38 Progress in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 14, No.

1, 2014

Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction:

Turek benchmark and kinetics of a reed valve

M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff*

CFX Berlin Software GmbH,
Karl-Marx-Allee 90A,
10243 Berlin, Germany
E-mail: markus_schildhauer@gmx.de
E-mail: andreas.spille@cfx-berlin.de
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction requires a simulation tool that
can calculate both fluid flow and structure deformation and takes into account the results of one
code (i.e., forces and deformations) in the setup of the other (as motion and load). This article
shows a segregated (also: partitioned) approach that uses commercial, highly developed software
for each task: ANSYS CFX for fluid dynamics and ANSYS Mechanical for structural mechanics
with the ANSYS MFX solver to couple both programs. Two examples with large deformations
and strong influence on the flow field are shown: The Turek benchmark from Turek and Hron
(2006) consists of a laminar incompressible channel flow around an elastic object which results
in periodic oscillations of the structure. The second example is the discharge simulation of
compressed air through a rapidly moving reed valve in a piston compressor where opening and
closing contacts are important.

Keywords: fluid-structure interaction; reed valve; load transfer; computational fluid dynamics;
CFD; Turek benchmark; computational structural mechanics; CSM.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Schildhauer, M. and Spille-Kohoff, A. (2014)
‘Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction: Turek benchmark and kinetics of a reed
valve’, Progress in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.38–48.

Biographical notes: M. Schildhauer is an Engineer at MAN Diesel and Turbo SE, Berlin
(Germany). He received his MEng (2011) from Leipzig University of Applied Science
(Germany) and wrote his Masters thesis at CFX Berlin Software GmbH (Germany).

A. Spille-Kohoff is the Head of Research and Development at CFX Berlin Software GmbH
(Germany). He received his PhD in Theoretical Hydrodynamics (1999) from University
Oldenburg (Germany). His research interest is in the area of computational fluid dynamics,
electromagnetics and acoustics.

1 Introduction two-way coupling is necessary, so that the calculated

deformations are used again in the CFD model as deflection
Numerical simulation is widely accepted as computational
of the boundaries. This is called fluid-structure interaction
fluid dynamics (CFD) for fluid flow and computational
(FSI), and the solution of a coupled system is necessary.
structural mechanics (CSM) for structural deformation.
Typical examples are flags or leaves moving in the wind,
Typically, specialised solvers are used for CFD and CSM:
fluttering of aircraft wings or turbine blades, and opening
most CFD codes use finite volume approach with models
and closing of human heart valves.
for turbulence, heat transfer, combustion, radiation, phase
In a monolithic or direct approach, a single equation set
change, etc., whereas CSM codes use finite element
is assembled from CFD and CSM and solved, but this
approach with models for non-linear material behaviour and
approach needs special programs that typically lack in
contacts. These solvers were developed and well-proven
advanced physical models; due to non-linearities in the
over decades and are widely used in academic and industrial
equations, iterations are still necessary. With the iterative or
domains.
load transfer approach, both specialised solvers can be used
For some applications, using either CFD or CSM is
separately to efficiently solve each problem with adequate
insufficient: if the fluid flow generates forces on a solid
numerical and physical models, while coupling iterations
structure, these forces have to be used as loads in CSM to
transfer the solution of one solver as input to the other.
calculate stresses or deformation of the structure. Such a
Typically, pressure and shear forces are transferred from
one-way coupling is sufficient if the deformations are small
CFD as loads to CSM, and deformations are transferred
enough so that the fluid flow is not perturbed. Otherwise a
back from CSM to CFD.

