Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-229-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-229-2022
Method article
 | 
28 Jan 2022
Method article |  | 28 Jan 2022

On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics

Cedric Thieulot and Wolfgang Bangerth

Related authors

Efficient Uzawa algorithms with projection strategies for geodynamic Stokes flow
Deok-Kyu Jang, Kyeong-Min Lee, Cedric Thieulot, Whan-Hyuk Choi, and Byung-Dal So
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5480,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5480, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Solid Earth (SE).
Short summary
On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics – Part 2: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements
Cedric Thieulot and Wolfgang Bangerth
Solid Earth, 16, 457–476, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying mantle mixing through configurational entropy
Erik van der Wiel, Cedric Thieulot, and Douwe J. J. van Hinsbergen
Solid Earth, 15, 861–875, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-861-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-861-2024, 2024
Short summary
Benchmarking the accuracy of higher-order particle methods in geodynamic models of transient flow
Rene Gassmöller, Juliane Dannberg, Wolfgang Bangerth, Elbridge Gerry Puckett, and Cedric Thieulot
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4115–4134, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024, 2024
Short summary
The effect of temperature-dependent material properties on simple thermal models of subduction zones
Iris van Zelst, Cedric Thieulot, and Timothy J. Craig
Solid Earth, 14, 683–707, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-683-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-683-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Alisic, L., Gurnis, M., Stadler, G., Burstedde, C., and Ghattas, O.: Multi-scale dynamics and rheology of mantle flow with plates, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B10402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JB009234, 2012. a
Arndt, D., Bangerth, W., Davydov, D., Heister, T., Heltai, L., Kronbichler, M., Maier, M., Pelteret, J.-P., Turcksin, B., and Wells, D.: The deal. II finite element library: Design, features, and insights, Comput. Math. Appl., 81, 407–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.022, 2020. a
Arrial, P.-A. and Billen, M.: Influence of geometry and eclogitization on oceanic plateau subduction, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 363, 34–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.011, 2013. a, b, c, d
ASPECT developers: ASPECT: Advanced Solver for Problems in Earth's ConvecTion, available at: https://aspect.geodynamics.org/, last access: 17 January 2022. a
Bangerth, W., Hartmann, R., and Kanschat, G.: A General-Purpose Object-Oriented Finite Element Library, ACM T. Math. Software, 33, 24–51, https://doi.org/10.1145/1268776.1268779, 2007. a
Short summary
One of the main numerical methods to solve the mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations in geodynamics is the finite-element method. Four main types of elements have been used in the past decades in hundreds of publications. For the first time we compare results obtained with these four elements on a series of geodynamical benchmarks and applications and draw conclusions as to which are the best ones and which are to be preferably avoided.
Share