See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225693177

Fluid-structure interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes

Article  in  Computational Mechanics · December 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s00466-008-0260-8

CITATIONS READS

102 761

6 authors, including:

Tayfun Tezduyar Sunil Sathe

Rice University ANSYS
693 PUBLICATIONS   30,242 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   2,565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matthew Schwaab Jason Pausewang

15 PUBLICATIONS   755 CITATIONS   
United States Air Force
13 PUBLICATIONS   454 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Parachutes View project

Space-time computational analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tayfun Tezduyar on 27 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

T.E. Tezduyar,
Prepared for S. Sathe, M. Schwaab, J. Pausewang, J. Christopher, and J. Crabtree, “Fluid–
structure interaction
Computational modeling of ringsail parachutes”, Computational Mechanics, 43 (2008)
Mechanics
133–142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0260-8.
Tayfun E. Tezduyar · Sunil Sathe · Matthew Schwaab · Jason Pausewang ·
Jason Christopher · Jason Crabtree
Fluid–structure interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes
Abstract In this paper we focus on fluid–structure interac-
tion (FSI) modeling of ringsail parachutes, where the geo-
metric complexity created by the “rings” and “sails” used
in the construction of the parachute canopy poses a signifi-
cant computational challenge. It is expected that NASA will
be using a cluster of three ringsail parachutes, referred to
as the “mains”, during the terminal descent of the Orion
space vehicle. Our FSI modeling of ringsail parachutes is
based on the stabilized space–time FSI (SSTFSI) technique
and the interface projection techniques that address the com-
putational challenges posed by the geometric complexities
of the fluid–structure interface. Two of these interface pro-
jection techniques are the FSI Geometric Smoothing Tech-
nique (FSI-GST) and the Homogenized Modeling of Geo-
metric Porosity (HMGP). We describe the details of how we
use these two supplementary techniques in FSI modeling of
ringsail parachutes. In the simulations we report here, we
consider a single main parachute, carrying one third of the
total weight of the space vehicle. We present results from
FSI modeling of offloading, which includes as a special case
dropping the heat shield, and drifting under the influence of
side winds.
Keywords Ringsail parachute, Orion space vehicle,
fluid–structure interaction, offloading, drifting
1 Introduction
Fluid–structure interaction (FSI) modeling has been one of
the most popular areas of research in computational mechan-
ics, with many notable ideas and methods and results from
a wide range of applications (see, for example, [1; 2; 3;
4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20;
Tayfun E. Tezduyar, Sunil Sathe, Matthew Schwaab, Jason Pausewang
and Jason Christopher
Mechanical Engineering, Rice University – MS 321
6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005, USA
E-mail: tezduyar@rice.edu
Jason Crabtree
Civil and Mechanical Engineering, US Military Academy
West Point, NY 10996, USA
21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30]). Parachute modeling
is a class of applications that the Team for Advanced Flow
Simulation and Modeling (T?AFSM) started focusing on as
early as 1997 (see [31]), addressing over the years many of
the computational challenges involved.
The core technology in parachute modeling work of the
T?AFSM with the space–time FSI techniques has always
been the Deforming-Spatial-Domain/Stabilized Space–Time
(DSD/SST) mehod [32; 33; 34; 35], which is an interface-
tracking (moving-mesh) technique. The stabilization in the
DSD/SST method is based on the Streamline-Upwind/Petrov-
Galerkin (SUPG) [36; 37] and Pressure-Stabilizing/Petrov-
Galerkin (PSPG) [32; 38] formulations. An earlier version
of the pressure stabilization, for Stokes flows, was intro-
duced in [39]. The mesh update strategy envisioned origi-
nally with the DSD/SST formulation is based on moving the
mesh for as many time steps as we can and remeshing only
as frequently as we need to. The mesh moving method in-
troduced in [40], with its enhancements developed over the
years (see [41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 18; 47]), is another ingre-
dient of the FSI techniques built by the T?AFSM.
The earliest applications of these space–time FSI tech-
niques included 2D and 3D flow computations, reported in
1992 and 1995 (see [32; 33; 34; 48]). These were followed
by the first application of the space–time FSI techniques to
parachute modeling, reported in 1997 as axisymmetric com-
putation of the inflation of a parachute [31]. Applications
to parachute modeling with full 3D computations were re-
ported in [49; 50; 6; 7; 8; 51; 52], as early as 1999. These
early parachute applications were computed with the block-
iterative coupling technique (see [15; 16; 47] for the ter-
minology and context). More robust versions of these early
block-iterative techniques were introduced and applied to a
number of test problems in [53; 54; 55; 10; 15; 16; 56]. The
quasi-direct [10; 15; 16] and direct coupling techniques [10;
15; 16] yield more robust algorithms for FSI computations
where the structure is light and therefore more sensitive to
the variations in the fluid dynamics forces. The stabilized
space–time FSI (SSTFSI) technique was introduced recently
in [47]. It is based on the new-generation DSD/SST formu-
lations, which were also introduced in [47], increasing the
scope and performance of the space–time FSI techniques de-
2
