Advertisement

Space–time computations in practical engineering applications: a summary of the 25-year history

  • Tayfun E. Tezduyar
  • Kenji Takizawa
Open Access
Original Paper
  • 378 Downloads

Abstract

In an article published online in July 2018 it was stated that the algorithm proposed in the article is “enabling practical implementation of the space–time FEM for engineering applications.” In fact, space–time computations in practical engineering applications were already enabled in 1993. We summarize the computations that have taken place since then. These computations started with finite element discretization and are now also with isogeometric discretization. They were all in 3D space and were all carried out on parallel computers. For quarter of a century, these computations brought solution to many classes of complex problems ranging from Orion spacecraft parachutes to wind turbines, from patient-specific cerebral aneurysms to heart valves, from thermo-fluid analysis of ground vehicles and tires to turbocharger turbines and exhaust manifolds.

Keywords

Space–time computation Fluid mechanics Fluid–structure interaction Finite element discretization Isogeometric discretization 

1 Introduction

In an article published online in July 2018 [1] it was stated in the abstract that the algorithm proposed in the article is “enabling practical implementation of the space–time FEM for engineering applications.” There is a similar statement in the introduction: their “efficient solution algorithm” is “enabling practical application of [space–time FEM].” The conclusions section also has a similar statement: “An efficient iterative solution algorithm has been developed in this work that enables the practical applications of [time-discontinuous Galerkin]-based space–time FEM.”

In fact, space–time computations in practical engineering applications were already enabled in 1993 [2]. They started with finite element discretization and are now also with isogeometric discretization. These computations were all in 3D space and were all carried out on parallel computers. For quarter of a century, they brought solution to many classes of complex problems ranging from Orion spacecraft parachutes to wind turbines, from patient-specific cerebral aneurysms to heart valves, from thermo-fluid analysis of ground vehicles and tires to turbocharger turbines and exhaust manifolds. We summarize these computations in the next section. We limit the summary to computations reported in journal articles indexed by the Web of Science.

2 Space–time computations in practical engineering applications

The Deforming-Spatial-Domain/Stabilized Space–Time (DSD/SST) method [3, 4, 5] was introduced for computation of flows with moving boundaries and interfaces, including fluid–structure interactions (FSI). The stabilization components of the DSD/SST are the Streamline-Upwind/Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) [6] and Pressure-Stabilizing/Petrov-Galerkin (PSPG) [3] stabilizations. Because of the SUPG and PSPG components, the DSD/SST is now also called “ST-SUPS.” The ST Variational Multiscale (ST-VMS) method [7, 8, 9] is the VMS version of the DSD/SST. The VMS components of the ST-VMS are from the residual-based VMS method [10, 11, 12, 13]. The ST-SUPS and ST-VMS are quite often used with special ST methods that increase the scope and accuracy of the ST computations. These special ST methods include the ST Slip Interface (ST-SI) [14, 15] and ST Topology Change (ST-TC) [16, 17] methods. The ST-SUPS and ST-VMS computations started with finite element discretization, but with the ST Isogeometric Analysis (ST-IGA) [7, 18, 19], they are now also with isogeometric discretization in space and time. When we summarize the ST computations in practical engineering applications, we will focus on the application, rather than the precise nature of the ST computational framework. The framework might have the ST-SUPS or ST-VMS as its core component, and might include special ST methods such as ST-SI, ST-TC, ST-IGA, or the integration of all these as “ST-SI-TC-IGA” [20].

2.1 Years 1993–2000

The first ST computations in practical engineering applications in 3D space were reported in 1993 [2]. The problems solved in [2] included sloshing in a tank subjected to vertical vibrations and Taylor–Couette flow at Reynolds number 150, 250 and 1,498. The sloshing computation was also reported in a 1994 article [21]. A review article published in 1994 [22] included the sloshing problem, the Taylor–Couette flow, flow past a Los Angeles class submarine, and flow-induced vibrations of a flexible pipe. The pipe problem was also reported in a 1995 article [23], together with flapping-wing aerodynamics. The wing problem had over 1,100,000 coupled nonlinear equations solved every time step of the computation. We note that while the largest 3D problem solved in [1] had about 490,000 equations, unsteady computations with over 1,100,000 coupled equations were already enabled 23 years ago, with the hardware technology of 23 years ago.

