Figueroa, C.A.: Patient-specific modeling of cardiovascular mechanics. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering11(1), 109–134 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Applied Mechanics Reviews67(3), 030804 (2015)

    Marsden, A.L., Esmaily-Moghadam, M.: Multiscale modeling of cardiovas- cular flows for clinical decision support. Applied Mechanics Reviews67(3), 030804 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing58(8), 1667–1679 (2020) 28Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation

    Franke, B., Weese, J., Waechter-Stehle, I., Br¨uning, J., Kuehne, T., Goubergrits, L.: Towards improving the accuracy of aortic transvalvular pressure gradients: rethinking Bernoulli. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing58(8), 1667–1679 (2020) 28Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation

    2020

  9. [9]

    Mechanics Research Communications112, 103604 (2021)

    Xu, F., Johnson, E.L., Wang, C., Jafari, A., Yang, C.-H., Sacks, M.S., Krish- namurthy, A., Hsu, M.-C.: Computational investigation of left ventricular hemodynamics following bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valve replacement. Mechanics Research Communications112, 103604 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Frontiers in Compu- tational Fluid-Structure Interaction and Flow Simulation: Research from Lead Investigators under Forty–2018, 167–212 (2018)

    Hsu, M.-C., Kamensky, D.: Immersogeometric analysis of bioprosthetic heart valves, using the dynamic augmented lagrangian method. Frontiers in Compu- tational Fluid-Structure Interaction and Flow Simulation: Research from Lead Investigators under Forty–2018, 167–212 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Journal of Biomechanics74, 23–31 (2018)

    Wu, M.C.H., Zakerzadeh, R., Kamensky, D., Kiendl, J., Sacks, M.S., Hsu, M.-C.: An anisotropic constitutive model for immersogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis of bioprosthetic heart valves. Journal of Biomechanics74, 23–31 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology20(6), 2413–2435 (2021)

    Kaiser, A.D., Shad, R., Hiesinger, W., Marsden, A.L.: A design-based model of the aortic valve for fluid–structure interaction. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology20(6), 2413–2435 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery168(3), 923–932 (2024)

    Kaiser, A.D., Haidar, M.A., Choi, P.S., Sharir, A., Marsden, A.L., Ma, M.R.: Simulation-based design of bicuspidization of the aortic valve. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery168(3), 923–932 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    JTCVS open (2025)

    Kaiser, A.D., Choi, P.S., Sharir, A., Marsden, A.L., Ma, M.R.: Simulation- guided design of leaflet height in bicuspidization of the aortic valve. JTCVS open (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering119(1-2), 73–94 (1994)

    Johnson, A.A., Tezduyar, T.E.: Mesh update strategies in parallel finite ele- ment computations of flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering119(1-2), 73–94 (1994)

    1994

  16. [16]

    Computational Mechanics43(1), 3–37 (2008)

    Bazilevs, Y ., Calo, V .M., Hughes, T.J.R., Zhang, Y .: Isogeometric fluid– structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and computations. Computational Mechanics43(1), 3–37 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    Journal of Biomechanics46(2), 217–228 (2013)

    V otta, E., Le, T.B., Stevanella, M., Fusini, L., Caiani, E.G., Redaelli, A., Sotiropoulos, F.: Toward patient-specific simulations of cardiac valves: state- of-the-art and future directions. Journal of Biomechanics46(2), 217–228 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering425, 116942 (2024)

    Gerosa, F.M., Marsden, A.L.: A mechanically consistent unified formulation for fluid-porous-structure-contact interaction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering425, 116942 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Journal of Computational Physics10(2), 252–271 (1972) Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation29

    Peskin, C.S.: Flow patterns around heart valves: a numerical method. Journal of Computational Physics10(2), 252–271 (1972) Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation29

    1972

  20. [20]

    Journal of Compu- tational Physics25(3), 220–252 (1977)

    Peskin, C.S.: Numerical analysis of blood flow in the heart. Journal of Compu- tational Physics25(3), 220–252 (1977)

    1977

  21. [21]

    Acta Numerica11, 479–517 (2002)

    Peskin, C.S.: The immersed boundary method. Acta Numerica11, 479–517 (2002)

    2002

  22. [22]

    Journal of Computational Physics223(1), 10–49 (2007)

    Griffith, B.E., Hornung, R.D., McQueen, D.M., Peskin, C.S.: An adaptive, for- mally second order accurate version of the immersed boundary method. Journal of Computational Physics223(1), 10–49 (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    Journal of Computational Physics153(2), 509–534 (1999)

