Talk:Momentum mapping format

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

article reviwer 2

By reading your article, I believe it possesses the following characteristics: Firstly, in terms of professional terminology usage: your definition of the "Momentum mapping format" clearly outlines its role in the Material Point Method (MPM), indicating a deep understanding of the field. Your review of the MPM method describes it as a numerical technique using a mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian description, involving the process of solving momentum equations. These descriptions are accurate and professional within the field of computational mechanics. Your discussion and analysis of the four main momentum mapping schemes—PIC (Particle-in-Cell), FLIP (Fluid-Implicit Particle), Hybrid, and APIC (Affine Particle-in-Cell)—cover essential concepts in the MPM field. This information is both professional and significant for scientific outreach. However, there are areas that could be improved: While your article includes a significant number of professional terms, the explanations are relatively concise. Adding more detailed explanations of these terms would be beneficial. The current level of detail is suitable for readers with some foundational knowledge. It provides enough information to spark interest in MPM and its momentum mapping schemes but does not delve into overly complex technical details. Overall, your article provides a comprehensive overview that balances professional terminology and accessibility, making it a valuable resource for both professionals and informed readers in computational mechanics, materials science, and computer science. YX.AN-CINA (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article reviwer 1

Ciao! I believe your article achieves a good balance between professionalism and accessibility. For expert readers, it provides key information and historical context regarding the Material Point Method (MPM) and its momentum mapping schemes, supported by important references. For general readers, the explanations are clear and straightforward, avoiding any reading obstacles and effectively conveying the fundamental concepts and significance of MPM. However, there are some areas that could be enhanced, such as the completeness of the formulas and the diversity of the figures and tables.--ChenLZ.1997 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article reviwer 3

Dear, I really appreciate the detailed and vivid images you uploaded. However, I feel there are some aspects you could focus on more. It would be beneficial to conduct more comparative simulation analyses, particularly emphasizing the four mainstream momentum mapping formats in the MPM community. It would be great to highlight their performance in both static and dynamic problems. For dynamic issues, I suggest introducing discussions on numerical fracture and energy dissipation problems. Haotiandd (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2024.

The background section could have included a discussion of the overall framework of a physical problem that requires this method, thus introducing how the method provides a key step within a broader algorithm to solve a mechanical problem. Linked to this, the methodology section where the equations are shown does not define some important terms, such as the S functions, or the f and m (nodal forces and masses); the general reader may not know what those terms are. There is also a typo (missing or excess parenthesis) in the equation for the hybrid method. The Numerical Tests section shows a graph of total energy vs time and a stress/configuration plot and refers to those in the descriptive text, without however stating what the ideal (exact?) result would be; for example, it seems that the correct energy plot should be a flat horizontal line forever, but is that true? The reader is not told.

--Aandurro (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]