veloped earlier by the T?AFSM. The SSTFSI technique was
applied to a number of 3D examples in [47; 57; 58; 59; 60].
Interface projection techniques (see [61]) are among the
recent supplementary methods developed by the T?AFSM
to be used in conjunction with the SSTFSI technique. Two
of these interface projection techniques are the FSI Geomet-
ric Smoothing Technique (FSI-GST) and the Homogenized
Modeling of Geometric Porosity (HMGP). These technique
address the computational challenges posed by the geomet-
ric complexities of the fluid–structure interface in FSI mod-
eling with moving-mesh methods. In the FSI-GST and its
special version for parachutes, direction-specific smoothing
is used when projecting the structural mesh and displace-
ment rates at the interface to the fluid mechanics part. This
technique addresses the geometric complexities associated
with the “peaks” and “valleys” of the parachute gores, which
are formed by the inflation of a canopy with embedded re-
inforcement cables positioned longitudinally in the canopy
structure. With this approach, the “unresolvable” modes of
the structural deformation are not passed to the fluid me-
chanics part of the FSI problem. The HMPG was developed
in the context of modeling the geometric porosity of the
raingsail parachutes to be used with NASA’s Orion space
vehicle. The geometric porosity is a consequence of using
many “rings” and “sails” in the construction of the parachute
canopy. With the HMGP, we bypass the intractable complex-
ities of the geometric porosity by approximating it with an
“equivalent”, locally-varying fabric porosity. For more in-
formation on the FSI-GST and HMGP, see [61].
It is expected that NASA will be using a cluster of three
ringsail parachutes during the terminal descent of the Orion
space vehicle. These parachutes, referred to as the “mains”,
are being designed to support a weight of approximately
15,000 lbs at a steady descent speed of 25 ft/s. To better
understand the performance of the mains, we are currently
modeling a single main parachute, carrying one third of the
total weight of the space vehicle. In this paper, we describe
the details of how we use the FSI-GST and HMGP in FSI
modeling of ringsail parachutes. We simulate the offloading,
which includes as a special case dropping the heat shield,
and the drifting under the influence of side winds.
The parachute components, geometry and material are
described in Section 2. In Sections 3 and 4, we describe the
details of how the FSI-GST and HMGP are applied to ring-
sail parachutes. The computational parameters are given in
Section 5. The computed results for the offloading and drift-
ing are presented in Sections 6 and 7, and the concluding
remarks are given in Section 8.
2 Parachute components, geometry and material
The parachute has a profile of a quarter of a sphere in its un-
stressed shape. The crown portion of the ringsail parachute
(the portion near the vent) is made of rings with gaps be-
tween the consecutive rings (see Figure 1). The middle and
skirt portions of the parachute are made of sails. Two edges
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 3
Ring 4
Sail 1
Sail 2
Sail 3
Sail 4
Sail 5
Sail 6
Sail 7
Sail 8
Sail 9
Fig. 1 Gore layout of the ringsail parachute (not drawn to scale).
of the sails are stitched to the radial lines and the other two
edges are free. The edge facing the parachute skirt is called
the leading edge and the edge facing the vent is called the
trailing edge. The leading and the trailing edges could have
fullnesses so that they appear bulged out even in the un-
stressed state. The ends of the leading edge of a sail coin-
cide with the ends of the trailing edge of the next sail. The
canopy construction includes several bands, lines and tapes
that provide structural stiffness to the parachute. The vent
band provides the necessary strength to the vent so that the
parachute does not tear at the vent where the stress concen-
tration is high. The radial lines provide stiffness along the
longitudinal direction and cause the formation of the gores
in the parachute. The skirt band, which connects the ends of
the leading edges of the last sail in each gore, is often used
for controlling the opening of the parachute. Individual sails
or rings are sometimes reinforced with tapes on the leading
and trailing edges to prevent tearing. The suspension lines
connect the skirt end of each radial line to the payload. The
drag force generated in the canopy is transmitted to the pay-
load through the suspension lines. This force provides the
necessary deceleration to the payload.
The parachute has 80 gores and a nominal diameter of
about 120 ft. It has 4 rings and 9 sails, and together they
form a quarter of a spherical surface. The rings and sails are
shown in Figure 1, where a single gore is laid out flat. The
fullness values for the sails were provided to us by NASA
JSC. The suspension lines are about 130 ft in length. One
end of the suspension lines is connected to the skirt-end of
the radial lines and the other end is connected to the top of
a single riser of about 25 ft in length. At the bottom end of
the riser we have a payload that is about 5,000 lbs in weight,
represented by a point mass.
The canopy of the ringsail is made of different materials.
The material properties for the rings and sails were provided
to us by NASA JSC. The ringsail parachute modeled here
includes radial lines, suspension lines, risers, a vent band, a
skirt band, and leading- and trailing-edge tapes. The mate-
rial properties for these components of the ringsail were also
provided to us by NASA JSC.
3 Smoothing
We use incompatible meshes at the fluid–structure interface.
The structure mesh is very refined and models each individ-
ual ring, sail and gore of the parachute. Such a mesh is neces-