Fluid–particle interaction computations with spheres falling in a liquid-filled tube were reported first for 2–5 spheres in 1996 [24], then for 100 spheres in 1997 [25], and then for 1000 spheres in 1999 [26]. In the computations with 1000 spheres, approximately 5.5 million coupled nonlinear equations were solved at every time step, with the hardware technology of 20 years ago.

A review article published in 1996 [27] included flow around two high-speed trains passing each other in a tunnel, longitudinal dynamics of a large ram-air parachute, flare maneuver of a large ram-air parachute, flow past a dam, fluid–particle interactions with 3 and 5 spheres, and dynamics of a paratrooper jumping from a cargo plane. The flare maneuver was also reported, in detail, in 1997 [28]. Parafoil inflation aerodynamics was reported in 1997 [29], and gas impinging on a liquid surface was also reported in 1997 [30]. Free-surface flow past a circular cylinder, with hydraulic jump, was reported in 1999 [31], and flow past a propeller was also reported in 1999 [32]. Two review articles published in 1999 [33, 34] included flow around two high-speed trains in a tunnel, ram-air parachute flare maneuver, dynamics of a paratrooper jumping from a cargo plane, fluid–particle interactions of 1000 spheres falling in a liquid-filled tube, flow past a dam, free-surface flow past a circular cylinder, and aerodynamics of a parachute crossing the wake of an aircraft. Parachute FSI for a T-10 parachute was reported in 2000 [35].

2.2 Years 2001–2010

Computations reported in 2001 included aerodynamics of a helicopter [36], fluid–particle interactions in spatially periodic domains [37], parachute FSI for a cross parachute [38], aerodynamics and FSI of a parachute crossing the wake of an aircraft [39, 40], and FSI of a T-10 parachute with line pull [41]. A review article published in [42] included ram-air parachute flare maneuver, flow around two high-speed trains in a tunnel, flow past a propeller, aerodynamics of a helicopter, fluid–particle interactions of 1000 spheres falling in a liquid-filled tube, fluid–particle interactions in spatially periodic cells, free-surface flow past a circular cylinder, and flow past a dam. Parachute FSI reported in 2003 included aerodynamic interactions between two parachutes [43] and parachutes with control-line inputs [44]. Soft landing of a T-10 parachute was reported in 2005 [45].

The FSI computations reported in 2006 [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51] included T-10 parachute soft landing, flow past a flag, patient-specific internal carotid arteries, patient-specific cerebral aneurysms with normal and high blood pressure, and soft landing of a G-12 parachute. Transonic flow past a sphere was also reported in 2006 [52]. The FSI computations reported in 2007 [5, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57] and 2008 [58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63] were for flow past a flag, patient-specific models of a middle cerebral artery with aneurysm and a birfucating middle cerebral artery with aneurysm, carotid artery birfucation, abdominal aortic aneurysms, parachutes with complex designs, a cloth piece falling over a rigid rod, flow in a tube constrained with a diaphragm, inflation of a balloon, flow through and around a windsock, descent of a T-10 parachute with fabric porosity, sails, Orion spacecraft parachutes, flow around two flexible spheres colliding, and a flexible sphere sliding past a constriction in a channel.

The FSI computations reported in 2009 [64, 65, 66] and 2010 [67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73] were for detailed parachute and artery analysis. The detailed studies were mainly on cerebral arteries with aneurysm, Orion spacecraft parachutes, and reefed stages of the Orion spacecraft parachutes.

2.3 Years 2011–2018

The computations reported in 2011 were for detailed parachute FSI analysis [74, 75, 76], arterial FSI analysis [77, 78, 79, 80, 81], and wind-turbine aerodynamics [82, 83, 84]. The detailed studies included different trial canopy design configurations of the Orion spacecraft parachutes, Orion spacecraft parachute clusters with two and three parachutes, FSI-based dynamical analysis of the Orion spacecraft parachutes and parachute clusters, patient-specific cerebral arteries with aneurysm, and full-scale wind-turbine rotors.