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction 39

For transient FSI problems, the coupling might be block-structured meshes for the CFD simulation were
explicit, e.g., the CFD solution is updated to the new time generated with ANSYS ICEM CFD Hexa, Post-processing
step with deformations taken from CSM solver of last time was done with ANSYS CFD-Post. All ANSYS products
step or vice versa so that each solver is called only once were used in version 14.0.
each time step, or implicit, i.e., for one time step CFD and
CSM solutions are updated iteratively until a converged
solution is reached. The implicit coupling ensures consistent 2 Mesh deformation in CFD model
solutions and numerical stability; explicit coupling needs no
The deformations of the solid structure calculated by the
coupling iterations but often very small time step sizes.
CSM solver have to be imposed as boundary motion to the
The coupling algorithm has the following tasks: The
CFD model. Since the flow region around the solid is
forces acting on the fluid-structure interface have to be
discretised with a finite volume mesh, this mesh has to be
interpolated from CFD mesh to CSM mesh in a
deformed as well. This is a typical boundary value problem:
conservative form, the deformations back from CSM mesh
With given deformation values on the boundaries, calculate
to CFD mesh. To increase stability, under-relaxation of
a smooth relocation in the interior. ANSYS CFX uses
forces and deformations is often important. And finally the
Laplace equations for the three spatial components of the
algorithm has to decide when the iterations have converged,
deformation. But requirements on mesh quality are high in
i.e., when changes in forces and deformations are small
CFD: Boundary layers have to be resolved well, and bad
enough.
angles, high expansion factors, high length ratios or folded
In this contribution, ANSYS CFX is used for the CFD
volumes shall be avoided to get stable and converging
simulation and ANSYS Mechanical for the CSM
solutions.
simulation. The two-way implicit coupling is realised with
the ANSYS MFX Multi-field Solver, see Figure 1. The

Figure 1 Solution process of a FSI simulation with ANSYS CFX and ANSYS mechanical for CFD and CSM simulation, respectively,
and ANSYS MFX for coupling and interpolation (see online version for colours)

Figure 2 Mesh displacement at an upwards moving structure with constant stiffness (a) leading to bad orthogonality angles at lower
corner and folded elements at upper corner, and with hyperbolic stiffness (b) ensuring good mesh quality (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)
40 M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff
To fulfil these criteria, the user can choose a spatially and
temporally varying mesh stiffness ζ(x, y, z) for the Laplace
equations. Mesh stiffness can be increased near boundaries
to prevent distortion in boundary layers, or near small
elements, or can be set arbitrarily. The authors chose
hyperbolic stiffness functions with poles at corners or edges
to avoid folded elements and to preserve mesh quality, see
Figure 2.
3 Turek benchmark
The Turek benchmark is described by Turek and Hron
(2006) to facilitate verification and comparison of FSI
solution algorithms on the basis of a numerically difficult
2D example. Turek and Hron present solutions with
reference values, calculated with a specialised monolithic
ALE-FEM solver.
3.1 Problem description
The setup is shown in Figure 3. A highly viscous
incompressible Newtonian fluid (η = 1 Pa·s) similar to
glycerine enters a channel with a parabolic velocity profile.
The laminar flow is expected to interact intensively with a
solid body consisting of a rigid cylinder with a backwards
mounted, highly flexible, hyperelastic structure which could
be made of an elastomer like polybutadiene. Fluid and
structure have the same density of 1,000 kg/m³. Through a
slightly asymmetric location of the body within the channel
flow it is ensured that a lifting force develops in a steady-
state flow and that laminar vortex shedding occurs at higher
flow rates. Based on variation of inlet velocity and structural
stiffness the complete benchmark comprises different
testing scenarios including pure CFD and CSM tests for
preparation and verification purposes. For all scenarios, see
Schildhauer (2011); this article focuses on a single testing
scenario (FSI3 test):
• average inlet velocity c = 2 m/s
• shear modulus μ = 2 MPa; Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.4.
Figure 3 Draft of benchmark geometry
Source: Turek and Hron (2006)
In this case the Reynolds number defined with the cylinder
diameter D is 200 (Re = cDρ /η) and a transient solution is
expected.
3.2 CFD meshing and setup
Since ANSYS CFX is a pure three-dimensional solver, 2D
problems have to be treated on a plane (extruded), one
element-thick layer with symmetry conditions on both base
areas. In view of an intense mesh motion during the FSI
simulation it is necessary to generate a high quality regular
hexahedral mesh (done with ANSYS ICEM CFD Hexa).
Hexahedral grids generally have numerical advantages over
tetrahedral respectively prism meshes. Especially the former
are superior in case of large mesh deformations, where the
latter ones produce bad element angles without re-meshing.
The mesh has to take account of sufficiently high
resolution of flow gradients, particularly in boundary layers,
on the one side and a robust high-quality mesh deformation
on the other side. Clearly a third important aspect is the
minimisation of computational effort by optimising the
element distribution in order to reduce the number of nodes.
The first two objectives lead to a conflict especially at sharp
edges where the translational and rotational mesh
displacements are very large compared to the small element
sizes necessary for boundary layer resolution. This often
results in an unacceptably high mesh distortion which can
cause a solver termination in the worst case. The Turek
benchmark involves this problem at the tail of the structure
which is already mentioned along its solution approach in
Figure 2.
The main part of the initial CFD mesh used for the FSI
test is shown in Figure 4. It has 74,793 elements and a
minimum orthogonality angle of 41°. In pure CFD analyses
the mesh shows a transient periodic solution (vortex street)
in very good accordance with reference values. For the
ANSYS CFX setup refer to Figure 5. Since a mesh with half
the number of elements did not produce a transition from
stationary solutions to a transient one, the preferred
resolution can be regarded as suitable.
 Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction 41