sary to accurately determine the stress concentration regions.
The fluid mechanics mesh at the interface is coarser. We use
the FSI-GST described in [61] to generate and update the
fluid mechanics mesh at the interface. The parachute vent is
very small, and keeping one element per gore in that region
would have resulted in extreme mesh refinement that would
not have been affordable for flow computations. Therefore,
in the circumferential direction, for the rings we pick ev-
ery other valley node, and for the sails every valley node. To
keep the element aspect ratios reasonable, in the longitudinal
direction, for the first ring we pick every other valley node.
For the second ring we pick three valley nodes, and for each
of the remaining rings and sails we pick two valley nodes.
Figures 2 and 3 show, for four gores, the structure and fluid
meshes at the interface. We note that the fluid mesh is suf-
Fig. 2 Four-gore structure mesh at the interface.
Fig. 3 Four-gore fluid mesh at the interface.
ficiently refined but has significantly less number of nodes
and elements compared to the structure mesh. We also note
that the surfaces curve into the paper as we move toward
the skirt of the parachute, and therefore the aspect ratios for
the meshes near the skirt are actually better than what they
appear to be in Figures 2 and 3. The detailed views of the
structure and fluid meshes for the first ring are shown in Fig-
ures 4 and 5.
Fig. 4 Structure mesh for the first ring.
3
Fig. 5 Fluid mesh for the first ring.
4 Homogenization
We use two homogenized models for geometric porosity. In
the first model, in the fluid mechanics computations, the ge-
ometric porosity is represented by a single, uniform porosity
for the entire canopy. A porosity coefficient of 262.6 CFM
gives us the expected nominal drag. A good portion of the re-
sults reported in the paper were obtained with this uniform
porosity. We note that these results meet out expectations,
and therefore we believe that the model has acceptable ac-
curacy and is attractive because of its simplicity.
In the second model, we represent the geometric porosity
with a locally-varying fabric porosity. We divide the canopy
into 12 concentric patches and calculate an equivalent fabric-
porosity coefficient for each. Each patch includes a slit, and
part of a ring or sail on either side of the slit. Patch 1 in-
cludes the first ring completely, and Patch 12 includes the
last sail completely. Figure 6 shows Patch 4 of the four-gore
slices of the fluid and structure interfaces. A porosity coeffi-
cient is calculated for each patch, and at the border between
two patches the average of the two porosity coefficients is
used. To calculate the porosity coefficient for each patch, we
carry out a one-time flow computation at low Reynolds num-
ber, holding the canopy rigid and using a four-gore canopy
slice, with all the rings, sails and slits. Using only a four-gore
slice, with appropriate conditions (symmetry conditions in
this case) at the boundaries of the fluid volume correspond-
ing to the slice, keeps the problem size at a manageable level.
The fluid surface mesh for the four-gore slice comes from
the structure mesh and has 1,464 nodes and 2,408 three-node
triangular elements. The fluid volume mesh for the four-gore
slice has 85,101 nodes and 476,410 four-node tetrahedral
elements. The four-gore fluid surface is held rigid and the
free-stream velocity is set to 25 ft/s. The flow computation is
carried out until a fully-developed flow is reached. Figure 7
shows the flow field, including the flow passing through the
slits.
The porosity coefficient for a patch J can then be calcu-
lated by using the following expression:
V̇J ∆ FJ
= − (kPORO )J . (1)
(A1 )J (A2 )J
Here, V̇J represents the volumetric flow rate crossing the
patch J. It includes the flow passing through the slits and also
the flow through the fabric due to its porosity. The area of the
patch J calculated using the smoothened fluid interface is
denoted by (A1 )J , and the area calculated using the structure
4

Fig. 7 Flow field for the four-gore canopy slice with slits.

6000
kPORO
2kPORO
5500 4kPORO

5000
Drag Force (lb)

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 6 Patch 4 of the four-gore slices of the fluid (top) and structure Time (s)
(bottom) interfaces.
Fig. 8 Drag force for the homogenized, smoothened parachute.