    Roma, A.M., Peskin, C.S., Berger, M.J.: An adaptive version of the immersed boundary method. Journal of Computational Physics153(2), 509–534 (1999)

    1999

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07529 (2015)

    Bao, Y ., Kaiser, A.D., Kaye, J., Peskin, C.S.: Gaussian-like immersed-boundary kernels with three continuous derivatives and improved translational invariance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07529 (2015)

    work page arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Journal of Computational Physics440, 110359 (2021)

    Bale, R., Bhalla, A.P.S., Griffith, B.E., Tsubokura, M.: A one-sided direct forcing immersed boundary method using moving least squares. Journal of Computational Physics440, 110359 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Journal of Computational Physics546, 114472 (2026)

    Gruninger, C., Griffith, B.E.: Composite B-spline regularized delta functions for the immersed boundary method: Divergence-free interpolation and gradient- preserving force spreading. Journal of Computational Physics546, 114472 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    International Journal of Applied Mechanics1(01), 137–177 (2009)

    Griffith, B.E., Luo, X., McQueen, D.M., Peskin, C.S.: Simulating the fluid dynamics of natural and prosthetic heart valves using the immersed boundary method. International Journal of Applied Mechanics1(01), 137–177 (2009)

    2009

  28. [28]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering50(9), 1053–1072 (2022)

    Kaiser, A.D., Shad, R., Schiavone, N., Hiesinger, W., Marsden, A.L.: Controlled comparison of simulated hemodynamics across tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valves. Annals of Biomedical Engineering50(9), 1053–1072 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering51(10), 2267–2288 (2023)

    Kaiser, A.D., Schiavone, N.K., Elkins, C.J., McElhinney, D.B., Eaton, J.K., Marsden, A.L.: Comparison of immersed boundary simulations of heart valve hemodynamics against in vitro 4D flow MRI data. Annals of Biomedical Engineering51(10), 2267–2288 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering48(5), 1475–1490 (2020)

    Lee, J.H., Rygg, A.D., Kolahdouz, E.M., Rossi, S., Retta, S.M., Duraiswamy, N., Scotten, L.N., Craven, B.A., Griffith, B.E.: Fluid–structure interaction mod- els of bioprosthetic heart valve dynamics in an experimental pulse duplicator. Annals of Biomedical Engineering48(5), 1475–1490 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    JTCVS open 30Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation 22, 395–404 (2024)

    Choi, P.S., Sharir, A., Ono, Y ., Shibata, M., Kaiser, A.D., Palagani, Y ., Mars- den, A.L., Ma, M.R.: Combined simulation and ex vivo assessment of free-edge length in bicuspidization repair for congenital aortic valve disease. JTCVS open 30Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation 22, 395–404 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Griffith, B.E.: IBAMR: Immersed boundary adaptive mesh refinement (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering193(21- 22), 2051–2067 (2004)

    Zhang, L., Gerstenberger, A., Wang, X., Liu, W.K.: Immersed finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering193(21- 22), 2051–2067 (2004)

    2051

  34. [34]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering195(13-16), 1722–1749 (2006)

    Liu, W.K., Liu, Y ., Farrell, D., Zhang, L., Wang, X.S., Fukui, Y ., Patankar, N., Zhang, Y ., Bajaj, C., Lee, J., Hong, J., Chen, X., Hsu, H.: Immersed finite ele- ment method and its applications to biological systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering195(13-16), 1722–1749 (2006)

    2006

  35. [35]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering267, 150–169 (2013)

    Wang, X., Zhang, L.T.: Modified immersed finite element method for fully- coupled fluid–structure interactions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering267, 150–169 (2013)

    2013

  36. [36]

    International Journal of Multiphase Flow25(5), 755–794 (1999)

    Glowinski, R., Pan, T.-W., Hesla, T.I., Joseph, D.D.: A distributed Lagrange multiplier/fictitious domain method for particulate flows. International Journal of Multiphase Flow25(5), 755–794 (1999)

    1999

  37. [37]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis53(6), 2584–2604 (2015)

    Boffi, D., Cavallini, N., Gastaldi, L.: The finite element immersed bound- ary method with distributed Lagrange multiplier. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis53(6), 2584–2604 (2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering435, 117634 (2025)

    Black, R.T., Park, G.I.: An immersed fluid–structure interaction method tar- geted for heart valve applications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering435, 117634 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Computational Mechanics54(4), 1055–1071 (2014)