Figure 4 CFD mesh (main part) for Turek benchmark (see online version for colours)

Figure 5 CFD setup for Turek benchmark with boundary conditions in ANSYS CFX (see online version for colours)

Figure 6 CSM mesh and setup with boundary conditions in ANSYS mechanical (see online version for colours)

(standard) material model under the requirement of

3.3 CSM meshing and setup
Meshing and setup of the hyperelastic structure are done
within the ANSYS workbench, see Figure 6. The Saint
Vernant-Kirchhoff constitutive law used by Turek and Hron
for defining the material properties is sufficiently
approximated by the ANSYS linear-elastic isotropic
performing a non-linear solution process. Different pure
CSM analyses have been carried out to find an adequate
mesh resolution and to ensure a good concordance with
reference results. A mesh with 352 trilinear equally
distributed solid elements has been well proven. The mesh
fulfils another objective: The accuracy of the profile
preserving displacement interpolation at the fluid-structure
42 M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff
interface benefits from a higher or at least equally high
resolution of the fluid mesh compared to the structural
resolution.
3.4 FSI setup, solution process and results
The setups for CFD, CSM and mesh motion can be merged
in the ANSYS workbench FSI setup. To enable the solver
coupling the FSI interface has to be defined at a fluid
domain boundary (wall) and the corresponding structural
domain surface. The numerical setup of the coupling
procedure (ANSYS MFX solver) is done within the ANSYS
CFX-Pre environment and includes settings like coupling
time step size and convergence criteria, under-relaxation
factors or the maximum number of coupling iterations.
The Turek benchmark is characterised by the necessity
of making an extensive use of those coupling parameters to
gain a stable solution with a partitioned approach. The
partitioned approach involves, unlike the monolithic
approach, an inherent instability effect which is frequently
called artificial added mass effect.
Each acceleration of a solid body within a fluid causes a
pressure force in the opposite direction and can therefore be
interpreted as an inertial force caused by an added mass.
Under certain circumstances this opposing force causes a
sudden reversal of acceleration which is followed by a new
estimation of the force transfer in the opposite direction and
an even greater acceleration response of the structure during
the next coupling step and so on. The forces and the
corresponding displacements can grow until a solver error
occurs. In contrast to other instability effects with
time-stepping schemes this instability cannot be reduced by
decreasing the time step size, but precisely the opposite is
true: A smaller time step size amplifies the acceleration
response and makes the situation worse if the given problem
is not generally stable.
The artificial added mass effect is caused or promoted
by the following physical influences in descending order,
see Schildhauer (2011) and Förster et al. (2006):
• high fluid density in relation to structural density (esp.:
density ratio ≥1)
• movement with heavy fluid mass displacement
• low structural stiffness
• high viscosity
• incompressibility or low compressibility of the fluid.
The opposite of those attributes indicates stable behaviour.
But obviously the Turek benchmark exhibits all instability
causes to a high extent and as a result shows numerically
very difficult conditions.
Therefore special parameters for the implicit
coupling procedure are necessary: Strong under-relaxation
of force transfer (factor < 0.1), but no displacement
under-relaxation; strict coupling convergence criteria
(maximum residuals of force transfer < 0.001, for
displacement < 0.01), and a high maximum number of
coupling iterations (>≈ 30) per time step. With these settings
it is possible to gain a compromise between a stable FSI
solution process with a sufficient accuracy on the one side
and a moderate computational effort on the other side.
Using a transient solution of a pure CFD analysis as
initial condition for the FSI solution process can be
convenient to reduce calculating time. Because of the
initially periodically acting forces the structure immediately
starts to oscillate and heavily interacts with the flow. After
already eight oscillations a periodic state is reached, see
Figure 7. A time step size of 0.002 s yields a temporal
resolution of about 92 time steps per period. Together with a
CFD residual target of 0.001 (max) and maximum number
of ten coefficient loops per coupling step a well converging
solution process is achieved. The convergence of the
structural solution part is relatively unproblematic and not
time-critical. A computing time of 4.43 hours for one
oscillation was detected on an Intel Xeon processor (64-bit,
2.8 GHz) with four cores in parallel. In fact, the possible
number of 300 coefficient loops per time step (30 coupling
iterations with each ten coefficient loops) is never reached,
but is still at a quite high number of 36 in average. About
80% of the computing time is used by the CFD solver only.
The accuracy of the simulation can be evaluated by the
comparison with reference values (mean value, amplitude
and frequency) for the force acting on the solid body
(drag and lift component) and the displacement of the tail at
point A (x- and y-direction), see Table 1. Turek and Hron
used a time step size of 0.001 s and a mesh consisting of
15,872 biquadratic elements to obtain these reference
values. The values could be reproduced well. In fact, a
further improvement is achieved by reducing the time step
size from 0.002 s to 0.001 s. The higher temporal resolution