Patch 1 2 3 4 5 6
CFM 816 627 449 364 116 135
Patch 7 8 9 10 11 12
CFM 130 146 182 288 303 300
Table 1 Porosity coefficients for the 12 patches.
interface is denoted by (A2 )J . The pressure differential seen
when crossing the patch J is integrated over its area to yield
a force differential denoted by ∆ FJ . We find it necessary to 5 Computational parameters
calibrate this porosity coefficient by scaling it up or down
(using the same calibration factor for all the patches) so that All computations reported here are carried out in a parallel
the parachute with the homogenized geometric porosity gen- computing environment, using PC clusters. The meshes are
erates the expected nominal drag of approximately 5,000 lbs. generated on a single node of the cluster used. All compu-
Figure 8 shows the drag generated by the smoothened and tations were completed without any remeshing. In all cases,
homogenized parachute model with different calibration fac- the fully-discretized, coupled fluid and structural mechan-
tors. We note that scaling up the porosity coefficient by a ics and mesh-moving equations were solved with the quasi-
factor of 2 yields the expected drag. We therefore use this direct coupling technique (see Section 5.2 in [47]). In solv-
calibration factor in computations with locally-varying fab- ing the linear equation systems involved at every nonlinear
ric porosity. Figure 9 shows the smoothened, homogenized iteration, the GMRES search technique [62] was used with
fluid interface colored by the porosity coefficient, and Ta- a diagonal preconditioner. The meshes are partitioned to en-
ble 1 provides the porosity coefficients for the 12 patches. hance the parallel efficiency of the computations. Mesh par-
titioning is based on the METIS [63] algorithm. The com-
 5

form and locally-varying porosity models for the homoge-

nized and smoothened fluid interface. With each of the ho-
mogenized porosity models, we study the effect of offload-
ing 25%, 50%, 75% and 99% of the payload weight.
Figures 10 and 11 show the descent speed and drag ob-
tained with the uniform porosity model. Figures 12 and 13

26

Payload Descent Speed (ft/s)

24
22
20 Offload
18
16
14
% Mass
12 Offloaded
0%
10 25%
50%
8 75%
99%
Fig. 9 Smoothened, homogenized fluid interface colored by the poros- 6
ity coefficient. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

Fig. 10 Payload descent speed obtained with the uniform porosity

putations are carried out using SSTFSI-TIP1 technique (see model.
Remarks 5 and 10 in [47]), with the SUPG test function op-
tion WTSA (see Remark 2 in [47]). The stabilization param-
eters used are those given in [47] by Eqs. (9)–(12), (14)–(15)
and (17), with the τSUGN2 term dropped from Eq. (14).
All computations are carried out using properties of air 5000

at standard sea-level conditions. The geometry and material 4500 Offload

properties of the structure are described in Section 2. The 4000
mesh for the structure consists of 28,642 nodes and 48,160 3500
three-node triangular membrane elements, 12,761 two-node
Drag (lb)

3000
cable elements, and 1 payload point mass. The fluid volume
2500
mesh consists of 121,370 nodes and 745,937 four-node tetra-
hedral elements. The membrane part of the structure forms 2000
% Mass
the structure interface and has 27,120 nodes and 48,160 el- 1500 Offloaded
0%
ements. The homogenized and smoothened fluid interface 1000 25%
has 2,320 nodes and 4,520 elements. The time-step size is 50%
500 75%
0.0116 s. The number of nonlinear iterations per time step is 0
99%
6, and the number of GMRES iterations per nonlinear itera- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
tion is 30. Time (s)

Fig. 11 Drag obtained with the uniform porosity model.

6 Offloading
It is anticipated that the Orion space vehicle will need to
reduce its descent speed just before landing. Its estimated
descent speed of 25 ft/s may not be low enough for land-
ing. This would especially be the case if NASA decides to
recover the space vehicle on land as opposed to ocean like
they did in the Apollo program. One way to achieve reduced
descent speeds at landing is to reduce the weight of the ve-
hicle, popularly known as “offloading”. Using our general
FSI techniques described in [47] and more specialized tech-
niques described in this paper, we investigate the effects of
offloading. The effects of offloading are modeled using uni-
show the descent speed and drag obtained with the locally-
varying porosity model. As expected, the descent speed of
the payload decreases with increasing amount of offloaded
weight. We also note that the drag force decreases approx-
imately to the level of the remaining payload weight. Fig-
ure 14 shows, for 50% offloading, a comparison between
the payload descent speeds obtained with the uniform and
locally-varying porosity models. Figure 15 shows, for the
same offloading, a comparison between the drag forces ob-
tained with the uniform and locally-varying porosity models.
We see a close agreement between the results obtained with
the two porosity models. This makes our uniform porosity
6

26 26
Payload Descent Speed (ft/s)

Payload Descent Speed (ft/s)

24 25
22 24
20 Offload
23
18
22
16 Offload
21
14 % Mass
Offloaded 20
12 0.0% HMGP- % Mass
13.5%
10 25.0% 19 Offloaded
Variable- 0%
50.0% 18 Uniform - 0%
8 75.0% Variable-50%
99.0% Uniform -50%
6 17
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 12 Payload descent speed obtained with the locally-varying Fig. 14 Payload descent speeds obtained with the uniform and locally-
porosity model. varying porosity models.