    Hsu, M.-C., Kamensky, D., Bazilevs, Y ., Sacks, M.S., Hughes, T.J.R.: Fluid– structure interaction analysis of bioprosthetic heart valves: significance of arterial wall deformation. Computational Mechanics54(4), 1055–1071 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering284, 1005–1053 (2015)

    Kamensky, D., Hsu, M.-C., Schillinger, D., Evans, J.A., Aggarwal, A., Bazilevs, Y ., Sacks, M.S., Hughes, T.J.R.: An immersogeometric variational frame- work for fluid–structure interaction: Application to bioprosthetic heart valves. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering284, 1005–1053 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering314, 408–472 (2017)

    Kamensky, D., Hsu, M.-C., Yu, Y ., Evans, J.A., Sacks, M.S., Hughes, T.J.R.: Immersogeometric cardiovascular fluid–structure interaction analysis with divergence-conforming B-splines. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering314, 408–472 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering344, 477–498 (2019) Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation31

    Kamensky, D., Bazilevs, Y .: tIGAr: Automating isogeometric analysis with FEniCS. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering344, 477–498 (2019) Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation31

    2019

  43. [43]

    Computers & Mathematics with Appli- cations81, 634–648 (2021)

    Kamensky, D.: Open-source immersogeometric analysis of fluid–structure interaction using FEniCS and tIGAr. Computers & Mathematics with Appli- cations81, 634–648 (2021). Development and Application of Open-source Software for Problems with Numerical PDEs

    2021

  44. [44]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applica- tions111, 109–123 (2022)

    Zhao, H., Liu, X., Fletcher, A.H., Xiang, R., Hwang, J.T., Kamensky, D.: An open-source framework for coupling non-matching isogeometric shells with application to aerospace structures. Computers & Mathematics with Applica- tions111, 109–123 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Engineering with Computers39(2), 1019–1040 (2023)

    Neighbor, G.E., Zhao, H., Saraeian, M., Hsu, M.-C., Kamensky, D.: Leveraging code generation for transparent immersogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis on deforming domains. Engineering with Computers39(2), 1019–1040 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08266 (2026)

    Black, R.T., Maas, S.A., Wu, W., Maheshwari, J., Kolev, T., Weiss, J.A., Jolley, M.A.: An open-source computational framework for immersed fluid- structure interaction modeling using FEBio and MFEM. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08266 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applications81, 42– 74 (2021)

    Anderson, R., Andrej, J., Barker, A., Bramwell, J., Camier, J.-S., Cerveny, J., Dobrev, V ., Dudouit, Y ., Fisher, A., Kolev, T., Pazner, W., Stowell, M., Tomov, V ., Akkerman, I., Dahm, J., Medina, D., Zampini, S.: MFEM: A modular finite element methods library. Computers & Mathematics with Applications81, 42– 74 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering134(1), 011005 (2012)

    Maas, S.A., Ellis, B.J., Ateshian, G.A., Weiss, J.A.: FEBio: Finite elements for biomechanics. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering134(1), 011005 (2012)

    2012

  49. [49]

    ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numer- ical Analysis42(6), 961–990 (2008)

    Fern ´andez, M.A., Gerbeau, J.-F., Martin, V .: Numerical simulation of blood flows through a porous interface. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numer- ical Analysis42(6), 961–990 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering28(9), 937–959 (2012)

    Astorino, M., Hamers, J., Shadden, S.C., Gerbeau, J.-F.: A robust and efficient valve model based on resistive immersed surfaces. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering28(9), 937–959 (2012)

    2012

  51. [51]

    Biomechan- ics and Modeling in Mechanobiology16(5), 1779–1803 (2017)

    Fedele, M., Faggiano, E., Ded ´e, L., Quarteroni, A.: A patient-specific aortic valve model based on moving resistive immersed implicit surfaces. Biomechan- ics and Modeling in Mechanobiology16(5), 1779–1803 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering36(3), 3223 (2020) 32Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation

    This, A., Boilevin-Kayl, L., Fern ´andez, M.A., Gerbeau, J.-F.: Augmented resistive immersed surfaces valve model for the simulation of cardiac hemody- namics with isovolumetric phases. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering36(3), 3223 (2020) 32Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation

    2020

  53. [53]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering39(12), 3767 (2023)

    Zingaro, A., Bucelli, M., Fumagalli, I., Ded ´e, L., Quarteroni, A.: Modeling iso- volumetric phases in cardiac flows by an augmented resistive immersed implicit surface method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering39(12), 3767 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering39(3), 3678 (2023)