The computations reported in 2012 were for detailed analysis of parachute FSI [85, 86, 87, 88], arterial FSI [89, 90], flow in aneurysms blocked with stent [91], wind-turbine aerodynamics [92], and bioinspired flapping-wing aerodynamics [18, 93, 94]. The detailed parachute studies, all for the Orion spacecraft parachutes, were for different designs of the suspension lines and overinflation control line, reefed parachute stages, different trial canopy design configurations, different payload models, 2-parachute clusters, FSI-based dynamical analysis of single parachutes and parachute clusters, disreefing of single parachutes and parachute clusters, parachutes with modified geometric porosity, and Stage 2 shape determination for the modified-geometric-porosity parachute. The artery studies included comparative studies based on patient-specific cerebral arteries with ruptured and unruptured aneurysms, FSI analysis of a number of patient-specific cerebral arteries with aneurysm, and flow analysis of patient-specific cerebral aneurysms blocked with stent. The wind-turbine aerodynamic analyses were for full-scale wind-turbine rotors. The bioinspired flapping-wing aerodynamic analyses were for an actual locust and for an MAV with the wing motion coming from an actual locust.

More computations were reported in 2013 for detailed analysis of spacecraft parachute FSI and spacecraft aerodynamics [95, 96, 97], flow in patient-specific aneurysms blocked with stent [98], flapping-wing aerodynamics of an actual locust [99], and wind-turbine rotor and tower aerodynamics at full scale [100]. The studies on spacecraft parachute FSI and spacecraft aerodynamics included forward bay cover parachute, cover separation, clusters of parachutes with modified geometric porosity, and FSI-based dynamic analysis of those parachute clusters.

The computations reported in 2014 were for bioinspired flapping-wing aerodynamics [101, 102, 103], patient-specific aneurysms blocked with stent [104], spacecraft parachute FSI [102, 105], wind-turbine rotor aerodynamics and rotor and tower aerodynamics [102, 103, 106], FSI of cerebral arteries with aneurysm [102], and heart valve flow analysis [17]. The spacecraft parachute FSI analyses included clusters of parachutes with the original design and with modified geometry porosity, different designs of the suspension lines, disreefing of a single parachute from Stage 1 to 2 to 3, disreefing of a 2-parachute cluster from Stage 2 to 3, and a drogue parachute at Stage 1, 2 and 3 under different flight conditions. The bioinspired flapping-wing aerodynamics included an actual locust and an MAV with the wing motion coming from an actual locust.

The computations reported in 2015 and 2016 were for spacecraft parachute FSI [107, 108], flapping-wing aerodynamics with wing clapping [109], thermo-fluid analysis of a truck and its tires [9], aerodynamics of a vertical-axis wind turbine [14], thermo-fluid analysis of a disk brake [15], aerodynamics of a tire with road contact and deformation [110], and ram-air parachute aerodynamics [111]. The parachute FSI computations included aerodynamic moment analysis of a single Orion spacecraft parachute, a 2-parachute cluster and JAXA subscale parachute, and detailed analysis of the Orion drogue parachute at Stage 1, 2 and 3, under different flight conditions. The truck computation (reported in 2015) had about 55 million coupled nonlinear equations solved every time step. That is more than 100 times larger than the largest 3D problem solved (490,000 equations) in [1].

The computations reported in 2017 and 2018 (first half) were for flow-driven string dynamics in turbomachinery [112], turbocharger turbine flow analysis [19], turbocharger turbine and exhaust manifold flow analysis [113, 114], heart valve flow analysis [20], spacecraft parachute compressible-flow aerodynamics [115, 116], and patient-specific aorta flow analysis [117].