5000 5000
4500 Offload 4500 Offload
4000 4000
3500 3500
Drag (lb)

Drag (lb)

3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 % Mass 2000
Offloaded
1500 0.0% 1500 HMGP- % Mass
13.5% Offloaded
1000 25.0% 1000 Variable- 0%
50.0% Uniform - 0%
500 75.0% 500 Variable-50%
99.0% Uniform -50%
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 13 Drag obtained with the locally-varying porosity model. Fig. 15 Drag forces obtained with the uniform and locally-varying
porosity models.

model more attractive because of its simplicity. Figures 12

and 13 show an additional curve corresponding to an of-
floaded weight of 13.5%. This computation was performed
recently after the information about the weight of the heat
shield was obtained from NASA. The heat shield is approxi-
mately 13.5% of the weight of the vehicle and is the most
likely candidate for offloading. Figure 16 shows the flow
around the parachute before and about 6 s after the heat
shield is dropped. Figure 17 shows the parachute shape be-
fore and about 6 s after the heat shield is dropped.
7 Drifting
Under the assumption that the Orion space vehicle would be
recovered on land and not in the ocean, it would be impor-
tant for the space vehicle to land close to the targeted landing
spot. Excessive drifting of the parachute under the influence
of side winds could carry the vehicle away from the targeted
landing spot and land it on terrain that is not suitable. We
therefore, using our FSI techniques, study the drifting of the
ringsail parachute due to side winds. In the computation re-
ported in this paper, we assume a side wind of 12.5 ft/s. We
use the uniform porosity model for the homogenized and
smoothened fluid interface. The computation is carried out
for a time duration of approximately 1 min. Figure 18 shows
the payload trajectory. We note that the payload drifts about
200 ft in a 1200 ft descent. Figure 19 shows the horizontal
velocity for the payload and the canopy. We note that the
velocities are increasing gradually, and we expect them to,
after a sufficiently long duration, reach the side-wind speed
of 12.5 ft/s. Figure 20 shows the horizontal force acting on
the canopy. We observe that it is decreasing gradually, and
we expect it to become zero when the parachute horizontal
velocity matches the side-wind velocity. Figure 21 shows the
streamlines around the drifting ringsail parachute.
8 Concluding remarks
We described our FSI modeling of ringsail parachutes. The
geometric complexities created by the “rings” and “sails”
used in the construction of the parachute canopy pose signif-

Fig. 16 Flow past the ringsail parachute before and about 6 s after the
heat shield is dropped. The velocity vectors are colored by magnitude.
icant computational challenges. We described in detaill how
we address those computational challenges. The FSI mod-
eling is based on the stabilized space–time FSI (SSTFSI)
technique and the interface projection techniques that ad-
dress the computational challenges posed by the geomet-
ric complexities of the fluid–structure interface. The SSTFSI
technique is the new-generation space–time FSI method de-
veloped recently by the T?AFSM to increase the scope and
performance of the earlier versions. The interface projection
techniques include the FSI Geometric Smoothing Technique
(FSI-GST) and the Homogenized Modeling of Geometric
Porosity (HMGP), also developed recently by the T?AFSM.
With the FSI-GST and its special version for parachutes, the
fluid mechanics mesh is sheltered from the consequences of
the geometric complexity of the structure. With the HMGP,
we bypass the intractable complexities of the geometric poros-
ity of the parachute canopy by approximating that geometric
porosity with an “equivalent”, locally-varying fabric poros-
ity. It is expected that NASA will be using a cluster of three
ringsail parachutes during the terminal descent of the Orion
7
Fig. 17 Parachute shape before and about 6 s after the heat shield is
dropped.
space vehicle. Here we modeled a single main parachute,
carrying one third of the total weight of the space vehicle.
We simulated the offloading, which includes as a special
case dropping the heat shield, and the drifting under the
influence of side winds. These simulations show that the
SSTFSI technique, together with the interface projection tech-
niques, can successfully address the computational challenges
associated with the geometric complexities of the ringsail
parachutes.
Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by NASA John-
son Space Center under Grant NNJ06HG84G. It was also supported in
part by the Rice Computational Research Cluster funded by NSF un-
der Grant CNS-0421109, and a partnership between Rice University,
AMD and Cray. We thank Dr. Srinivas Ramakrishnan for carrying out
(while he was a postdoctoral research associate at Rice University) the
stand-alone, four-gore fluid mechanics computation shown in Figure 7.
8

0
Payload
5 Second Intervals
-200
Relative Altitude (ft)

-400

-600

-800

-1000

-1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Relative Horizontal Position (ft)

Fig. 18 Payload trajectory for the drifting ringsail parachute.

