ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Lagrangian Differencing Dynamics for Time-Independent Non-Newtonian Materials.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel meshless and Lagrangian approach for simulating non-Newtonian flows, named Lagrangian Differencing Dynamics (LDD). Second-order-consistent spatial operators are used to directly discretize and solve generalized Navier-Stokes equations in a strong formulation. The solution is obtained using a split-step scheme, i.e., by decoupling the solutions of the pressure and velocity. The pressure is obtained by solving a Poisson equation, and the velocity is solved in a semi-implicit formulation. The matrix-free solution to the equations, and Lagrangian advection of mesh-free nodes allowed for a fully parallelized implementation on the CPU and GPU, which ensured an affordable computing time and large time steps. A set of four benchmarks are presented to demonstrate the robustness and accuracy of the proposed formulation. The tested two- and three-dimensional simulations used Power Law, Casson and Bingham models. An Abram slump test and a dam break test were performed using the Bingham model, yielding visual and numerical results in accordance with the experimental data. A square lid-driven cavity was tested using the Casson model, while the Power Law model was used for a skewed lid-driven cavity test. The simulation results of the lid-driven cavity tests are in good agreement with velocity profiles and stream lines of published reports. A fully implicit scheme will be introduced in future work. As the method precisely reproduces the pressure field, non-Newtonian models that strongly depend on the pressure will be validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.