accelerates the convergence speed of the CFD solution and
the average number of coefficient loops per time step drops
from 36 to 27, although some additional coupling steps are
required. In consequence the computing time rises only
60%.
Table 1 Test results and reference values
ANSYS/CFX Reference
DispX at A (mm) –2.73 ± 2.59 –2.69 ± 2.53
DispY at A (mm) 1.53 ± 33.40 1.48 ± 34.38
Drag (N/m) 459.7 ± 25.2 457.3 ± 22.66
Lift (N/m) 1.85 ± 142.45 2.22 ± 149.78
Frequency (Hz) 5.5 5.3
Source: Turek and Hron (2006)
 Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction
Figure7 Turek benchmark (FSI3 test) (see online version for colours)
Note: Sequence of states over one period (streamlines and pressure field).
4 Kinetics of a reed valve
Our second example is a discharge simulation of
compressed air through a reed valve which is an important
component of common piston compressors. The kinetics of
the steel reed during the rapid interaction with the gas is
interesting not only for demonstration purposes but also for
constructive optimisations in piston compressors. The quite
challenging simulation involves rapidly changing contact
states between several solid bodies and extreme alterations
of gap widths within the fluid domain. Therefore the main
focus is placed on the feasibility.
43
4.1 Problem description
The intake and discharge in piston compressors is preferably
controlled through reed valves. Here only the discharge
process shall be treated. A first impression of a discharge
reed valve can be gained by examining Figures 8 to 12. The
reed is a spring steel plate of 0.6 mm thickness and is tightly
clamped at one end between the valve plate and the reed
catcher.
During the intake and the compression stage the free end
of the reed is firmly pressed onto the valve seat by a
pressure difference between the discharge chamber
(high pressure) and the compression chamber (lower
pressure).Therefore the reed seals the circular opening of
the valve plate and impedes the gas from leaking outwards
44 M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff
until the pressure in the compression chamber rises above
the pressure in the discharge chamber; then, the reed is
abruptly bended up and collides with the reed catcher that is
supposed to limit the maximum bending stress. After the
rebound the reed starts to oscillate within the emanating gas
flow. This is the so called valve flutter. It can delay the
sealing when the piston arrives at the top dead-centre
position. Together with the abrupt opening behaviour the
flutter heavily affects the service life, the discharge/intake
process and thereby the compressor efficiency and
construction.
The simulation of the discharge process uses the model
geometry shown in Figure 8. Only a half model is
considered with assumption of a symmetry plane. The
structural model consists of three solid bodies: reed, catcher
and valve plate, whereas the latter two are primarily
meaningful for the contact surfaces. The geometry of the
fluid domain roughly represents the conditions within a real
compressor. Only the gas flow through the valve opening
and around the reed is of main interest. So the suction
chamber with corresponding valves is neglected, and the
geometry of the discharge chamber can be strongly
simplified by defining a cylindrical boundary with a large
circular opening on the top. The piston stroke is modelled as
a time-dependent moving ground plane in the cylindrical
compression chamber to obtain realistic and stable flow
conditions at the valve opening. It is convenient to start the
simulation at a piston position where a zero pressure
difference can be assumed between the compression and
discharge chamber.
Another important issue has to be regarded: Narrow
intersection zones of fluid and solid domains are necessary
to allow changing contact states between the solid bodies
without causing topological changes of the fluid domain.
Figure 8 Model geometry of a reed valve in a piston compressor (see online version for colours)
Notes: The fluid domain is grey shaded. Dimensions are in mm.
The latter means that the total fluid domain is everywhere
continuously connected. Even when the reed collides with
the valve plate or the catcher, a very thin layer of fluid
elements has to be maintained in between. In other words,
only continuous deformations of domains are allowed, no
cutting, if the fluid-structure simulation shall be done in a
single solver run without stopping, remeshing, restarting
and interpolation.
4.2 CFD meshing and setup
The hexahedral mesh shown in Figure 9 is mainly adapted
to the needs of a stable quality preserving mesh motion
which is the most critical part of this simulation. Basically
the methods mentioned above are applied and extended to
ensure a well operating mesh motion. Explaining the many
diverse measures that have been taken would go far beyond
the scope of this report, for details see Schildhauer (2011).
The element distribution is characterised by the
intention to obtain solution convergence in all areas
of the mesh at a relatively low spatial resolution
(about 360,000 elements). In order to keep the
computational effort moderate the chosen boundary element
heights permit no boundary layer resolution. Between the
reed and the valve plate there is a tiny gap of 0.1 mm height;
about 20 element layers across this gap width ensure a
sufficient vertical resolution when the gap is extremely
enlarged due to the bending up of the reed.
Figure 10 contains the most essential information about
the CFD setup. Since the air is modelled as ideal gas, the
temperature is introduced as additional field variable
calculated by the total energy model. Turbulence is