    Bucelli, M., Zingaro, A., Africa, P.C., Fumagalli, I., Ded´e, L., Quarteroni, A.: A mathematical model that integrates cardiac electrophysiology, mechanics, and fluid dynamics: Application to the human left heart. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering39(3), 3678 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering41(12), 70119 (2025)

    Bucelli, M., Ded ´e, L.: Coupling models of resistive valves to muscle mechan- ics in cardiac fluid–structure interaction simulations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering41(12), 70119 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering41(9), 70088 (2025)

    Ruz, O., Diaz, J., Vidrascu, M., Moireau, P., Chapelle, D., Fern ´andez, M.A.: Left heart hemodynamics simulations with fluid–structure interaction and reduced valve modeling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering41(9), 70088 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Computer Physics Communications296, 109039 (2024)

    Africa, P.C., Fumagalli, I., Bucelli, M., Zingaro, A., Fedele, M., Quarteroni, A.: lifex-cfd: An open-source computational fluid dynamics solver for car- diovascular applications. Computer Physics Communications296, 109039 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Journal of Open Source Software7(78), 4118 (2022)

    Zhu, C., Vedula, V ., Parker, D., Wilson, N.M., Shadden, S.C., Marsden, A.L.: svFSI: a multiphysics package for integrated cardiac modeling. Journal of Open Source Software7(78), 4118 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    https://github.com/SimVascular/svMultiPhysics: svMultiPhysics source code

  60. [60]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering197(1), 173–201 (2007)

    Bazilevs, Y ., Calo, V .M., Cottrell, J.A., Hughes, T.J.R., Reali, A., Scovazzi, G.: Variational multiscale residual-based turbulence modeling for large eddy simulation of incompressible flows. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering197(1), 173–201 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007. 07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2007 2007

  61. [61]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering337, 549–597 (2018)

    Liu, J., Marsden, A.L.: A unified continuum and variational multiscale formu- lation for fluids, solids, and fluid–structure interaction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering337, 549–597 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering45(3), 525–541 (2017)

    Updegrove, A., Wilson, N.M., Merkow, J., Lan, H., Marsden, A.L., Shad- den, S.C.: SimVascular: an open source pipeline for cardiovascular simulation. Annals of Biomedical Engineering45(3), 525–541 (2017)

    2017

  63. [63]

    https://github.com/IBAMR/IBAMR: IBAMR source code

  64. [64]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering421, 116764 (2024)

    Brown, A.L., Salvador, M., Shi, L., Pfaller, M.R., Hu, Z., Harold, K.E., Hsiai, Comparative analysis of RIS and IB methods for aortic valve simulation33 T., Vedula, V ., Marsden, A.L.: A modular framework for implicit 3D–0D cou- pling in cardiac mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering421, 116764 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Communications in Computational Physics32(5), 1217–1256 (2022)

    Bucelli, M., Ded ´e, L., Quarteroni, A., Vergara, C.: Partitioned and monolithic algorithms for the numerical solution of cardiac fluid–structure interaction. Communications in Computational Physics32(5), 1217–1256 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Journal of Applied Mechanics60, 371–75 (1993)

    Chung, J., Hulbert, G.M.: A time integration algorithm for structural dynam- ics with improved numerical dissipation: The generalized-αmethod. Journal of Applied Mechanics60, 371–75 (1993)

    1993

  67. [67]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering190, 305–319 (2000)

    Jansen, K.E., Whiting, C.H., Hulbert, G.M.: A generalized-αmethod for integrating the filtered Navier-Stokes equations with a stabilized finite ele- ment method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering190, 305–319 (2000)

    2000

  68. [68]

    Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience14(5), 347–368 (2002)

    Hornung, R.D., Kohn, S.R.: Managing application complexity in the SAM- RAI object-oriented framework. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience14(5), 347–368 (2002)

    2002

  69. [69]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering37(11), 2153–2169 (2009)

    Kim, H.J., Vignon-Clementel, I.E., Figueroa, C.A., LaDisa, J.F., Jansen, K.E., Feinstein, J.A., Taylor, C.A.: On coupling a lumped parameter heart model and a three-dimensional finite element aorta model. Annals of Biomedical Engineering37(11), 2153–2169 (2009)

    2009

  70. [70]

    https://github.com/SimVascular/svZeroDSolver: svZeroDSolver source code