Latest Accepted Articles

Display Method:
Advances in quantum computing for fluid dynamics
MENG Zhaoyuan, LU Zhen, XIONG Shiying, ZHAO Yaomin, YANG Yue
, Available online  , doi: 10.6052/1000-0992-24-041
Abstract(153) HTML (33) PDF(65)
Abstract:
We review progress and challenges in the emerging field of quantum computing for fluid dynamics (QCFD). Quantum computing, a potentially disruptive technology, is expected to tackle pressing problems in the real world. Fluid dynamics, a complex problem in classical physics and engineering, can serve as an example to demonstrate quantum utility and advantage. Conversely, quantum computing can introduce new paradigms in fluid dynamics research. In this review, we first introduce quantum computing features, such as superposition and entanglement, and highlight the challenges of QCFD in initial state preparation, quantum state evolution, and measurement. We then focus on hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and Hamiltonian simulation for fluid dynamics, reviewing their hardware implementation on current quantum computers. In conclusion, QCFD is in its infancy, facing both challenges in quantum devices and algorithms. Although quantum computing has not yet shown an advantage in simulating strongly nonlinear fluid dynamics over classical methods, recent progress suggests its potential in enhancing simulations of complex flows, including turbulence.
Stress or Strain?
LI Shuguang
, Available online  , doi: 10.6052/1000-0992-24-035
Abstract(418) HTML (74) PDF(153)
Abstract:
This paper is intended to reconcile the stress-based and strain-based formulations for material failure criteria, where a longstanding and deep division is present. The two approaches do not naturally agree with each other, and they not genuinely complement each other, either. Most popular criteria are stress-based when originally proposed, including the maximum stress, Tresca, von Mises, Raghava-Caddell-Yeh and the Mohr criteria. Their formulations are unique and self-consistent, i.e. capable of reproducing the input data. Their strain-based counterparts, with the maximum strain criterion being considered as the strain-based counterpart of the maximum stress criterion, are neither unique nor necessarily self-consistent. It has been proven that the self-consistent ones reproduce their respective stress-based counterparts identically in effect with a disadvantage of requiring an additional material property to apply, without a single benefit. For the Mohr criterion as a special case, a strain-based counterpart is simply infeasible in general. All undesirable features of strain-based criteria are rooted in a single source: the failure strains can only be measured under a uniaxial stress state, which corresponds to a combined strain state in general, not a uniaxial strain state! Given the arguments presented, the reconciliation proves to be biased completely towards the stress-based side if mathematics, logic and common sense prevail over perception and prejudice.