modelled by the SAS SST turbulence model.
 Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction
Figure 9 CFD hexahedral mesh (generated with ANSYS ICEM CFD hexa) for piston compressor (see online version for colours)
Figure 10 ANSYS CFX setup for piston compressor with initial conditions (see online version for colours)
A uniform pressure distribution of 20 bar (relative to
1 atm reference pressure) and zero velocity are assumed at
the simulation start. The piston motion is defined through
the kinematics of a crankshaft. It starts at a certain upwards
velocity in a lower position and reaches the top dead-centre
position after approximately five milliseconds.
4.3 CSM meshing and setup
Plenty of setup and meshing variants had to be tested until a
satisfying answer to the difficult contact problem was
found. Important requirements are a reliable solution
convergence, realistic boundary conditions for the reed and
finally but equally important an excessive penetration of the
bodies has to be avoided. It rather should be limited to a
very small extent. Otherwise the topology of the CFD mesh
is violated within the small gaps and a solver termination is
45
produced in the worst case. An overview about a well
performing mesh and setup delivers Figure 11.
A reliable solution convergence is achieved at a time
step size of 0.01 milliseconds together with frictionless
contact definitions according to the augmented Lagrange
formulation. Furthermore a manual definition of the contact
stiffness (factor ≈ 1) and the contact search radius (8 mm) is
necessary. The chosen contact stiffness features a
compromise between good solution convergence and low
penetration.
For simplicity reasons a FSI interface has been
considered for the reed surface only and not for the catcher.
In consequence the catcher has to be fully constrained.
Otherwise the oscillation of the catcher would cause serious
problems with the CFD mesh. A constant displacement of
the catcher secures the required clamping force on the reed.
46 M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff
Figure 11 ANSYS Mechanical setup of reed valve with meshing (see online version for colours)
Note: 4,844 trilinear hexahedral elements ‘SOLID185’.
4.4 FSI setup, solution process and results
As can be seen in Figure 12 the simulation delivers feasible
results at a time step size of 0.01 milliseconds. The
complete discharge process of five milliseconds is resolved
with 500 time steps. The temporal resolution is even high
enough to permit an explicit solver coupling without loss of
accuracy. Therefore one coupling iteration is done per time
step. The CSM solver begins on the basis of the ‘old’ fluid
forces. The CFD solver follows using the ‘new’ structural
displacements and passes the ‘new’ forces towards the next
time step. In consequence the under-relaxation factors have
to be equal to 1. Explicit coupling is usually possible when
the density ratio between the fluid (here gas) and the solid
body is very small so that the artificial added mass effect is
negligible and therefore no instabilities can occur.
The CFD solution is converging with a residual target of
0.001 (MAX) which is not always reached in the maximum
number of ten coefficient loops per time/coupling step. The
computational effort is quite high: A total time of 3.5 days
has been used on an AMD Opteron processor (64-bit, 2.3
GHz) with two cores in parallel. About 93% of that time is
required by the CFD solver.
Post-processing of the simulation results with ANSYS
CFD-Post and monitoring of important variables during the
solution process enables the observation of all the
characteristics that have been already mentioned in the
problem description. For example the temporal development
of the bending stress within the reed, see Figure 13,
could be used for service life estimations; likewise the
time-dependent pressure curve enables efficiency
calculations.
5 Conclusions
The ANSYS software package facilitates a partitioned
solution approach for FSI simulations. It uses the MFX
solver to exchange the boundary conditions between fluid
and solid domain. Through the MFX coupling of ANSYS
CFX with ANSYS Mechanical the advantages of both
highly developed solvers can be utilised to solve complex
simulation tasks far beyond pure fluid-structure interaction.
However FSI can be a very challenging task on its own.
Two significant examples show the capabilities of the
software and give practical hints for the setup.
The Turek Benchmark enabled a verification of the
coupling algorithm under numerically very difficult
conditions since the partitioned solution approach is faced
with the artificial added mass effect. This instability effect
gets worse with higher temporal resolution and higher
fluid-solid density ratio. It can be handled by an extensive
implicit coupling of the solvers which means strong
under-relaxation and many coupling iterations per time step.
Typically the implicit coupling decreases the time step
size dependence of the solution and delivers a better
convergence control. But the lowest computational effort is
gained by using explicit coupling that requires one coupling
iteration per time step. It involves the danger of instabilities
with descending time step size at certain circumstances.
However there are many simulation tasks with a very low
fluid-solid density ratio that are not threatened by the
artificial added mass effect, esp. gas applications. This is
demonstrated in the second example, the kinetics of a reed
valve. It also exhibits the possibility to take account of
many additional effects like changing contact states,
thermodynamic properties and turbulence.
 Numerical simulation of fluid-structure interaction 47