7
Horizontal Velocity (ft/s)

4
Fig. 21 Flow past the drifting ringsail parachute.
3

2
2. T. E. Tezduyar, S. K. Aliabadi, M. Behr, and S. Mittal, “Massively
1
parallel finite element simulation of compressible and incompress-
0
ible flows”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi-
Payload neering, 119 (1994) 157–177.
Average Canopy 3. S. Mittal and T. E. Tezduyar, “Massively parallel finite element
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 computation of incompressible flows involving fluid-body inter-
Time (s) actions”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, 112 (1994) 253–282.
Fig. 19 Horizontal velocity for the drifting ringsail parachute. 4. S. Mittal and T. E. Tezduyar, “Parallel finite element simulation of
3D incompressible flows – Fluid-structure interactions”, Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 21 (1995) 933–
900 953.
5. A. A. Johnson and T. E. Tezduyar, “Advanced mesh generation
800 and update methods for 3D flow simulations”, Computational Me-
chanics, 23 (1999) 130–143.
Horizontal Force (lb)

700
6. V. Kalro and T. E. Tezduyar, “A parallel 3D computational method
600
for fluid–structure interactions in parachute systems”, Computer
500 Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 190 (2000) 321–
400
332.
7. K. Stein, R. Benney, V. Kalro, T. E. Tezduyar, J. Leonard, and
300 M. Accorsi, “Parachute fluid–structure interactions: 3-D Compu-
200 tation”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, 190 (2000) 373–386.
100 8. T. Tezduyar and Y. Osawa, “Fluid–structure interactions of a
0 parachute crossing the far wake of an aircraft”, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191 (2001) 717–726.
-100 9. R. Ohayon, “Reduced symmetric models for modal analysis of
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
internal structural-acoustic and hydroelastic-sloshing systems”,
Time (s)
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
Fig. 20 Horizontal force acting on the drifting ringsail parachute. 190 (2001) 3009–3019.
10. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, R. Keedy, and K. Stein, “Space–time
techniques for finite element computation of flows with moving
boundaries and interfaces”, in S. Gallegos, I. Herrera, S. Botello,
F. Zarate, and G. Ayala, editors, Proceedings of the III Interna-
References tional Congress on Numerical Methods in Engineering and Ap-
plied Science, CD-ROM, Monterrey, Mexico, 2004.
1. T. Tezduyar, S. Aliabadi, M. Behr, A. Johnson, and S. Mittal, 11. R. Torii, M. Oshima, T. Kobayashi, K. Takagi, and T. E. Tezduyar,
“Parallel finite-element computation of 3D flows”, Computer, “Influence of wall elasticity on image-based blood flow simula-
26 (1993) 27–36. tion”, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal Series A,

