Javascript must be enabled to continue!
On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics
View through CrossRef
Abstract. Geodynamical simulations over the past decades have widely been built on quadrilateral and hexahedral finite elements. For the discretisation of the key Stokes equation describing slow, viscous flow, most codes use either the unstable Q1 × P0 element, a stabilised version of the equal-order Q1 × Q1 element, or more recently the stable Taylor-Hood element with continuous (Q2 × Q1) or discontinuous (Q2 × P−1) pressure. However, it is not clear which of these choices is actually the best at accurately simulating typical geodynamic situations. Herein, we are providing for the first time a systematic comparison of all of these elements. We use a series of benchmarks that illuminate different aspects of the features we consider typical of mantle convection and geodynamical simulations. We will show in particular that the stabilised Q1 × Q1 element has great difficulty producing accurate solutions for buoyancy-driven flows – the dominant forcing for mantle convection flow – and that the Q1 × P0 element is too unstable and inaccurate in practice. As a consequence, we believe that the Q2 × Q1 and Q2 × P−1 elements provide the most robust and reliable choice for geodynamical simulations, despite the greater complexity in their implementation and the substantially higher computational cost when solving linear systems.
Title: On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics
Description:
Abstract.
Geodynamical simulations over the past decades have widely been built on quadrilateral and hexahedral finite elements.
For the discretisation of the key Stokes equation describing slow, viscous flow, most codes use either the unstable Q1 × P0 element, a stabilised version of the equal-order Q1 × Q1 element, or more recently the stable Taylor-Hood element with continuous (Q2 × Q1) or discontinuous (Q2 × P−1) pressure.
However, it is not clear which of these choices is actually the best at accurately simulating typical geodynamic situations.
Herein, we are providing for the first time a systematic comparison of all of these elements.
We use a series of benchmarks that illuminate different aspects of the features we consider typical of mantle convection and geodynamical simulations.
We will show in particular that the stabilised Q1 × Q1 element has great difficulty producing accurate solutions for buoyancy-driven flows – the dominant forcing for mantle convection flow – and that the Q1 × P0 element is too unstable and inaccurate in practice.
As a consequence, we believe that the Q2 × Q1 and Q2 × P−1 elements provide the most robust and reliable choice for geodynamical simulations, despite the greater complexity in their implementation and the substantially higher computational cost when solving linear systems.
Related Results
When clitics collide
When clitics collide
Summary
The paper deals with a few aspects of the morphosyntax of clitics in Piedmontese (Western Romance) and their historical
development. In Piedmontese an element =l= (orth...
On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics. Part II: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements
On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics. Part II: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements
Abstract. Many geodynamical models are formulated in terms of the Stokes equations that are then coupled to other equations. For the numerical solution of the Stokes equations, geo...
Behaviour and design of a double track open timber floor plate girder railway deck steel bridge
Behaviour and design of a double track open timber floor plate girder railway deck steel bridge
This paper discusses the nonlinear behaviour and design of a double track open timber floor plate girder railway deck steel bridge. A 3-D finite element model has been developed fo...
Preliminary statement of the U.S. Geodynamics Committee: Geodynamics Project: Development of a U.S. Program
Preliminary statement of the U.S. Geodynamics Committee: Geodynamics Project: Development of a U.S. Program
The starting point for development of a U.S. program for the Geodynamics Project is twofold. The first is a recognition of the extraordinary advances made during the past five year...
[Comment to “Geodynamics Project: Development of a U.S. Program” by the U.S. Geodynamics Committee] The Geodynamics Project: An alternate approach
[Comment to “Geodynamics Project: Development of a U.S. Program” by the U.S. Geodynamics Committee] The Geodynamics Project: An alternate approach
The May issue of EOS discusses the Geodynamics Project, including a discussion of approximately 16 question areas left unanswered by present concepts (page 404). Space does not per...
A Semigroup Is Finite Iff It Is Chain-Finite and Antichain-Finite
A Semigroup Is Finite Iff It Is Chain-Finite and Antichain-Finite
A subset A of a semigroup S is called a chain (antichain) if ab∈{a,b} (ab∉{a,b}) for any (distinct) elements a,b∈A. A semigroup S is called periodic if for every element x∈S there ...
Factors associated with food choice among high school students in Depok, Indonesia
Factors associated with food choice among high school students in Depok, Indonesia
Background: Well-being in adulthood are originated from diet behaviour during adolescence. Recently, hurry-up lifestyle of adolescents leads to unusual food choice and results in o...
Finite element modeling and experimental validation of 2D reinforcement braided thin wall structures under internal pressure at various braid angles
Finite element modeling and experimental validation of 2D reinforcement braided thin wall structures under internal pressure at various braid angles
Reinforcement of the thin-wall structures under internal pressure by braiding method has many applications in different industries. In this way, the effective braid angle determina...