3 Concluding remarks

We summarized the 25-year history of ST computations in a wide range of practical engineering applications, from Orion spacecraft parachutes to wind turbines, from patient-specific cerebral aneurysms to heart valves, from thermo-fluid analysis of ground vehicles and tires to turbocharger turbines and exhaust manifolds. These computations started with finite element discretization and are now also with isogeometric discretization. They were all in 3D space and were all carried out on parallel computers. We limited the summary to computations reported in journal articles indexed by the Web of Science. While the largest 3D problem solved in [1] had about half a million equations, the number of coupled nonlinear equations solved every time step in the ST computations we summarized exceeded one million as early as 23 years ago. For some of the ST computations we summarized, the number reached 55 million. We showed clearly that ST computations in practical engineering applications were already enabled 25 years ago.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang R, Wen L, Xiao J, Qian D (2018) An efficient solution algorithm for space–time finite element method. Comput Mech.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-018-1603-8
  2. 2.
    Tezduyar T, Aliabadi S, Behr M, Johnson A, Mittal S (1993) Parallel finite-element computation of 3D flows. Computer 26(10):27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1109/2.237441 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tezduyar TE (1992) Stabilized finite element formulations for incompressible flow computations. Adv Appl Mech 28:1–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70153-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tezduyar TE (2003) Computation of moving boundaries and interfaces and stabilization parameters. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 43:555–575.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.505 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2007) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time finite elements: solution techniques. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54:855–900.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1430 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks AN, Hughes TJR (1982) Streamline upwind/Petrov–Galerkin formulations for convection dominated flows with particular emphasis on the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 32:199–259MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2011) Multiscale space–time fluid–structure interaction techniques. Comput Mech 48:247–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-011-0571-z MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2012) Space–time fluid–structure interaction methods. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 22(supp02):1230001.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202512300013 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Kuraishi T (2015) Multiscale ST methods for thermo-fluid analysis of a ground vehicle and its tires. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 25:2227–2255.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202515400072 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hughes TJR (1995) Multiscale phenomena: Green’s functions, the Dirichlet-to-Neumann formulation, subgrid scale models, bubbles, and the origins of stabilized methods. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 127:387–401MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hughes TJR, Oberai AA, Mazzei L (2001) Large eddy simulation of turbulent channel flows by the variational multiscale method. Phys Fluids 13:1784–1799zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bazilevs Y, Calo VM, Cottrell JA, Hughes TJR, Reali A, Scovazzi G (2007) Variational multiscale residual-based turbulence modeling for large eddy simulation of incompressible flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:173–201MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bazilevs Y, Akkerman I (2010) Large eddy simulation of turbulent Taylor-Couette flow using isogeometric analysis and the residual-based variational multiscale method. J Comput Phys 229:3402–3414MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Mochizuki H, Hattori H, Mei S, Pan L, Montel K (2015) Space–time VMS method for flow computations with slip interfaces (ST–SI). Math Models Methods Appl Sci 25:2377–2406.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202515400126 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Kuraishi T, Tabata S, Takagi H (2016) Computational thermo-fluid analysis of a disk brake. Comput Mech 57:965–977.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-016-1272-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Buscher A, Asada S (2014) Space–time interface-tracking with topology change (ST-TC). Comput Mech 54:955–971.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0935-7 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Buscher A, Asada S (2014) Space–time fluid mechanics computation of heart valve models. Comput Mech 54:973–986.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1046-9 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takizawa K, Henicke B, Puntel A, Spielman T, Tezduyar TE (2012) Space–time computational techniques for the aerodynamics of flapping wings. J Appl Mech 79:010903.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005073 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Otoguro Y, Terahara T, Kuraishi T, Hattori H (2017) Turbocharger flow computations with the space–time isogeometric analysis (ST-IGA). Comput Fluids 142:15–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.02.021 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Terahara T, Sasaki T (2017) Heart valve flow computation with the integrated space–time vms, slip interface, topology change and isogeometric discretization methods. Comput Fluids 158:176–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.11.012 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Behr M, Tezduyar TE (1994) Finite element solution strategies for large-scale flow simulations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 112:3–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(94)90016-7 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tezduyar TE, Aliabadi SK, Behr M, Mittal S (1994) Massively parallel finite element simulation of compressible and incompressible flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 119:157–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(94)00082-4 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mittal S, Tezduyar TE (1995) Parallel finite element simulation of 3D incompressible flows: fluid–structure interactions. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 21:933–953.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1650211011 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1996) Simulation of multiple spheres falling in a liquid-filled tube. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 134:351–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(95)00988-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1997) 3D simulation of fluid–particle interactions with the number of particles reaching 100. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 145:301–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01223-6 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1999) Advanced mesh generation and update methods for 3D flow simulations. Comput Mech 23:130–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004660050393 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tezduyar T, Aliabadi S, Behr M, Johnson A, Kalro V, Litke M (1996) Flow simulation and high performance computing. Comput Mech 18:397–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350249 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tezduyar T, Kalro V, Garrard W (1997) Parallel computational methods for 3D simulation of a parafoil with prescribed shape changes. Parallel Comput 23:1349–1363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8191(97)00057-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalro V, Aliabadi S, Garrard W, Tezduyar T, Mittal S, Stein K (1997) Parallel finite element simulation of large ram-air parachutes. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 24:1353–1369zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wren GP, Ray SE, Aliabadi SK, Tezduyar TE (1997) Simulation of flow problems with moving mechanical components, fluid–structure interactions and two-fluid interfaces. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 24:1433–1448zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guler I, Behr M, Tezduyar T (1999) Parallel finite element computation of free-surface flows. Comput Mech 23:117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004660050391 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Behr M, Tezduyar T (1999) The shear-slip mesh update method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 174:261–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(98)00299-0 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tezduyar TE (1999) CFD methods for three-dimensional computation of complex flow problems. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 81:97–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(99)00011-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tezduyar T, Osawa Y (1999) Methods for parallel computation of complex flow problems. Parallel Comput 25:2039–2066.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8191(99)00080-0 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stein K, Benney R, Kalro V, Tezduyar TE, Leonard J, Accorsi M (2000) Parachute fluid–structure interactions: 3-D Computation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:373–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(00)00208-5 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Behr M, Tezduyar T (2001) Shear-slip mesh update in 3D computation of complex flow problems with rotating mechanical components. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:3189–3200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(00)00388-1 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson A, Tezduyar T (2001) Methods for 3D computation of fluid–object interactions in spatially-periodic flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:3201–3221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(00)00389-3 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stein K, Benney R, Tezduyar T, Potvin J (2001) Fluid–structure interactions of a cross parachute: numerical simulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:673–687.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00312-7 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tezduyar T, Osawa Y (2001) The multi-domain method for computation of the aerodynamics of a parachute crossing the far wake of an aircraft. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:705–716.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00310-3 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tezduyar T, Osawa Y (2001) Fluid–structure interactions of a parachute crossing the far wake of an aircraft. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:717–726.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00311-5 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stein KR, Benney RJ, Tezduyar TE, Leonard JW, Accorsi ML (2001) Fluid–structure interactions of a round parachute: modeling and simulation techniques. J Aircr 38:800–808.  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tezduyar TE (2001) Finite element methods for flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Arch Comput Methods Eng 8:83–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897870 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stein K, Tezduyar T, Kumar V, Sathe S, Benney R, Thornburg E, Kyle C, Nonoshita T (2003) Aerodynamic interactions between parachute canopies. J Appl Mech 70:50–57.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1530634 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stein K, Tezduyar T, Benney R (2003) Computational methods for modeling parachute systems. Comput Sci Eng 5:39–46.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCISE.2003.1166551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stein K, Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Benney R, Charles R (2005) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of parachute soft-landing dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 47:619–631.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.835 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Keedy R, Stein K (2006) Space–time finite element techniques for computation of fluid–structure interactions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:2002–2027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.09.014 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tezduyar TE (2006) Interface-tracking and interface-capturing techniques for finite element computation of moving boundaries and interfaces. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:2983–3000.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.09.018 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tezduyar TE, Sameh A (2006) Parallel finite element computations in fluid mechanics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:1872–1884.