70 (2004) 1224–1231, in Japanese.
12. E. H. van Brummelen and R. de Borst, “On the nonnormality of
subiteration for a fluid-structure interaction problem”, SIAM Jour-
nal on Scientific Computing, 27 (2005) 599–621.
13. C. Michler, E. H. van Brummelen, and R. de Borst, “An interface
Newton–Krylov solver for fluid–structure interaction”, Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 47 (2005) 1189–
1195.
14. Jean-Frederic Gerbeau, M. Vidrascu, and P. Frey, “Fluid–structure
interaction in blood flows on geometries based on medical imag-
ing”, Computers and Structures, 83 (2005) 155–165.
15. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, R. Keedy, and K. Stein, “Space–time
finite element techniques for computation of fluid–structure inter-
actions”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, 195 (2006) 2002–2027.
16. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, and K. Stein, “Solution techniques for the
fully-discretized equations in computation of fluid–structure inter-
actions with the space–time formulations”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 195 (2006) 5743–5753.
17. R. Torii, M. Oshima, T. Kobayashi, K. Takagi, and T. E. Tez-
duyar, “Computer modeling of cardiovascular fluid–structure in-
teractions with the Deforming-Spatial-Domain/Stabilized Space–
Time formulation”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 195 (2006) 1885–1895.
18. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, K. Stein, and L. Aureli, “Modeling of
fluid–structure interactions with the space–time techniques”, in
Hans-Joachim Bungartz and M. Schafer, editors, Fluid–Structure
Interaction – Modelling, Simulation, Optimization, volume 53 of
Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Chap-
ter 3, 50–81, Springer, 2006.
19. R. Torii, M. Oshima, T. Kobayashi, K. Takagi, and T. E. Tezdu-
yar, “Fluid–structure interaction modeling of aneurysmal condi-
tions with high and normal blood pressures”, Computational Me-
chanics, 38 (2006) 482–490.
20. W. Dettmer and D. Peric, “A computational framework for fluid-
structure interaction: Finite element formulation and applica-
tions”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, 195 (2006) 5754–5779.
21. Y. Bazilevs, V. M. Calo, Y. Zhang, and T. J. R. Hughes, “Isogeo-
metric fluid–structure interaction analysis with applications to ar-
terial blood flow”, Computational Mechanics, 38 (2006) 310–322.
22. R. A. Khurram and A. Masud, “A multiscale/stabilized formula-
tion of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations for moving
boundary flows and fluid–structure interaction”, Computational
Mechanics, 38 (2006) 403–416.
23. U. Kuttler, C. Forster, and W. A. Wall, “A solution for the in-
compressibility dilemma in partitioned fluid–structure interaction
with pure Dirichlet fluid domains”, Computational Mechanics,
38 (2006) 417–429.
24. R. Lohner, J. R. Cebral, C. Yang, J. D. Baum, E. L. Mestreau, and
O. Soto, “Extending the range of applicability of the loose cou-
pling approach for FSI simulations”, in Hans-Joachim Bungartz
and M. Schafer, editors, Fluid–Structure Interaction, volume 53
of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, 82–
100, Springer, 2006.
25. Kai-Uwe Bletzinger, R. Wuchner, and A. Kupzok, “Algorithmic
treatment of shells and free form-membranes in FSI”, in Hans-
Joachim Bungartz and M. Schafer, editors, Fluid–Structure Inter-
action, volume 53 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and
Engineering, 336–355, Springer, 2006.
26. R. Torii, M. Oshima, T. Kobayashi, K. Takagi, and T. E. Tezdu-
yar, “Influence of wall elasticity in patient-specific hemodynamic
simulations”, Computers & Fluids, 36 (2007) 160–168.
27. A. Masud, M. Bhanabhagvanwala, and R. A. Khurram, “An adap-
tive mesh rezoning scheme for moving boundary flows and fluid–
structure interaction”, Computers & Fluids, 36 (2007) 77–91.
28. T. Sawada and T. Hisada, “Fluid–structure interaction analysis of
the two dimensional flag-in-wind problem by an interface tracking
ALE finite element method”, Computers & Fluids, 36 (2007) 136–
146.
9
29. W. A. Wall, S. Genkinger, and E. Ramm, “A strong coupling parti-
tioned approach for fluid–structure interaction with free surfaces”,
Computers & Fluids, 36 (2007) 169–183.
30. Y. Bazilevs, V. M. Calo, T. J. R. Hughes, and Y. Zhang, “Isogeo-
metric fluid–structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and compu-
tations”, Computational Mechanics, 43 (2008) 3–37.
31. K. R. Stein, R. J. Benney, V. Kalro, A. A. Johnson, and T. E.
Tezduyar, “Parallel computation of parachute fluid–structure in-
teractions”, in Proceedings of AIAA 14th Aerodynamic Deceler-
ator Systems Technology Conference, AIAA Paper 97-1505, San
Francisco, California, (1997).
32. T. E. Tezduyar, “Stabilized finite element formulations for incom-
pressible flow computations”, Advances in Applied Mechanics,
28 (1992) 1–44.
33. T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, and J. Liou, “A new strategy for finite el-
ement computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces –
the deforming-spatial-domain/space–time procedure: I. The con-
cept and the preliminary numerical tests”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 94 (1992) 339–351.
34. T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, S. Mittal, and J. Liou, “A new strategy
for finite element computations involving moving boundaries and
interfaces – the deforming-spatial-domain/space–time procedure:
II. Computation of free-surface flows, two-liquid flows, and flows
with drifting cylinders”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, 94 (1992) 353–371.
35. T. E. Tezduyar, “Computation of moving boundaries and inter-
faces and stabilization parameters”, International Journal for Nu-
merical Methods in Fluids, 43 (2003) 555–575.
36. T. J. R. Hughes and A. N. Brooks, “A multi-dimensional upwind
scheme with no crosswind diffusion”, in T. J. R. Hughes, editor,
Finite Element Methods for Convection Dominated Flows, AMD-
Vol.34, 19–35, ASME, New York, 1979.
37. A. N. Brooks and T. J. R. Hughes, “Streamline upwind/Petrov-
Galerkin formulations for convection dominated flows with par-
ticular emphasis on the incompressible Navier-Stokes equa-
tions”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, 32 (1982) 199–259.
38. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Mittal, S. E. Ray, and R. Shih, “Incompressible
flow computations with stabilized bilinear and linear equal-order-
interpolation velocity-pressure elements”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 95 (1992) 221–242.
39. T. J. R. Hughes, L. P. Franca, and M. Balestra, “A new finite el-
ement formulation for computational fluid dynamics: V. Circum-
venting the Babuška–Brezzi condition: A stable Petrov–Galerkin
formulation of the Stokes problem accommodating equal-order in-
terpolations”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-
gineering, 59 (1986) 85–99.
40. T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, S. Mittal, and A. A. Johnson, “Com-
putation of unsteady incompressible flows with the finite ele-
ment methods – space–time formulations, iterative strategies and
massively parallel implementations”, in New Methods in Tran-
sient Analysis, PVP-Vol.246/AMD-Vol.143, ASME, New York,
(1992) 7–24.
41. A. A. Johnson and T. E. Tezduyar, “Mesh update strategies in par-
allel finite element computations of flow problems with moving
boundaries and interfaces”, Computer Methods in Applied Me-
chanics and Engineering, 119 (1994) 73–94.
42. A. A. Johnson and T. E. Tezduyar, “Parallel computation of in-
compressible flows with complex geometries”, International Jour-
nal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 24 (1997) 1321–1340.
43. T. Tezduyar, “Finite element interface-tracking and interface-
capturing techniques for flows with moving boundaries and in-
terfaces”, in Proceedings of the ASME Symposium on Fluid-
Physics and Heat Transfer for Macro- and Micro-Scale Gas-
Liquid and Phase-Change Flows (CD-ROM), ASME Paper
IMECE2001/HTD-24206, ASME, New York, New York, (2001).
44. T. E. Tezduyar, “Stabilized finite element formulations and
interface-tracking and interface-capturing techniques for incom-
pressible flows”, in M. M. Hafez, editor, Numerical Simulations of
Incompressible Flows, World Scientific, New Jersey, (2003) 221–
10

