4.6 Article

Hydrodynamics simulation of red blood cells: Employing a penalty method with double jump composition of lower order time integrator

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mma.9607

关键词

finite element method; flow composition; generalized newtonian model; Helfrich energy functional; projection on the real axis; red blood cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a numerical framework for simulating the dynamics of vesicles with inextensible membranes in a non-Newtonian fluid environment. The framework utilizes a penalty method for handling the inextensibility constraint and higher degree finite elements for spatial discretization. The time integration scheme relies on the Crank-Nicolson scheme and an adaptive time-stepping strategy. The proposed method is benchmarked against existing numerical and experimental results and the influence of non-Newtonian rheology on the system dynamics is investigated.
We propose a numerical framework tailored for simulating the dynamics of vesicles with inextensible membranes, which mimic red blood cells, immersed in a non-Newtonian fluid environment. A penalty method is proposed to handle the inextensibility constraint by relaxation, allowing a simple computer implementation and an affordable computational load compared to the full mixed formulation. To handle the high-order derivatives in the stress jump across the membrane, which arise due to the high geometric order of the Helfrich functional, we employ higher degree finite elements for spatial discretization. The time integration scheme relies on the double composition of the Crank-Nicolson scheme to achieve faster fourth-order convergence behavior. Additionally, an adaptive time-stepping strategy based on a third-order temporal integration error estimation is implemented. We address the main features of the proposed method, which is benchmarked against existing numerical and experimental results. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of non-Newtonian rheology on the system dynamics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据