Finally three important findings regarding the simulation
effort shall be mentioned. Firstly, both examples suggest the
fact that FSI simulations are mainly dominated by the setup
of a stable moving mesh within the fluid domain. Secondly,
the cost-benefit ratio of the computational effort can be
improved through reducing the time step size in favour of
fewer coupling iterations insofar the stability is provided.
And latterly, there is no general good coupling parameter
set, but it depends on the special requirements of each
particular FSI case.

Figure 12 Kinetics of the reed valve in the piston compressor (see online version for colours)

Note: Sequence of states over the complete discharge process (streamlines, pressure field and structural stress).
48 M. Schildhauer and A. Spille-Kohoff

Figure 13 (a) Piston position h, position of end and centre point of reed valve uA and uB, (b) maximum von-Mises stress σ over time
(see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

References Turek, S. and Hron, J. (2006) ‘Proposal for numerical

benchmarking of fluid-structure interaction between an elastic
Förster, C., Wall, W. and Ramm, E. (2006) ‘The artificial added object and laminar incompressible flow’, in Bungartz, H-J.
mass effect in sequential staggered fluid-structure interaction and Schaefer, M. (Eds.): Fluid-Structure Interaction, Lecture
algorithms’, in Wesseling, P., Oñate, E. and Périaux, J. (Eds.): Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Vol. 53,
Proceedings of ECCOMAS CFD. pp.371–385, Springer.
Schildhauer, M. (2011) Simulation von Fluid-Struktur-Interaktion
mit ANSYS CFX, Masters Thesis, University of Applied
Sciences Leipzig (HTWK), Leipzig, Germany [online]
http://www.cfx-berlin.de/cfx-berlin/forschung-
entwicklung/praktika-und-abschlussarbeiten.html
(accessed 21 October 2013).