239. 61. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, J. Pausewang, M. Schwaab, J. Christo-

45. K. Stein, T. Tezduyar, and R. Benney, “Mesh moving techniques pher, and J. Crabtree, “Interface projection techniques for fluid–
for fluid–structure interactions with large displacements”, Journal structure interaction modeling with moving-mesh methods”,
of Applied Mechanics, 70 (2003) 58–63. Computational Mechanics, 43 (2008) 39–49.
46. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, M. Senga, L. Aureli, K. Stein, and 62. Y. Saad and M. Schultz, “GMRES: A generalized minimal resid-
B. Griffin, “Finite element modeling of fluid–structure interac- ual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems”, SIAM
tions with space–time and advanced mesh update techniques”, in Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7 (1986) 856–869.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Numerical 63. G. Karypis and V. Kumar, “A fast and high quality multilevel
Methods in Continuum Mechanics (CD-ROM), Zilina, Slovakia, scheme for partitioning irregular graphs”, SIAM Journal of Sci-
(2005). entific Computing, 20 (1998) 359–392.
47. T. E. Tezduyar and S. Sathe, “Modeling of fluid–structure in-
teractions with the space–time finite elements: Solution tech-
niques”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
54 (2007) 855–900.
48. S. Mittal and T. E. Tezduyar, “A finite element study of incom-
pressible flows past oscillating cylinders and aerofoils”, Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 15 (1992) 1073–
1118.
49. K. Stein, R. Benney, T. Tezduyar, V. Kalro, J. Leonard, and M. Ac-
corsi, “3-D computation of parachute fluid–structure interactions:
Performance and control”, in Proceedings of CEAS/AIAA 15th
Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference, AIAA
Paper 99-1714, Toulouse, France, (1999).
50. K. Stein, R. Benney, T. Tezduyar, V. Kalro, J. Potvin, and T. Bretl,
“Fluid–structure interaction simulation of a cross parachute: Com-
parison of numerical predictions with wind tunnel data”, in Pro-
ceedings of CEAS/AIAA 15th Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems
Technology Conference, AIAA Paper 99-1725, Toulouse, France,
(1999).
51. K. Stein, R. Benney, T. Tezduyar, and J. Potvin, “Fluid–
structure interactions of a cross parachute: Numerical simula-
tion”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
191 (2001) 673–687.
52. K. R. Stein, R. J. Benney, T. E. Tezduyar, J. W. Leonard,
and M. L. Accorsi, “Fluid–structure interactions of a round
parachute: Modeling and simulation techniques”, Journal of Air-
craft, 38 (2001) 800–808.
53. T. E. Tezduyar, “Stabilized finite element methods for flows
with moving boundaries and interfaces”, HERMIS: The Interna-
tional Journal of Computer Mathematics and its Applications,
4 (2003) 63–88.
54. T. E. Tezduyar, “Finite element methods for fluid dynamics with
moving boundaries and interfaces”, in E. Stein, R. De Borst, and
T. J. R. Hughes, editors, Encyclopedia of Computational Mechan-
ics, Volume 3: Fluids, Chapter 17, Wiley, 2004.
55. T. E. Tezduyar, “Moving boundaries and interfaces”, in L. P.
Franca, T. E. Tezduyar, and A. Masud, editors, Finite Element
Methods: 1970’s and Beyond, 205–220, CIMNE, Barcelona,
Spain, 2004.
56. T. E. Tezduyar, “Finite elements in fluids: Special methods and en-
hanced solution techniques”, Computers & Fluids, 36 (2007) 207–
223.
57. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, T. Cragin, B. Nanna, B. S. Conklin,
J. Pausewang, and M. Schwaab, “Modeling of fluid–structure in-
teractions with the space–time finite elements: Arterial fluid me-
chanics”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
54 (2007) 901–922.
58. T. E. Tezduyar, J. Pausewang, and S. Sathe, “FSI modeling of
sails”, in E. Onate, J. Garcia, P. Bergan, and T. Kvamsdal, editors,
Marine 2007, CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, (2007).
59. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, M. Schwaab, and B. S. Conklin, “Arterial
fluid mechanics modeling with the stabilized space–time fluid–
structure interaction technique”, International Journal for Numer-
ical Methods in Fluids, 57 (2008) 601–629.
60. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, J. Pausewang, M. Schwaab, J. Crabtree,
and J. Christopher, “Air–fabric interaction modeling with the Sta-
bilized Space–Time FSI technique”, in Proceedings of the Third
Asian-Pacific Congress on Computational Mechanics (CD-ROM),
Kyoto, Japan, (2007).

View publication stats