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2005.05.038 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2006) Computer modeling of cardiovascular fluid–structure interactions with the deforming-spatial-domain/stabilized space–time formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:1885–1895.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2005.05.050 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2006) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of aneurysmal conditions with high and normal blood pressures. Comput Mech 38:482–490.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-006-0065-6 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Stein K (2006) Solution techniques for the fully-discretized equations in computation of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time formulations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:5743–5753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2005.08.023 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tezduyar TE, Senga M, Vicker D (2006) Computation of inviscid supersonic flows around cylinders and spheres with the SUPG formulation and YZ\(\beta \) shock-capturing. Comput Mech 38:469–481.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-005-0025-6 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tezduyar TE (2007) Finite elements in fluids: stabilized formulations and moving boundaries and interfaces. Comput Fluids 36:191–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.02.011 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2007) Influence of wall elasticity in patient-specific hemodynamic simulations. Comput Fluids 36:160–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.07.014 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sathe S, Benney R, Charles R, Doucette E, Miletti J, Senga M, Stein K, Tezduyar TE (2007) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of complex parachute designs with the space–time finite element techniques. Comput Fluids 36:127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.07.010 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Cragin T, Nanna B, Conklin BS, Pausewang J, Schwaab M (2007) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time finite elements: arterial fluid mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54:901–922.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1443 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2007) Numerical investigation of the effect of hypertensive blood pressure on cerebral aneurysm—dependence of the effect on the aneurysm shape. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54:995–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1497 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Schwaab M, Conklin BS (2008) Arterial fluid mechanics modeling with the stabilized space–time fluid–structure interaction technique. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 57:601–629.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1633 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Pausewang J, Schwaab M, Christopher J, Crabtree J (2008) Interface projection techniques for fluid–structure interaction modeling with moving-mesh methods. Comput Mech 43:39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0261-7 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Schwaab M, Pausewang J, Christopher J, Crabtree J (2008) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes. Comput Mech 43:133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0260-8 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sathe S, Tezduyar TE (2008) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time finite elements: contact problems. Comput Mech 43:51–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0299-6 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Manguoglu M, Sameh AH, Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2008) A nested iterative scheme for computation of incompressible flows in long domains. Comput Mech 43:73–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0276-0 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2008) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of a patient-specific cerebral aneurysm: influence of structural modeling. Comput Mech 43:151–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0325-8 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tezduyar TE, Schwaab M, Sathe S (2009) Sequentially-coupled arterial fluid–structure Interaction (SCAFSI) technique. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:3524–3533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2008.05.024 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Manguoglu M, Sameh AH, Saied F, Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2009) Preconditioning techniques for nonsymmetric linear systems in the computation of incompressible flows. J Appl Mech 76:021204.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3059576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2009) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of blood flow and cerebral aneurysm: significance of artery and aneurysm shapes. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:3613–3621.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2008.08.020 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Takizawa K, Christopher J, Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2010) Space–time finite element computation of arterial fluid–structure interactions with patient-specific data. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 26:101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.1241 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2010) Influence of wall thickness on fluid–structure interaction computations of cerebral aneurysms. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 26:336–347.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.1289 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Manguoglu M, Takizawa K, Sameh AH, Tezduyar TE (2010) Solution of linear systems in arterial fluid mechanics computations with boundary layer mesh refinement. Comput Mech 46:83–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-009-0426-z zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tezduyar TE, Takizawa K, Moorman C, Wright S, Christopher J (2010) Multiscale sequentially-coupled arterial FSI technique. Comput Mech 46:17–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-009-0423-2 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Takizawa K, Moorman C, Wright S, Christopher J, Tezduyar TE (2010) Wall shear stress calculations in space–time finite element computation of arterial fluid–structure interactions. Comput Mech 46:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-009-0425-0 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tezduyar TE, Takizawa K, Moorman C, Wright S, Christopher J (2010) Space–time finite element computation of complex fluid–structure interactions. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 64:1201–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2221 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2010) Role of 0D peripheral vasculature model in fluid–structure interaction modeling of aneurysms. Comput Mech 46:43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-009-0439-7 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Takizawa K, Moorman C, Wright S, Spielman T, Tezduyar TE (2011) Fluid–structure interaction modeling and performance analysis of the Orion spacecraft parachutes. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:271–285.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2348 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Takizawa K, Wright S, Moorman C, Tezduyar TE (2011) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of parachute clusters. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:286–307.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2359 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Takizawa K, Spielman T, Tezduyar TE (2011) Space–time FSI modeling and dynamical analysis of spacecraft parachutes and parachute clusters. Comput Mech 48:345–364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-011-0590-9 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Takizawa K, Moorman C, Wright S, Purdue J, McPhail T, Chen PR, Warren J, Tezduyar TE (2011) Patient-specific arterial fluid–structure interaction modeling of cerebral aneurysms. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:308–323.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2360 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Manguoglu M, Takizawa K, Sameh AH, Tezduyar TE (2011) Nested and parallel sparse algorithms for arterial fluid mechanics computations with boundary layer mesh refinement. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2415 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2011) Influencing factors in image-based fluid–structure interaction computation of cerebral aneurysms. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:324–340.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2448 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tezduyar TE, Takizawa K, Brummer T, Chen PR (2011) Space–time fluid–structure interaction modeling of patient-specific cerebral aneurysms. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 27:1665–1710.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.1433 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Manguoglu M, Takizawa K, Sameh AH, Tezduyar TE (2011) A parallel sparse algorithm targeting arterial fluid mechanics computations. Comput Mech 48:377–384.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-011-0619-0 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bazilevs Y, Hsu M-C, Akkerman I, Wright S, Takizawa K, Henicke B, Spielman T, Tezduyar TE (2011) 3D simulation of wind turbine rotors at full scale. Part I: geometry modeling and aerodynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 65:207–235.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2400 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Takizawa K, Henicke B, Tezduyar TE, Hsu M-C, Bazilevs Y (2011) Stabilized space–time computation of wind-turbine rotor aerodynamics. Comput Mech 48:333–344.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-011-0589-2 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Takizawa K, Henicke B, Montes D, Tezduyar TE, Hsu M-C, Bazilevs Y (2011) Numerical-performance studies for the stabilized space–time computation of wind-turbine rotor aerodynamics. Comput Mech 48:647–657.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-011-0614-5 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Takizawa K, Spielman T, Moorman C, Tezduyar TE (2012) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of spacecraft parachutes for simulation-based design. J Appl Mech 79:010907.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2012) Computational methods for parachute fluid–structure interactions. Arch Comput Methods Eng 19:125–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-012-9070-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Takizawa K, Fritze M, Montes D, Spielman T, Tezduyar TE (2012) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes with disreefing and modified geometric porosity. Comput Mech 50:835–854.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-012-0761-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2012) Bringing them down safely. Mech Eng 134(12):34–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Takizawa K, Brummer T, Tezduyar TE, Chen PR (2012) A comparative study based on patient-specific fluid–structure interaction modeling of cerebral aneurysms. J Appl Mech 79:010908.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Takizawa K, Bazilevs Y, Tezduyar TE (2012) Space–time and ALE-VMS techniques for patient-specific cardiovascular fluid–structure interaction modeling. Arch Comput Methods Eng 19:171–225.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-012-9071-3 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Takizawa K, Schjodt K, Puntel A, Kostov N, Tezduyar TE (2012) Patient-specific computer modeling of blood flow in cerebral arteries with aneurysm and stent. Comput Mech 50:675–686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-012-0760-4 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Bazilevs Y, Hsu M-C, Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2012) ALE-VMS and ST–VMS methods for computer modeling of wind-turbine rotor aerodynamics and fluid–structure interaction. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 22(supp02):1230002.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202512300025 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Takizawa K, Henicke B, Puntel A, Kostov N, Tezduyar TE (2012) Space–time techniques for computational aerodynamics modeling of flapping wings of an actual locust. Comput Mech 50:743–760.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-012-0759-x zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Takizawa K, Kostov N, Puntel A, Henicke B, Tezduyar TE (2012) Space–time computational analysis of bio-inspired flapping-wing aerodynamics of a micro aerial vehicle. Comput Mech 50:761–778.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-012-0758-y zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Takizawa K, Montes D, Fritze M, McIntyre S, Boben J, Tezduyar TE (2013) Methods for FSI modeling of spacecraft parachute dynamics and cover separation. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 23:307–338.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202513400058 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Takizawa K, Montes D, McIntyre S, Tezduyar TE (2013) Space–time VMS methods for modeling of incompressible flows at high Reynolds numbers. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 23:223–248.  https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218202513400022 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Boben J, Kostov N, Boswell C, Buscher A (2013) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of clusters of spacecraft parachutes with modified geometric porosity. Comput Mech 52:1351–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0880-5 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Takizawa K, Schjodt K, Puntel A, Kostov N, Tezduyar TE (2013) Patient-specific computational analysis of the influence of a stent on the unsteady flow in cerebral aneurysms. Comput Mech 51:1061–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-012-0790-y MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Takizawa K, Henicke B, Puntel A, Kostov N, Tezduyar TE (2013) Computer modeling techniques for flapping-wing aerodynamics of a locust. Comput Fluids 85:125–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.11.008 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, McIntyre S, Kostov N, Kolesar R, Habluetzel C (2014) Space–time VMS computation of wind-turbine rotor and tower aerodynamics. Comput Mech 53:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0888-x zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Kostov N (2014) Sequentially-coupled space-time FSI analysis of bio-inspired flapping-wing aerodynamics of an MAV. Comput Mech 54:213–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-0980-x MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Takizawa K, Bazilevs Y, Tezduyar TE, Hsu M-C, Øiseth O, Mathisen KM, Kostov N, McIntyre S (2014) Engineering analysis and design with ALE-VMS and space–time methods. Arch Comput Methods Eng 21:481–508.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-014-9113-0 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Takizawa K (2014) Computational engineering analysis with the new-generation space–time methods. Comput Mech 54:193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-0999-z MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Takizawa K, Bazilevs Y, Tezduyar TE, Long CC, Marsden AL, Schjodt K (2014) ST and ALE-VMS methods for patient-specific cardiovascular fluid mechanics modeling. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 24:2437–2486.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202514500250 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Boswell C, Kolesar R, Montel K (2014) FSI modeling of the reefed stages and disreefing of the Orion spacecraft parachutes. Comput Mech 54:1203–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1052-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bazilevs Y, Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Hsu M-C, Kostov N, McIntyre S (2014) Aerodynamic and FSI analysis of wind turbines with the ALE-VMS and ST-VMS methods. Arch Comput Methods Eng 21:359–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-014-9119-7 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Boswell C, Tsutsui Y, Montel K (2015) Special methods for aerodynamic-moment calculations from parachute FSI modeling. Comput Mech 55:1059–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1074-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Kolesar R (2015) FSI modeling of the Orion spacecraft drogue parachutes. Comput Mech 55:1167–1179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1108-z zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Buscher A (2015) Space–time computational analysis of MAV flapping-wing aerodynamics with wing clapping. Comput Mech 55:1131–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1095-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Asada S, Kuraishi T (2016) Space–time method for flow computations with slip interfaces and topology changes (ST-SI-TC). Comput Fluids 141:124–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.05.006 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Terahara T (2016) Ram-air parachute structural and fluid mechanics computations with the space–time isogeometric analysis (ST-IGA). Comput Fluids 141:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.05.027 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Hattori H (2017) Computational analysis of flow-driven string dynamics in turbomachinery. Comput Fluids 142:109–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.02.019 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Otoguro Y, Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE (2017) Space–time VMS computational flow analysis with isogeometric discretization and a general-purpose NURBS mesh generation method. Comput Fluids 158:189–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.04.017 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Otoguro Y, Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Nagaoka K, Mei S (2018) Turbocharger turbine and exhaust manifold flow computation with the space–time variational multiscale method and isogeometric analysis. Comput Fluids.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.05.019
  115. 115.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Kanai T (2017) Porosity models and computational methods for compressible-flow aerodynamics of parachutes with geometric porosity. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 27:771–806.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202517500166 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Kanai T, Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Tanaka T, Hartmann A (2018) Compressible-flow geometric-porosity modeling and spacecraft parachute computation with isogeometric discretization. Comput Mech.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-018-1595-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Takizawa K, Tezduyar TE, Uchikawa H, Terahara T, Sasaki T, Yoshida A (2018) Mesh refinement influence and cardiac-cycle flow periodicity in aorta flow analysis with isogeometric discretization. Comput Fluids.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringRice University – MS 321HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Science and EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Modern Mechanical EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations